willfully willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen Joe Biden not only kept information he wasn't allowed to keep he shared it with people who weren't allowed to see it he shared that information with his ghost riter special counsel her said that President Biden had strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules of properly handling the classified information in his notebooks fact he had 8 million reasons to ignore the rules Joe Biden shared some of the classified materials he kept with his Ghost Writer who was writing a book for which Joe Biden received an $8 million advance so we have motive $8 million motive and we have the elements of the crime knowingly keeping knowingly disclosing classified information but all this and special counsel her declines to prosecute Joe Biden because he is quote a sympathetic well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory and that brings us to today following the release of special Council her's report we subpoenaed the transcript and audio recordings of special Council her's interviews with President Biden and his Ghost Writer Mark sanitzer to date attorney general Garland has failed to produce the audio tapes to determine whether special counsel her appropriately carried out Justice by not Prosecuting not recommending for prosecution the president the recordings are necessary the transcripts alone are not sufficient evidence of the state of the president's memory frankly because the White House has a track record of altering the transcripts just weeks ago during a public speech president Bren read a teleprompter instruction to pause he stated imagine what we could do next four more years pause but when the White House put out the transcript it didn't include the word pause in that case and in this case as well the video and the audio recording is the best evidence of the words that President Biden actually spoke the Department's refusal to produce the audio recordings of special counsel her's interviews with President Biden amounts to a demand that the committee trust that the department created and produced interview transcripts are actually accurate and complete transcripts at the White House and President Biden's personal Council likely had access to before they were finalized the department has a legal obligation to turn over the requested materials pursuant to The subpoena attorney general Garland's will for refusal to comply with our subpoena constitutes contempt of congress now today this morning we get an 11th Hour invocation of executive privilege President Biden is asserting executive privilege for the same reason we need the audio recordings they offer a unique perspective this last minute invocation does not change the fact fact that the attorney general has not compiled uh excuse me complied with our subpoena with that I would recognize the ranking member for an opening statement thank you Mr chairman 20 million taxpayer dollars chairman Jordan who consistently opposes government spending on everything from feeding children to education and health care has spent 20 million taxpayer dollars this Congress to investigate his various cons cons iracy theories and what exactly has he delivered to the American people on their $2 million investment exactly nothing no evidence that the conspiracies are true no indictments no impeachment no wins of any significance if the chairman of a board of directors took $20 million from the shareholders of a company and delivered nothing he'd be fired at the next board meeting and the chairman knows that if he doesn't come up with something to show for the $20 million he spent the MAA political base may stay home next November so he and chairman comr are scrambling in a desperate attempt to look like they have accomplished something the chairman wants to make it seem like he uncovered some wrongdoing by the Attorney General in reality the attorney general and doj have been fully responsive to this Committee in every way that might be material to their long dead impeachment inquiry sometimes they've been too responsive in my opinion given the obvious bad faith of the magot majority the chairman was desperately hoping that special counsel her would indict President Biden for mishandling classified documents so that the chairman could attack President Biden and misdirect the American people away from Trump's treacherous handling of classified information in reality the special Council cleared Mr Biden of wrongdoing the chairman hoped he could intimidate prosecutors out of indicting Donald Trump for his crimes but Donald Trump has been charged with 88 felonies the list goes on and on the chairman digs and searches and intimidates but there's just no there there so what do our Republican friends do when an investigation turns up short simply put they engage in fantasy that's what they are doing here today they accuse you Attorney General of withholding key evidence but the attorney general has substantially complied with every request doj has produced 92,000 pages of documents this Congress alone and made dozens of witnesses available for interviews hearings and briefings before the committee that's more pages of documents and more witnesses than the Trump justice department produced to this Committee in four years with respect to the February 27th 20 24 subpoena the department turned over all the information Republicans asked for there's been no obstruction only cooperation this morning the president exerted executive privilege over the audio files that issue in the letter informing the committee of this assertion the Department of Justice noted that producing the audio recordings would quote raised an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department's ability to conduct high-profile criminal inves instigations in particular investigations with the voluntary cooperation of the White House officials is exceedingly important close quote chairman Jordan claims that he needs this records to understand the pauses pace and tone of the conversation this is absurd and clearly pretextual and in any event does not outweigh the substantial concerns expressed by the president and the department moreover with respect to the recording and issue in this report a complete transcript has has already been provided to the committee the only thing that has not been produced is the recording itself which can be easily manipulated this is not an idle concern last year a witness testifying in a closed door deposition told us that she was a victim of a manipulated video Amplified by Republicans on this committee and that had contributed to a flood of death threats against her this isn't really about a policy disagreement with the doj this is about feeding the a base and getting Donald Trump reelected but don't take my word for it take it from the Chairman's mouth quote I'm busting my tail to get Donald Trump reelected quote we need to make sure Donald Trump wins quote it's so important that we stay engaged and help Donald Trump get back in the White House close quote and clearly Donald Trump needs the Chairman's help to win the White House because Trump has been indicted four times right at this very moment he faces 34 charges in new yor in the New York state court for falsifying business records and making hush money payments to catch and kill information that could be harmful to Trump's re-election campaign he faces 40 charges in a federal court in Florida for his mishandling a withholding of classified documents that put National Security at severe risk four charges in a federal court in Washington DC for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and fueling the Insurrection on January 6 2021 at the United States capital 10 charges in Georgia State Court for attempts to intimidate and force officials to overturn the lawful election results in the 2020 presidential election that's not all you're going to hear a lot about President Biden's memory today Republicans won't mention that Biden has been ranked as one of the most successful presidents of our time they won't mention that once in a generation transformative legislation is ushered into law they won't mention special Council hers comments to President Biden about his quote photographic unquote memory they'll just go on and on about a couple of gratuitous widely contradicted comments in the her report that suggests the president has a poor memory what Republicans won't show you is the mounting evidence that Trump is mentally incompetent to hold the Office of the President the late great Hannibal Lector I can't even begin to understand how Republicans have chosen this man as their Champion but they have and now House Republicans are paying for it by flocking to the sidelines of his criminal trial sacrificing their integrity to defend them against frankly indefensible acts almost everybody who worked for the former president seems to know that Trump is unfit for office and that these acts of public humiliation on his behalf are wrong what more evidence do my colleagues need Trump once said that he could shoot someone standing on Fifth Avenue and would still keep his supporters well at least in this chamber that's obviously true and it truly saddens me I've been in this body for many years and although we've always had our disagreements I've never seen members of Congress so readily turn on Democracy itself in service to one man I never in my life thought I'd see members of Congress readily attack law enforcement officers to protect a criminal I never thought I'd see members of Congress defend and minimize a coup attempt as if the riers who stormed this building and the Trump Associates who led them here Were Somehow Patriots but here we are I think chairman Jordan knows that this markup will amount to nothing like most of the bills House Republicans have pushed on Purely partisan lines this contempt resolution will do very little other than smear the reputation of Mer Garland who will remain a good and decent public servant no matter what they say about him today this markup may give Donald Trump something to watch on Fox when he gets home from his criminal trial tonight but it will almost certainly not convince the Department of Justice to produce the one remaining file in question like the broader impeachment effort before it this contempt resolution will have been a partisan stunt destined to fail from the very start it is a total waste of time the American people actually need us to do important work to fund the government to secure Affordable Health Care to reduce inflation and housing costs to help them take care of their children and families and to keep our nation safe I'm tired of these games and so are the American people I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and they yield back gentleman yields back chair and recognize himself for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute the clerk will report the amendment amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report not objection the amendment the nature of substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment the chair now reconed himself to explain the amendment this amendment makes a small grammatical change on page 10 of the report it does not affect the substance of the report I yield back who seeks recognition question gentlemen from North Carolina is recognized thank you Mr chairman uh this is a very simple matter uh the there is no ground whatsoever to withhold the audio tape that tape must be quite something if the um if the administration if the president has decided to assert executive privilege to keep it from the committee in the course of an impeachment inquiry think about it the basis for withholding the audio recording When the transcript has been furnished must rest on something about the recording that is distinct from the information contained in the transcript for example what what if the committee had made a request for just a different copy of the transcript now that's unlikely to happen but no reasonable person would ask for it either the president and the White House have contested what was said in the interview the special counsel in his report predicated his decision not to prosecute an obvious violation of Statute in the president's reading from classified information to his Ghost Writer to satisfy the terms of his $8 million book retainer on his finding that the president was elderly and forgetful in other words he placed tremendous Reliance on what is called demeanor evidence the president and the White House have viciously attacked the special council's characterization of the demeanor evidence that is whether and to what extent the president appeared to have limited capacity as a witness to testify from memory now the transcript transcripts do not capture demeanor evidence transcripts are often imperfect especially to convey the timing of question and answer and disfluencies of a witness or hesitations among other things all of that is demeanor evidence that's the reason among other things that it is absolutely standard practice in litigation in American Courts for parties to be entitled to record to to record record testimony by more than one means through a transcript and then if they choose through another method an audio or video recording here's a reading from rule 30 b3b of the federal rules of civil procedure any party May designate another method for recording the testimony in addition to that specified in the original notice it's pretty straightforward um given that the evidence is contradicted by the special counsel and by the president as to the reason the president has escaped uh criminal prosecution for an obvious violation of Statute and because this committee sits by vote of the House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry about the potential impeachment of the president this committee needs the demeanor evidence the same way any party would in any such matter being litigated and the notion that there is a basis for a claim of executive privilege here and what has been articulated by the justice department by the by the Attorney General is that it would deter future occupants of the White House from cooperating with criminal inquiries because the interview would be made available and therefore it was going to be exposed but the transcripts already been provided what possible basis could there be and that that that would uh impair future White House cooperation with criminal investigations if what the the department is contending is just the same information in an audio recording form is also furnished that is an incomprehensibly absurd position and um so there's there's nothing to it whatsoever this committee cannot be deterred in proceeding with the contempt resolution in my view and uh I just one can question motives or attack motives or whatever but it's just as straightforward as it can be it's a simple presentation of demeanor evidence that is important to this committee's investigation uh inquiry into the impeach potential impeachment of the president and it should be accomplished and done forth with I'm for it let's go Mr presid Mr chairman I yield back gentlemen Yi's back the gentleman chairman the rank members recognize Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk uh clerk uh clerk will report am to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the report for the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find mer reserved by the gentleman from uh California gentleman is recognized to explain his Amendment thank you Mr chairman M Mr chairman this amendment adds language from the most recent correspondence with the executive branch to the report today the justice department in the White House wrote to to the committee committees to inform us that the president was exerting executive privilege over the audio recordings this assertion of privilege is used to protect important law enforcement interests as the Attorney General wrote the justice department has a vested interest in protecting quote materials related to a closed criminal investigation where disclosure is likely to damage future law enforcement efforts close quote which is the case here the Attorney General further explains that produc ing the audio recordings to the Committees would raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department's ability to conduct similar high-profile criminal investigations in particular investigations where the voluntary cooperation of White House officials is exceedingly important the White House also wrote to the Committees to explain that the president's exertion of executive privileges is based on his quote long-standing commitment to protecting the Integrity Effectiveness and Independence of the Department of Justice and its law enforcement investigations chairman Jordan claims he needs these recordings to understand things like tones tone or pauses this is absurd and the chairman has made no attempt to explain his reasoning his claim in no way overcomes the executive Branch's substantial interest in protecting sensitive law enforcement investigations what high-profile witness would ever voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement investigation if they knew that audio files of their conversations would be released to committees who are seeking those files for purely political purposes this amendment simply ensures the report is complete and up to date I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from uh California withdrawals his point of order the gentleman from North Dakota is recognized thank you Mr chairman I move to speak in opposition of the amendment uh they don't get to choose they don't get to choose we spend a lot of time in this hearing in this room talking about I've been an advocate for recording interviews recording arrests doing all of this there's a pretty known legal precedent and legal rule of the best evidence rule and it exists everywhere the person providing the evidence doesn't get to choose the manner and form in which the evidence is provided uh and this also happens to be a pattern five minutes before the her hearing we got the transcript five minutes before this hearing we get the invocation of executive privilege there's a difference between a transcript and a video and audio and I don't possibly understand the argument of we'll release the transcript but we won't release the tapes and that's going to determine whether or not somebody participates in an investigation which by the way that can be compelled to be done as well uh the argument that this is somehow anything other than the doj trying to pick and choose which pieces of evidence or which parts of evidence or what they determine is the best evidence to our committee is just quite frankly not based in any precedent with under law uh I spent 10 years doing this I spent 10 years doing Discovery requests I never ask for permission I'm entitled to what it is they don't get to determine what we get that is not how the system works and it can't be how the system works because otherwise the people who you are trying to conduct oversight on determine what information you get to conduct that oversight that is just simply not how the separation of powers is set up it's not set up and how any legal investigation in any jurisdiction in any form exists anywhere in the country the audio tape exists that is the best evidence in which to contct oversight and this committee is entitled to it and with that I yield back gentleman uh gentleman yields back who seeks recognition the gentleman from California California thank you Mr chairman can support of the amendment um but first I want to talk about both what this committee and what this Congress is doing to the rule of law earlier this week we witnessed the spectacle of the highest ranking Republican in the country the Speaker of the House someone in line for the presidency standing outside a Manhattan courthouse in a hush money payment to a pornstar trial vouching for the good moral character of the defendant now I would imagine if you asked a younger Mike Johnson some 10 or 15 years ago could you ever imagine you would stand outside of a courthouse in a hush money payment to a porn star trial and vouch for the moral character of the definity he would never imagine that possible but like the proverbial frog in the Boiling Pot what we have seen not just with the speaker but with so many of the Republican leadership over the last several years is one surrender of moral Authority after another surrender after another surrender one betrayal of what one once stood for follow by another betrayal followed by another until you find yourself standing outside of a Manhattan courthouse vouching for the moral Authority and character of someone who possesses none and not just not just losing yourself and losing any sense of right and wrong in the process but here denigrating the very institution of Justice making the false claims the patently false claims that this trial in Manhattan was somehow about keeping Donald Trump off the campaign Trail something the speaker knows is patently false but willing to repeat and this is where we we are where our highest ranking official Republican official is essentially telling the American people don't trust our system of justice don't trust the rule of law and here in this committee we see something very similar we see a republican us attorney brought on to investigate the president we see him make a report to this Congress that there is nothing prosecutable and what he was able to find we see him at the same time failing to make a prosecut prosecutable case deciding the next best thing he can do is is lob a political grenade in his report and politically belittle the president and we see this committee unable after months and months and millions of dollars to make any kind of of an impeachable case decide to follow Mr her's tainted example we can't make a case for any impeachment there is no high crime there is no misdemeanor even and so we will do the next best thing and we will use this to political Advantage by subp tapes of an interview we already have the transcript for and why because the Republicans in this committee have moved from being the criminal defense firm for the president to being a essentially an adjunct of the president's media advertising firm they want the video for Donald Trump's campaign commercials that's where this committee has become the committee on the Judiciary the committee that is centered or supposed to be centered on the rule of law and on Justice and what are we doing we're holding the Attorney General of the United States in contempt and for what because he won't give video material for a campaign commercial to this committee on behalf of a president who is a criminal defendant in a hush money payment to a porn Stark case in New York the first of many criminal trials that he will face this is where we are this is where we are uh you know I I first joined this committee now it's been over 20 years ago and I suppose like a young Mike Johnson I could have never imagined this committee would engage in such a thing it's not as if 20 years ago this committee was some Bastion of bipartisan comdy it wasn't we might and did disagree on abortion and on guns and on the whole host of other policy issues but I don't think any democrat or republican on this committee would have ever imagined it would be brought so low as to hold an attorney general in contempt because it can't get a video for a campaign commercial when it was already given the transcript but this is where we are and I and I think just day after day moment after moment year after year we lose sight of how far we have fallen and any sense of of what we are supposed to be about in this committee and I don't imagine anything I have to say is going to change that but I do think every now and then the country needs to be reminded that there is nothing okay about this there's nothing right about this there's nothing normal about this we need to get back to demonstrating some Devotion to our con constituents and the rule of law and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from New Jersey recognized with gentleman yield for a second I believe yeah I just want to point out we're not seeking a video tape we're seeking the audio tape to correct the statement from the gentleman from California and the Democrats I believe held the Attorney General of the United States in contempt a couple congresses ago when they held Bill bar in contempt gent I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey thank you Mr chairman look we got to get focused here the gentleman from California he's kind of tense again trying to take our eye off the ball this has nothing to do this particular issue right here what we're doing with the courthouse in New York City this doesn't have anything directly to do with what is going on with President Trump there and I would be glad to engage in a colloquy or a debate or discussion about how awful what's happening to president Trump is but that's not the issue here right now this say nothing to do with the campaign it has nothing to do with the fact that the speaker did go as he should have to support president Trump but this isn't the issue it has to do um with special counsel her and it has to do with what he said and it and by the way he never said it wasn't prosecutable he decided not to pursue the charges due to the assessment that a jury would find President Biden's age and poor memory as an excuse for mishandling those documents doents I didn't say that our chairman didn't say that the special counsel from the Department of Justice said that the subpoena of the Attorney General is necessary because the Department of Justice has refused to provide the audio recordings of interviews that are crucial for determining the special council's assessment of our current president it's essential for this Congress and the American people to determine whether special counsel hers assessment is accurate or