▶ 0:15:56Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider five separate measures. HJRES 104, HJRES 105, HJRES 106, HR 3486, and HR 34 3898.
▶ 0:16:19The three CRAAS we're considering today are all straightforward and supported by local officials bearing the brunt of the Biden Harris administration's heavy-handed regulations. These CRAAS are about unleashing American energy independence, something the previous administration was politically allergic to. One of the things that has always made America great is that we have vast repositories of natural resources that society continues to benefit from.
▶ 0:16:48The problem to no one's surprise is that the federal government under the democrat control and was supportive of bureaucracy that is self-interested together want to regulate away our natural advantages. Regulation after regulation is churned out thereby locking up these natural resources and sidelining American innovation, prosperity, and the opportunity to achieve true energy independence.
▶ 0:17:15I'm quite certain our Democrat colleagues will screech until they're blew in the face that Republicans are shredding and doing the bidding of corporations by supporting these CRAAS. Their talking points are so predictable at this point that it's embarrassing. Here's the truth. Republicans are choosing to embrace American energy independence while Democrats are choosing to embrace over regulation.
▶ 0:17:40We must pass these CRAAS and dismantle the harmful legacy regulations of the Biden era and further to unleash American energy independence that this nation deserves. HR 3486, the Stop Illegal Entry Act, strengthens current law more adequately to deter illegal aliens from entering and re-entering the United States.
▶ 0:18:03This legislation helps equip federal officials with even more tools to prosecute aliens who illegally entered the United States under the Biden Harris administration. Our Democrat colleagues will never admit that their own policies led to millions of illegal aliens streaming into the country. They always pivot away from the conversation, typically by attacking President Trump on something entirely unrelated just to save face.
▶ 0:18:32But the American people know the truth about where the Democrats stand on border security and upholding the rule of law. HR 3486 requires between 5 years and life imprisonment for an alien who illegally enters the United States and is later convicted of a felony and between 10 years imprisonment and life imprisonment for an alien who illegally re-enters the United States after being removed following a felony
▶ 0:19:03conviction. These penalties are appropriate responses to repeated violations of US immigration law. They're not draconian, as some will inevitably claim. Republicans ran on securing the border and upholding the rule of law that exists in this country. Americans chose us to lead because they support that very same vision and not the lawlessness that was not confronted for four years.
▶ 0:19:30Finally, HR 3898, the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act, provides targeted common sense reforms that will strengthen the permitting process for permit seekers and holders while providing clear instruction and standards for permitting agencies and ensure clean water protections. This legislation strives once again to find balance within the regulatory and permitting process.
▶ 0:19:59Originally envisioned by the Clean Water Act, CWA, by providing a comprehensive package of common sense reforms to support energy producers, the agriculture sector, builders and utilities. Talk to any contractor, builder, or energy developer in America. They'll tell you that the best way to unleash America's development capabilities is by cutting red tape, streamlining permitting processes, and providing regulatory certainty.
▶ 0:20:29It's rather simple. The reforms in this legislation are specifically designed to reduce burdensome regulatory requirements, protect against frivolous lawsuits, and increase transparency while ensuring clean water protections. As always, I happily invite our Democrat colleagues to join us in supporting the measures that are before us today. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to
▶ 0:20:59Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, these five measures are are straight garbage. Uh, the CRAAS give big oil, gas, and mining companies top priority. Big surprise that Republicans would sell out our public lands to their greedy industry friends. There's an awful permitting bill that gives a green light to big polluters looking to poison our water. And the final bill is a performative immigration stunt, tough talk, zero actual reform. Not a single one of these measures answers the real needs of the American people.
▶ 0:21:29But that's the playbook, right? Ignore your constituents, take care of your donors, then hop on a flight home for a district work period. It was the same story with your one big ugly bill, Trump's crown jewel. 15 million Americans kicked off their healthcare. Hospitals and senior citizens shuttered. Energy costs through the roof. Food ripped off the plates of hungry families. And for what? A massive tax break for the ultra wealthy. And a $4 trillion spike in the national debt. Let's call this what it is.
▶ 0:21:58The single biggest transfer of wealth in our nation's history from working families to billionaires. And it begs the question, do you know what people actually want? What people want is they want lower costs. They want good paying jobs. They want real immigration reform, not more fear-mongering or disappearing or the disappearing of US citizens off the street by mass ICE agents. They want accountability and they want transparency from our government.
▶ 0:22:27And that brings me to the last thing on Republicans pre-district work period to-do list. Keep burying the Epstein files. Trump and you all spent years, years promising the American people that if you came into power, you'd release the Epstein files. Now, everyone seems to have reversed course, raising questions that would be easily answered um with the files release. Last week, most of you voted six times to keep the truth hidden.
▶ 0:22:53And when the public called you out, you tried to weasel out of it with a weak, non-binding resolution, a PR stunt, toothless, meaningless, a smokeokc screen meant to dodge accountability that isn't even coming to the floor. Well, this issue is not just going to go away. And with each passing day, more and more information surfaces. Pressure is mounting.
