mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank -- virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. i don't know what to say. after that last one. we are elected officials. we are trying to get at the truth. we are trying to participate in the process at getting at the truth. mr. taibbi, you have said that this isn't really a matter of right or left. that there are lots of different ideological colorations involved in the twitter files. is that correct? mr. taibbi: yes. mr. connolly: mr. shellenberger, you would agree? mr. shellenberger: yes. mr. connolly: when you release information, have you released any information, of, for example, right wing elements or the trump white house attempting to moderate content at twitter? mr. taibbi: no. not the trump white house. i did report initially in the first twitter file that the trump white house had made and requested and have been honored. mr. connolly: mr. shellenberger. mr. shellenberger: i did not find that. mr. connell hr*pb-i khro*eupb you haven't found it. we had a hearing the other day on twitter. we had four witnesses, and all fo

mr. connolly: where theymped? justice thomas: no, applied. mr. connolly: oh, applied. in that case, yes, the court said, the court found it was drawing a distinction between why they would've had standg in one place and wouldn't of in anher. and the reason that the grp ultimately did not have standing is because they had settled it. but the court said that if bernie ridge had still been on the table, that they would have had standing. justice brown jackson: doesn't your theory of injury rely on the assumption that if the heroes act isn'the or if there's a problem with the heroes act, the adminiraon would necessarily have done the same thing, under the hea? mr. connolly: no, i don't think . in fact, i think the program will look quite different once it does go throughegiation rulemaking and notice and comment. justice brown jackson: i guess i'm asking y, u seem to be assuming that if you get the relief of invalidati othe action under t hoes act, that the administration would necessarily move forward, because yosa it was a top priority this administration, that they woul

mr. connolly: where they implied? justice thomas: no, appli. mr. connolly: ohapplied. in that case, yes, the court said, the court unit was drawing a distinction between why they wou've had standing in one place and wouldn't of in another. and threon that the group ultimately did not have standing is because they had settled it. but the court said that if bernie ridge had still been on the table, that they would have had standing. justice brown jackson: doesn't your theory of injury rely on the assumption that if the ro act isn't there or if there's a problem with the heesct, the administration would necessarily have done the same thing, under the hea? mr. connolly: noi don't think so. in fact, i thi t program will look quite different once itoes go through negotiation rulemangnd notice and comment. justice brown jackson: i guess 'm asking you, you seem to be assuming that if you get the li of invalidation of the action under the heroes act, that the administration ul necessarily move forward, because you said it was a top priority this admisttion, that they would nece

mr. connolly: no, i don't think so. in fact, i think the program llook quite different once it does go through negotiation rulemaking and notice and comment. justice brown jackn: guess i'm asking you, you seem to be sung that if you get the relief of invalidation of the action under the heroes act, that the administration would necessarilmo forward, because you said it was a top priority this administration, that thewod necessarily do the same thing or a similar thing, meaning provide debt reli tpeople under the other legal avenue. and i mean, i can imagine a world, if you think of a hypothetical, in whichhe secretary believes that the department only has thity under the heroes act. here we e the midst of a pandemic, the intention of the department is to provide this li in the context of the emergency. d that if we don't have an emergency, and that if we' not in this circumstance, and we don't see the heroes act there, then they would not move forward. so, i think you kind of have to convince uth the administration woul

mr. connolly and mr. lawler for coming together with this strong bipartisan bill. and i urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this very important bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized. mrs. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. the geo political situation surrounding taiwan is changing rapidly. our relationship with taiwan must be flexible enough to meet these new challenges. unfortunately, the state department's classified taiwan contact guidelines are often not conducive to a robust relationship with taiwan and congress had little insight into the decision making behind these guidelines. mr. speaker, the bottom line of this legislation is this, h.r. 1159 would re-authorize the bipartisan taiwan assurance act of 2020, strengthen its reporting requirements and require greater transparency from the state department. it would ensure the united states is approaching its relationship with taiwan in a manner that strengthens our relationships with democratic partners w