not and I'm going to tell you why and the folks on the other side in the left here are in a bind because if our commander in chief is so incompetent that he cannot stand trial he's not fit to stand trial then he's too incompetent for God's sake to be the leader of the most powerful Nation on the face of the Earth if President Biden is competent and special counsel 's assessment was incorrect then President Biden should face a jury for his crimes of mishandling classified materials now president Trump's facing the full weight of the Department of Justice in his own case on this issue even though he had the authority to declassify documents because he was the president of the United States when he did it President Biden on the other hand mishandled classified documents both as a vice president and then as a senator guess what members of Congress vice presidents US senators don't take get to take classified documents and remove them from the skiff they just don't get to do that they don't get to declassify documents he didn't have the authority to declassify so the audio recordings why do we want them because they're going to reveal whether special counsel 's assessment was correct and our pre president mishandled classified documents or it will reveal he's incompetent and he's not competent enough to even stand trial and therefore not competent enough to be the president of the United States that's the choices we have we've got two choices here he was competent and he broke the law or he's incompetent and he's so incompetent he's such a bumbling old man that he can't even stand trial because they wouldn't really be able to do much with him that's what we want to find out that's what we need to know either way it'll be clear our president is unfit to lead in my opinion and likely why the doj is so damn hesitant to share it I'll tell you what anybody else probably anybody on this committee if you asked them to share the audio of something we said believe me anything I'm saying now you can share anywhere and you can share anything the chairman says or any of our esteem members say here on either side so why don't they want it they've got a reason because they're in a bind and I am am I willing to set the president that subpoenas from Congress and this committee can can be ignored are you willing to do that I don't think so I don't think that we want that to happen are we willing to perpetuate if the president is competent a two-tier justice system again we see it again being wielded against one person but not another the answer to the question should be no the information requested in this subpoena is crucial we need the information not just for uncovering whether our president has acted in a manner deserving of impeachment but also because the American people deserve to know the answers we shouldn't be hiding the answers and the truth from the American people for those reasons I strong I don't support this amendment and I do strongly support holding the attorney general and contempt of congress Let it Loose give us the information if there's nothing there to worry about you should have no problem letting us know and letting us see let the light in let the sunshine in I yield back gentan yields back the gentleman from Maryland's recognized thank you Mr chairman um I I want to address a couple of things uh quickly before I get to the amendment but um one of the arguments I'm hearing from the Republican side over and over again is um essentially questioning U Mr her's conclusion not to move forward with a prosecution uh but I did want to remind my [Music] colleagues um that under you know Mr bar the Department of Justice has taken the position that um the committee referencing this committee the house Judiciary Committee has no legitimate role in demanding law enforcement materials with the aim of Simply duplicating a criminal inquiry which is of course a function that the constitution entrusts exclusively to the executive branch so to the extent you're arguing that you don't agree with his findings and you want to sort of replicate them or go through them again um Mr bar uh argued against that uh five years ago with respect to the underlying Amendment uh or the amendment to the um ANS there's a major problem here with moving forward with the language uh in the uh in the amend in the amendment because it's based on the predicate that and I'll read it to the date the department has refused to produce the audio recordings despite not having invoked any privilege to justify its failure to comply with the subpoena um and one of the conclusions that it reaches at the end as a justification for moving forward with contempt the attorney general has further invoked no constitutional legal privilege relieving his obligation to fully respond to the committee subpoenas gentlemen yield sure yeah we're we're we're drafting Amendment we understand that has to be dealt with in light of the last minute executive privilege assertion uh coming from U the White House so we are drafting that Amendment but we are running it past House Council so the majority intends to offer an amendment for the specific s uh language that the gentleman cited will the will the committee then adopt the ranking members Amendment no we have our own well I guess we'll have to take a look at it when it gets here but you know moving forward on this basis um even if you amend the language and add that I I want to remind the committee that where there's an assertion of executive privilege uh according to Nixon which is the case that you all have cited I don't know if you're going to strike that too but upon receiving a claim of privilege from the chief executive it became further the duty of the district court to treat this appened material as presumptively privileged and required the special prosecutor to demonstrate that the president residential material was essential to the just to the Justice of the case and that's because it was a pending criminal case so moving forward at that point so there's an expedited process we obviously don't have an expedited process here but just to point out and be clear about this the court said this is presumptively privileged and so moving forward as if that's not the case I think is deeply problematic one of my colleagues over there a minute ago said um something about you don't get to to choose um but that's exactly what happens when you assert a privilege especially executive privilege and the references from the other side with respect to regular civil litigation which is fine I engage in regular civil litigation too but this is litigation between the article one and article two branches of the United States this is constitutional magnitude so rushing through this quickly I think is misguided and I think it'll lead to hopefully a court uh telling the committee that we're going down the wrong track we're abusing our power for oversight uh especially in the instance where we've got a special Council that's already been appointed has reviewed the uh the the issues has come back and stated clearly that there's insufficient evidence in his view to move forward with a prosecution um and I think it's especially problematic too if we have to take it to a court again that um there's no evidence here of of a refusal to cooperate in fact you've got the exact opposite the above and beyond language and the bar language and the bar letter is clearly met here too uh we've got Mr Garland he wasn't legally required to release the report but he did he uh wasn't required to release the transcript but he did uh and as was pointed out a minute ago by the ranking member the Department's produced 92,000 pages of documents we've had I don't know 40 or 50 you know um lawyers from the Department of Justice come and testify a couple of them in the middle of a criminal prosecution which is totally unprecedented so for these reasons and more I'm urging my colleagues to rethink this approach because I think ultimately it's going to end up in undermining the ability of this committee to conduct legitimate oversight at the times that when that's appropriate so I've exceeded my time with that I yield back and I I thank uh the chairman gentleman Yi's back the gentleman from Alabama is recognized thank you Mr chairman now yield to Mr Armstrong thank you uh couple things one I would be happy to argue this because I and to my colleague from Maryland I wish you'd have been here in May of 2019 because we legitimately as the chairman said we held the Attorney General in contempt after asserting privilege but it was more than that we held him in contempt for not violating the law right there's actually a statutory requirement that you can't disclose grand jury testimony so if we talk about the path we're going down and continue and talking about oversight we don't have to go back to Nix it we can go to May of 2019 and so to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are uh arguing about this I I would I would love to get that transcript or audio or video and come back out here but we're not duplicating a criminal proceeding there is no criminal proceeding we got the answer from where we at and if you talk about EXA I mean I'd argue this if we go in front of somebody and say of course they're doing it they're running out the clock like he could have exerted executive privilege I don't know a week ago a month ago six weeks ago it's a pattern that is going on with th with this doj and this white house that as you come up to the precipice of when you're actually going to do something then they say at the absolute last minute they drop all of this and we have a right to do these things and I I fully am aware that the difference between criminal prosecution and a civil litigation and a congressional hearing are the same thing but the basic premises of what is the best evidence what we are entitled to versus what the opposing side says we are entitled to is something I think the people on my side of the Isle are completely willing to have that conversation with whoever is an independent and neutral arbitrator of those facts well the gentleman yeld sure you know the best evidence standard um which I don't think is necessarily appli applicable here because it's not a court proceeding the demeanor evidence things I think fell on their face for the same reasons but but the point here I think though is with respect to the 6E issue um it can be waved and routinely is as a matter of practice um and so and certainly has been for congress so you know I don't know that that's a real good analogy but the bottom line here though is you guys are arguing you need it for demeanor evidence which again has no applicability here because it doesn't go to the finding um that was that came from her or the impeachment transcript and really this altering the transcript is really what you have to argue in fact the chairman argued that but there's absolutely no evidence of that in fact it's a certified transcript this isn't one that was somebody typed it up on the side these are the transcripts that we generate on a routine basis in Congress and the Department of Justice reclaiming my time that's not my I mean that might be somebody else's argument that's not my argument my argument is if I have the if I have the version of going through something and dealing with something and all of those different things I have watched Witnesses in this Committee in depositions say things because they know they've agreed to it not being released on video how something reads and how something sounds is different that is true and I am I'm not arguing that what they I'm not saying what they're entitled and not entitled to give me I'm saying I'm entitled to this evidence and I think the I think this hearing is entitled to it and I'm willing to have that fight I have never been in my entire life said okay you tell me what I get and I'll just agree to that and that's not the point and regardless of all of the other issues you don't get to say at the last minute we're exerting executive privilege because nobody will ever come and voluntarily come into an investigation ever again because if we release the audio recording instead of the transcript that's going to have a chilling effect that is a ridiculous argument I don't care what the burden of proof is it's just a ridiculous argument will the gentleman yield again yeah I mean that's an argument that's been raised Administration after Administration after Administration including by the Trump Administration on multiple occasions the ex the assertion of executive privilege is at least 50 to 60 years old and that is based on a decision by the executive branch usually the Department of Justice to make a decision as to what they'll turn over and what they won't and if it has to get litigated in court then the Court decides but this is exactly how it's supposed to go except executive privilege is usually done whether or not you get the information or not I was here I remember when the Attorney General came in and said I can't turn this stuff over because I will be breaking the law this isn't a matter of whether they're turning it over or not we already have whatever you think it is they're saying we're only going to give you the piece of it we want to give you we're not going to give it to give give you what you guys want and that's the fundamental disagreement that exists here we want the evidence of what happened and the best evidence available is the audio tape and with that I yield back back gent from Alabama Yi's back the gentleman from Tennessee is recognized thank you Mr chair I have been despairing the state of our country but even more so the state of this committee and the Judiciary for the last several months this committee is becoming the alen cannon committee the Trump anointed group to support him and defend him for conduct that is not defensible and roadblocks path of Justice where he should be on trial in Florida for his keeping classified records he didn't declassify them he just kept them uh this is a man who we several of our colleagues went to New York and said that our Justice our rule of law was false that this case in New York was political and shouldn't have taken place the thing we're most respected for around the world is the rule of law people Envy us for our rule of law and to have people who know better go and trash it is Despicable almost treasonous and then this committee theocracy that this committee would question Meritt Garland who appointed a republican to look into President Biden conduct a man who the Mr H said he was here to be questioned anybody here could have questioned him about the conduct of what Mr Biden said and why he came to that conclusion but he said he was a sympathetic elderly man with a poor memory the fact that he was sympathetic is why he would not be convicted is distinguished from his forthcoming opponent and past opponent who is a Despicable mandation ious man with a poor knowledge of history and government and a poor memory to boot a man who his own Secretary of State said was a yes Tillerson said he was a Kelly said he admires John Kelly his chief of staff said he admires autocrats and dictators and has no conception of the rule of law or concerned for or for democracy in our country his defense secretary Mark esper said he was a threat to democracy John Bolton declared he' be unfit to be president and of course Mike Pence said they had profound differences all folks coming up here and defending what's going on in New York this is a man who had just his wife gave birth to his child and he was playing golf and fornicating in Nevada rather than being with his wife and his newborn child what an example we have for the American public and for young people Joe Biden is as Colin Yos said at the correspondence dinner a decent man he's sympathetic and a decent man and the idea one of the gentlemen said we're in a impeachment hearing we're not in an impeachment inquiry these are just things they've thrown out there to try to take the facts away that he was twice impeached and to try to impeach with the gentleman yield Biden and me orcus both were wrong uh and the hypocrisy that almost I think every Republican on this committee voted against holding bar in contempt and that one of our members my friend the chairman was cited for contempt because he refused to appear before a committee this dealing with January six and the overthrow of the government the hypocrisy is voluminous and I yield to Mr Nadler thank the gentleman for yielding I just want to point out that the discussion we heard before about best evidence and so forth between Mr Armstrong and Mr um and Mr Ivy is fit for criminal trial but this is not a criminal trial this is a dispute between the executive branch and Congress and in such a dispute Congress must show a need for the evidence that we seek Republicans have not made that showing they' have shown no need for these files so the discussion we heard before is irrelevant because it was dealing with a criminal trial this is not a criminal trial this is a dispute between the executive branch and Congress and in such a dispute Congress must show a need for the evidence uh that they seek Republicans have not made that showing um they have not shown any need for these files and uh that renders this whole uh thing ridiculous and I thank the gentleman for yielding and I yield back to him thank thank you um in my last 10 seconds all I can say is God Bless America because we need somebody of that authority to bless us with the way this committee and these folks have dealt with this case and ruining a constitution and democracy gentleman Yi's back the gentleman from California is recognized thank you m Mr chairman since the discussions drifted into the Manhattan trial I I just have to say it's uh it's it's ironic to hear my colleague from California speak to the Integrity of our legal system like most Americans I am appalled that our justice system could become so dangerously politicized it started with the IRS harassing members of the Tea Party years ago then we had the FBI and intelligence agencies using what they knew was a completely fabricated story by the Clinton campaign over Russian collusion my colleague played a large role in that and was censured by the house for his role in it then we had the intelligence agencies conco the LIE that the hunter Biden laptop was a Russian hoax that and that may have decisively affected the outcome of the 2020 election and now we have these sham cases against Donald Trump on the flimsiest of legal grounds grounds that have never been charged before uh and with the obvious intent to interfere massively with the with the presidential campaign that the Sinister nature of these cases is that it doesn't matter that they're falling apart that's not the point the point is to drain Trump of his time and resources and throw the election to the Democrats now the Cornerstone of our justice system is equal justice under law that no matter who we are we're treated the same that's why Justice is depicted as blindfolded and in each of these cases there there there seem to be three standards of Justice one for Donald Trump one for the rest of us and then one for the Democrats and that strikes at the heart of the matter before us the decision to prosecute Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents and the decision not to prosecute Joe Biden for the same offense now now executive privilege is an important concept has an enormous bearing on the separation of powers the discussion in fact it it goes back to George Washington's Administration and the discussions that that a president has with his advisers or subordinates in the executive branch on any matter within the powers of his office are no more the business of the legislative branch than the discussions among members of Congress are the business of the executive the president cannot compel Congress to divulge its deliberations any more than Congress can compel the president so it's crystal clear to me that any official discussion between the president and any subordinate cannot be pierced but this case is very different because it's not a conversation between the president and a subordinate over policy or the discharge of His official duties rather it's an interview in the course of a criminal investigation to me this is far closer to the Nixon tapes uh the Nixon tapes were not conversations as part of a criminal investigation but conversations that had bearing on one the the conversation in this case is even further from the root of the executive privilege this was an interview in a criminal investigation that clearly Falls within the legitimate legislative function it's not only a legitimate inquiry it's a vital inquiry how is it that there are two cases involving the handling of classified information that have been treated so radic differently as president Donald Trump had absolute authority to declassify material at will as Vice President Joe Biden did not under the presidential records act president Trump had absolute discretion to determine what papers to retain in the course of his presidency as Vice President Joe Biden did not and yet a decision was made to prosecute Donald Trump and yet not to prosecute Joe Biden by the Joe Biden Administration so it Bears repeating the foundation of our judicial system is equal justice under law without this the law loses its moral Authority it simply becomes raw political force and it's apparent to me that we are moving dangerously away from this principle of equal justice Congress has an essential role to play in setting things right before we lose the very principles that Define us as a free people and Central to this is to understand why these two cases were treated so very differently the the request of the administration um uh is legitimate uh uh and U uh the um the the contemp Citation for its refusal to provide this information is entirely appropriate with that I yield back well said the gentleman yields back uh the gentleman from California I have M I have California then I'll come there gentl from California M Le recogniz thank you Mr chairman the house Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law unfortunately the actions of this committee chairman in ignoring a bipartisan Congressional subpoena has hurt the ability of this committee to get information and hurt the rule of law it is a height of hypocrisy for the chairman of this committee to try to enforce a contempt subpoena against mayor Garland when this chairman himself ignored a bipartisan Congressional subpoena now I've been to a number of proceedings in my time in Congress and in the state legislature that have been relatively stupid but this proceeding goes beyond stupidity it is a waste of taxpayer resources why is that because we have the transcript we have the transcript of the interview between special counil Robert her and President Biden there's no evidence whatsoever that this transcript was made up that it's fake that it's been doctored this transcript was produced by Robert her office Robert her was appointed by Donald Trump he is a republican appointee the notion that somehow this transcript is fake is a wild insane conspiracy theory you know what I think is really going on Joe Biden stutters he's always had a stuttering problem he was made fun of as a child because he stuttered he was bullied as a kid because he stuttered he overcame stuttering to become president of the United States and Republicans in the past have used his stuttering to smear him I think that's what they want to do again with this audio I think that is Despicable and if Republicans are going to go low I am going to punch back so let's talk about Donald Trump I agree with the Republican from New Jersey who said If a person cannot stand trial he should not be president of the United States Donald Trump has fallen asleep multiple times at his own criminal trial I am a former prosecutor I can tell you that is not normal I think there may be some physical mental health issues that should be investigated I'm going to tell you what people in the courtroom are writing about Donald Trump falling asleep here's a reporter who has been observing this one reporter observed quote that Donald Trump has nodded off a few times his mouth going slack and his head drooping onto his chest end quote another reporter said quote that Donald Trump slowly dropped his head his eyes closed it jerked back upward he adjusts himself then his head droops again he straightens up leaning back his head droops for a third time he shakes his shoulders eyes closed still his head drops end quote if a person is so weak and feeble if Donald Trump is so weak and feeble he cannot stay awake at his own criminal trial he can't be president of United States so instead of going around trying to smear different people why don't we work on a bipar basis on issues that matter to the American people like how about let's do a bipartison hearing and let's do some bills to fix a broken immigration system but the Republicans here don't want to do that they don't want to work on a bipartison basis they don't want to fix this why because Donald Trump told them not to well okay so how about another issue let's talk about high prices prices are high we did get a good report yesterday that inflation has now slowed down that is good but prices are still high why don't we work on bipar and basis to look at price gouging we have companies making record profits they're gouging consumers let's have a hearing on that why don't we have a hearing on that because Republicans don't want to fix this issue they want it as a campaign issue okay then how about let's do a a topic that isn't a campaign issue artificial intelligence has now become prevalent in many places it could have privacy implications it could do amazing things things it could also harm us in a variety of ways in terms of bias and so on why don't we do a hearing on this in this committee why don't we do that instead we're here doing this stupid stuff to