▶ 0:23:14And the and Trump is so stressed that he is now resorting to his greatest hits, calling for investigations into Clinton's emails to distract from rising questions from his MAGA base. Spinning up debunk conspiracy theories about Obama to deflect from last week's Wall Street Journal article about Epstein's birthday note uh notes. Demanding, you got to love this. demanding the commander football team reverse uh their name change. I mean, give me a break.
▶ 0:23:43This is what the president of the United States is obsessed with. He literally posted a threeinut captionless video with clips of a woman picking up picking up and tossing a snake, a man somersaulting around a dowel, a red Lamborghini careening beneath a truck, people jump roping, jet skiing, juggling, doing trick shots. I mean, seriously, this is what the leader of the free world is using his platform to promote.
▶ 0:24:12Maybe he needs to adjust his medications, but this is nuts. But it's the same playbook every time. Distract, deflect, and create chaos. Well, it's not going to work this time. People are seeing through it. This time, it's simple. Uh, you know, vote for the bipartisan mass bury the truth. There is no middle ground. The American people are paying attention. They see who you're fighting for. And as sure as hell is it them.
▶ 0:24:40They remember who stripped away healthcare, who fed billionaires while starving working families, who voted to cover up information that could shed important light on one of the biggest and largest abuse and exploitation cases in modern history. And we will remind them every damn day until the next election. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 0:25:02Thank you, m Mr. McGovern. Last week, the rules committee was the first body in Congress to approve any measure calling for transparency around the Epstein investigation. Recent announcements for President Trump are proof that he's paying attention to the actions of this committee. We'll continue to track the actions of the executive branch as they info, including the new petitions by Attorney General Bondi. Let me make something else clear.
▶ 0:25:31My Democrat colleagues didn't seem to be interested or demand any kind of transparency for four entire years under President Biden. And let's look at the case history of the efforts of Democrats on this committee to determine if this was a serious legislative effort or just an effort to score points and derail our agenda.
▶ 0:25:58First, Democrats made a motion to provide for the Kana amendment. Let's be clear, that amendment made absolutely no mention of protection for victims or witnesses. Zero. Those protections were added only to that amendment in a different iteration days later, further indicating the original text as being insufficient for protecting victims. Then the Democrats made a motion to provide for a resolution by Mr. VZY.
▶ 0:26:28This was the same type of vehicle that Mr. Norman offered. But let's listen to what they had to say about a nonbinding resolution then. Ranking member McGovern said that quote, "If you believe that the administration should release what it has available, then I think this should be an easy vote for everybody." End quote.
▶ 0:26:49Miss Leisure Fernandez stated that quote the question that you will be voting on with the power that's been granted to you is should they release the files that's the vote you'll be making end quote. Mr. Negus stated this on the resolution. I think this vote provides another opportunity for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle again before we cast this vote to perhaps join Mr. Norman in voting in favor of releasing the files. End quote.
▶ 0:27:18So please spare us the song and dance about the vehicle in which we demanded this transparency. You supported the same vehicle just days prior. Our committee's done the work of demanding transparency and we're seeing
▶ 0:27:33Madam Chair,
▶ 0:27:34with that I'm going to go on to the
▶ 0:27:35Well, I know, but I think I think you you just impuged our motives over here and I I want to I I think
▶ 0:27:41I didn't impugn your motives. I just gave you the history.
▶ 0:27:44Well, but the history is a little bit of a revisionist history. Um, and you know, and and one, we tried to offer you an amendment that would have done something and you rejected it. Then we offered a non-binding option, which you also rejected. Two, a bill didn't exist then, a bipartisan bill exists now. So, a non-binding resolution wasn't good enough for you a week ago, but now that there's a bill available, you want to get out of it by voting by get out of voting for that actual legislation. Bottom line is you didn't mention any of the votes that we took in this committee uh uh last week.
▶ 0:28:14Uh again, we're going to give you an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan Kana Massie bill uh again later today. Um and and by the way, you and and I you neglected to also say and and again I stand by what I say that the bill that you offered is a meaningless press release, but when when is it going to be voted on?
▶ 0:28:35I mean, we we voted on it um you know, without any notice that we were going to even vote on it in the in the committee last week, and we're still waiting for the majority leader to tell us whether it's going to be scheduled this week. Is it?
▶ 0:28:50We're waiting for the majority leader. You're correct. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Westerman and Representative Elfred from the Committee on Natural Resources. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Westerman, I welcome your testimony.
▶ 0:29:17Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, and to the committee members for the opportunity to testify today to talk about Congressional Review Acts or CRAAS. Um, seems like I landed in the middle of more like an MMA bout in the committee here, but hopefully we can focus on the business at hand, which are three three CRAAS, three CRAAS, which would unwind resource management plans or RMPs that the Biden administration put in place during the waning
▶ 0:29:47hours of the administration. Collectively, these RMPPS would lock up 29 million acres of land and mineral uh estates in Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska. This is an area roughly the size of the state of Ohio, and nearly six times as large as the state of Massachusetts. These RMPs are imposed on lands in three western states, but their effects are being felt nationwide.
▶ 0:30:15The RMPS halted leasing, exploration, and energy production, which ultimately threatens grid reliability for states across the country that depend on the affordable dispatchable base load power generated by the fuel sources produced on these BLM lands. This can be especially concerning during times of high demand and extreme weather. The three RMPPS dictate how incredible swast of resourcerich public lands are managed at a time when America's energy future is at a crossroads.
