Here's ALL THE EVIDENCE you need to kick Biden out of office



According to the Constitution, a president may be impeached if he’s involved in treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mark Levin believes it’s time we take the Constitution’s advice and impeach Joe Biden.

“Let’s look at this in the context of Joe Biden. Let’s start with the Constitution,” says Levin, who believes the president has violated the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution.

The president took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law. Levin thinks he’s done everything but that.

“So we have all these laws dealing with immigration, to secure the country, to protect the people, to determine how people come here, who comes here, under what circumstances they come here. Joe Biden has blown out every single one of those immigration laws,” Levin explains.

While the inhumane consequences at the border are themselves egregious, Biden has not upheld federal immigration laws.

“He has destroyed the federal immigration system. That would be a basis for an impeachment article to be considered for impeachment,” Levin says.

“This is in essence a political crime or a constitutional crime, if you will, against the body politic.”

He also believes that Joe Biden’s “circumventing a Supreme Court decision” that said he does not have the authority to forgive student loans “clearly undermines Congress’ power under the Constitution.”

And defying a Supreme Court ruling is an impeachable offense.

“And violation of separation of powers, of course that should be an article that should be considered as an impeachable offense. That is a political crime or a constitutional crime against the body politic,” Levin adds, saying this is "a pattern."

“His family had introductions to enemy states, and some allies, to front corporations, from which his family benefited to the tune of anywhere from $30 million to $50 million,” he continues.

“There’s simply no question that it not only is worthy of an impeachment inquiry; in my view it’s worthy of an impeachment trial.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Horowitz: Why is Kevin McCarthy not speaking out against impending omnibus that destroys his leverage?



Record excess deaths and illness, record inflation, record supply shortages, record crime, record illegal immigration, a bureaucracy that surveils, spies on, and persecutes political opponents, and a collapsing culture that teaches grooming and racism in school. Never has an incumbent party been this vulnerable headed into a midterm election, and never has an emerging opposition party been granted so much political capital to change course following that election. Yet unless Kevin McCarthy, the presumptive speaker in waiting, uses his robust clout within the party to oppose the impending omnibus bill, the entire leverage and political capital of the midterms will become worthless.

Money (budget bills) talks, congressional hearings walk. House Republicans are salivating to hold hearings on some (but not all) of the aforementioned criminal acts of the Biden administration, but no relief will come to the American people absent the use of the budget process as leverage to force changes in funding and policy on the most contentious issues of our time. Republicans know all too well that any stand-alone messaging bill (much less a mere hearing) will die in the Senate and will not become law. Placing those priorities, however, in budget bills and standing behind them is the only way to force a national debate and brinksmanship over the issues that matter. But that leverage is now hanging by a thread.

In late September, 22 Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, voted for a continuing resolution to fund the government and all its immoral and illegal tyranny until December 16. Rather than filibustering the bill until our grievances are redressed or extending the deadline into next year so that a GOP-controlled House could rewrite the budget, they kicked it until right before Christmas break with the intention of passing an omnibus bill. Unless there is a massive campaign from inside and outside the GOP ranks, Republican senators will cut the legs out from under the new majority by funding Biden’s autocratic government without reforms all the way until fiscal year 2024.

One obvious player in this has been jarringly silent. Kevin McCarthy will likely become the most important Republican in America as the presumed speaker of the House next year. He will fully control the body of government closest to the people and the one that is fully controlled by the majority party. Of all people, he should have been lying down on the tracks in opposition to allowing Democrats to write the budget for the rest of the fiscal year, thereby undercutting his entire leverage to fight any of Biden’s extremely unpopular policies in the budget as soon as he commands the gavel in January. Yet he was stone silent and remains so to this very day. It was only the Freedom Caucus that demanded the budget be extended into early next year with an expiration deadline that would empower the new House majority.