try to get audio of a transcript we already have and it gets even worse than that there is a second committee the oversight committee is going to do an exact same hearing on this contemp proceeding let me just put in that you know what at least a chairman of that committee did not ignore a congressional bipar in Ina it might be more appropriate for that committee to do it and we should end this proceeding right now I yield back gentleman yields back the gentleman from uh Texas is recognized uh thank you Mr chairman after that five minutes I was starting to get a little sleepy I would like to yield my time to Mr vandrew I thank the gentleman for yielding man here we go again so the gentleman my friends from Tennessee and California and Maryland they want us not to have our eye on the ball they want us to look and we talked about this before in this committee the shiny object over here when you're really in trouble on the other side of the aisle when you really got a problem let's go after Donald Trump let's make it a campaign stump speech Let's talk about what a bad guy is let's talk about all these different issues that's not why we're here that's again if we want to have a separate debate a cqu a discussion formal informal we'll do it man I'm ready to go at it I think most of us here are but that is not the issue the issue is this committee feels that it needs an audio transcript because the charges the concerns are so serious I want everybody to understand we're either saying that our current president is incog cognitively impaired incompetent unable to stand trial even though he broke the law so the department of justice decides that they won't go after him for those reasons and if that's true we need to hear the audio tape you're going to be able to understand if he truly is that cognitively impaired if he truly has those problems if he cannot deal with these issues if he didn't know what he is doing we are going to learn a lot more and by the way if it's no big deal as the other side says because we have the transcripts well we do have the transcripts so why do you care so much about us getting the audio what's the big deal gentlemen you finan I just want to finish this first I will yield we already have the transcript so why don't we have the audio because we can find out whether he is in that much trouble if the country is in that much trouble this has got nothing to do with what's going on New York this has to do what's going on right here in the White House in Washington DC with this president or if he is not cognitively impaired if he is with it if he is capable capable then he broke the law as vice president and as a US senator not allowed to take these classified materials out kept them in a garage by his home next to a collapsed dog kennel and then use them I want everybody to understand that then use them them read them to his Ghost Rider to use in his multi-million doll book deal was he competent did he know what he was doing when he made this deal and used these papers to make money on the presidency that's what we need to know that's why we're going through all this it's got nothing to do with the other stuff and that's what we need to find out gentleman Y and that's why I will in one moment and that's why we're having this discussion because this committee has an oversight responsibility and needs to know that but it's not only the committee most importantly the American people need to know it we need to know if we have an incompetent incoherent president or if we have a president that is being helped through the two-tier system of justice again just like they tried to help his son Justice for thee not for me God help us the American people whomever are watching and listening to this don't have those opportunities but he keeps getting them over and over again which is it I know it's a bad spot for you folks I get it it's a really uncomfortable place to be but we need to find out the truth and I yield to the gentleman from Cal actually you um yeah I'll yield to you the gentleman from C thank you uh I just want to comment the following uh the special prosecutor decided that there was no uh reason to prosecute for his own good reasons he stated them in his report he made what I regard as a gratuitous smear of the president by his comment on cognitive impairment we will see we don't need the transcript to see if the president is cognitively impaired the president speaks all the time they're going to be two debates the American people can decide whether the president is cognitively impaired they can decide whether his opponent is cognitively impaired they're going to see plenty of uh evidence of that in the debates and in the campaign so we don't need the trans scpt to know whether the president is cognitively impaired or not the evidence is going to be before the American people gentlemen for yielding I reclaim my time and look this doesn't have anything to do with the debates so I get it and I know everybody's going to enjoy them me included but this has to do with the actions that took place regard regarding classified materials and either as the special prosecutor said he is cognitively impaired and unfit for trial or he knowingly did this and and made money off of it I yield back to Mr Nells I think Mr Nells yields back to you gentlemen yields back uh the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia Thank you Mr chairman um this uh this hearing is a continuation of uh what this Congress has been about under Republican Authority since January 3rd of 2023 we started out um trying to elect a speaker it took I think uh 19 ballots before uh this Congress back in 20123 January was able to elect a speaker and then that speaker um presided over what is uh agreed upon by most people who are observing this committee's functions uh as uh well this congress's functions this has been the least Pro productive Congress in the history of uh of the country many are arguing and my friends uh on the other side of the aisle on this committee are uh a part of that they have spent $20 million investigating president Trump this committee this committee alone has spent $20 million during this uh 108 18 session of Congress which began in January of 2023 investigating uh President Biden um they suffered uh the indignity of their leader former president Trump being indicted uh for withholding classified documents that indictment was in July of 2023 during the height of do nothing congress and not long before this uh this Congress uh expelled uh the speaker it took so long to uh elect in January they put him out in October and then we went for three weeks while even people on this committee were vying for uh the speakership it took three weeks and ran through a number of candidates before before this Congress elected Mike Johnson as its speaker formerly of this committee and um he has not fared much better uh neither has the house under his Reign um still nothing accomplished and we get to this point now where after spending $20 million this committee has absolutely nothing to show for it um uh they tried to pin a classified documents case on President Biden they had a special counsel special counsel her who spent a lot of money investigating couldn't find the thing had to write a report that cleared the president from illegally withholding classified documents and then uh he was summoned to this committee to deliver the findings of his report which included a derogatory uh reference to uh uh President Biden being uh having a loss of memory um disparaging him and that was the only thing that Republicans could get out of hers report and so they made hay of that uh for a while and then that went away and now it has come back uh you know we're seeking to hold uh the Attorney General in contempt of this committee for refusing to Red produce an audio file when you already have the uh volumous document the entire unredacted her report the transcript of the interview with the president uh even talk talking to the president's Ghost Writer it was an exhaustive investigation and the only thing we can do now is come up with uh additional information to show that Biden is cognitively impaired that's what this committee is trying to do today according to my friend from New Jersey get the evidence that Biden is cognitively impaired so this is political it's it's a do nothing is the product of a do nothing committee the American people deserve more and um and they're seeing what's happening and I think they're going to sweep this committee out of its perch and uh Democrats will be back in control so that we can do the work that the American people need us to do to keep them safe and to uh make sure that costs are down make sure that our economy is humming along jobs uh rebuilding America that's what this committee needs to be about not a a fishing Expedition trying to show that this President is cognitively impaired and with that I I yield back gent yields back the gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized thank you Mr chair um I mean a lot of us said here when we listen to the special counsel I think um respond to many questions that day sitting right there in front of us and uh I began to wonder kind of what were the conversations behind closed doors what what were the discussions amongst the attorneys on uh how are we ever going to dismiss the idea that the president of United States holding uh substantial positions within our government had absolutely secured on his own person person sensitive documents and then was able to take him back to his residence move boxes of them to offices uh in multiple locations and uh obviously willingly and knowingly mishandling secret sensitive US Government documents and and just dismiss this and there had to been a conversation with the special Council behind closed doors about um well let's see they just did a raid on the former president's home in Florida uh lights going um securing specific areas of that residence uh and and really kind of ran sacking the place and and now we find out you know probably you know little bit of orchestration on what they wanted those documents to look like when the photos were taken but I can't imagine what the SP special counsel and and his assistants uh were were trying to dismiss by simply saying that the president he's not all there you know and we've seen it on TV we see it every day now he's completely incompetent from handling a simple press conference so that became their way out that became what what they thought could justify letting him off the hook and I'm not sure where that would have gone as a criminal prosecution none of us are ever going to know that right I mean my own personal opinion is that her blew it because he's the one who set up this jua position of the president United States who by the way just agreed to two presidential debates okay but at the same time we're supposed to believe that you know he had a few boxes in the garage and he lost track of them and we're just he's just not up to to standing trial for this he's just not up to to actually having an attorney ask him poignant question questions about what he was doing with the documents and was he aware what were in those boxes that he had all over the place and now today we get a letter from Mr Cisco so again I wonder what was going on behind closed doors at the White House yesterday in the discussion on how are we now going to make sure that we protect the president again from having to disclose anything of substance and and the paragraph that strikes me is the absence of a legitimate need for an audio recordings lays be your likely goal now they're telling Congress what our goals are in trying to secure evidence and that is to chop them up distort them and use them for partisan political purposes okay and that not part of our process either right that you have to run for re-election so if something like this was actually utilized in that way which that is not the committee's intent but clearly one of the attorneys over at the White House dropped the ball when they wrote that paragraph because it just went from us not being able to do oversight to now we've come up up with a way that we're actually going to execute a little bit of a cover up we're going to move towards coverup to make sure that the special council's conclusions are not questioned beyond what was done in this room when he was here a month ago so Mr chairman this entire day is not only warranted but the American people see what's going on here we're not going to elect Donald Trump the other side of the aisle in the White House is going to elect Donald Trump and I yield back gentleman yields back the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California Mr swwa well it's nice to see that some of my colleagues on this on the other side can make it today I I don't know if that means that there weren't enough seats in the courtroom in New York uh but I know that the oversight committee canceled the hearing that was supposed to happen right now on this matter so that they could uh be at the president's trial I know some members will miss this vote uh because they want to be at the president's trial and I don't think that anything could animate the phrase do nothing congress more than missing votes and canceling hearings to go up and be a spectator at your cult leaders trial that is the definition of do nothing congress but I'm here for a celebration uh because it's raise a glass it's been about two years two years this week May 12 is when Jim Jordan our chairman was subpoena and asked to comply with his subpoena for his role his interaction with the former president on the January 6 attack uh of the capital and so we are now 735 days in it's two years and this committee has the nerve this committee has the tarity to seek compliance from the attorney general I actually think you should not be able to bring any subpoena of another person if you are out of compliance of your own subpoena that seems to make a lot of sense uh to me and and we'll have an amendment uh to address that uh a little bit later but I want to talk about this particular effort to hold the Attorney General in contempt because what is this really about after all it was Donald Trump's appointed prosecutor who the Attorney General deputized to be the special counsil here to look get President Biden's handling a classified document so it was Donald Trump's prosecutor who cleared President Biden he said there's nothing to see here and in fact although he did not put it in the lead memo for his report there was an exchange that he acknowledged in the interview with President Biden where the special counsel told the president your recall is photo graphic he didn't say your recall is good he didn't say your recall is decent the special Council said your recall is photographic so what is this really about this is about you all not accepting the outcome of the 2020 election you rooted on the riers as they sought to attack the capital on January 6th if that wasn't enough you all went back to the floor and relitigated the issues that brought the riers to the capital just eight hours later many of you go and visit the convicted criminals who assaulted the police officer at their jail cells and during Police Week as a bunch of officers yesterday testified in the Homeland Security hearing that those officers are heroes and those riers are criminals you call them hostages and the former president calls them hostages so this is entirely about not accepting the outcome of the January uh 6 vote here rooting on the riers and doing everything you can to try and affect the outcome of the upcoming election and so then I thought to myself is there like a parallel is there another investigation where your side was completely incurious about what that investigation yielded turns out there was turns out it happened recently turns out somebody on your side was investigated for sex trafficking now you're going to say well he was cleared he was cleared they dropped the charges yes the Biden attorney general dropped the charges didn't pursue didn't bring charges that's exactly what happened with President Biden but you all have shown no interest to go to the attorney general and say well we want to learn more we want to see the notes and the audio recordings and the evidence of our own colleagues sex trafficking investigation not a peep from any one of you so if if you wanted to do that if you wanted to show just a little bit of consistency I would be willing to entertain that you have a genuine interest in understanding what happened in that hearing but that's not what this is about this is about doing everything to help Donald Trump who you see as your client who a New York criminal trial sees as a defendant to help him win an election so I have no interest in playing this game the American people have no interest in playing this game and all this does for those of you who have graced us with your presence animates that it's a completely do nothing congress and I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Texas is recognized thank chairman i' yield gentleman from California I'll be very brief before my colleague from California leaves I've been on this committee long enough to know why we mark up contempt this committee and the committee that he referred oversight we've held people in contempt for not doing things this committee successfully held in contempt uh the uh uh Chief counil to the president under George W bush for not showing up we next door held in contempt Eric Holder for withholding information that he said he had 20 and so some pages ultimately over 10,000 Pages turned out to uh be delivered what's interesting and very similar is the the president's old boss President Obama claimed EX privilege on exactly the day we were about to do this and ultimately none of those 10,000 Pages stood the test under a judge appointed by President Obama for executive privilege so the false claim of executive privilege today is just as much a ruse as it was under President Obama and that's the piece of history that I hope my colleagues will observe as we hold this attorney general in contempt and I thank the gentleman for yielding yeah I think the gentleman I mean I would note that uh my colleagues are decrying the the uh the fact that some of our colleagues are in New York let's remember what's happening in New York we have a uh clear sham trial being perpetrated by a judge with clear bias uh we have a situation where the entire thing relies on Michael Cohen who uh I mean just to say the least as a convicted felon has been disbarred has pled guilty to perjury and various Financial crimes uh the judge's own daughter is a known Democrat political operative has clients including some of our Democratic colleagues I think even on this committee uh including some democratic colleagues who are in fact advising Michael Cohen at this particular moment all of that is occurring at a time when they're calling Michael Cohen when they could bring forward Allan weiselberg who is sitting over in Rikers but for some reason they're not bringing him forward which one could guess because it wouldn't help and the fact is this is all playing out while bootstrapping a federal law into a state crime in order to try to navigate statutes of limitations it's ridiculous I mean it's patently absurd what we're seeing unfold with our system of justice the politicization of it and now here we sit and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like that we simply want to see the best evidence available when in fact it is not as one of my colleagues talked about trying to effectively uh get a second stab at at criminal proceedings this is an impeachment inquiry that is inherently not a criminal proceeding it is a unique function of Congress under the Constitution of the United States and we're investigating very legitimate questions conflicts of interest of the Biden family the significant amount of money that has flowed to the Biden family the extent to which the president has had material that he's not supposed to have in his possession which the special counsil firmly pointed out and in fact in this committee testified to uh and in fact the president and his lawyers uh have contested special counsel her's assessment but the truth is special counsel her in this committee stood behind his sworn testimony we've got evidence that we can see in transcripts but all we're pointing out is it is a both impeachment function and legislative function of this body to be able to use the power to be able to go to the Department of Justice which is supposed to be overseen by us in the first place by the way and to say we simply want to see the best evidence because if you look in the terms of the criminal proceeding which is not an impeachment inquiry and is not the legislative function it is an independent unique function in the criminal inquiry that they're carried out at Justice that clearly what you saw from special councel her was a great deal of dependence on the demeanor of the president an extraordinary amount of dependence in terms of his determination on whether to pursue charges depended on how he assessed the demeanor of the president of the United States that's all this is about it's not polit it's not political it's not about something that might show up later for political purposes it is very much to the heart of whether or not and what the president knew about the materials that he had which the special counsil firmly acknowledges wrote were illegal for him to possess and the question is is what was his intent and it is critically important for the purposes of this body to determine where we're going to go with an impeachment inquiry or any legislative inquiry to determine what the president what the president's demeanor was during that interview I Y back gentleman Yi's back gentleman from Virginia is recognized thank you Mr chairman you know I'm I'm disappointed I strike the mve strike last word um was recognized I'm disappointed but I'm not surprised that we're getting a letter from uh the white house uh citing executive privilege the day before the hearing the day before the markup and as my colleague from California uh knows who's the ranking member on the subcommittee that I chair responsiveness and accountability to oversight this is common behavior for this White House wait until the last minute and then throw either an excuse uh or a few pages of documents that have been subpoenaed much of which is publicly available uh to us to try and fend off uh exactly this uh a contempt citation uh for failure to comply you know it'd be one thing if it were the subcommittee that I chair it'd be one thing if it were documents subpoenaed at the Department of Health and Human Services or education uh or the FTC about collusion with big Tech about the covid uh information that they tried to limit availability on the internet um there are so many different ways in which this Administration has failed to be accountable failed to be held accountable and failed to provide uh the information that we've requested that that we're not surprised but this is under an impeachment inquiry last year we approved an impeachment inquiry in this body which heightens that standard and and actually increases the burden on the administration to show uh that there is some reason why they should not be providing this information and executive privilege does not is not applicable here uh we have a request for a recording as was stated earlier the White House doesn't get to decide how that information is provided which transcript is better which transcript is appropriate if we want one transcript they give us that one if we want the other one they have to give us that one uh this investigation is about whether the president willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen uh actually that was a conclusion and then hers investigation also concluded that Vice President Biden had quote strong motivations unquote to ignore the rules for properly hand handling classified materials those strong motivations included an advance of $8 million that Biden had planned to receive for writing his Memoir a book he had decided to write quote months before leaving office but why has the doj not sought to bring charges against the president for his actions both as vice president and a private citizen well for one reason special counsel he noted in his report that although there was sufficient evidence that Biden had willfully retained classified information he wouldn't recommend taking it to trial because the president would appear to a jury to be quote sympathetic well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory but her know her knew that to make the $8 million book Advance he would need reminders but many of those reminders are classified and yet he shared them with his Ghost Writer Mark zaner who holds no security clearance uh as part of the impeachment inquiry in the Judiciary committee's legislative oversight the committee has sought information among about among other things President Biden's mishandling of classified information and uh the doj refuses to provide the committee with these recordings and attorney general Garland not only confirmed uh that this material has been turned over to the White House and not us he he said this uh during an Appropriations testimony uh but failed to see the hypocrisy and ing the White House access to these recordings but not the Judiciary and oversight committees so he rejected the notion that doj should release the recordings and said they needed to remain confidential but at the time had no response as to how to provide the recordings to um the White House as to how he provided the recordings to the White House so these recordings are important to our investigations because of the superior evidence that the transcripts that the recordings provide because transcripts do not capture demeanor evidence and there's evidence that the White House has doctored official transcripts to hide a verbal