▶ 0:30:46With surging needs from AI, data centers, and advanced manufacturing, US peak electricity demand is projected to grow by as much as 128 gawatt through 2029. That's quintupling earlier forecast. We simply can't afford to allow short-sighted policies to put the brakes on our long-term energy security.
▶ 0:31:09We need to un unleash every tool in our energy arsenal to meet this moment and power the next generation of American If we can't harness our energy resources in America and share it with our allies, we're seeding valuable ground to China, Russia, and any nation hostile to American values. That's why these CRAAS matter. They restore balanced scientific management to our public lands.
▶ 0:31:35They remove artificial barriers imposed by the previous administration on American energy and mineral resources. And they recognize that responsible energy development and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they go hand in hand. HJRES 104 targets the Biden administration's sweeping coal leasing ban across Montana's entire entire Powder Riven B River Basin. This is home to nearly 30% of the nation's recoverable coal reserves.
▶ 0:32:06For perspective, coal from the Powder River Basin generates enough electricity each year to power over 16 million American homes. That's enough coal to provide every household in the state of Colorado with reliable, affordable energy three times over. HJRES 105 reverses an RMP that blocked development on 99% of North Dakota's coal and closed off 44% of fally owned oil and gas acreage in the state.
▶ 0:32:33That's energy that could heat homes, power factories, and support over 12,000 goodaying jobs. All halted by bureaucratic fiat. It also represents millions in lost revenue that would other otherwise flow to the US Treasury to help reduce the national debt and to state government to support vital public services such as infrastructure development and public education.
▶ 0:32:57HJRES 106 lists restrictions on 13.3 million acres in Alaska, unlocking development of the Amler Access Project and the Alaska LG pipeline. These projects are not just vital to Alaskans, they're critical to supporting US energy dominance and our allies abroad. The LG project alone is expected to produce 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. That's enough to supply over 10 million homes and support at least 10,000 high-paying jobs.
▶ 0:33:28Amler Road, meanwhile, is crucial for accessing critical mineral deposits necessary for domestic manufacturing, defense, and energy supply chains. Together, these CRAAS build on the energy provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and advance key tenants of several of President Trump's executive orders, such as reinvigorating America's beautiful clean coal industry, unleashing American energy, and unleashing Alaska's extraordinary resource potential.
▶ 0:33:54I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Downing, Federichek, and Begage for their strong leadership in advancing these critical CRAAS. Thanks to their work, we are fighting back against unjustified restrictions and standing up for American energy workers, families, and consumers. Urge the committee to report a favorable and appropriate rule so these resolutions can be considered in the House. Thank you, and I yield
▶ 0:34:19Thank you, Representative Alfred. You're
▶ 0:34:22Thank you very much, Madam Chair, ranking member McGover, members of the committee. I'm pinch hitting today for the chair of natural resources to testify on the three CRAAS before you that would overturn resource management plans developed by the Bureau of Land Management which relate to the administration of public lands and the stewarding of critical natural resources in Alaska, North Dakota and Montana. But today I really do want to focus, Madam Chair, not on politics but on process and frankly the lack thereof.
▶ 0:34:47These plans, commonly referred to RMPs, serve as frameworks that guide how we prioritize and steward our public lands. And they guide everything from grazing and recreation access to oil and gas leasing and wildlife protection. They are foundational documents critical to the long-term sustainability and viability of our public lands. RMPs are developed through an open, transparent process that incorporates science, law, and crucially rigorous public and local input. I want to underline that public and local input.
▶ 0:35:16The three plans under attack today were finalized by the previous administration following years and in one case at least a decade of diligent work to update outdated plans. The new plans reflect thousands of hours of staff time and extensive engagement with local governments, tribal nations, industry conservationists, and everyday public land you users surrounding these public lands.
▶ 0:35:38The plans were crafted to address the real world challenges that landscapes face today, including the complex and growing challenges of stewarding them in the face of humaninduced climate change. The resolutions under consideration today would not only overturn these RMPs, but crucially, they would also prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from issuing any substantially similar plans in the future without the express approval of Congress. I'm going to come back to that in a moment. We are in uncharted territory here.
▶ 0:36:06Congress has never used the Congressional Review Act to overturn a resource management plan or any other similar land use plan in our history. And frankly, I'm confused by the choice of the CRA, this tool to override the RMPs. It handcuffs not just this Congress, but every future Congress from addressing and stewarding these natural resources on behalf of taxpayers. Not only that, it completely overrides input from our constituents who have meaningfully and dig diligently engaged in the public processes that are central to RMP development.
▶ 0:36:36To wield the CRA as a hammer on these RMPS crushes any public engagement and issues a unilateral mandate from people who do not know the intricacies of these swasts of land and impacted communities. While we were talking about western states, if this were my district, which were subject to a CRA like this, I would be furious because nobody knows a district better than our constituents. This body is now removing their voices from this critical process. Each of us represents a district that is itself a delicate ecosystem with competing interests, unique challenges, and ample opportunity.