Which begs the obvious question: What is McCarthy’s motivation in becoming speaker, and what exactly does he plan to do? If he fails to publicly call on McConnell to pass a simple CR in December rather than a full-year omnibus, that would be a sign that he views the budget leverage as a liability to be avoided rather than an opportunity – the only legislative opportunity – to bring our two years of grievances to the brink.

If McCarthy were true to his campaign rhetoric, he would demand that McConnell pass a CR until February. Here is how it would play out. As soon as he becomes speaker, he would work on a budget bill for the remainder of FY 2023 for a month. That bill would contain some or all the following provisions:

  • Prohibiting all funding for Pfizer and Moderna COVID products.
  • Ban on all bio-medical mandates, with civil and criminal fines for government workers who defy the law.
  • Prohibiting all funding for granting any release, transportation, or status to illegal aliens crossing the border.
  • Prohibiting all new funding for Ukraine.
  • Prohibiting all FBI actions taken against political opponents and severe defunding of most of the agency’s operations.
  • A complete reversal of the “Inflation Reduction Act,” along with the funding for the 87,000 IRS agents and the climate mandates.
  • A complete defunding of all mandates and regulations that encumber our energy, food production, and supply.
  • A complete defunding of all transgender policies in the federal government.

Every day, Republicans would give speeches and do media drawing attention to the devastating consequences of each of the aforementioned policies and why they need to be blocked and defunded. Then they would pass their version of the budget and dare the Senate and White House to decline to sign it in favor of promoting the terrible policies the American people just voted against.

Try to imagine the leverage McCarthy would command during those months. Let’s say Republicans win 52 seats in the Senate, 240 seats in the House, 30 governorships, and a record number of legislative chambers. They will never amass more political capital than at that critical juncture to finally fight for our prerogatives. Yet by remaining silent and allowing McConnell to kick that leverage until late next year, the election mandate will have dissipated. Moreover, with so many people dying from the COVID policies, lives destroyed from the energy and food crises, political opponents literally being rounded up by the FBI, and hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens pouring into the country every single month, we cannot afford to wait any longer.

Yet waiting is exactly what McCarthy wants. He wants to be able to wash his hands of any ability to actually effect change by having McConnell cleanly toss the fight before it begins. That way he can focus on non-must-pass stand-alone legislation that he knows will never go anywhere, along with hearings that will never bring policy changes. Then he will point to all of that amazing work and say, “Look, this is why we need to win the next election and get the presidency, at which point all will be good.”

Except all will not be good. I shudder to think what will become of us in two years from now based on how autocratic this government has become over the past two years.

House Democrats and exiting impeachment Republicans pass Liz Cheney's bill, which allows voting 5 days after elections



On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed a bill to alter the 1887 Electoral Count Act. The so called "Presidential Election Reform Act" revises rules pertaining to the congressional certification of presidential elections, which some contend will benefit Democrats. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who lost her primary race in August and leaves office on January 3, along with Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren, both of whom are on the January 6 Committee.

The bill, as characterized by Cheney:

  • enacts new counting rules;
  • requires that Congress receive a single certificate from each state;
  • requires states to select electors under state laws prior to Election Day;
  • permits elections to be extended in the event of so-called "catastrophic events"; and
  • prevents election officials from refusing to certify presidential elections.

Cheney suggested this bill "will preserve the rule of law and defend election integrity."

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) issued a release on September 21, stating the bill does little to address election integrity, but serves instead to help House Democrats "stack the democratic process in their favor" as well as a "partisan messaging bill intended to score cheap political points."

Tenney suggested that the bill "creates broad private rights of action in a backdoor effort to empower Democrat election lawyers and partisan operatives. "

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) concurred with Tenney and indicated that the bill serves a partisan purpose and has little to do with safeguarding elections. He told Axios earlier this week, "It's clear that anything Liz Cheney touches is all about whacking Donald Trump and not about making meaningful changes."

While Cheney has touted the bill as bipartisan, Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) suggested that saying so because she supports it is "like me saying a bill is bipartisan because [Republican Rep.] Jeff Van Drew, who used to be a Democrat, is on it."