slip up from President Biden already so if they're already doctoring official transcripts we need the tapes we need the tapes and they have an obligation to provide them to us I yield back gentleman yields back the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York those in favor say I I those oppose no no opinion of the chair the NOS have it the amendment is not agreed to the uh roll call being requested the clerk will call the rooll Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Gates Mr Bigs Mr Mento Mr Mento votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massie Mr Massie votes no Mr Roy no Mr Roy vot no Mr Bishop miss sparts Mr Fitzgerald Mr B Mr Ben votes no Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr Armstrong Mr Armstrong votes no Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes no Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kylie Mr Kylie votes no Miss Hagman Miss Hagman votes no Mr Moran Mr Moran votes no Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr Nadler Mr Nadler votes I miss lren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes I Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes I Mr swell Mr swell votes I Mr Lou miss jaal Mr kareah Miss scanland Miss scanland votes I Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss Dean Miss Dean votes I miss Escobar Miss Escobar votes I miss Ross Miss Bush Mr Ivy I Mr Ivy votes I miss ballant Mr Isa you're not recorded Mr Isa votes no Mr Fitzgerald votes no Mr Gooden votes no Mr Fry votes no Mr chairman there are eight eyes and 17 nose NOS haven't the amendment is not agreed to gentleman from Georgia Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk CL report point of order reserved by the gentleman from California Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute objection the amend we consider read g i object uh Mr uh chairman okay clerk read the amendment Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find merri B Garland and contempt of congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the committee on the Judiciary offered by Mr Johnson of Georgia on page 13 at the end of the second full paragraph insert the committee also notes serious concerns about the competency of Donald Trump the weekend before the committee took up this contempt report in a speech delivered in Wildwood New Jersey Mr Trump praised the fiction serial killer from the from Silence of the Lambs quote the late great Hannibal Lector he's a wonderful man unquote and quote congratulations the late great Hannibal Lector we have people that are being released into our country that we don't want in our country and quote Mr Trump also confused the Chinese city of Beijing with the self-governing island of Taiwan and Confused the famous tennis player Jimmy Connors with President Jimmy Carter at a rally and Iowa last January Mr Trump declared think of it magn magnet now all I want about magnets is this give me a glass of water let me drop it on the magnets that's the end of the magnet during a series of March campaign rallies Trump mistook the country of Argentina for a person telling the crowd you know Argentina great guy he's a big Trump guy he loves Trump I love him because he loves Trump anybody that loves me I like them he also claimed that a poll was a legislative bill called our country the United stage and made a series of unintelligible noises when describing him s ding boom this is me unintelligible B it is not even clear if Mr Trump knows which of his po po political opponents he is running against Mr Trump has mixed up President Joe Biden and former president Barack Obama on at least eight different occasions he confused presidential candidate Nikki Haley with former speaker Pelosi inferring that Ambassador Haley was responsible for Capital Security Mr Trump has also been confused with respect to foreign leaders for example in October 2023 Mr Trump referred to Hungarian prime minister Victor Orban as a great leader of turkey these examples and more raised serious concerns about Mr Trump's mental competency and ability to serve another term as president G is recognized uh thank you Mr chairman uh Mr chairman gentlemen this contempt uh report that um uh is being uh considered today is Chuck full of misleading references to president Biden's age and his mental competency and throughout this hearing today I've heard uh the false allegation made that uh special counsel her found that Biden was incompetent to stand trial that is not uh what her found he simply questioned uh the president's uh memory and so let's not get it twisted uh and speaking of uh you know cognitive impairment uh the report that we're considering today conveniently omits serious evidence that um the standard Bearer for my friends on the other side of the aisle Donald Trump is the only candidate who shows any evidence of Competency uh problems uh just this past weekend in a speech in Wildwood New Jersey Mr Trump bizarrely praised a fictional serial killer from Silence of the Lambs the late great Hannibal Lector he he's a wonderful man is what the president said and congratulations the late great Hannibal Lector we have great people here that are being released into our country we don't want our country we don't want in our country hear it for yourself play the tape Silence of the Lamb has anyone ever said the Silence of the Lamb the late great adab Lector he's a wonderful man president she of China talking about Beijing now they've got ship circling they have planes but they never were doing anything I could have pressed Hillary a lot harder you know she broke up her phone she broke them up she asked at Washington bit bleach right bit bleach nobody even knows what it is all done by Biden Carri out by right so Jimmy Connor is a Jimmy Jimmy Connor is a scooter he's also happy congratul ulations the late great adabor we have people that are being released into our country that we don't want in our country up here screaming like a lunatic ladies and gentlemen that sad display took place just this past weekend with uh the former president he appeared to confuse the Chinese city of Beijing with the self-governing island of Taiwan a confused Jimmy Conor uh a famous tennis player with Jimmy Carter the 39th president of the United would the gentleman yield no I won't this rant is not a singular event last January at a rally in Iowa Mr Trump incoherently stated quote think of it magnets in quote and now all I know about magnets is this give me a glass of water let me drop it on the magnets and that's the end of the magnets end quote during a series of March campaign rallies Trump mistook the country of Argentina for a person telling the crowd quote you know Argentina great guy he's a big Trump guy he loves Trump I love him because he loves Trump anybody that loves me I like them end quote he also claimed that a poll was a legislative Bill calling and called our country the United stage and he made a series of unintelligible nois noes when describing himself ding boom uh this is me Bing uh it's not even clear if Trump knows which of his political opponents he's running against Mr Trump has mixed up President Joe Biden and former president Barack Obama on at least eight different occasions he bizarrely mixed up presidential candidate Nikki Haley with former speaker OSI inferring that Ambassador Haley was responsible for Capital Security he can't keep straight the names of world leaders in October of 2023 Mr Trump referred to Hungarian prime minister Victor Orban as the quote great leader of turkey end quote Republicans are intellectually and morally dishonest to criticize President Biden when there dear chosen leader Donald Trump presents with symptoms which are quite frankly scary the American people can see through this Republican charade this is just an ugly exercise to hurt President Joe Biden let's move on and with that I yield back gent yield back gentleman from Kentucky he's recognized I just wonder if the gentleman from the other side of the a was concerned that the additional Aid that was voted on to go to Taiwan would cause that Island to tip over in any point the future you know what um I hope that Island I hope that the island of Guam is floating on water and not on diesel fuel that's the point I was making well this is and I and I think that the gentleman uh might question my mental acuity but we let's look at your dear leader let's look at reaiming reclaiming my time president Trump belongs to the gentleman from Kentucky reclaiming my time I I have the utmost respect for my colleague on the other side though the point I wanted to make is that sometimes uh we make statements tongue and cheek that we are uh metaphorically speaking and uh that the president most certainly in in most of those cases was doing that as we all have Republican and Democrat made statements that if you're taken out of context seem uh indefensible or ungrounded if you will let me give an example so the comment on the magnets here if you give me a glass of water let me drop it on the magnets at the end of the magnets I've actually heard the president the former president talk about that what he's talking about are electromagnets so there was a discussion about whether the catapults on aircraft carriers should be steam driven or electromatic electromagnetically driven and it is true that steam is more reliable that water uh would not affect the the hoses uh for instance but they could but salt water could affect wires that are driving electromagnets so I think it's disingenuous here to offer this and take many things out of context to take things that were said tongue and cheek to take things that were said on the campaign Trail um and act as if they were meant to be taken literally because we all on both sides of aisle have said things before that were not meant to be taken literally and with that I yield back gent I'll yield chairman I think gent for yielding I think the point is well made uh you know no human beings ever ever said everything exactly right we've all made mistakes whatever um but the fundamental question in front of us is was the decision was the decision not to prosecute consistent with the Department of Justice's commitment to impartial Justice that's the fundamental question Trump is President Trump is getting prosecuted for a classified documents concern Joe Biden isn't Biden isn't because this is what the special counsel said he said Mr Biden's memory appeared to have significant limitations both at the time he spoke to his waner in 2017 and as evidenced by their recorded conversations and today as evidenced by by the recorded interview with our office that's why we want the audio tape president Trump was is is is the department being impartial president Trump is getting prosecuted we know what's going on in Miami President Biden isn't and he isn't because of that statement from the special counsel that statement from the special counsel in light of the facts of the case the elements of the crime have been met Mr H sat right at that table and told us Joe Biden Joe Biden knowingly kept classified information and knowingly disclose classified information special counsel told us in his report why Joe Biden did it he said he had strong motivations to release classified information because he was writing a book A book for which he got paid $8 million so we have motive we have the elements of the crime but he doesn't get charged and yet president Trump does and so this committee the committee that is oversees the justice department has oversight of justice department wants to know if they are impartially administering Justice and the best way for us to figure all that out is to get all the evidence that the special Counsel had at his disposal so we can figure that out and see if there's something we need to do legislatively to change the special Council statute but it's all part of our oversight that's the fundamental question we can get into things people say I've said things that taken out of context Mr Massie has Mr Johnson has every we've all said it so that that's not the point the point is that fundamental question was it the administration of impartial Justice what were they being consistent that's what we want to know I yeld back thann for yielding yield the remainder of my time to Mr Tiffany yeah and just to add on to the Chairman's comments in regards to impartial I mean if you go back to the Senate confirmation hearing for this attorney general he said I'm going to conduct Justice without fear or favor and he's getting a chance now to live up to those words will he provide impartial Justice without feor favor to the American people that's a question that's before us yield back gentleman yield is back the gentleman yield we're out of time I I can go to Mr iy and I'm sure he'll yield you some time or I'm not sure but I I would let me go first and I'll I'll you time 15 seconds all right go ahead all right thank the gentlemen uh uh the previous two speakers uh are uh concerned about uh me taking president Trump's comments out of context uh this is exactly what they plan on doing if they can get their hands on this audio file they want to take President Biden's comments out of context that's so this is projecting this is exactly what uh these Republicans are known for they do it that's what their big cheese does Donald Trump and with that I'll you'll I the gentleman I I go go ahead I'll get time later thank you Mr just not accurate that's just not what we're that's not our goal well I you know I got to say I you know my colleague from Georgia raised the point about taking something out of context there's certainly a concern about that and I think it's a legitimate one um you know to not have the audio tape but have the transcript which again nobody has actually alleged is incorrect in any way it's not a Verbatim transcript that the person who took the transcript um you know violated her oath of office or his oath of office and and and taking the transcript no allegations of that over there at all so I I think at this point it's you know you have to assume that it's it's factually accurate but the I I want I had to get to this point though with because I've got so many colleagues over there talking about the contrast you know well you know Biden wasn't prosecuted but Trump was but her sat right here he issued a report that laid all of this out but just to remind my colleagues um that her pointed out the distinctions between Trump's case and Biden's case and said quote they are clear there are serious aggravating facts in the Trump case most notably after being given chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution Mr Trump allegedly did the opposite or according to the indictment he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed Justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it and he goes on in contrast Mr Biden turned and classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with the investigation that's the distinction and that's the distinction the Department of Justice draws frequently in making decisions about whether to move forward with a Criminal prosecution and you know the obvious fact that you guys are ignoring when you thought well it's a Democrat versus a republican former vice president Pence was not proc uted as well for the same sorts of issues for the same reasons there's a reason Trump sits alone or will sit alone at this criminal trial that's upcoming it's because he acted to obstruct Justice Biden and Pence did not and I I got to say this too just for along those lines because there's sort of this ongoing claim that the Department of Justice is somehow biased and and only going after Republicans but you know a senator in New Jersey right now a Democrat who's um about to start a jury trial I don't know if they're still picking the jury or not but they were last time that I looked U there's an indictment against a a democrat in Texas uh right now as well that just came down it's a tough argument really flies in the face of all of these open cases or or cases that are moving forward to suggest that that for some reason the Department of Justice is only targeting Republicans when it's clear they aren't and then the last point that you all keep kind of avoiding um her sat here and testified you guys are making allegations today that you did not confront him with at the time to the extent you raised it he said no I'm not trying to hide anything I'm not trying to protect the president we're not trying to slant anything I did this I called the balls and Strikes as I saw them um and you know I think it's it's a bit of a smear uh to to sort of suggest otherwise and it's a little unfair to do it now when he's not here when you had the chance to do it when he was here and you know I don't know it's kind of frustrating to me I'm the the the Judiciary Committee is supposed to be up about up upholding the rule of law and I know we have their political issues it's a presidential year and all of that stuff but you're deliberately distorting the facts over and over and over again and it really should stop it really should uh and then just one final point on on these issues um the attorney general here Merck Garland 92,000 pages that he's produced over and over present presented witnesses to the committee that other AGS would have refused to permit especially you know lawyers who were in the middle of a criminal investigation or a pending trial although you all are ignoring that and trying to act like he's obstructing justice even though you've got the verbatim transcript of the statement that he gave with that I my time's expired and I yield back uh the gentleman yields back just respond briefly um our motivation is exactly what I said 5 minutes ago is this the impartial administration of justice by the by the justice department it's nothing else that's that's that's our objective that's our goal and the best way to figure all that out is to get all the evidence that's why we've asked for it the gentleman from Maryland reference when when special Council her was here I did confront him I laid out the same things I I I I know what ask him did Joe B knowingly keep classified information yes did he knowingly release classified information yes and why did he do it because he was writing a book and how much did he get paid for the book and he told me $8 million so we laid all that out La all that out in that testimony so I did confront him will the gentleman you you confronted him with the facts that he that those facts but nobody said you know what you're not telling the truth you're not charging him and you should because you're trying to protect him none of you said that not one of course I I I confront him with the facts that's what you're supposed to do in these hearings um with that I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from uh New Jersey thank you chairman let me just say I think you really encapsulated what this is about you all are good at this seriously and I mean that as a compliment you're really good at it you're good at politics because again we're speaking about the rally in Wildwood which I happen to be in as you probably know that's in my district I spoke at it and by the way you're probably feeling a little bad about it because we had 100,000 people that were from all walks of life from plumbers to Pipe Fitters to professionals to engineers and Architects and doctors to young people to old people all excited to be there with a 100,000 people we had no incidents nobody got drunk nobody got hurt there were no fights it was a celebration of America for an hour and a half Donald Trump stood up there mostly extemporaneously speaking about a whole bunch of stuff having a little bit of fun sometimes being sarcastic sometimes being very serious and speaking about America and America freedom and what's happening to our borders our cities what's happening to our country in so many different ways that isn't good but my point is that's not what this hearing is about so once again and the chairman encapsulated it you're trying you're leading us astray you're good at it we're getting into a debate about Donald Trump you're damn good at it but that is not what this is about this is about that we have existing transcripts and we want to know what the demeanor of the current president was we know what the demeanor of Donald Trump was because you can watch the whole hour and a half on tape you can look and see what he said what he did you don't even need to do anything I wish we didn't have to have this hearing either I just wish they turned it over chairman wouldn't I will in a minute the chairman wouldn't have called this hearing if simply they had said yes you can have the video recordings you can actually check out his demeanor the problem you have as good at it as you are the problem that you have is either that he is cognitively impaired and doesn't know what's going on and what he's doing or he's not and he knowingly took all this classified material out and then basically sold it to a ghost riter to make 8 million bucks and I know you're in a tight spot but that's the reality and so we kind of want to know what it is and so do the American people want to know what it is they just want to know the truth this isn't a big deal tell the truth it sets you free man um so you can go through this inside out over and over and I know probably the next speaker on your side is going to have another amendment that's got to do with Donald Trump but that's not what this is about will the gentleman focused on the ball I will yield I hadn't planned on bringing up Donald Trump today you did it you're the one that came in and said and tried to you know say that Trump was mistreated because he's on trial but Biden is getting to pass you brought it up I back to you reclaim my time um no what I brought up was that you all were taking we were taking our Eye Off the Ball we still are we're into this discussion there's a real serious issue here and by the way they obviously don't think since you've brought it up that Donald Trump's cognitively impaired because they're Prosecuting them in different venues across the country politically motivated but I don't want to have that debate now man Mr iy I'd have that debate with you anywhere anytime you want to do it will back it's my time if the gentleman yield back if the gentleman's done yield back I will yield back I would just point out the uh Jack Smith mishandled the evidence we we don't want to bring up Trump but in that case you got the prosecutor who sees the documents and Chang the order that he sees the documents the physical documents don't match up with the actual scan documents some people might say that's tampering with evidence that happened and the judge down there said wait a minute we got to hold on here what's going on course the irony is the irony is Jack Smith mishandled documents while he's charging president Trump with mishandling documents you can't make this stuff up so uh I think in some ways a reference to what's going with President Trump is entirely appropriate uh my time is my time is up um who seeks recognition question occurs then on the amendment from the gentleman from Georgia all those in favor say I I those opposed no no opinion of the chair the NOS have it the amendment is not agreed to gentleman's asked for a recorded vote the clerk will call the role Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Gates Mr Bigs Mr mlto Mr ment votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massie Mr Massie votes no Mr Roy Mr Bishop Miss sparts Miss sparts votes no Mr Fitzgerald Mr Fitzgerald votes no Mr B Mr B votes no Mr Klein Mr Armstrong Mr Armstrong votes no Mr Gooden Mr vandrew no Mr vandrew votes no Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kylie Miss Hagman Miss Hagman votes no Mr Moran Miss Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr nodler Mr ner votes I miss lran Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes I Mr Schiff Mr swallow Mr Lou miss chal Mr karea miss scandin Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss Dean Miss Dean votes I miss Escobar Miss Escobar votes I miss Ross Miss Bush Mr Ivy I Mr Ivy votes I miss ballant Mr goodam votes no clerk record Mr chairman there are five eyes and 12 nose the motion is not adopted who seeks recognition Miss Dean from Pennsylvania thank you Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk cler report amendment to Wisconsin is reserved a point of order Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find merik B Garland in contempt of congress for refusal to without objection the amendment is read The Gentle lady from Pennsylvania will uh explain her amendment I thank you Mr chairman uh I want to um lay the table uh and this Builds on the amendment we Jud considered uh the disinformation coming from the other side of the aisle is so troubling it's it's funny but uh it's really much more troubling than anything else as we all know spe special counsel her was not called in to do some sort of a competency hearing he was to find out whether or not President Biden would be charged for mishandling of documents I refer you to Mr her special Council her's report here we have every page of it I forget how big it is here hold on 350 60 Pages uh line one page one this is special counsel hers finding and he said here to us C right at that table that it this was after quote rigorous detailed and thorough analysis by him and his group his uh staff sentence one page one we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter and then I thought very interestingly and I even asked him to read this to us the exception is former president Trump I'm reading from page 11 again rigorously thoroughly uh reported here by special counsel her in his conclusive findings the exception meaning that one person one president has been charged uh in misuse of classified documents page 11 it is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr Trump but several material distinctions between Mr