▶ 0:37:06Why would we limit our power to effectively represent our districts with these CRAAS? And what right do we have to say these years of constituent engagement no longer matter to this Congress? That is the message we are sending with this unprecedented move to even consider RMPs under the Congressional Review Act. The fact is that each of these RMPs being threatened today were years in the making. The R&P in Miles City, Montana, covers 1.7 million acres of land and dates back to 1985 and was last updated in 2015.
▶ 0:37:34HJ resolution 104 would put an end to this plan that was finalized after years of public comment. And I have a note here, 167 public comments. Environmental studies feedback from Montana's Republican governor and constituent engagement. The 2025 R&P in North Dakota relates to 58,000 acres of surface land and 4.1 million acres of mineral estate.
▶ 0:37:55It amended an RMP from 1988, the year I was born, to ensure that the best available science was used for land use determinations and that constituents currently impacted by these decisions had a seat at the table. HJRES 105 would kill the decades of collaborative effort on the ground in North Dakota in favor of a plan that is older than I am.
▶ 0:38:14The R&P developed in the central Yukon of Alaska streamlined and modernized three outdated plans from the 80s and 90s in included a decade a decade of extensive engagement with local governments, residents and business owners and native populations, particularly in consideration of the RMP's relationship with tribal lands. In all, the use of 55.7 million acres in Alaska land, including sacred sites, was thoughtfully negotiated with the unique needs of constituents.
▶ 0:38:42HJ10 res 106 would unilaterally overturn all of that work. While I understand there are different views on how to manage public lands, this is not how we resolve those differences. The Trump administration has every right to go through an established process to review, revisit, and update these plans. I would disagree with that, but that is the process that we've established in coordination with local land owners users who will be affected. But the CRA is the wildly wrong tool to use here. It is not designated for this.
▶ 0:39:11And as the old saying goes, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Let's not open a Pandora's box we cannot close. I urge the committee to reject these these reckless resolutions and protect the integrity of our nation's public land planning process. I yield back.
▶ 0:39:25Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady, Miss Fishbot, for her time of questioning.
▶ 0:39:35Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just wanted to uh um just say kind of confirm some things with Mr. Westerman and um and maybe you can help me out. I know that these resolutions are are a critical step um towards American energy independence and so maybe you could talk a little bit about the impact that these CRAAS could have on our national energy supply.
▶ 0:39:58Well, just when you look at at Montana alone, it's um 30% of our nation's coal supply is in the Powder River basin that was taken offline or taken out by these RMPs by the Biden administration. So that that alone is is devastating.
▶ 0:40:21Now throw in uh North Dakota and the the oil and the gas and the coal there and then go to Alaska and we're not just talking about oil and gas and coal. We look at the Amler Road project and Representative Beg will tell you that 49 of the 50 um critical minerals on the critical mineral list are located within the access of the Amler Road in sufficient quantities to produce.
▶ 0:40:49So all of that was locked up and taken out by these RMPs. So, and so these are not they're not they're very important to our energy supply, our critical mineral supply. And so I appreciate you bringing them forward. And then I just have just one other just kind of quick question, yes or no? And um are the elected officials um who's whose constituents who they're very close to the constituents will be affected by that. Do these support these CRAAS these actions that we're taking today?
▶ 0:41:18Yeah, I found find it interesting that um claims are made that the public's denied input. When you look at these local communities that are affected most, u they very much support these CRAAS and oppose the RMPs. uh their elected representatives, the the governors of these states, the uh United Congressional delegations of these states all oppose the RMPs, but they were forced in the waning hours of the Biden administration.
▶ 0:41:47Uh, and I think as um as a legislative body, we have to step in and and not allow uh bureaucrats working in some cubicle somewhere to put these resource management plans out that really don't take into account the local input or the u uh the impact that it has on the on the broader energy part of the of the country. So, I'm very glad that we're bringing these three CRAAS forward today.
▶ 0:42:17And I also think there's there's more that could be done.
▶ 0:42:21Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I look forward to it and thank you for your bill. I yield back.
▶ 0:42:27Gentle lady yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, for his five minutes.
▶ 0:42:30Well, thank you. I suspect that the rationale behind much of this um could be determined if you follow the money. Um uh and I and that's one of the really disturbing things about some of the stuff we've been doing around here is that uh it it seems that um we're turning our backs on environmental concerns on concerns that regular people have have raised over the years. Uh and it's all about fundraising when all is said and done. But I just have a really I don't want to belabor these are coming to the floor.
▶ 0:43:01They get nine, we get four. So there's not much we can do about it other than try to point out some of the bad ramifications of these bills. But Representative Ellsworth, just I just want to make sure I understood this correctly. I mean, you mentioned that the Trump administration, if they wanted to, could rewrite the resource resource management plans themselves, right?
▶ 0:43:28Okay. But that would require them to go through an extensive public input process. Is that right?
▶ 0:43:36So it's that's interesting. So instead of going through a transparent process that takes public input into account, Republicans are using an untested method to repeal the current plans and go back to the ones that are several decades old in some cases. Am I correct about that?
▶ 0:43:52Okay. I I just wanted to clarify that for the record. May I I add to insult to injury to that? Absolutely. So it goes further and prohibits the Department of Interior from implementing any rule that is substantially similar.
▶ 0:44:09So completely tying the hands of these local jurisdictions. I just I think that's worth noting.