mr. connolly: oh, applied. in that case, yes, the cou said, the court found it was drawina stinction between why they would've had standing innelace and wouldn't of in another. and the reason that the group ultimately did n he standing is because they had settd . but the court said that if bernie ridge had still been on the table, that they wld have had standing. justice brown jackson: doesn't your theory of injury rely on the sumption that if the heroes act isn't there or if there'a problem with the heroes act, the administration uld necessarily have done the same thing, undethhea? mr. connolly: no, i don't think so. in fact, i think the program wi lk quite different once it does go through negotiation rulemaking and notice and comment. justice brown jackso iuess i'm asking you, you seem to be asmi that if you get the relief of invalidation of the action under the heroes act, that the administration would necessarily veorward, because you said it was a top priority this administration, that they ulnecessarily

mr. connolly votes no. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. allred. ms. garcia votes no. mr. goldman votes no. the clerk: 10 ayes and 7 noes. reclaimin g my time. we made it very clear that the republican majority has no interest investing weapon niecessation of government and i would ask that the reminder of my time and the video is ready. ms. wasserman schultz: still not working. would be nice if we could get it here. and conservative voices on more prevalent. we need to make sure we are getting to the bottom of the weapon niecessation of the federal government. but this committee is only interested in selectively doing that that the republican majority squashed getting us more evidence than i have behind me to prove that proves that this witness, mr. sauer, weaponnized government and participated violating missouri state law in politicizing in trying to overturn an election. >> i'm going to return to the subject of this hearing. are you familiar with the case in california disputing the governor's order for universal ballots? >> no, congressman. >> well, orderly enough, i was the plaintiff.

mr. connolly and mr. mfume and myself because we intend to deliver that on behalf of the american people. and i think the gentleman for recognizing, gentlewoman for recognizing that. >> thank you. i'm proud and excited to be able to serve on this subcommittee. i am a former federal employee myself. i worked at the office of management and budget and i was a program examiner there and so i i know very well the work of our oig's and the critical work that you do to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse in our agencies, make sure that individuals who are conducting their affairs in a way that is not congruent with the oath that we take, or held accountable and ultimately this body, congress, is able to take action in order to have accountability as well as our court systems. i know today we do to talk about pandemic relief. i did want toc follow on one of the comments that you made, mr. turner, about the perfect storm that happen at the beginning of the pandemic. i was serving in the new mexico state house at

mr. connolly for five minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman. my, mind, i, what happens when you hold a hearing and can't prove your point. >> joining us now, democratic congressman colin on red of texas, a member of that select subcommittee. congressman, are you surprised by the way it's going for republicans? >> no, i'm not. there's so much of this committee it's about projection, it's about saying that either they did during the trump administration and it's the men who ran for office saying lock her up somebody that we know the iris seems to be was weaponizing in some cases against some americans. and so a lot of this is about projections, about what they did or what they wanted to do and what they think is being done now. as somebody who has served in the obama administration and now in congress, i think this is the tinfoil hat committee. there is nothing here. they said it's gonna be the response to january six committee and apparently a similar budget, and they have nothing because there is no there there. it's also a waste of taxpayer do

mr. connolly? >> nay. >> mr. connally for today. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. allred? miss garcia?name. >> miss garcia vote nay. >> mr. goldman? >> no. >> mr. goldman votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> mister chair, there are ten eyes and seven nose. >> the motion carries into this table. >> reclaiming my time, mister chairman. >> the gentleman's reclaiming her time. >> i think we made it clear that the republican majority has no interest in investigating violations of regard for meant. they just tabled a motion inflation demonstrate that. i would ask with rain my time, i think he was ready so that we can play. thank you. mister chairman? can we play the video please? >> is that video ready? >> okay. i guess it's still not working. it would be nice if we get the audio visuals working here in the committee. this hearing is fixated on a red herring. studies show conservative voices are more prevalent on social media. we need to make sure that we are getting to the bottom of the weaponization of the federal government. but this committee is only interested in selectively doing tha

mr. connolly. >> thank you mr. chairman. i don't know what to say after that last one. we are elected officials. we try to get at the truth and participate in the process. mr. taibbi you have said this is a matter of right or left, there lots of different ideological colorations involved in the twitter files. is that correct? >> yes. >> a mr. sll in you would agree with that? >> yes. >> whenou release information have you released any information forxample right-wing elements are the trump white house attempting to moderate content? >> no, not the trump white house although iid report initially in the twitter files that the trum whiteouse had made requests a they had been honored. >> mr. sub-r. shellenberger? i hav not fnd that. >> we d a hearing th other day with twier and we had four witnesseshree fm the majoty and one fromhe minorityn allour testied under oath the had ner received request for content moderation or takedown by the biden white house but ty did om dond trums whithouse and specifically thease brought up was an exchange between dold trump theresent of uni