Trump's case and Mr Biden's case are clear you'll remember I asked special counsel her to read this unlike the evidence involving Mr Biden the allegations set forth in the indictments of Mr Trump if proven would present serious aggravating facts as my colleague read also most notably continuing in the report after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution Mr Trump allegedly did the opposite Accord according to the indictment he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed Justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it end quote so let's talk about the elephant in the room why do my Republican colleagues need this audio file at all after all doj has provided 92,000 documents it's plenty to go through including the transcript and let me hold that up two days worth of testimony the trans script of the president cooperating in the two days following the attack in Israel on October the 7th but this President this sitting president cooperated fully and completely every word of his testimony is reported here do you think the Republicans really want to listen to the president's vocal tone Pace inflections verbal nuance and other idiosyncrasies I'll give them the benefit of the doubt it may be they want to do that but not but only because they think they can manipulate President Biden's voice to make it the next Trump for president ad after all they've done it before take a look March 2020 Trump's White House social media director posted and Trump retweeted an EDI edited video that cut off President Biden's sentence to make it sound like President Biden was endorsing Trump later that Year Steve scalise shared an edited video of President Biden that falsely made it appear that he was supporting defund the police and back in 2019 president Trump and Rudy Giuliani both retweeted a manipulated video of speaker Pelosi that had been doctored to make the speaker appear incompetent unfortunately we know that our chairman our very chairman has taken part in these phony manipulations too I have to admit to you as a mother and a grandmother this next example Hurts the Most last year M Nina jankowitz testified in her deposition that chairman Jordan actually tweeted a manipulated F video of her that contributed to a deluge of death threats against her she was eight months pregnant while strangers online called her a Nazi and told her she should die she had to attend her the G lady shall Su for a second I will not yield I'm not asking you to yield we are citing a deposition I have a point of order there you go uh the gentle lady I ask you to Res yeah we got it's 40 seconds restore the clock yeah uh I have a point of order uh you are citing a deposition in your amendment that has not been released in violation of house rules let me check with my team yeah I'll make the point that they should release the deposition yeah we're happy to release the deposition and she should be a decided they're happy to release the deposition I ask for the thank you for restoring my time we have to strike the language that is citing the deposition that has not been released by house R because you don't want to release it you don't want to release what Mr Jordan did I can't release it in real time I well I think you could ask the chairman chairman parliamentary point of order so rules Mr chairman parliamentary inquiry yes can the chairman make a point of order if so then who rules whether the point of order is in order or not no point of order is made by the chairman I can make a point supon make a point of order I'm in charge of ruling or enforcing the rules your own point of order yes can someone else be heard on the point of order may I speak to the point of order no yes okay uh Mr chairman uh the sitting chairman of this committee knows that this transcript was from last April uh the committee has every ability and has a uh awesome time to have released that it seems to me and this side of the aisle uh that it is trying to be uh withheld in order to protect the chairman from something quite embarrassing I asked that it be released today would would the would the general lady yield I sure will hold on okay that requires consultation with minority majority and minority Council and the fact that you wish that it was released prior to that does not supersede the fact that a cited uh deposition that has not been released by this committee is cited in the amendment that is in violation of house rules is the irony visible to anyone else here anybody else notice the irony here mras the defit Mr chairman parliamentary in You' got the whole transcript here and you're afraid gentleman will state his inquiry what precisely in the amendment are you objecting to just the content the quotation which quotations that's a decision for you all the quotations in two and three page two and three quotation that reads um question so it is fair to say the one minute video that Mr Jordan linked to just made it sound let me finish just made it sound like youing objection Mr chairman correct objection gentleman is out of order as a minut gentleman is out of order gentleman will suspend so so Mr Jordan relied on this kind of out of order the gentleman will suspect who is out of order you are Mr I've made a parliamentary why am I out of order what am I violating you're disclosing the content of a deposition that has not been released by the house it's disclosed in this amendment that's already been published public which is the entire point of the Parliamentary inquiry well then I'm happy to amend my amendment to take out only the Q&A that you do not want revealed because the chairman be embarrassed by it I will is there objection you yeah Wishful take out of the record thank you uh on the point of order I I want to be heard on the point of order um she's disclosed all this uh she being Miss Jan quids in interviews um on report on multip that doesn't matter I mean her her test testimony towards that versus the transcript of the deposition are not the same disclos but but the point there is and I think uh the author of the amendment offered to to strike the exact quotes but the substance of the statements is public information the amendment discloses commit Comm record that has not been released in in violation of house rules well how about my amended Amendment I'm taking out the testimony which this committee the majority on the committee does not want revealed and I guess I don't even want to ask can we get the audio of that I I mean I mean if if you look at the footnotes Mr chairman will the general will the general lady ask for unanimous Comm consent to amend the amendment I ask for unanimous consent to amend the amendment to take out the language that you don't want revealed take out the Q&A is there an objection without without objection so ordered Mr chair lady is recognized I thank you I think I had 40 seconds but I'll take 30 again the irony is uh just uh extraordinary uh in this committee misrepresentation uh a finding of incompetence by the former president president when you know this special councel found we conclude no criminal charges are warranted in this matter it is absurd that the chairman of this committee who sits in uh offense to his own subpoena hundreds and hundreds of days is seeking the voice of the president whose voice he knows very very well the testimony is Rich and complete uh I ask uh that my Amendment uh uh be considered and be honored and passed because otherwise we could see the use of this video this audio excuse me to be doctored to be deep faked and to be Trump ads uh I urge all my colleagues to support my Amendment thanks so much anybody else seek recognition gentleman from Virginia I'm I'm hesitant to speak because I'm can't hear you I'm I'm hesitant to speak Mr chairman because I'm so stunned by uh the amendment proposed by The Gentle lady to get around house rules to disclose documents that have been not not been released by this committee is that how we're going to play now is that how the other side is going to play because um that violates not just house rules but general rules of decorum general rules of decency I mean this committee has been a respected U body in this Congress and many previous congresses for many years and one of the things that it emphasizes is not just the rule of law but the balancing of the branches of government when the executive branch overreaches its Authority and says we don't have to hand over these tapes to the legislative branch of government we should be United in saying how dare you we should be United in saying we represent the people we are entitled to these tapes we ask for them we should get them and to not just say no but to say to hell with your request and to hell with house rules and to hell with decorum we're going to make a mess of of uh the rules that have been followed by this committee and many others for years and years is is just offensive so I oppose this uh I'm going to reluctantly well the gentle ladies amendment is is is I'm going to oppose the amendment but um the way in which she went about her Amendment I'm going to uh strenuously oppose I yeld back ranking members are ranking members is recognized oh thank the gentlemen U I want to point out two things one the Striking hypocrisy of the majority in opposing this amendment which simply reveals um some records while demanding the uh release of an audiotape of information that's already been released by transcript and we know that in the past the chairman of this committee has doctored audio tapes to make them say what they didn't in fact say this amendment points this out and I would also point out that even if the quotes are taken out of this amendment which has happened and whether or not this amendment passes which it should but in any event this is all now on the public record so you can't accomplish anything because it's out there the hypocrisy the dishonesty of the chairman is out there revealed in the text of this amendment whether it passes or not and with that I'll yield to Mr Ivy thank you Mr ranking member I just want to point out a couple of things one is um you know with respect to this this the specifics here in the footnotes um it's clearly public information footnote five is Jim Jordan's Twitter account so it's not like we made this public that was already made public by the chairman footnote number two was the letter from the Department of Justice uh footnote number three is an article from from the Associated Press so it's it's let's not get over the top here and start complaining about you know deeply secret or confidential information that's out there but I do want to say this too and uh you know to my colleague from Virginia there's A5 plus transcripts from interviews that this committee's done that this committee's refused to disclose and make public so we should do that I mean I hear all the statements today about you know the Public's right to know we need the information let's put it let's do it put the information out put out the 115 and then with respect to my the gentleman you my colleague let me I'll I'll say this too because this goes specifically to the conversation we had at our last hearing where I requested email Communications between house Republican majority and the Departments and agencies that we keep dragging here produce documents I moved to request the information uh that wasn't agreed to at the time so and this not in my time to yield but you know look if if you want to get upset about her making a statement uh my colleague from from Pennsylvania where it's public information I think that's incorrect and to say you're offended by it I think is kind of over the line but if we want to turn the page as a committee and you all want to disclose this information and make it public by all means let's do it uh and I yield back to the gentleman from New York I'll yeld back anybody seek recognition gentleman from Georgia uh thank you Mr chairman I yeld to the gentle lady from Pennsylvania Miss Dean thank you I I very much appreciate it I wanted to tell the rest of the story that is public knowledge uh about what happened as a result of these misleading narratives uh Miss Jango after these misleading narratives were spread about her uh she received tens of thousands of death threats you talk about decency and decorum a manipulated uh video uh you talk about decency and decorum here my goodness she had to go to court to obtain restraining order against the individual who had harassed her and repeatedly uh doxed her family she was 8 months pregnant while strangers online called her a Nazi and told her that she should die and she had to attend her prenatal appointments in Disguise to avoid being recognized and harassed on the street when a reporter reached out to Chairman J well I'll skip that part uh Miss jenin encountered a staff of responding that Miss jenz uh was on the board's public face and should thus be held accountable in public as you see I'm taking up Mr Jordan's role in any of this because he doesn't want anything to be known about his role in this and I really want to honor that in August of 2020 the current House Majority Leader shared an edited video that changed the words of a disabled activist and spliced clips together to falsely portray President Biden appearing to support defunding all the police even though Biden has specifically said that the reforms being discussed were not the same of get getting rid of or defunding the police I want to um just say that uh it it is strange to hear from the other side of the aisle that they're worried about decency or indecency they're worried about decorum please take a look in the mirror at your own members what they do to spread disinformation and lies to confuse the public knowingly to say that this somehow Mr coun Special council's Report was about competency is is so shameful you know that's not what it is about you just don't like the results of the report the results of the report being we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter against President Biden you don't like that you wish you could have had it another way because your own candidate is rightly facing charges uh with that uh I do have one unanimous consent I ask to enter into the record just so that we can be more complete because the majority doesn't want to reveal the transcript of their uh conversation with Miss jenin this is public reporting the article is a surreal experience former Biden disinfo Chief details harassment it is from uh March 8th of last year uh and it is political without objection thanks so much thank you and uh this uh members of this committee on the other side continue to repeat the falsehood that this hearing and this resolution is a part of an impeachment inquiry well the last I heard heard about an impeachment inquiry by this do nothing congress after having spent uh $20 million in this committee uh investigating uh President Biden the last I heard of an impeachment was uh by the chair of the other committee the oversight committee which has actually been the committee uh handling impeachment and at that point after they had uh President Biden uh had president Biden's son in Hunter to testify and couldn't get anything out of him uh the um the chair uh pretty much threw the towel in on uh he threw in a white towel into the ring and it was you know I mean gave up pretty much uh on impeachment and now this committee is trying to drag it out of the uh the garbage can and uh try to trick the American people in believe beleving that this is a part of an impeachment inquiry it is not it's simply a expedition to try to make President Biden look bad uh in in keeping with the uh report of special counsel her who cleared uh President Biden but nevertheless inserted some uh unnecessary and derogatory information in there that this committee has seized upon and continues to to kick like a dead horse and with that I'll you bet gentlemen back who who seeks recognition question is on the amendment cler all those in favor I all those opposed no in opinion the chair the NOS have it roll call roll call has been ordered clerk will call the rooll Mr Jordan Mr Isa Mr Gates Mr Bigs Mr mcclint talk Mr Tiffany Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr Bishop Miss Barts Miss Barts votes no Mr Fitzgerald Mr B Mr B votes no Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr Armstrong no Mr Armstrong votes no Mr Gooden Mr vandrew Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kylie Mr Kylie votes no Miss Hegman Miss Hegman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr nodler Mr nler votes I miss lren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes I Mr Schiff Mr swell Mr Lou Miss Gul Mr kareah miss scanlin Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss Dean Miss Dean votes I Miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss Bush Mr Ivy I Mr Ivy votes I miss ballant miss ballant votes I I was Mr Isa recorded Mr Isa you're not recorded Mr Isa votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Fitzgerald you not recorded Mr Fitzgerald votes no how was Mr Tiffany recorded Mr Tiffany is not recorded Mr Tiffany votes no was Mr Roy recorded Mr Roy is not recorded Mr Roy votes no Mr Gooden Mr goodam votes no have all members voted clerk will record Mr chairman there are five eyes and 12 NOS the amendment is not adopted who seeks recognition gentleman from Georgia um Mr chairman I've got an amendment at the desk clerk report Reserve gentleman from Wisconsin's reserved a point of order Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives without objection the Amendments considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain his Amendment thank you Mr chairman uh Maga Republicans have spent 20 million this Congress investigating conspiracy theories and have nothing absolutely nothing to show for it to date Maga Republicans have used this $20 million in taxpayers money uh to hold 10 hearings before the select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government six of which have been on the same topic they have conducted 121 transcribed interviews or depositions with Witnesses from over two dozen different companies nonprofits or federal government agencies they've spent 555 hours of staff and witness time in these transcribed interviews and depositions they've sent more than 60 subpoenas to executive branch agencies and private entities and they've solicited over 3 million pages of documents from execu Branch agencies and private entities and despite magga Republicans Reckless and irresponsible spending of American taxpayer dollars on their Witch Hunt quest to find incriminating information on President Biden and his administration they have repeatedly they've been repeatedly excoriated in right-wing media for not accomplishing anything this Congress in fact as recently as April 28th 2024 Fox News host Maria bar bomo stated quote I mean look with all due respect people are sick and tired of congressional investigations that go nowhere people are sick and tired of letters being written and sent to the people who we know are bad in the first place end quote this is from their own uh uh gallery of supporters uh to date there is no evidence of any impeachable offense committed by President Joe Biden there is no evidence of misconduct in President Joe Biden's Administration magga Republicans Witch Hunt will go down in history as a total and complete failure especially when viewed in light of the fact that we're reduced now to seeking uh verification of an erroneous report about President Biden's mental acuity while I do not support the underlying report I think that if the committee refers it to the Full House it should at least be accurate a key part of that accuracy is including the details of this protracted and overtop overthe toop investigation in the background on the investigation section of the report recommending contempt and for that reason I urge you to support this amendment and uh with that I'll your gent Yi's back gentleman stws a point of [Music] order question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from uh Georgia all those in favor say I all those oppos say no no opinion of the chairs and NOS have it gentleman is asked uh is request cour to vote clerk call the RO Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Isa VES no Mr Gates Mr Bigs Mr ment talk Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr Bishop Miss Barts Miss Barts votes no Mr Fitzgerald Mr B Mr Ben votes no Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr Armstrong Mr Armstrong votes no Mr Gooden Mr Gooden votes no Mr Andrew Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kylie Mr kyy votes no Miss Hagman Miss Hagman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr Nadler Mr Nadler votes I miss LOF Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson Mr Johnson VES I Mr Schiff Mr swell Mr Lou miss shiaa Mr kareah miss gandin Mr nigus Miss mcbath Miss Dean Miss Dean votes I miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss Bush Mr Ivy I Mr Ivy votes I miss ballant miss ballant votes I Mr Roy Mr Roy votes now CL report Mr chairman there are five eyes and 12 nose uh the amendment is not adopted who seeks for recognition lady from Pennsylvania is recognized Mr chairman I have an amendment at the desk uh clerk report cor board Reserve by the gentl from Virginia Amendment to the amendment and the the amendment be considered as read to General lady from Pennsylvania I I object it's brief clerk report no problem Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find merik B Garland in contempt Congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena duly issued by the committee on the Judiciary offered by Miss dean of Pennsylvania on page three after the paragraph ending when his son Bo died unquote insert however it is in fact false that President Biden could not remember when his son died in the transcript of president President Biden's interview with Robert her President Biden clearly recalls the date of his son's death saying what month did B die oh God May 30th J L recognized I thank you Mr chairman my Amendment corrects the record regarding president the president's recollection of his own son Bo Biden's death uh and I saw in this uh markup today a welling up of decorum and decency and doing what is right just moments ago you missed it Mr chairman and so I would think this will be an amendment that all of us can agree upon it's an amendment about decency and F and getting the record straight as I pointed out when Mr her was before US President Biden clearly recall the month and day his son passed as on page 82 of the transcript the complete transcript of his five hour deposition he says what month did Bo die oh God May 30th end quote I find Mr her's miscar mischaracterization of that Exchange in a government report to be inaccurate grotesque and gratuitous that was nothing to do with the task he was given it was just a free shot at a father grieving the Grievous death of his son even more distasteful are Republican attempts to repeat that mischaracterization for political ends everybody in this room everybody in this house must do better but I suppose you know what indecency is too often the point here finally I'll note that in addition to his gratuitous and misleading statements concerning Mr Bo Biden's death Mr her also determined on behalf of doj that President Biden would not be prosecuted for improperly storing sensitive documents because in truth the same cannot be said for Donald Trump that's all the unrest on the other side Mr Trump Remains the only former commanderin-chief to be criminally charged with endangering the service members he once led by leaving classified documents strewn around ballrooms and bathrooms and then hoping others would destroy or remove them my Amendment corrects the record on the important point of the president's searing memory of his own son's death and I urge all members those of of decorum and decency to support this factual correction I yield back G yields back gentleman Virginia's recognized Mr chairman speaking of the amendment gentleman's recognize Mr chairman I want to thank the gentle lady for making my point with her Amendment um not only did the transcript continue on after her Amendment says May 30th it continues and I'll quote the transcript with the question was it 2015 when he died I also thank the gentle lady for making the point that without the audio we can't tell how much time passed between the question what month did Bo die and the words oh God the Words May 30th and how it was in toned because he followed that with a question was oh God May 30th in toned as a [Music] question we don't know because we don't have the recording it's exactly why we need it it's exactly why we've requested it over and over again subpoenaed it and now uh holding the attorney general and contempt because he's not providing it because we can't do our jobs for the American people accurately unless we have the most accurate information and that's why we need the tapes and that's why we're pursuing them and that's why we're holding the Attorney General in contempt so I oppose the amendment and I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Mar thank you um that's an interesting explanation but I I gotta say it's hard for me to figure out how the length of a pause between an answer and a question would have you know any kind of dispositive Merit one way or the other um this just hypothetically say Okay pause for two seconds as opposed to 30 seconds if it's 30 seconds then it's an impeachable uh offense in some way that somehow trans transforms this transcript into the basis for um legislative action or some sort of impeachment or even if you want to go there because you guys have offered about five different versions of why you need this um none of which are based are included in the report that uh at least the one that you passed out but just say hypothetically um what is that prove you know uh uh the the comments about the demeanor evidence um which