▶ 0:44:15Yeah. It it's it's really disturbing. Anyway, I thank you both for being here. I yield back.
▶ 0:44:21Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Scott for his time of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I I don't really have any questions. I mean, the this is a good committee, bro, that you chair and y'all do a lot of good work. Is there anything else that you would like to add? Um, that hasn't been said yet.
▶ 0:44:44Well, there there's an argument been made that u because we're doing a CRA, it wouldn't allow any kind of uh similar rule to be made, but I would say that the Trump administration can go back through the rule making process. These RMPs are an attack on American energy and mineral production.
▶ 0:45:05Uh so if uh if a new rule was to come out to actually utilize American Energy and Minerals, uh that wouldn't be a a sim similar rule to the one that we're doing the Congressional Review Act on.
▶ 0:45:20So, it seems to me that like before Joe Biden took office that the price of gas and diesel was was pretty low and then it went way up and and the rules and regulations that happened under Biden administration, wouldn't that be a reason for part of the increases and the cost of of energy?
▶ 0:45:45I would think so. um you you see you saw an attack not just on producing energy but also on transporting energy but something else has happened uh and I related this in my testimony that the US demand for electricity has increased five times more than what we thought it would be in 2029 just a few years ago the with the AI and data centers
▶ 0:46:13the demand for energy is rising
▶ 0:46:18And you have to have a fuel source to supply that energy. And we know that we're more or less in a in a cold war race on getting to super intelligence for AI. And without energy, we can't do that. So,
▶ 0:46:32we have to look at what's important and what our priorities are and are we going to uh succeed in this endeavor? Are we going to to yield and let other countries beat us on AI?
▶ 0:46:43Yeah. and all the solar panels in Georgia wouldn't wouldn't fuel one data center. And yet they can continue to demand that we waste a taxpayer resources on uh subsidies that drive the cost of farmland up and destroy the environment by by putting uh solar panels on farmland and uh just I mean heck in my district they cut down thousands of acres of forest land, destroyed the wildlife habitat.
▶ 0:47:11Now you got this solar wasteland out there and the American citizens have had enough of
▶ 0:47:16Well, and when you look at the projection of 128 gigawatts, so I I have a nuclear power plant in my district that's 1 gawatt. So think about between now and 2029, we need to build the equivalent of 128 nuclear power plants just to meet the projected demand. We can't be um turning a blind eye to any kind of energy source that's putting electrons on the grid.
▶ 0:47:39and we desperately need to do um permitting reform so that we can build generation and transmission capacity. It it took decades to build the new uh reactors at Bogle. Decades because of, you know, the bureaucracy that the environmentalists had created up here in Washington DC and the people that were embedded in the agencies uh that don't want any energy unless it's wind and solar.
▶ 0:48:06And you know, I look now and you've got even the governor of New York uh saying we need nuclear power. and and yet, you know, the the people who actually control the Democratic party don't don't want nuclear. They don't want they don't want oil and gas. They just want all of this stuff that, you know, just nips and tucks around the edges and doesn't actually do anything. So, I'm I'm looking forward to voting for uh the resolution when it comes to the floor.
▶ 0:48:35And uh I appreciate you, chairman. And um you know, with that, I have no further questions.
▶ 0:48:41Gentleman yields back. Now recognize uh Miss Scandlin for five minutes.
▶ 0:48:47Thank you. Um Rep. Bleworth, I'm just trying to make sure I've got a handle on this. So these are three bills that would overturn Bureau of Land Management um proposals.
▶ 0:49:01Yes. And it would be the first time this Cong any Congress has ever used the CRA as the tool to do that.
▶ 0:49:06Okay. And these were prepared with stakeholder input and after environmental reviews. It's my understanding these can take years to
▶ 0:49:14Yes. In the case of the Alaska resolution, that was a decade of preparation and public input. In the case of the Miles City resolution, HJRES 104, it was 167 public pieces of public
▶ 0:49:26Okay. So, the proposals that we're supposed to vote on this week would just throw out all that work.
▶ 0:49:33They would.
▶ 0:49:35Sounds like waste.
▶ 0:49:37I wouldn't disagree with that. And so if this CRA process is used to do it, which has never happened before, um it would then prevent the Bureau of Land Management from doing any similar regulation. The words are substantially similar rule. Yes. So when we're talking about, let's take the Alaska resolution that is aimed at protecting salmon, a pretty important natural resource, I would argue, both locally and nationally.
▶ 0:50:05We because we've never used this tool before, we don't know where it's going to land is and to what to what extent BLM can continue to manage that resource because it is substantially similar
▶ 0:50:16and there's nothing preventing our Republican colleagues from actually doing legislation to address this issue if they were so
▶ 0:50:24I would argue the more public input the
▶ 0:50:27Okay. So, it does seem like it's someone trying to do an end run on behalf of the fossil fuel industry to get out of having to um promote environmental
▶ 0:50:38I don't want to assume anybody's uh motivations, but it could be read that
▶ 0:50:43Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 0:50:46Lady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, for his time.