Davis also noted that Democrats' criticisms of electoral objections were stained by hypocrisy, saying, "Democrats have objected to every single Republican presidential win in the 21st century."

The bill insists that the vice president's role in a presidential election is to count votes and that she does not wield the power to unilaterally reject certain state's electors.

Additionally, it requires objections to receive the support of one-third of each chamber to be heard, whereas previously it was sufficient to have only one lawmaker in each chamber support an objection.

According to Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the bill "hasn't gone through any committee" and received no input from Republicans.

Extending elections

Among the changes this bill makes to the 135-year-old law is an extension of time for a presidential election.

In the event of a "catastrophic event" that has "prevented a substantial portion of the State's electorate from casting a ballot on such day, or caused a substantial portion of ballots already cast to be destroyed or rendered unreadable by such event," a candidate for president who appears on the ballot of the State can ask for an extension.

One of the criteria that must be met is that "the ability of that candidate to win the election with respect to one or more presidential electors" must be shown to be potentially affected.

If the criteria are met, time for voting in the election can be extended, but for "not later than 5 days after" Election Day.

A "catastrophic event" may include a variety of events or mishaps, from a major glitch in a state's voting machine software to rolling blackouts.

Tenney stated that not only is the bill's definition of "catastrophic event" broad, but as a law it would trample "on the core principle of state sovereignty and directly contradicts the United States Constitution."

Support only from exiting Republicans

229 voted in favor of Cheney's bill, and 203 voted against it. Every Democrat supported the bill.

The nine (of 212) House Republicans who supported the bill are all leaving Congress after this session. Eight of them supported former President Donald Trump's second impeachment.

Besides Cheney, the Republicans who supported the bill were:

  • Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), who loses his seat on January 3, 2023;
  • Rep. Peter Meijer (Mich.), who lost in the Republican primary on August 2;
  • Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.), who lost in the Republican primary on June 14;
  • Rep. Fred Upton (Wis.), who loses his seat on January 3;
  • Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.), who lost in the primary on August 2;
  • Rep. Chris Jacobs (N.Y.), who loses his seat on January 3;
  • Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), who loses his seat on January 3; and
  • Rep. John Katko (N.Y.), who loses his seat on January 3.

Though the bill was passed, there is uncertainty over whether it will become law. After all, a comparable reform bill was introduced to the Senate in July, with ten co-sponsors from both parties.

The Senate bill raises the threshold for objections to electoral votes; asserts the vice president cannot unilaterally reject electors; and alters the 1887 law on the books.

'Your comments are absurd!' Sparks fly in House after Tennessee Democrat calls Canada the 'freest country in the world'



Tennessee Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen on Thursday declared that Canada has supplanted the United States as the "freest country in the world" because some states are now preventing women from killing their unborn babies at will.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impact of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, Cohen took issue with a pro-life witness' statement that America is the freest country in the world.

"I love America. I'm an American and I love America and love this country, but they said we're the freest country in the world ... well, right now, Canada is the freest country in the world," Cohen said via teleconference.

"And there are a few other countries along with Canada that are more free than America, when you cut women away from having the opportunity to get their families and their bodies to be their choices," he added.

In its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not grant a federal right to abortion and that each state legislature holds the power to pass laws permitting or restricting abortion. Elected representatives will make these laws as they see fit, according to the will of their constituents as expressed at the ballot box.

In the wake of the court's decision, several states with Republican-controlled legislatures have activated trigger laws banning or restricting abortion, while Democrat-led states have sought to expand abortion access and protect women who travel to states where abortion is legal to terminate their pregnancies.

But Cohen insisted that arguments that the Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion were a "red herring."

"The fact is, in the hard-core red states of the southeast, one time known as the Confederacy, there is but one or two states that would not ban abortion entirely. And those states did not offer many votes for the civil rights laws," the Democratic lawmaker said, asserting that all arguments for states' rights are descended from the defense of slavery in the mid-19th century.

"Slavery was wrong. Outlawing abortion is wrong. And outlawing gay marriage is wrong," Cohen declared, finishing his remarks.