I think are equally problematic because again I I don't nobody's asserting and certainly her didn't assert that he thought um Mr Biden's answers were deceitful or disingenuous or anything like that but um and you know the issues that you all have raised as potentially the basis for uh impeachment of some kind have nothing to do with you know when his son died or not so I I it's just hard to figure out where you where you're trying to go with this from a legitimate standpoint now I'm not questioning anybody's Integrity over there but I mean there is this sort of obvious alternative track where it would be H they want the audio tape so they can use it maybe not them personally but somehow it might end up in a video maybe a campaign video maybe a an election video video that supports president Trump's effort to be reelected in in his race against President Trump uh uh Biden uh you know I got to say there's there that sort of makes more sense than the the explanations I've heard from the other side and you know the legislative purpose issue which I really haven't had much of a chance to touch on uh yet but we can do it now um the Supreme Court said one of the bases of oversight and seeking this information is there's a legitimate legislative purpose for for getting it and I'm not seeing the the legitimate purpose um that isn't served by the transcript because if you have the transcript and you have the ver and it's a Verbatim transcript and as I said earlier nobody over there's asserting that somehow uh the court reporter doctored it fabricated it did anything wrong with it anything like that um as far as I know nobody's made an inquiry with respect to the court reporter to ask her you know if she did something you know uh inappropriate and certainly Mr her who came in here and and testified and you could asked him about that he never said anything about a doctor transcript either so I'm not seeing where you're where you're going with this gentlem you I will does the gentleman agree that the amendment would is incomplete when it does not include the question that follows that statement of May 30th I I mean I I don't think so but I mean she might be open to you offering an additional Amendment uh to add language if you want but the bottom line is from the standpoint of at least having a fuller transcript because there's no doubt that the the way the report was written at least the one that I don't know what the final one's going to look like because we don't know we Haven we don't have it yet but it was about as one-sided a document as you can get and so from the standpoint I'll say this again because this is going to be the basis we did we went through this on the hunter Biden version of this as well this is going to be what we sent to the court uh and I hope the Department of Justice does take this to court because I want to see it litigated I want to see a judge rule on this because I think I think the majority's way over the line and and the way it's abusing the The Authority here but um I I'm really not seeing the reasoning behind why it's so critical to have the the audio in a way that's not you know not addressed by the by the actual transcript uh which again nobody has questioned its accuracy nobody is questioned you know that it was doctored or any way well actually somebody did sort of throw out that assertion on the fly but there's absolutely no factual basis for it nothing certainly that was sustained by Mr her who again was here testified and um y'all could asked him about it but nobody did so not saying anything about bad faith here but the only explanation for why you all are making such a big deal about this is that you want the audio tape and it might turn up in campaign ads down the road in the race for president and with that I yield back gentleman yields back question occurs on the amendment offered by the Gent uh gentle woman from uh gent lady from Pennsylvania those in favor say I hi those oppose no no opinion of the chair the NOS have it the Gally request a court a vote cler color roll Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Gates Mr Bigs Mr Mento Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr Roy votes no Mr Bishop Miss Barts Miss Barts votes no Mr Fitzgerald Mr B Mr Ben votes no Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr Armstrong Mr Armstrong votes no Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kylie Miss Hegman Miss Hagman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no Mr Hunt Mr Mr F Mr Nadler I Mr Nadler votes I miss lren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes I Mr Schiff Mr SWA Mr Lou Miss Jaa Mr kareah miss scanland Mr nigus Miss mcbath Miss Dean Miss Dean votes I miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss Bush Mr Ivy Mr Ivy votes I miss ballant miss ballant votes I am I Mr Isa you're not recorded Mr Isa votes no gent from Texas Mr goodam votes no ccal report Mr chairman there are five eyes and 12 nose the amendment is not adopted gentleman from Maryland recognized I have an amendment at the desk report Reserve by gent from northa Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find mer be Garland and contempt of congress not objection the members considers read the gentem recognize explain his Amendment thank you Mr chairman I I offer this amendment um just to walk through it uh briefly uh this goes to the issue of the distinctions between the case against Mr Biden and the case against Mr Trump uh there have been multiple allegations today about um uh from the Republican side that somehow the Department of Justice uh gave favorable treatment to President Biden uh but I I wanted to offer this amendment to make sure the record is clear and also to make sure not just that the record of the discussion today is clear but also that the report that's that ends up being sent forward and and I think is going to be the lead document if if this gets to court and again I hope it does uh but I think it balances out uh the one-sidedness or helps to start and move it in that direction of the report that uh the the committee is floated the Republicans have floated there are uh on this point uh special counsel her who testified here and said this in the report as well several material distinction between Mr Trump's case and Mr Biden's are clear there are serious aggravating facts in the Trump case most notably after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution Mr Trump allegedly did the opposite according to the indictment he not only refused to return the documents for many months but he also obstructed Justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it in contrast Mr Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes sat for a voluntary interview and in other ways cooperated with this investigation and the the final Point here I think is that unlike uh the deliberative acts of former president Trump to retain and conceal classified materials from the federal government uh special counsel her found likely inadvertence Andor mistake uh and so uh we go on to to quote some of the language from his report as well uh we find the evidence as a whole insufficient to meet the government's burden approving that Mr Biden willfully retained the Afghanistan documents in the Virginia Home in 2017 for other recovered classified documents the decision to decline criminal charges was straightforward the evidence suggested Mr Biden did not willfully retain these documents and that they could plausibly have been brought to these locations by mistake unlike President Biden Donald Trump intentionally and flagrantly took and concealed highly classified documents Mr Trump's actions are extremely serious and warranted the 32 Council will for retention of of uh the documents as he was charged I I want to say this as well and I think I mentioned this earlier U vice president former vice president Pence uh faed a similar actual scenario he there were documents uh found in I believe in one of his residences um unlike Mr Trump Mr Pence turned them over he cooperated immediately there was no evidence of any type of an effort to try and obstruct the investigation hide the documents or anything like that certainly didn't ask anybody to move the documents for him as Mr Trump I think this was raised in the indictment uh has had done so uh I I asked that this be included for uh the point of completeness we want to make sure we send a document I'm I would oppose the whole thing as I've stated repeatedly uh today but if you're going to forward this document at least send a document that has some sort of some semblance of balance to it and uh I think shows the the effort to try and uh present the court with a full take on information with respect to this particular issue as I mentioned earlier um this wasn't a place I was expecting the need to go today I thought we were going to be focusing more on the specifics of especially the executive privilege issue after it was asserted by the White House been almost no discussion on the legal merits of that from the Republican side and I guess with good reason uh they don't seem to have a strong argument to address it um but since you brought this up since you brought up the Trump contrast with u Mr Biden and sort of coupled it not only with allegations of misconduct by the overall department of justice but specifically Mr her uh who I don't necessarily agree with everything he wrote but I certainly am not going to sit here and essentially slander him for um you know trying to be um unfair uh you know tilting the system trying to cover up for the president none of that is merited and I I don't think there was anything about the report or his testimony uh that he presented here that would support that so and with that uh I yield back gentlemen yields back gent from North Dakota is recognized I strike the r word in opposition to the amendment but it almost passively aggressively proves the point this wasn't substantially similar to uh vice president Pence it wasn't substantially similar to Donald Trump you have a 40-year history of keeping classified documents 40 years it's why the audio is important he's reading classif ified documents to his Ghost Writer reading them to him like the dismissal this isn't in I've worked with the doj in an adversarial way and you know what I've never seen for a regular defendant in Criminal Court the doj making the plausibility defense over a 40-year history and we spend we talk about disingenuous in all of those things if you spent 40 years robbing liquor stores and then you cooperated with law enforcement they're not not going to Char you that is a sentencing Factor that's an obstruction factor that is a different factor in the if you're going to the underlying offense of maintaining and disclosing classified documents that is a significantly different thing and only in this world would you go to that place where we'll say Hey you committed the underlying crime and you did it for 40 years but you cooperated with us so we're going to allow you to skate that's the difference you spend a lot of time talking about the obstruction charge but we don't spend enough time talking about the the egregious nature of the underlying maintaining and disclosing classified documents like that's the difference and that's the problem and that's why audio matters because the because the audio matters and there's inflection and there's different ways in which you do it I mean if you're telling your ghost writer in a laughing matter that you are reading classified documents to him as he's writing your book that's different than a lot of different ways in which you do do it and the transcript is all of that but there is no other scenario and by the way I would have gotten into this with uh special Council prosecutor her but we have the five minute Rule and I had a lot of other things to get out but you get you could talk about the the secondary part of this case all day long but I don't think anybody who reads the report looks at the nature he did it when he was a Senator he did it over 45 years he had been warned about it and continue to do it you have to seriously jump through some hoops to get to the inadvertent part of it and so you're talking about maintaining and disclosing classified documents and if anybody thinks that the information in the her report doesn't give a valid reason for that that occurred knowingly and willingly then the question is why wasn't it knowingly and willingly and that's where we're at at this point so gentle talk about obstruction I'm going to yield to the gentleman um Mr Ben thank you just just a question if I recall correctly I when I asked Mr Herr if if his report exonerated the president his answer was unequivocally no is this consistent with your thought well and absolutely and and we've heard that over the course of this whole thing there's no claim of Innocence there is no finding of Innocence that is not how reports work but you keep we keep going past the underlying offense which is the classified documents offense and why wouldn't you cooperate like why wouldn't you cooperate when you have the ability and knowing exactly how everything works through and the where and where the differences lie yes yes so if thank you for the yield it just seems to me that Mr her was saying we don't exonerate what we're going to do is is say that that that the president is an older gentleman who is incompetent and we don't think we can get a conviction therefore we're not going to prosecute but to that to that point I I want to ask you as as a as a federal prosecutor oh no as a defense attorney def attorney uh the the best evidence role you you can talk about that just for a moment because if I I know it goes both ways lots of times but is there any doubt in the world that the best evidence of what we're trying to get at here is the verbal recording there's a reason for the last five years in Congress I have worked with my friends on both sides of the aisle to get to custodial interrogations being recorded by federal law enforcement take it completely out of this room in this political thing and to be honest often times I fight with my side of the aisle on that issue more than I fight with your side of the aisle the reason you want audio the reason you want video the reason you want those things is because it is without a doubt the best evidence that exists in which to overall deal with the issues that you're trying to incorporate and if you want to talk about legislative purpose uh as somebody who has been watching this happen from the minority and the majority for five years there is the equal application of Justice part of this answer we have a guy that was prosecuted a year after he he altered a an affidavit in front of a court and he's currently practicing law in Min in Washington DC right now so with that I see my time has expired and I yield back gentan yields back the lady from Vermont's recognized thank you Mr chair I yield my time to the gentleman from Maryland Mr rvy thank you I I just want to run through some of the the statements that were just made a moment ago um I I guess I can work my way backwards to some extent um with respect to the recording of statements and I I share the gentleman's view about the importance of uh the federal uh investigators recording statements but I would make a couple of notes to that the first is for example there are no videotapes of grand jury testimony for example uh they're all electronically transcribed by court reporters in the room and nobody would argue that I'm aware of that that's not evidence sufficient for use in court uh for use to charge for criminal purposes for example for U false statements or perjury the Gent impeachment I will yeah I I don't disagree with that because in that scenario it's the best evidence uh yeah it's it's certainly sufficient to for the basis for criminal charges and um with respect to scenarios where you have a transcript and a videotape um if the videotape you can use the you can use the tape uh or the transcript for impeachment purposes or whatever I mean it's efficient so the point here I think though given the nature of the proceeding it's incumbent on you all to show that there's some additional evidence that you can get from a videotape that you can't get from the transcript yeah you're May giving me the funny look but that's what's going to be required if this goes to court we would have to justify a finding of contempt because it's the burden would be on this committee to show contempt right so um what's the difference between the transcript and the tape and you've talked about the lapses in time and I I just questioned a moment ago I don't know how that gets you from you know let's it's a 5-second pause it's a 15- second pause I don't know how that gets you from a statement to um that's therefore impeachable or chargeable or anything along those lines which is what's required and the legislative purpose standard I haven't heard a reason for how it's not satisfied by the verbatim trans script which you've already been presented with and there's no question about it being verbatim and accurate uh based on what Mr H said and based on the certification that this received uh at the time that it was recorded and printed you mind if I yield to the gentleman from California I don't I I yield to the gentleman from California thank you Mr triy and I think the point is it's never going to be enough like you guys are not doing oversight you're doing Overkill and as soon as you get the audio you're going to say well we wish there should have been a video and then you'll get a video and then you'll say well we we wanted his health records like well who knows like if he uh you know wasn't on some uh medication uh that affected it and then once you get that you're going to say well there was not a polygrapher there we don't know if he was telling the truth or not you have been thoroughly and I want to emphasize thoroughly humiliated in your impeachment quest which by the way is that happening is that dead I pronounced it dead a couple weeks ago is it happening I don't think it's happening and so you're humiliated and so you're digging and digging and digging and digging and you just want more but guys it's not happening you're not impeaching him you have nothing I just invite you to move on like let's do something that actually helps people just move on and we're never going to make you happy because you just don't accept him as president and so we're wasting everyone's Time by doing this exercise and I yield that would you yield for a minute I yield to Mr Cohen thank you Mr Abby I very much like Governor Armstrong and and happy to work with him well he's still been here but he won't be here soon uh but this whole thing was about whether or not the president when he was the vice president violated the law Mr H said he definitely took these documents there was no question about that but he couldn't get a conviction because he was a sympathetic character so what good is it going to do if they get to hear him say he wasn't a sympath he was a sympathetic character and why they thought that that's not the issue the issue is did he take the stuff or not he her said he took it there's no question about it he took the stuff and for his biographer and Jordan says motive and blah blah blah and indictment it's about the fact he's a sympathetic character and you couldn't get a conviction that's the issue so we're off on rabbit Trails you should never get off on rabbit Trails you and just to sort of make a final statement here the amendment I'm offering um doesn't actually go to that it just goes to the fact the distinctions that herb Drew between uh Biden and Trump with respect to uh the mishandling of documents and the obstruction of justice that occurred afterward so I would hope that we can get a vote on the merits from my colleagues on the Republican side on that Amendment gentlem Ys back or gentem lady Ys back the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland those in favor say I I those oppose no no in the opinion of the chair the NOS hav ask for a recorded vote uh the gentleman has asked for a recorded vote the clerk will call the rooll Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Gates Mr Bigs Mr mclin talk Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr Roy votes no Mr Bishop Miss Sparks Mr Fitzgerald Mr Ben Mr Ben votes no Mr Klein Mr Armstrong Mr Armstrong votes no Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Kylie Miss Hegman Mr Moran Miss Lee Miss Lee votes next Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr Nadler Miss Lofgren M Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Cohen votes I Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes I Mr Schiff Mr swell I Mr swallow votes I Mr Lou miss jaal Mr kareah Miss scandin Miss scandin votes I Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss Dean Miss Dean votes I miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss Bush Mr Ivy I Mr Ivy votes I miss ballant I miss balant votes I I record R member Mr nler you're not recorded I Mr nler votes I gentleman from Virginia Mr Klein but Mr Klein votes no from Texas Mr goodam votes no from Kentucky Mr Massie votes no CL report Mr chairman there are eight eyes and nine nose the amendment is not agreed on who seeks recognition Mr chairman Amendment at the desk gentleman from California clerk will report hor a board Reserve by the amendment to the amendment in the nature of the be considered as red uh I object Mr chairman the the courot report Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Merck B Garland and contempt of congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena duly issued by the committee on the Judiciary offered by Mr SW of California on page six at the end of the paragraph that begins quote to further the committee's constitutionally mandated oversight and legislative duties and quot insert a new sentence which reads qu however taking into account that multiple members of this committee including the chairman remain out of compliance with subpoenas issued to them by another Committee of the House of Representatives no member of Congress will be permitted to vote to hold any other person in contempt of congress until such time as they provide the testimony that has been required of them regarding their participation in the planning and execution of the events that took place on the United States capital on January 6 2021 end quote Mr chairman uh this amendment plainly says uh that if you have not responded to your own subpoena uh you can't bring a subpoena or seek compliance uh upon anyone else uh in the law we call it the unclean hands Doctrine uh or the Clean Hands Doctrine it's a legal principle in common law that prevents a party from receiving relief from a court if they have acted unethically or unjustly in relation to the matter at hand at our own home it's called the wash your hands before dinner Doctrine uh in my six-year-old and 5-year-old and 2-year-old they're not coming to the dinner table uh until they uh themselves have Clean Hands there are dirty hands on the other side uh multiple times uh two members of this committee have been asked to comply with a subpoena related to to January 6 one of those members uh I I don't think is here today I think he's uh up watching Mr Trump's uh trial uh but most simply don't come at us about anyone else's compliance if you are out of compliance and the chairman uh is 735 days 17 hours 19 minutes and 24 seconds out of compliance of his own subpoena and so this amendment would prohibit the chairman or anyone else from bringing compliance or contempt upon somebody uh for another matter and I yield that gentleman yields back point of order being withdrawn gentleman from Virginia speaking to the amendment gentleman's recognized thank the chairman and and I thank the gentleman for his remarks I've heard them a couple times uh and in responding I I would just say that uh first of all the LA the subpoenas for the members of this committee are no longer in effect because the last Congress has finished we just make that point first uh but we also want to look at the responses that were made by the chairman uh to the January 6th committee the chairman never declined to testify the chairman in fact wrote Every time uh he was asked to testify I and responded with further requests for E either statements or further requests for uh responses from the committee and never received any responses from the committee um never expressed an unwillingness to testify so u i the characterization that he refused is inaccurate um and it's clear that Democrats were subpoenaing Republicans for political reasons at the time um chairman Thompson stated that he pursued these subpoenas in part to quote weaken Republicans if they took the majority in the future and um so we we see through the political motivations of of those who issued the subpoenas to begin with and those who want to make it a political point now uh so I oppose the amendment and I yield back gentleman you's back uh who recognition gentleman from Maryland thank you Mr chairman uh to my colleague from Virginia yes we've had this discussion before but uh just a couple quick things to clarify the points you just made the first was yes there was an exchange of uh correspondence between the chairman and the committee um the problem was the chairman made in my view demands that were unusual to say the least in response to a subpoena like tell me how you're going to use the information and and give me the information that you have about my uh this related to my testimony in advance of me coming in other words he wanted Discovery before he showed up to give the statement um now let's let's compare that to what we've got before us with respect to the Department of Justice um and in this particular instance not only has there been sub substantial compliance with respect to I I wish I had it in front of me the number of subpoenas and document requests and I remember it's 92,000 