▶ 0:50:56Gentleman has no questions. Now recognize gentleman from Colorado, Mr. No questions. Gentleman has no questions. Now recognize Miss Ledger
▶ 0:51:08I thank you very much, chairman. I always seem to have the good fortune of being able to ask my question while you're sitting in that chair. Um, you know, I I I think there's an important thread running through here, which is the idea of community input, careful consideration by the people on the ground in each of these states. And I'm going to focus because I think that runs through each of these, right? But let me focus on Alaska.
▶ 0:51:37uh because Alaska uh is a place where there is both the salmon fisheries that are being impacted but also Native American consultation, Alaskan Native consultation. So, let me go back on the timeline. A decade, right? There was a decade spent negotiating these resource management plans in consultation with everybody including the industry. Is that correct, Representative? Yes.
▶ 0:52:06It's a care as all land management decisions are made this is a careful balance taking into consideration all possible uses all possible neighbors particularly tribal nations in this case of Alaska it's a careful balance decadel long process so we are after a decade worth of negotiation consultation on the ground working things out because those are not easy discussions and they worked it out and then a decade they finally came to a decision decision.
▶ 0:52:36It went through the normal process and and let me get this straight. How long has it taken Congress to decide that Congress knows better than everybody in the local community about what to do? You think you're looking for the data?
▶ 0:52:51I am looking for the data.
▶ 0:52:52July 14th. So, this bill was introduced on July 14th. And in one week time, we are going to be overturning a decade's worth of consultation. And I want to uh I'm referring to a letter here that we received. Uh it was sent to Speaker Johnson, my minority leader Jeff from the Bearing Sea Interior Tribal Commission. 40 federally recognized tribes working in unity to protect and support our traditional ways of life.
▶ 0:53:22And they're pointing out that they spent all this time working on this and that decisions about these lands should not be made without meaningful engagement with our tribal communities. To your knowledge, has there been any meaningful engagement, any tribal consultation, formal tribal consultation to overturn this uh resource management plan in the last seven days?
▶ 0:53:43Not to my knowledge, Congresswoman. And and to your point, no promise that that same negotiation, careful balance, collaboration with tribal uh nations would continue after this measures
▶ 0:53:57Uh and uh is that correct, chairman? Do you know if there was any formal tribal consultation with regards to uh this bill since July 14th?
▶ 0:54:09M Ledger Fernandez, I know that if the Trump administration chooses to do another resource management plan that they would go through tribal consultation. What this CRA does is takes us back to what was in place before the new R&P was put in place. And I'll reiterate again that um the governors, the congressional delegation, many of the local uh citizens and businesses are opposed to the RMP.
▶ 0:54:38They want to be able to use the resources uh that they have.
▶ 0:54:43So once again, the an so the answer chairman is there was no tribal consultation with regards to this bill since July 14th, which is when it was
▶ 0:54:51Are you talking about Congress doing tribal consultation? But there was tribal consultation over a 10-year period and it is now being overturned with a bill that was introduced on July 14th. And one of the things I think is important for the public to understand is things that come out of tribal consultation and all of this hard work is as an example that Alaskan Native Vietnam era veterans land aotment program was included in this because there's they weren't able
▶ 0:55:21to secure aotments and so they worked out the ability to seek all as partments which means a lotments for those who don't know is just the ability to then in essence kind of not own but be able to have the right to utilize your own land.
▶ 0:55:38This was a careful consideration and these are the kinds of on the ground considerations that we are simply overturning with the idea that Congress knows best overturning what was decades in the making. And I think that the whole idea of we need to unleash. I would just point out that there were required lease sales in Enoir and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge uh mandated. Nobody bid on them.
▶ 0:56:08Nobody bid on them because it's too difficult. In contrast, in New Mexico, we just did a lease sale where we had 25% royalty rate, some of the best royalty, highest royalty rates in the country. Guess what? Everybody bid on them because people will go where the resource is easily developed. And right now we have oil and gas resources over almost 12 million acres not being developed.
▶ 0:56:34So it's not like we can't we don't have land that's dedicated that could be unleashed. They're just not doing it now right now. Uh and so with that I would
▶ 0:56:44will the gentle lady yield so I can
▶ 0:56:46I was I was going to yield because I was trying to keep my conversations quick but go ahead. I just want to say in that 10-year time frame, part of that was under the first Trump administration in which they did a draft RMP, but the Biden RMP just pretty much ignored everything in the Trump uh resource management plan.
▶ 0:57:05Uh Trump could have finalized that resource management plan. Clearly didn't get around to doing it, but Biden finally got it done. It was a 10-year process that's been overturned with a 7day rule. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
▶ 0:57:18Thank you, Congressman. would add that this using the CRA in this way could very well be a Pandora's box. I know we talk about slippery slopes all the time, but let's talk about the fact that the bill that this Congress just passed, the big ugly bill from just two weeks ago, opens up 250 million acres of public lands eligible for sale. And so I I would I would be remiss if we all would be remiss if we thought it was just limited to these three states moving forward. And again, it's a very slippery slope utilizing the CRA in this way,
▶ 0:57:46right? And and once again, you know, the the the letters that we've been received uh that we've received opposed to this sort of indicate that they feel they feel betrayed. I think that that's a really useful word is betrayed. There's a lot of sense of betrayal out there of people not having their voices heard. Uh with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 0:58:05Gently yields back. Now recognize myself for such time as I may consuming questions. Uh Mr. Chairman Westerman, is there anything that you would like to add as a closing statement? I would just say the entire Alaska delegation was for the Trump draft RMP and there entire delegation is opposed to the Biden RMP which was done in the waning hours of the Biden administration and that's why we have
▶ 0:58:35CRAAS so that we can um cancel these actions made as one administration's going out the door trying to leave a legacy and not really looking at the uh the the evidence or the wishes of the people they're trying to leave their legacy uh the people that are damaged when they try to leave these legacies. Think about this. These three uh CRAAS or three RMPPS cover more land than the state of Ohio.