\u201c.@RepCohen on America post-Roe: "I love America ... but [Republicans] said we are the freest country in the world ... Well, right now, Canada\u2019s the freest country in the world."\u201d
— Tom Elliott (@Tom Elliott) 1657809627

"Mr. Cohen is wrong!" Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) exclaimed after he was recognized to speak next. "Canada is not the most free country in the world, young people. America is the greatest nation in the world."

Johnson went on to praise the Supreme Court's decision but was interrupted by Cohen, who demanded that he yield back.

"I will not yield, Mr. Cohen, because your comments are absurd. This hearing is absurd," Johnson said.

"Your comments are absurd!" Cohen shot back, before he was quieted by the committee chairman's gavel.

\u201cRep. Mike Johnson: No, I will not yield, Mr. Cohen, because you're comments are absurd. \n\nRep. Cohen: Your comments are absurd. You're absurd! \n\nCohen claimed Canada is "the freest country in the world."\u201d
— Nicole Silverio (@Nicole Silverio) 1657818649

Democrats to start moving gun control legislation through Congress



The House Judiciary Committee will reportedly meet in emergency session Thursday for the Democratic majority to mark up a series of gun control bills in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas.

Democrats want to vote on gun control and campaign on GOP opposition to it as the nation is still roiling from the shocking murders of 19 elementary school children and two teachers in Texas by a deranged gunman last week. They have introduced eight bills related to the issue and are calling their omnibus legislation the "Protecting Our Kids Act."

The bills would raise the age requirement to buy a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21 years old; make it a federal crime to import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possess high-capacity magazines, with a grandfather clause for existing magazines; require existing bump stocks to be registered under the National Firearms Act; bans new bump stocks; codify the Biden administration's new regulations on so-called ghost guns; crack down on straw purchases for firearms; and create new requirements for storing guns at home where minors are present.

According to Punchbowl News, Democratic leaders plan to bring the omnibus gun control package to the House floor early next week, where it is expected to pass. Right now they are ironing out the details on whether to bring up all the bills at once or vote on them individually.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her leadership team reportedly discussed action on guns after the massacre at Robb Elementary School last week and the racially motivated murder of 10 people at a Buffalo grocery store two weeks before.

"We felt like we needed to do something big and comprehensive after two mass shootings in two weeks," a Democratic aide told NBC News.

However, everyone recognizes that major gun control legislation has no chance of passing the U.S. Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster from Republicans. It's not even clear that the 50-member Democratic majority could pass a gun control bill without the filibuster, as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has previously opposed measures that would expand federal background checks — objecting to how these bills would apply to private transactions.

Still, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave his assent to begin bipartisan negotiations on some form of gun legislation last week. Reports indicate there may be small bipartisan consensus on a bill that would incentivize states to adopt so-called red-flag laws, which would permit police or family members of individuals believed to be a danger to themselves or others to seek a court order to have that person's guns taken away.

Your tax dollars at hard work: Report says House will give staffers free Peloton memberships



The U.S. House of Representatives will soon offer staffers in Washington D.C. and in district offices free Peloton memberships at taxpayer expense, according to a report.

Fox Business reported Friday that a draft email from the office of the chief administrative officer says that the new "premier employee benefit" will be made available to all Capitol Police officers, as well as congressional staffers, who each will get both Peloton All-Access and a Peloton App membership for free.

The government reportedly has a contract with the company — known for its stationary exercise bikes and online fitness class subscriptions — to offer the free membership benefits to an estimated 10,000 House staffers and 2,300 Capitol Police officers.

According to Fox Business, the contract requires a $10,000 upfront payment to Peloton, as well as an additional $10 per month charge for each staffer or officer who uses their membership. Those rates are slightly discounted from what other Americans pay; a Peloton All-Access Membership costs $39 per month and a Peloton App Membership costs $12.99 per month. If everyone eligible for the benefit takes advantage of it, it could cost taxpayers as much as $120,000 per month, $1.4 million annually, and $14.4 million over the next ten years.