pages of documents I think it's like 40 Witnesses from the Department of Justice and as I mentioned earlier some of those Witnesses were prosecutors in you know mid investigation um who the the department still produced uh for statements and transcripts here before the committee which I think is totally unappropriate and actually uh potentially interferes with the legitimate prosecution efforts by the Department of Justice Ironically in one instance with respect to Hunter Biden so you know let's be clear about that piece uh and then as I mentioned earlier today uh if we're going to stand on the substantial compliance standpoint just in this particular request um there was a report generated by Mr her that the department was not required to turn over but Mr Garland decided to turn it over anyway on his own initiative with respect to the transcript again there's no statutory requirement that he turned that over but he did turn it over uh and you know he made Mr her available to testify that Mr her you know he resigned right before he gave the testimony which was fine but it's clear that the department was not trying to block him providing testimony to this committee so so from the standpoint of substantial compliance um this is an outstanding record for the Department of Justice now I won't go into the the contrasting point that Mr uh swell made I think he laid it out pretty good um but let's be clear about this uh the the compliance we've had here I think has been really extraordinary the executive privilege claim which was raised by the department again really has not been addressed certainly not on the legal merits um by the Republicans in this committee and as I mentioned earlier today um you know I have a letter that was uh dated May 1 2019 uh from the bar justice department um to Mr Nadler who was the the chairman at the time um raising basically some of most of the same points that we're we're talking about today um now with respect to the chilling effect issue which you all poo pooed a few minutes ago similar access by the department could be impeded in future investigations if the White House house were given reasons to believe that Congress would receive each and every document shared with the department now this is Bar's Department objecting to turning over documents um where there was no predicate provided already in this instance you've got the transcripts you just want additional information as Mr swell said apparently you know you'll never get enough um and then and the bar Department of Justice said the committee has not articulated any legitimate legislative purpose for its request for all of the special council's investigative files this is for the Mueller report the committee has no legitimate role in demanding law enforcement materials with the aim of Simply duplicating a criminal inquiry now here um the Meritt Garland justice department gave you the transcript gave you the report gave you the lawyers to testify about what they' done bar objected to all of it with respect to the Mueller report raised the same sorts of issues now those have been addressed in a in a different Forum but here um you guys are ignoring the compliance that's been provided by the Department of Justice over and over and over again I'm see I'm running out of time but my my point here is that um you've gotart substantial compliance from the Department of Justice you know Mr chairman the record is what it is I think we've discussed it before on multiple occasions and Mr Schell has raised it as well but I think it's a contrast it Bears noting uh in this particular instance especially where we're seeking contempt against the the Attorney General of the United States and with that I yeld back gentleman backman gentleman Virginia for unanimous consent ask unanimous consent to insert into the record three letters from you to Chairman Thompson dated January 9th 2022 May 2 5th 2022 and June 99th 2022 without objection who seeks recognition question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from uh California all those in favor say I those oppose no opinion of the chair the NOS have it and the amendment is not agreed to recorded vote please uh gentleman ask for a recorded vote the clerk will call the role Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Gates thanks Mr Bigs Mr Mento Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massie Mr Roy no Mr Roy votes no Mr Bishop miss sparts Mr Fitzgerald Mr B Mr V votes no Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr Armstrong no Mr Armstrong votes no Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes no Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Kylie Miss Hegman Miss Hegman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no Mr Hunt Mr Fry no Mr Fry votes no Mr Nadler Miss Lofgren Miss lren votes I Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Cohen votes I Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes I I Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes I Mr swell Mr swell votes I Mr Lou Miss Jaa Mr kareah Miss scanland Miss scanland votes I Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss Ross votes I miss Bush Mr Ivy I Mr Ivy votes I miss ballant Miss balant votes I Mr Massie Mr Massie votes no Mr goodam votes no Mr chairman there are nine eyes and 12 nose who seeks recognition gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized thank you Mr chair I have an amendment at the desk clerk a report amendment to gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a sub objection M be considers red gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized to explain her Amendment thank you uh if there were any question about whether today's hearing is a legitimate exercise of congress's legislative or oversight Powers our colleagues across the aisle have effectively eliminated that possibility with their combined remarks today they've spent hours trying to defend the indefensible conduct of the leader of their party misstating the conclusions of the special council's report and smearing the president of the United States with politically inspired lies and innuendo this markup is in fact nothing more than political theater by Donald Trump's allies in the House Republicans who've wasted more than a year of the people's time and 20 million taxpayer dollars on a blatant Act of petty Vengeance now rather than admit that they found nothing and been embarrassed every step of the way they're shamelessly plowing ahead instead of cutting their losses they're once again trying to drag the president this chamber this committee the American people and now the Attorney General down a rabbit hole of conspiracies and on truths what we have here today is not a legitimate oversight or legislative effort it is ided not by our constitution but by the former president's calls for Retribution against his political rival and the cowardice or complicity of his supporters and it's nothing but an attempt to distract from Mr Trump's ongoing criminal trial and to prop up his re-election B bid in case it's not clear enough already constitutional Scholars are not driving the House Republicans impeachment stunt so my Amendment adds important context about the actual purposes and parameters of impeachment to this exercise in his report special counsel her noted that laws handling CL about handling classified material do not apply to a sitting president or vice president so even if herd determined there were criminal conduct which he did not it could only have applied to the time before Joe Biden was elected even House Republicans longtime favorite pet legal scholar Jonathan Turley testified before the oversight committee last year that impeachment proceedings for pre-f conduct unrelated to current actions is controversial and must be approached with abundant caution as turly acknowledged launching investigations on that basis would convert impeachment into a rationalization for subjecting officials to Limitless inquiries contrary to that advice there's been no abundant caution in this illegitimate process clearly there's no real basis for Republicans claim that they need these audio fil else besides political theater and the Department of Justice has rightly pointed out that allowing the House Majority to weaponize investigate of materials in this way would pose a strong risk of jeopardizing the willingness of other witnesses to come forward in the future ultimately as our colleagues have proofed time and again their impeachment stunt has no basis no evidence and no high crimes or misdemeanors to show for it and today is just another desperate attempt to save face and suck up after their bogus investigation has failed to bear fruit the American people can see this for what it is and they deserve better we should have enough of these ridiculous games and get back to working for the American people I yield back General lady yields bat point of order is withdrawn uh I'll recognize myself to speak against the amendment uh I special counsel her could have said that he could have written the report and he could have said we don't prosecute sitting presidents that's not why that's not what he said it just simply isn't the report was went through in detail and now we're asking for the best evidence of why that report was written that way and with that I yield back anybody seek recognition the question occurs on the amendment offered by the G lady from Pennsylvania all those in favor say I I all those oppose no no and the opinion of the chair the NOS have it I would request a recorded vote the clerk will call the rle Mr Jordan Mr Isa Mr Gates Mr BS Mr Mento Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massie Mr Massie votes no Mr Roy Mr Roy votes no Mr Bishop Miss sparts Mr Fitzgerald Mr Fitzgerald votes no Mr V Mr Ben votes no Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr Armstrong no Mr Armstrong votes no Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr Nells Mr Moore Mr Kylie Miss Hegman Miss Hagman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr Nadler Miss Lofgren Miss lren votes I Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Cohen votes I Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes I Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes I Mr swell Mr swallow votes I Mr Lou miss shyal Mr kareah miss scanlin I miss ganin votes I Mr ncus Miss mcbath Miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Ross I miss Ross votes I miss Bush Mr Ivy I Mr Ivy votes I miss balant I miss balant votes I Mr vandrew Mr vandrew votes no Mr Gooden Mr Gooden votes no Mr Bishop Mr Bishop votes no [Music] now clerk record Mr chairman there are nine eyes and 12 nose the amendment is not adopted who seeks recognition [Music] uh I have an amendment at the desk clerk report Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives Find attorney general meric b Garland and contempt of congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the committee on the Judiciary offered by Mr without objection I reserve a point of order the is considered as red General lady reserves appoint of order chair now recognizes myself to uh explain the amendment a mere two hours before this markup session was scheduled to start the committee received letters from the White House and the Department of Justice informing us that President Biden is invoking executive privilege to prevent the department from producing the audio recording of his and his ghost writers interviews with special counsel her among other materials the committee has numerous concerns about the validity of the president's assertion first the president has already waved any potential assertion of executive privilege over the information discussed in his interviews with special counsel her when he leaked the transcripts of his and his ghost writers interviews with special counsel her to the press this conclusion is consistent with the Court's decision in USV Mitchell which rejected a presidential claim of privilege over audio recordings where as here the president caused to be reduced to transcript form and published the information in the subpoenaed recordings the Mitchell Court concluded that the executive privilege claim was nonexistent since the conversations are no longer confidential accordingly when the president leaked his and his ghost writers transcripts his ability to invoke executive privilege was no longer existing the president and the department could have taken steps to protect the confidentiality of the transcripts but failed to do so when they released them to the Press prior to providing them to this committee second the assertion of privilege is three months late and therefore not valid to have been timely any privilege should have been asserted by March 7th 2024 2024 The subpoena return date third even if the president's invocation was valid which it is not it is certainly overcome by the committee's need for this information the committee has demonstrated a sufficient need for the audio recordings as they are likely to contain evidence important to the committee's impeachment inquiry and legislative oversight Additionally the audio recording sought by the committee cannot be obtained from any place other than the department without these audio recordings the committee's important legislative work will continue to be stamed by this President and the Department of Justice the audio recordings are necessary to evaluate what government reform is necessary within the department this amends the A's content resolution in light of the president's invalid assertion of the executive privilege however this assertion does not change the fact that the Attorney General is inm in contempt of congress today for his failure to turn over all responsive mil material to The committee's subpoena I withdraw my point of order gentle lady withdraw who seeks to be recognized gentleman from Maryland is recognized I have a a a question um what does the amendment do for is this Did It Strike EXE the language of executive privilege throughout the amendment or what did it do I I'd ask him my time be stop it updates the report to the uh Department in the president's office of waving executive privilege okay well I I guess what I'm specifically asked asking though is my recollection is I came across seven instances where executive privilege was cited in the report that was um uh the uh the uh amendment in the nature of a substitute this morning what's been done with those it updates the those uh those uh assertions of pre of privilege to account for the letter we receed this morning so I see we'll see one two three okay all right um let me do this with the time I've got left I I'll have to try and read through it quickly to see but um the waiver issue I think is um I I I just wanted to uh address that because the department specifically spoke to that and it's um May 16th letter to both committees finally I note that the Department's disclosure of the transcripts of the interviews does not constitute a waiver and does not preclude an assertion of privilege with respect to the audio recordings as I have explained audio recordings have distinct features and law enforcement uses which implicate privacy interest and risk of misuse to a greater degree than transcripts and disclosure to Congress of the recordings would have a chilling effect on future cooperation and similar investigations so I I think it's pretty clear that um the waiver issue has been addressed and I you know I think the the assertion here and the amendment I haven't had a chance to read yet because I only got it 30 seconds ago actually two minutes ago two and a half minutes ago I apologize um but think that's been directly challenged and so I'm curious about how the report addresses that challenge um that's raised in the letter that I guess this report is supposed to be responding to well I would a couple points one it's the leaking to the press in the Mitchell case I mean report giving the transcript to the committee is one thing they also leaked it to the press and two I mean you can read through it but we got the letter from doj this morning so uh that's where we're at and why no this this letter is I'm talking about here is from May 16 it's uh well I'm saying the amendment is because of the letter we got from today today is May 16th I'm sorry the uh that's where is that I'm sorry this is May this is yesterday May 15 where they raised this point it was an enclosure yesterday they didn't send us the letter yesterday until this morning well in any event um I I haven't had a chance to look at the Mitchell case I I'm not familiar with the executive privilege being time barred uh in cases where it's been raised in fact I think just off the top of my head some of them have been raised months maybe even years after uh an initial request has been made because frequently it takes a long time for these sorts of disputes to play out so I I I do want to challenge the um the language in the report with respect to the changes for executive privilege um and the claims that they've um made waiver of the uh the privilege which I don't believe is the case and I and I I think there's um been no showing of need with respect to the contrast between the transcript and the tape and um that the Court's well the the committee's essentially set an artificial deadline uh here which is not uh sufficient line to uh timear the assertion of the executive privilege and with that I yeld back anybody else wish to be recognized yes sir gentoman from Pennsylvania Mo to strike the last word General L is recognize thank you I I still don't see that the committee has or that the majority has made out um sufficient legislative or oversight purpose I mean we seem to keep getting this word salad of it's important that we review the actual audio tape as opposed to the transcript because it's important because we have important interests we're trying to address so it's important um it's kind of a lot of word salad kind of like saying that you need an appropriate rule which would be one that's appropriate so um I would just object to the amendment on the grounds that the um majority has not made out a clear legislative or oversight purpose unless they're suggesting that there's been some kind of chicanery or something here in the department of educa or Department of Justice or by the special counsel so I would just say that I don't think that there's been the the basic premise has not been met by the majority and I would yield to Mr Ivy I thank the gentle lady I'm just taking a quick look at Mitchell here now and this was a subpoena to John Mitchell who is then the Attorney General from the special counsel and I haven't had a full chance to read this but in the Watergate litigation one of the points that was made by the courts repeatedly was that U intra Branch um disputes were treated differently than disputes between white the executive branch and and the legislative branch um and it looks like here this is also another one of the mid-trial uh requests for the information which you know has a an exigency requirement or impact that's not present in the in in the scenario here today um so I would I would urge the uh majority to reconsider Reliance on this particular case because I think it's inapplicable for those reasons and with that I yield back to the gentle lady from Pennsylvania and I would yield back gentleman from Oregon is recognized thank you Mr chair strike the last word as to the amendment gentleman's recognized so I I just want to say resorting to the phrase word salad when one doesn't want to accept the what we're trying to do here is is unfortunate but not unpredictable I just would say that this committee is the Judiciary Committee not the take it for granted committee or the yeah we'll accept whatever you say Mr her committee this is the this we're engaged in an oversight exercise and the best evidence is the transcript and the only way we would know if the transcript excuse me I said transcript I meant the recording the bet the only way we would know if the transcript is in inappropriate is by comparing it to the recording so to sit here and say we haven't called into question the transcript when we're asking for the recording is to ignore the obvious which is we need the recording to see if the transcript is correct we need to check on these kind of things because these are within our oversight uh capability and certainly Duty so to ignore all this and bring all the other peripheral stuff up that we've had to endure for the last couple of hours is uh interesting diversion and uh a lot of lot of fun conversation but the truth of it is if we're going to engage in our oversight function we need the recording and that was proven by the way when the gentleman from uh Georgia showed an audio of uh former president Trump why didn't he just rely upon his his uh his words that were written written in his Amendment no no he wanted us to see the exact words uh hear them and compare them to that which was written down of course we need to compare the audio to the written that's that's why that we have the best evidence rule the best evidence is the audio that's why we're asking for it that's when we don't get it we go we move to contempt to try to do so we I yield back the last word GLE ladies recognize so I'm a little confused because we keep hearing of course we need to match the audio with the transcript and my understanding based on um the testimony we heard during the the her um hearing was that it's a certified transcript it's a certified transcript so this is a red herring talking about needing to match the audio with what is written it has been established that that is what has happened so when we talk about um wasting time this whole conversation in which you bring up over and over and over again that we need to match these two things it has been certified we know what's in it I yield back gentleman from Wisconsin has recognized well yeah this came up earlier I mean it's right here the absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays be your likely goal to chop them up distort them and use them for partisan political purposes so if they're identical and should be perceived as identical then why is that actually in the White House's correspondence I mean they blew it they blew it they put the wrong line in here some attorney late yesterday was composing this and basically showed their hand which is they believe it's going to be used for political purposes well if the transcript and the and the recordings are exactly the same why couldn't you just do that with the recordings anyways I mean it doesn't make any sense at this point they need to turn it over they need to turn it over at some point a yield back anybody else seek recognition General lady from Wyoming what I can't understand is why anyone would claim executive privilege when they've already waved it the medium met issue is isn't the deciding Factor by giving us the transcript they've already waved any claim of executive privilege so there is no legitimate reason to withhold the transcript or to withhold the the the recordings we're entitled to them as it's already been repeatedly stated it's the best evidence rule as the oversight committee we're entitled to hear exactly what Mr her heard with that I General lady y yes uh adding to that point point Thank The Gentle lady I just note that I was kind of digging through my friend Mr Ivy from Maryland was trying to to filter through the letters and find what had been said about waiver and what I the only thing I see is at the top of page seven uh there's an argument uh that I note that the Department's disclosure of the transcripts of the interviews does not constitute a waiver you go on and read that paragraph find a citation in that paragraph that says that once uh certain testimonies been released in written form that there's some basis that you could possibly contend that uh the uh the another version of the testimony in the in this case in the form of an audio recording uh is protected from waiver there's just not you would think if they want to say there's an argument that there's no waiver they could site some Authority from some Court some court at some point in history that came close to addressing that issue and making that ruling but there is no such Authority and it is absurd on its face I yell back to the general lady back Mr chairman gentleman from California is recognized I find it particularly interesting that in this conversation about will the White House release the audio recording when we already have the transcript we already had your guy come and testify and said that the president did nothing but did you know that you all are sitting on a 115 transcripts videotapes audio recordings for your Hunter Biden investigation that you will not release to the public do you want to release that right now are you willing to release that to the public and show us what you have because again this all just seems really interesting that you get subpoenaed you don't respond but you are upset that the president and his team won't respond to that subpoena you have a guy on your side who was investigated for sexual trafficking and you're not interested at all in subpoenaing or getting any notes of that investigation but you want every part of this investigation and then with Hunter Biden you've done a year plus of investigating him you've found nothing your best Witnesses are now locked up for lying to the FBI but you won't give the public any audio recordings or video recordings and I keep hearing this phrase by uh some driveby lawyers over there uh of best evidence okay well isn't that the best evidence so why don't you show us what you have and if you're not going to show us what you have tell us why you won't show the public what you have yield back gentleman from uh California is recognized you know my my good friend from California uh makes a point and and I always take his point seriously I'd like to make a point the point is this committee back when chairman Conor