▶ 0:59:07This this is a large area and it takes off 30% of the coal production in the United States for the next 70 or 80 years. Uh these are big decisions that were made as one administration's going out the door and I think it's our duty as members to u to cancel these RMPs so that we can go back and do it correctly.
▶ 0:59:29Thank you very much. I yield back in my capacity of questioning and now taking over my capacity as chairing. I thank you both for being here. this afternoon and uh appreciate your time and we will move on to our next panel. So now we would recognize representative not and rec and ranking member Rasin from judiciary. Give them a minute to come up. We know it takes a minute to transition.
▶ 1:00:10Representative not representative Raskin uh from the committee on judiciary. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative not I welcome uh your
▶ 1:00:24Mr. Chair, thank you. Members of this distinguished committee, good afternoon. It is my privilege to remark on this important legislation which was drafted and formed based exclusively on my firsthand experience as a federal prosecutor and the very real problems that are exploited by illegal criminals who not only commit crimes here in the United States but return here time and time again even after deportation to do the same.
▶ 1:00:48And I begin by commending Congresswoman uh Bice for her dedication and her assistance on this important piece of legislation. In working with law enforcement for nearly a decade, I was honored to investigate, to try, and to convict many different people who committed many different types of crimes. Of course, this is in no way exclusive, but one of the lifebloods of organized crime is illegal alien criminals and the criminal liberties afforded to them by an open border and weak law enforcement.
▶ 1:01:19In its most basic sense, this problem comes down to a simple costbenefit analysis for the illegal alien criminal. Whether the crime involves drug trafficking, organized retail theft, entitlement fraud, human trafficking, violent crime, or some other type of crime, the benefits of self-enrichment and the very low likelihood of being apprehended and seriously punished encourages a heavy flow of criminal actors and criminal activity from coming into this country.
▶ 1:01:48This reality is best seen by the repeat criminal aliens. And again, the repeat criminal aliens, those who are caught, convicted, deported, and return illegally time and again. In my own experiences, I have personally spoken with face to face illegal aliens who commit crimes and illegally re-enter the country 10 times or more.
▶ 1:02:12One drug, one drug trafficker, an illegal alien who had been deported numerous times, poignantly responded to me when I asked him,"Wh do you keep returning to the country?" And he said, "Why wouldn't I?" The original version of this bill was drafted after a 32-year-old woman was tragically murdered by an illegal alien who had several felony convictions, not charges, convictions on his record, and he had been deported from the United States five times.
▶ 1:02:39Tragically, her case is no longer an outlier in this country. It happens repeatedly and far too regularly. Our tolerance for this ongoing harm has fully expired. And this bill aims to reflect that. This bill's purpose is to target again the illegal aliens who are here to commit crimes with efficient conviction and with significant penalties. This will of course deter aliens who are deported from returning here illegally.
▶ 1:03:05And to achieve this, there are some very basic constructs in this law. First, if someone is here illegally, and they are convicted, not charged, they are convicted of a felony, that alone makes them eligible for a separate federal crime that carries a minimum of 5 years in prison.
▶ 1:03:25And then secondly, if someone is deported and they return here illegally, they are no longer capped at two years in prison, but rather the the new maximum would be up to 10 years. And then lastly, if an illegal alien is convicted of a felony, deported, and then returns illegally, they would face a charge of minimum 10 years up to life in prison.
▶ 1:03:49The premise of this legislation with the reality that anyone who is in the US illegally is guilty of criminal conduct, of course. But what triggers these penalties is illegal re-entry and/or a felony conviction. Yes, we need the wall. Yes, we need deportations. The president has shown that these steps are critical and essential and effective. However, these measures alone are insufficient to deter and properly punish committed criminals who come back to the United States.
▶ 1:04:18With this with this bill, we changed the costbenefit analysis for criminal illegal aliens who will then conclude it is not worth it to come back here illegally and it is certainly not worth it to come here to commit crimes. It's time that the illegal immigrant criminals know that our tolerance for their presence and their illegal activity has expired. I look forward to the coming discussion. I welcome your questions. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:04:48Uh, ranking member Raskin, you're now recognized for your five-minute opening
▶ 1:04:53Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman, and uh my friend, Mr. Not is a very able and thoughtful new member of the House Judiciary Committee.
▶ 1:04:59Uh, but I I do want to argue that this bill would paste uh more confusion, redundancy, and incoherence to an already dysfunctional part of the criminal law. Um, under the under the mandatory minimum penalty section, the bill provides that the 10-year mandatory minimum penalty applies if a person is convicted of any crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. And Mr.