The draft email from the office of the CAO reportedly told staffers and officers they would "have access to thousands of live and on-demand classes, across multiple disciplines, that are available for streaming across multiple devices and require no purchase of Peloton equipment."

Peloton confirmed that it has a contract with the House in a statement to Fox Business.

The report comes one week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) raised the minimum salary for House staffers to $45,000. Previously, there was no salary floor for congressional staff, and some staffers were paid as low as $30,000 while being required to live in one of the most expensive cities in America. The House on Tuesday also voted to recognize the right of its staffers to unionize in a party-line vote of 217-202, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

A recent report by Issue One, a campaign finance reform group that describes itself as "crosspartisan," found that one in eight congressional staff members are not paid a minimum subsistence wage to meet the basic needs of living in D.C. Congressional staff often work long hours as well and make far less money than those who hold similar jobs in the private sector.

But at least now they have taxpayer-funded exercise bike memberships.

Book claims Pelosi felt entitled to be speaker again, resented having to 'beg' Dems for support



Nancy Pelosi resented having to "beg" her Democratic colleagues to give her another term as House speaker and privately thought that the most far-left members of Congress nearly prevented Democrats from maintaining control of the House, according to Politico reporters Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns.

Martin and Burns are the authors of an upcoming book called, "This Will Not Pass," which provides an inside account of the final year of Donald Trump's presidency and the 2020 election. Excerpts from the book were published in Punchbowl News' morning newsletter Friday, and they reveal that Pelosi felt entitled to another term as speaker because she was the only Democrat in Congress to have done the job before.

"The experience of begging for support was wearing on her. ... Pelosi was the only Democrat in the chamber — the only Democrat alive — who had already served as Speaker, who had shown she could do the legislative arithmetic and twist the necessary arms to get things done. And yet [her fellow Democrats] were making her grovel," the book recounts.

"At this point in my life, I don't need this," she reportedly vented in one of two interviews she did for the book.

Pelosi confided in Martin and Burns that "her victory in holding onto the speakership, ‘seemed like a joyless one.'"

She shared "her frustration with unusual vehemence that day, discussing her political future in a way she rarely did around colleagues. ‘You couldn’t pay me a billion dollars to run for Speaker again,’ Pelosi said.”

At 80 years old, Pelosi was re-elected House speaker after the 2020 elections, despite the fact that Democrats lost seats in the House. Party moderates blamed progressives for endangering their majority, accusing invective and demands to "Defund the Police" and radical policies like the Green New Deal of hurting them at the ballot box.

Progressives denied these accusations, asserting that moving farther to the left helps the party turn out young voters and minorities.

Pelosi reportedly agreed with the moderates and privately said Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) were fighting to be "queen bee" of the left.

“In a few strictly confidential conversations she pointed a finger leftward. Pelosi told one senior lawmaker that Democrats had alienated Asian and Hispanic immigrants with loose talk of socialism. In some of the same communities, the Italian Catholic speaker said, Democrats had not been careful enough about the way they spoke about abortion among new Americans who were devout people of faith,” the book claims.

When progressive Democrats threatened to blow up the infrastructure deal Pelosi had made with Republicans, she was furious. The book claims that "in private she vented about the progressive blockade that had forced her to cancel the infrastructure vote. … She told another House Democrat that Pramila Jayapal and Ocasio-Cortez were vying to be the ‘queen bee’ of the left, but that their reward might be serving in the House minority after the next election.”

Pelosi also criticized some of President Joe Biden's hiring decisions, stating that Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a former California congressman, was "untrustworthy." She doesn't particularly care for White House chief of staff Ron Klain either, Martin and Burns report.

“Not all Democrats shared Biden’s admiration for Klain; some party leaders grumbled about his hard-charging manner and expansive intellectual confidence. The Speaker of the House was one of those Democrats. Late in the 2020 campaign, Pelosi grew openly annoyed when an adviser urged her to consult with Klain about health care legislation. What, she asked, does Ron Klain know about anything?”