was the chairman asserted that when we're doing an investigation whether it's an impeachment or an inquiry of more General case and in the case of chairman Conor's uh whose picture is practically right behind the ranking member chairman Conor said we have to be the committee that oversees the president we have to be we were under Richard milh house Nixon we have to be under George W bush to give that up simply because now the sh was on the other foot is to give up the authority of this committee and the importance of what we do I agree with the the the gentleman from California that this should not be used for partisan purposes I think Mr Fitzgerald said very well that the uh the accusation is probably false on its face but if if the other side were saying well let's make sure that that the audio isn't released to the public at least until there's a full committee vote until we have had an opportunity to hear it in its entirety and and see whether it gleans additional information we probably would have a bipartisan moment but we're not doing that we're really debating the question of the authority of this committee and chest as chairman Conor's grew the the real uh respect for this Committee in the Bates decision which was taken not just through his time but was continued and today is what we rely on for whether or not someone is to appear before this committee uh from the White House we have to do the same thing here the Committees of Congress may be political bodies but so is the White House and in fact the other side of the aisle is constantly telling us so is the Supreme Court if we are political bodies that does not change our our constitutional responsibility so I for one will be voting to hold in contempt if we do not get that which we have asked for under some reasonable terms which we have not even begun to discuss that is what we are discussing here today I hope that the gentleman from California will think again about where this body will be in 468 or 10 years just as chairman coners chairman Hyde uh and other chairman before them have asserted that Congress has a right and consistently the court at all levels under all types of Courts have held those rights to be reasonable if they are in fact pursuant to Our obligation and Our obligation clearly is to oversee the Department of Justice and I thank the gentleman and yield back anybody else seek recognition gentleman from New Jersey thank you chairman just quickly just a few points to be made here I mean if we get down to the real issue they're afraid to reveal the demeanor which is the best evidence here not just what you said how you said it did you Ramble On did you have cognitive thought here um were you just you know not under any particular control of what you were saying or doing um and that's something the American people deserve to know it's something we deserve to know and that's Point number one second thing is there is an executive privilege here because it was given up when the transcripts were given to us we know that so again what are we afraid of Are We afraid to hear the audio why um because I think there's concern that it's going to be very revealing as far as the cognitive state of this president if there's no problem if there's no issue just send it over we don't have to have this hearing you know what I wish I think there's a good number of Us wish we didn't need to have this hearing it just would have been simpler to say yes abide by The subpoena give us the information let us look at it it would already be done but it isn't and we have a right to it and there's no executive privilege there's no protection the information was already given in a transcript now the audio needs to be given too I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Georgia thank you I I have some short remarks I find it uh ludicrous to think that my fellow members on the other side of the aisle believe that they have the ability to determine whether or not someone is uh mentally competent by listening to uh audio recording I mean that's all that you all want to have is uh just some audio so that you can uh probably splice and dice and then use it to lead the public into buying your narrative but the American people are not uh going for that they see through the hollow of this exercise that we're going through today they know that the only thing you want to do is try to get something to embarrass the president with and this is what you're reduced to after spending $20 million of taxpayer money uh compiling a uh uh a Data Bank of uh information which reveals no wrongdoing by the president uh you were hoping to find some but you didn't and now you're reduced to uh trying to find evidence that he is uh somehow unfit mentally for office when people can see the man doing his job every day they can see what he's doing they can see what he's done they can see him in action listen to to him we don't need further waste of taxpayer money going down this Rabbit Hole any further I I ask my colleagues to get serious about it we got stuff that we need to be doing on behalf of the American people as opposed to sitting up here for 4 hours now uh debating uh the hollow of a uh of a resolution that you all are offering trying to uh hold merri Garland to account for for not turning over an audio file that really has no relevance to um what the American people are going through today um please stop this and let's get to work doing something that benefits the American people and I'll yield to the gentleman from Tennessee thank you Mr Johnson I believe one of the members on the other side incorrectly said that there was something in the her testimony that said the president was incompetent he never said that he never never wrote that no one has said or wrote that he said he was a sympathetic character elderly person who had a little problem with their memory that's not saying you were incompetent and that's nobody suggested that the previous term in we had President Biden's first two years has been compared to the 1964 Linda Johnson era as the most effective legislative actions Congress actions in our country's history the IRA the quote unquote bipartisan um transportation Bill jobs and transportation Bill highways Bill the chips act you name it Biden got it done even got done finally after lollygagging monies for Israel and Ukraine ukine far too late for Ukraine to resist the Russian expedited attacks strengthen attacks while Ukraine was suffering without the equipment they should have had in the East but they're still standing we got them money finally even if it was late because Biden put it together and we could have had and should have had a bill on immigration that the Senate was going to pass that would have dealt with immigration and not made it a PO issue to dilly dally up here for a year and let all these arguments that you make about these terrible people coming into our country continue to come into our country only if they Advance the opportunity of having a terrible person become the president of United States again a person who has been said by more of his colleagues that he does not shouldn't get anywhere near the White House again almost all of his cabinet members and the ones that haven't said that have gone to jail Mr Navaro contempt Mr Bannon going at a prison near you Mr Cohen went to jail for two years because he did what Mr Trump asked him to do to work out the hush money payments to the porn star he went to jail you work with you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas be careful my colleagues I yield back my balance my time the gentleman from Texas is recognized thank the chairman uh wanted to try to reenter the conversation just for a moment um and and might engage with a cqu of the chairman uh on on a simple point when the Democrats were in charge of the committee in 2019 uh as I believe uh the chairman has mentioned today was it not true that they held the Attorney General of the United States Attorney General bar in contempt for effectively uh redacting material from the mother report that he was legally obligated to redact yes it was grand jury transcript and so so that's the standard just to be clear set by our Democratic colleagues was to hold somebody in contempt for doing what he was legally required to do under the law yes and here we are having a conversation about an amendment I believe is what we're actually debating at the moment an amendment to add uh language to clarify that we were in receipt of the assertion of executive privilege that we received a mere mere minutes before we began this markup here today and that this amendment asserts privilege uh and there it's asserting privilege uh after having as the general lady from Wyoming was noted effectively uh relinquished their claim to privilege uh having provided the transcript and that our position is that now having have the transcript uh that we want to be able to look at the actual audio or listen to the actual audio uh because of to be very specific the assertions by her throughout the the entirety of the her report that it was in fact the uh president's uh demeanor the the way the president was uh responding or his lack of response and look look I'm trying to be careful by the way I mean with all the respect to the assertion made about the uh by the gentleman from Tennessee that oh there were just some little problems with the memory I mean the her report is littered and filled with concerns about the of the president's memory I don't want to even want to go down that road he's the president of the United States I'm not looking to dive into that other than as it relates directly to this question about what we can take away from the actual uh uh you know testimony by the president uh to Mr her that's it so back to reentering the question all we're doing is debating this amendment that's talking about adding this language in about the assertion of executive privilege which we are saying has already been essentially set aside by giving us the transcripts and we believe that is our oversight function to be able to Simply listen to the audio file gentlemen agree with that and I yield back to the chairman the only thing I the only other part to that I would say is it was also leaked to the press it wasn't just given to the committee and that's I will the gentleman yield or go gentleman from New Jersey no just real quickly I mean we're alluding to what was exactly said and this is right from the report because they they didn't want to go forward with the case and the reason they didn't is because Biden would be seen as a quote well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory not a little bit of a memory problem not a little tiny issue such a big problem that they felt that he was such a sympathetic case and it was so sad they wouldn't go forward with the case because the jury would feel bad for him because of his cognitive state but those an exact quote what I just read I yield back Mr Roy recognition I I'll recognize myself just for real quick you know we've heard a lot of different reasons about imputing what motivations are on this side of the aisle but we've been here for four hours and nobody's ever defended the doj's reason for not turning it over and the reason for not turning it over is somehow it's going to have this huge chil effect on all of these Witnesses and the volunteering of cooperation with the doj if you somehow release an audio trans an audio interview versus a transcribed interview um and I think that's a level of sophistication that quite frankly fails on its face in common sense that is I mean the fun we talk about waving the privilege by giving the transcript leaking it to the press and all of those things but that's the other part of this which is just farful farful on its face is that somehow we are going to chill all of these doj investigations because of the medium in which we release something to Congress after we have already waved the privilege and I think for all of the different things for four hours today nobody's ever actually said I can name nine people who would have cooperated except you gave them a transcript instead of an audio recording and because that doesn't exist and it's an excuse and it excuse that we got one minute before the hearing which is why this amendment is important and so with that I yield back the question I'd just like to remind the committee that Donald Trump refused to be interviewed by the special counsel and if he had been interviewed in his in his it was tape recorded and they could have used that could have be used in his campaigns and I think there's the idea that this could be used politically while the the the as far as the legal basis all you need is the transcript the audio is needed for politics not for information based on what this committee's jurisdiction is any question occurs on the amendment all those in favor say I all those opposed say no no in the opinion of the chair the NOS have it I'm sorry in the opinion of the chair the eyes have it roll call has been requested Mr Jordan yes Mr Jordan votes yes Mr Isa Mr Isa votes yes Mr Gates Mr Bigs Mr Mento Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes I Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr Roy votes I Mr Bishop miss sparts Mr Fitzgerald Mr Gerald votes I Mr B Mr Klein Mr Klein votes I Mr Armstrong Mr Armstrong votes yes Mr Gooden Mr Gooden votes I Mr van Drew Mr vandrew votes yes Mr Nells Mr Nells votes yes Mr Moore Mr Moore votes yes Mr Kylie Mr Kylie votes I miss Hagman yes Miss Hagman votes yes Mr Moran Miss Lee Miss Lee votes yes Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr Fry votes yes Mr Nadler Miss lren Miss lran votes no Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Cohen votes no Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes no Mr shiff Mr Schiff votes no Mr swell Mr swell votes no Mr Lou Mr Lou votes no miss jaal m Jaa votes no Mr CA no Mr CA votes no miss ganin miss ganin votes no Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss mcbath votes no Miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss Bush Mr Ivy Miss ballant Miss ballant votes no CL report Mr chairman there are 15 eyes and 11 nose uh the eyes have it the amendment is adopted question now is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute this will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the report all those in favor say I I those oppos no and pin the chairs the eyes have it the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted a reporting Quorum being present the question is on favorably reporting the report as amended Mr chairman may I may I uh raise a point of order sure and I won't insist on it but ordinarily uh the committee does not do markups when committees bills are on the floor the ranking member is on the floor managing those bills he's not asking that the vote be delayed because of the time that's been put in he would vote against it and I just wanted to put on the record why it is rather unusual for us to be meeting and I'm not even sure the rules permit it but uh he would vote no and that's why he is not here and I and I'm willing and I I I I think we communicated this to the minority staff we're willing to wait for the chairman to come back for the final passage I think out of deference to the other committee members he's not asking for that okay okay all those in uh reporting cor meeting Pres the question is all in favor reporting the report as amended all those in favor say I I those oppose no no opinion of the chair the eyes haveit we have a roll call vote Mr uh the roll call being requested the clerk will call the role Mr Jordan yes Mr Jordan votes yes Mr Isa Mr Isa votes yes Mr Gates Mr BS Mr mcclint talk Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes I Mr Massie Mr Roy Mr Roy votes I Mr Bishop miss sparts Mr Fitzgerald Mr Fitzgerald votes I Mr B Mr Klein Mr Klein votes I Mr Armstrong Mr Armstrong votes yes Mr Gooden Mr Gooden votes yes Mr vandrew Mr vandrew votes yes Mr Nells Mr Nells votes yes Mr Moore Mr Moore votes yes Mr Kylie Mr Kylie votes I miss Hagman yes M Hegman votes yes Mr Moran Miss Lee Miss Lee votes yes Mr Hunt Mr Fry Mr Fry votes yes Mr nabler Miss Lofgren Miss lofgran votes no Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Cohen votes no Mr Johnson Mr Johnson votes no Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes no Mr spow Mr swallow votes no Mr Lou Mr Lou votes no m jaul m Jaa votes no Mr K Mr CA votes no Miss scanlin Miss scanland votes no Mr nus Miss mcbath Miss mcbath votes no Miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Ross Miss Bush Mr Ivy Miss ballant Miss ballant votes no have a chance to communicate with the ranking member and see what his wishes are for being recorded and then we'll move into Mr is's legislation um once we get an answer from the ranking member maybe it may be just a few minutes we're going to we're going to let Mr ner um leave the floor and come here and vote on on the report uh so we'll have uh committee will just stand and committee will just take a take a break for a second been corrected by the parliamentarian and then we'll uh once Mr Nat gets here and votes uh we will U move to Mr Ice's legislation Republican members we have food back there if you haven't eaten uh I don't know if we have enough for the Democrats yeah there's probably some there's probably some left e e e e e e e e e e how am I recorded Miss Ross you're not recorded Ross v no Miss Ross votes no Miss Escobar votes no e e Mass Mr Massie you're not recorded Massie votes yes Mr Massie votes yes was the G lady recorded Miss Bush you're not recorded Miss Bush votes no e e e e e Mr Bishop votes I e e e e e e e e Miss sparts votes yes e the gentleman is not recorded v no Mr nler votes no the clerk report Mr chairman there are 18 eyes and 15 [Music] nose the eyes have it the eyes have it the report is ordered to be reported to the house house members will have two days to submit views without objection the staff is authorized to make Technical and conforming changes We Now call up want to take it uh purs to notice I call up uh HR 7803 to amend title 35 United States code to provide a good faith exception to the imposition of certain fines and for other purposes for purposes of markup and move that the Committee reported favorably to the house the cler will report the bill HR 78 objection the bill will be considered as red and open for Amendment at any point the chair recognizes the gentleman from California Mr Isa for an opening statement thank you Mr chairman in short this bill is a win for small businesses and long overdue right now small businesses may qualify for reduced application fees with the United States patent and trademark office when filing for patents or trademarks under 35 USC section 41 1 and 123 a small business may claim small entity or Micro Entity status for example the cost of filing a Utility Patent is $320 a small entity however is charged only $ 128 and a Micro Entity is charged only $64 I might note that those are set by the PTO and under this bill we will continue to have the patent and trademark office set them however when Congress passed the unleash American innovation act in 2023 a law required the USPTO director to in impose punitive fines on entities falsely asserting or certifying their entitlement to these reduced fees we did that with good intent however the fine in uh is in the amount not less than three three times the reduction of fees right now there is no exception provided by law for an entity that made an error in their filing in good faith an example of good faith error is if an employee is mistakenly categorized as a contractor another example is if a good faith mistake is made regarding the belief as to the number of employees uh qualifying Under The Entity the impact of these punitive fines can be harmful to small businesses and if they had no intent we do not want them finded we we want them corrected the harsh finds May deter them from seeking benefits of small or micro entities since their status uh of savings is far less than the possibility of a treble fine to ensure small businesses take advantage of reduced fees this bill gives the director authority to wave such penalties if an entity demonstrates they had a good faith belief I am pleased to introduce this bill with my ranking member Mr John and I hope we will all support it uh we believe it's a technical and correcting uh one by giving the authority to the PTO to wave the fees in a good faith mistake with that I yield backman yields back the chair now recognize the ranking member for an opening statement thank you Mr chairman HR 7803 makes a minor technical change to give the patent and trademark office the flexibility to decide when to penalize patent applicants for false certific ation of eligibility for fee reductions when Congress passed the unleashing American innovators act as part of the government funding package for fiscal year 2023 we did so with the intention of making patents no longer the sport of Kings but an opportunity for inventors to make a decent living innovators should not have to work for a big tech company major manufacturer or any other Powerhouse of Industry to be able to file for a patent but that is exactly what often happens Financial hurdles associated with obtaining and owning a patent from hiring a lawyer to search for prior art to paying standard application fees prevent individuals from seeking patents for their inventions barriers to entry like these hurt everyone but above all they hurt women veterans and minorities who often do not have the resources to go It Alone the result is that fewer ideas make it out there into the American innovation space all of our talent becomes siloed in just a few companies in just a few Industries and prospective creators shell their ideas for another day the unleashing American innovators act sought to disrupt the current state of play by making a series of good government changes to the way the PTO Works including by increasing the discount on fees for small and micro entities while also imposing penalties for making a fraudulent certification to obtain that discount but I'm sure many here will be shocked to learn Congress sometimes makes mistakes and in creating these new fee waivers and Associated penalties for trying to abuse said waivers we neglected to consider that applicants too can make honest mistakes in their applications if innovators are too afraid to apply for financial exemptions because penalties for honest mistakes can lose them a chance at a patent then all our improvements may as well simply not exist failing to account for good faith mistakes harms the exact same people that the unleashing American innovators act so but to help individuals and entities that can barely afford filing fees certainly do not have the financial resources to weather a hefty fine moreover unlike large entities for these filers the prospect of losing the patent associated with an erroneous application could very well mean losing everything smaller entities therefore are the most likely to avoid the risk of applying for the very programs that exist to help them HR 7803 would correct this Minor error under this legislation a USPTO director would no longer be forced to find a goodfaith actor that erroneously asserts that they are entitled to a fee reduction for small or Micro Entity status by allowing for honest mistakes in the application process this technical fix will ensure that everyone has a seat at the table I thank Congressman Isa and Congressman Johnson for their leadership on this legislation along with congresswoman Ross the original sponsor of the unleashing American innovators act I urge all members to support the bill and I yield back the balance of my Time gentleman yields back without objection all other opening statements will be included in the record the gentleman from Georgia is recognized thank you Mr chairman uh I'm a proud uh co-lead on this bill with uh chairman Isa this bill is a technical fix that would allow the unleashing American inventors act to work as intended thereby as the title says unleashing the power of America's smaller and mediumsized inventors the American innovators act lowered the barriers to entry for individual and small inventors by among other things creating a reduction for the application fees for small and micro entities to protect against abuse the legislation imposed fines on companies that applied to these programs fraudulent ly but because it failed to give the US PTO director the ability to wave the fines in case of a good faith mistake the legislation inadvertently disincentivized the use of the fee reduction programs for small and mediumsized entities that were not sure if they qualified as members of Congress it was never Our intention to penalize these small and medium-sized inventors who are vital to our economy and to our Innovation landscape but who lack the resources of the mega corporations this bill would fix the law to allow them to apply for reduced patent application fees if they think they may they might qualify without fear that they will face a crippling fine the fix will allow Innovation to flourish for inventors in my hometown of Atlanta and all over the country and I urge my colleagues to support reported and with with that I yield back gentleman yields back he seeks recognition reporting Quorum being present the question is on favorably reporting the bill all those in favor say I I those oppose no the eyes hav't the bill is order to be reported favorably to the house members will have two days to submit views without objection the bill will be reported as a single Amendment amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and the staff is authorized to make Technical and conforming ch changes e e e e e e e e e e we go we'll come back next next Wednesday two for those last um because they they took away Friday we'll have to do it Wednesday uh that concludes the committee's business for today the committee adjourned