mr. connolly of virginia, held a hearing to explore how the federal government should in fact use data sharing proactive and elastic -- analytics and customer experience to research and to prevent improper payments and fraud before they occur. throughout the pandemic, many of us have fought hard on behalf of americans all over the country. i would remind everyone that it was under chairman jim clyburn's leadership that the subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis held seven hearings focus on combatting fraud in relief programs and recovered millions. at least 109 million and they're still recovering money that was improperly used and payments that went out and properly. among the many accomplishments that committee helped us to be able to do what we ought to do when things go awry. that is to try to find a way to save taxpayers dollars before they continue to become victims of fraud. i like to enter mr. chairman into the record at the final report of that subcommittee. >> without objection, entered in the record. >> which details the major successes of that democratic effort to prevent fraud fir

mr. connolly: he began his service to the house as a united states capitol police officer before joining the clerk's office in 1987. his job as a rolling clerk he oversaw highly skilled professionals responsible for preparing house passed legislation throughout the stages of the process and all the way to the presentation to the president for signature. bob produced high quality work every single day. as enrolling clerk it was his duty to make certain that bills such as the national defense authorization act, normally over 4,000 pages long, had all of the amendments inserted in the correct places and the graphs and charts were accurate. no small task. his breadth of expertise extended to his encyclopedic knowledge of house procedures. he could always be counted on to respond to all questions in a timely and accurate way. whether he was walking someone through the minutia of the legislative process or how to even fix a problem with your car, bob was and is and integral part of the team that supports our legislative work. he looks forward to retirement filled with spending time with his wi

mr. connolly? >> nay. >> mr. connally for today. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. allred? miss garcia? >> name. >> miss garcia vote nay. >> mr. goldman? >> no. >> mr. goldman votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> mister chair, there are ten eyes and seven nose. >> the motion carries into this table. >> reclaiming my time, mister chairman. >> the gentleman's reclaiming her time. >> i think we made it clear that the republican majority has no interest in investigating violations of regard for meant. they just tabled a motion inflation demonstrate that. i would ask with rain my time, i think he was ready so that we can play. thank you. mister chairman? can we play the video please? >> is that video ready? >> okay. i guess it's still not working. it would be nice if we get the audio visuals working here in the committee. this hearing is fixated on a red herring. studies show conservative voices are more prevalent on social media. we need to make sure that we are getting to the bottom of the weaponization of the federal government. but this committee is only interested in selectively doing

mr. connolly for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. i want to thank chief modlin and chief have chavez -- i just want to point out though that part of what we are dealing here in this hearing and in lots of other discussions about the subject is the narrative being woven that is a false narrative. we need more capacity and personnel at the border, at the ports. we have that opportunity. in the omnibus. this side of the aisle, we all supported that. on the other side, that is not the case. you can talk a good game of that we need to be -- beefing up in our capacity here and there. you had an opportunity to vote for 7.2 billion dollars for border patrol operations, 65 million for 300 new border patrol agents. 60 million for cv personnel at the ports of entry we are talking about. and 230 million for between the ports technology that you referenced, chief modlin. if we are going to be consistent and talk about the need to beef up the border, you've got a vote for it. otherwise, it is just hot air. another part of the narrative is we have

mr. lange, we appreciate your time and your insights tonight. thank you. xi jinping and vladimir putin held their words very constructive talks yesterday and today, but as i discussed earlier with our correspondent nick connollyn kyiv, xi jinping is not visiting ukraine. nick: not only that, but it also seems if a comment by president zelenskyy is anything to go by, there is not a date or a timing yet to this promised phone call between the ukrainian leader and his chinese counterpart, so even the composition prize is not necessarily a done deal. it is not so much a surprise for the ukrainians that the chinese leader would not come here to a country that is at war. all through this war china has been helping russia, has been helping russia get around western sanctions, has been buying up all that russian energy that is no longer going to europe. but they are really worried this could mark a change in the quality of the relationship between beijing and moscow, and they could see chinese-made weapons making their way to the front lines here. so far it has been more about chips, maybe some drones, but nothing on a large scale. china is basically the only country with the resources and the breadth to make a diffe