Watchdog group files ethics complaint against Trump impeachment ringleader Rep. Jamie Raskin



A conservative watchdog group has filed an ethics complaint against Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin after he failed to properly disclose stock shares that his wife — who was nominated by President Joe Biden to regulate banking at the Federal Reserve — received for advising a Colorado-based financial technology trust company.

The American Accountability Foundation on Monday said in a complaint filed with the Office of Congressional Ethics that the Maryland lawmaker had failed to disclose his wife Sarah Bloom Raskin's ownership of a massive amount of stock and did not report the million-dollar sale of those stocks in the time period required by law.

The complaint was first reported by Fox Business. It cited a Business Insider report that revealed that Jamie Raskin disclosed in August 2021 that his wife Sarah Bloom Raskin sold 195,936 shares of Reserve Trust for $1.5 million, according to his federal financial documents. But Raskin reported the stock sale, which happened on Dec. 12, 2020, eight months after the fact.

According to AAF, Raskin violated the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK Act, by failing to report his wife's financial gain in time. The law was passed in 2012 and is intended to increase transparency on Capitol Hill by making it illegal for members of Congress or their families to profit by trading stocks with insider knowledge. Under the law, Sarah Bloom Raskin's stock payout should have been reported to Congress within 45 days of the transaction.

"Sarah and Jamie Raskin are career politicians who have used the system to enrich themselves, and it is time that someone holds them accountable," AAF founder Tom Jones said in a statement. "If House rules are going to mean anything, the House Ethics Committee needs to open an investigation and sanction Jamie Raskin for hiding this shady stock deal from the public."

Raskin, a top House Democrat, is best known for leading the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. His wife Sarah is Biden's nominee to be vice chairwoman of supervision at the Federal Reserve, the most powerful banking regulator in the government. She previously held positions at the U.S. Treasury and the Fed during the Obama administration.

In a statement to Business Insider, Raskin acknowledged that he turned in his financial disclosure late, explaining that the death of his 25-year-old son Thomas on Dec. 31, 2020, happened just after the stock sale.

"We lost our son during the reporting period, and I filed the report late," the lawmaker said.

The AAF complaint recognized the "tragic loss" of the Raskin's son, writing that "any reasonable person would agree that they should be afforded some latitude in meeting filing requirements during that time." However, the complaint notes that Raskin "quickly returned to his official duties" and led the impeachment trial against Trump in January.

"If Representative Raskin was able to perform these official duties during this time, it is reasonable to expect that he should have been able to comply with the Periodic Transaction Report requirements during these times and not frustrate the legitimate ends of Congressional oversight by waiting nine months to disclose the sale," the complaint said.

The possible ethics violation is sure to give Republicans ammunition to oppose Sarah Bloom Raskin's nomination to the Fed. GOP lawmakers have already questioned her controversial positions on climate change, which include calling for the Fed to punish banks and financial institutions that have business agreements with fossil-fuel energy companies.

Bloom Raskin has also faced questions about her time with Reserve Trust, joining the company in May 2017 and leaving in August 2019. While she served on Reserve Trust's board, the company received access to the Fed's payment system and was the only non-bank state-chartered trust to do so. The company had previously applied for a master account and was denied in June 2017.

Republicans have questioned whether Bloom Raskin, who served as a Fed governor from 2010 to 2014, persuaded the Fed to give Reserve Trust a master account and then received 200,000 shares of company stock as compensation.

Sarah Bloom Raskin has denied any wrongdoing.

US House passes bill banning imports from China over Uyghur slave labor



The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would ban the importation of products made in the Xinjiang region of China due to concerns about communist country's treatment of religious and ethnic minorities.

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 428-1.

The bill aims to impose economic sanctions on the northwest region of China due to the use of slave labor and subjugation of the Uyghur Muslims to make goods.

The legislation has received overwhelming support from both parties and is viewed as a stand against China's genocide of the country's religious and ethnic minorities. In fact, in a rare turn of events, the bill has united Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.).

The bill got attention after Rubio stalled action on the annual defense bill in an effort to get the same language into the defense legislation as an amendment, NPR said. The Florida senator's efforts failed, so when the House passed the Chinese labor bill, he offered his support.

"This is a bill that says if products are made in that part of China they are presumed to have been made by slave labor unless the manufacturer can prove it wasn't," Rubio said.

There is some concern among Republicans about whether or not the Biden administration will support the bill. Sen. Rubio said in a statement Wednesday that the Biden administration and corporate interests are "already working to complicate things here in the Senate."

However, State Department spokesperson Ned Prince said on Wednesday that the administration did not oppose the bill and would not lobby against it. Prince claimed that the administration "has perhaps done more than any administration and really galvanized the international community to put a spotlight on what has taken place in Xinjiang."

Democrats appear hopeful that the Biden administration will support the legislation since the bill's details align with the administration's diplomatic stand not to attend the Winter Olympics, made earlier this week due to China's human rights violations.

The bill now heads to the Senate and, if signed into law, will take effect no later than June 8.

President Biden has yet to issue a statement about whether he supports the bill but has expressed a shared concern about the forced labor in China's Xinjiang region.

When asked whether the president will support the legislation if it passes the Senate, Speaker Pelosi's spokesman Drew Hammill indicated that the speaker believes the president will support the bill.

'The scoldings mean nothing': Bipartisan lawmakers are not sorry for making secret Afghanistan trip



The two congressmen who made a secret, unauthorized trip to Afghanistan to survey the U.S. military's evacuation efforts are unapologetic for their decision, despite criticism from the Biden administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and several of their colleagues in Congress.

"I don't care one bit about anonymous quotes from Washington when I'm saving the lives of our allies," Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) told the Boston Globe in an interview Tuesday, responding to his critics.

Speaking to the newspaper from Doha, Qatar, where Afghan refugees are being transported to a U.S. airbase for processing, Moulton said that he decided to go to Kabul in person a week ago after trying to assist in the evacuation of four Afghan families via text messages and phone calls. Only one of the families was able to flee the country.

He had previously sought official permission to visit Afghanistan several times in recent months, but was denied by the Biden administration. So, Moulton, a Marine veteran, and Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), an Army veteran, decided to go on their own and see for themselves what was happening on the ground.

"I got several, not just families, but groups through the gates," Moulton told the Globe. "It's amazing that people think this is about politics when it's about innocent lives and saving people who have given everything to us from torture and death. Every single person that we can get through the gates who is one of our allies, that is the difference between freedom and death."

The bipartisan duo were attacked from all sides for making the unauthorized visit. Anonymous Biden administration officials blasted the lawmakers in the pages of the Washington Post for creating "a distraction for military and civilian staffers attempting to carry out frenzied rescue efforts."

One senior administration official said the trip was "as moronic as it is selfish."

Pelosi also condemned the lawmakers, accusing them of draining "our resources diplomatically, politically, militarily."

"The point is that we don't want anybody to think this was a good idea and that they should try to follow suit," she told reporters Wednesday.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) offered softer criticism, but agreed that they shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan.

"I don't think it's right that they went, but I understand their frustration of why they would want to go. ... They realize it's life and death, so yes, they made a decision to try to do something on their own," McCarthy said.

"Any member that I've heard that might go, I explain to them that I don't think they should, I think it creates a greater risk ... you take military away from doing their job of getting as many Americans out as we can," he added.

Confronted with what Biden officials and others were saying on Fox News Wednesday, Meijer dismissed the criticism.

"The opprobrium from from the Defense Department, from the White House, from the State Department is frankly laughable. Right now they have done everything they can to obstruct the situation, to deny this reality, and, frankly, to hide facts from the American people," he told Bret Baier during an interview.

Moulton agreed in his interview with the Globe.

"The scoldings mean nothing when we're saving a few lives," he said.