▶ 1:05:29Kn says it's just for people who commit felonies, but the felony, understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. or not, is to reenter the country without permission. So, somebody enters illegally, they're removed. They say they've committed no other crime. They enter illegally in order to get a job and work. They're removed. They come back in. That's a felony. And now they can be sentenced for uh five or 10 years here.
▶ 1:05:58And this is where the confusion comes in. And I do want Mr. Not to uh clarify this. And maybe in prison up to life for that. So somebody who's committed no other criminal defense offense rather than re-entering the country illegally could theoretically be sentenced to life uh in prison in our country. Now the to me the whole proposition seems bizarre.
▶ 1:06:23It would require that people who are deportable, undocumented immigrants must stay here and spend five or 10 years in America in our already overburdened prisons at a cost American taxpayers of more than $150 a day before they could be removed to the country they came from.
▶ 1:06:46So, at a time when um we have a disagreement about this obviously, but when the majority wants to throw 17 million people off of Medicaid, um it also wants to host foreign prisoners at $150 a day at least, perhaps hundreds of dollars a day when they could be removed from the country.
▶ 1:07:09Under 8 USC 1325, entering the US without inspection is already a misdemeanor punishable by a fine andor up to 6 months in prison with enhancements up to 2 years. Under 1326, unlawfully re-entering the country or being found inside the US following a removal order or denial admission is already a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. So, Mr.
▶ 1:07:36not proposes to change that to up to 20 10 years in prison for those who were ordered removed following a conviction for certain crimes. The existing laws were passed in 1929. They've been on the books for nearly a century. Presidents of both parties have used them to prosecute people who enter the country unlawfully. In fact, in the last month of the Biden administration, uh 1326 was the most commonly prosecuted criminal statute in the entire federal system.
▶ 1:08:06Yet, decades worth of data shows that there's no correlation between increased prosecutions under this statute um or increased uh sentences under the statute and a decrease in border crossings. If prosecution alone were a deterrent, we would have solved the problem long ago.
▶ 1:08:24But prosecuting people for illegal entry and re-entry does not overcome the push of desperate economic and life circumstances in poor countries, nor the pull of economic opportunity and jobs in America. So this bill would dramatically expand what's not working by imposing lengthier mandatory minimum prison sentences for the existing non-violent crimes of unlawful entry and re-entry.
▶ 1:08:51And remarkably, it even provides, and again, Mr. Knock, correct me if I'm reading it wrong, for a potential life sentence in federal prison for merely entering the country unlawfully with no other criminal conduct required. There, of course, could be other criminal conduct, but of course, we want to read it for logical clarity sake. People could be sentenced to life simply for re-entering the country um illegally.
▶ 1:09:18In other words, judges could sentence people um who have no criminal offense on their record here other than the illegal entry to the country uh to life in prison. And so we don't think this is an effective way to go. We don't think it's a good use of taxpayer money to use mandatory minimum sentences to compel these people to stay in the country.
▶ 1:09:40I I understood that President Trump's position was commute the sentences of immigrants who were in prison convicted of serious crimes so that ICE could take custody of them and then remove them from the country. This bill would do the exact opposite. It would require that deportable immigrants who've been convicted of no other crime other than uh entering the country illegally be held for 10, five, 10, even 15 years before they can be removed.
▶ 1:10:08So that seems to contradict the policy of the administration which is to get undocumented immigrants out of the country rather than keeping them here. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:10:18Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady from Minnesota, Miss Fishbach, for her time of question.
▶ 1:10:24Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I will pass. I yield back.
▶ 1:10:27Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize Mr. McGovern, the ranking member for his time of question.
▶ 1:10:34I I'm listening to Mr. Raskin's testimony and um and it makes me believe that this um legislation was drafted more as a talking point than as serious legislating. I mean life imprisonment for uh illegally entering the country. Um uh I mean I this this seems to be over the top um in my opinion. Um I'm not quite sure why.
▶ 1:11:02Well, you know, on the issue of immigration, I mean, here's a novel idea. Maybe Republicans ought to sit down with Democrats and we ought to be talking about comprehensive immigration reform that uh something that Republicans said they were they wanted, but then they objected to the proposal that was uh put forth prior to the election. And now that you guys won everything, I mean, it might be a good time to sit down and actually talk about uh really real comprehensive immigration reform. But that's not what this is. This is a this is a stop. Mr.
▶ 1:11:33Raskin, you want to
▶ 1:11:35Yeah. Well, I mean, I do not want to impute any the ill faith to Mr. Kn because he's, you know, prosecuted a lot in the field and I know he is sincerely motivated. But, uh, your general point is right, Mr. McGovern, which is we should be sitting down to deal with the immigration problem. I think there is bipartisan consensus. We've got to make it a lot more difficult to get into the country unlawfully and a lot easier, I would hope, to get into the country legally. And maybe that's where the hang-up is.
▶ 1:12:03Some people don't want more lawful immigration in the country. But can I just make one other point just about, you know, perhaps the political rush to do this? There's stuff in here regardless of whether you support this legislation or not, that's just really confusing that doesn't appear anywhere else in the statute book.
▶ 1:12:21At one point it says that um a person who uh enters the country illegally um shall be in prison for not less than 10 years and may be in prison for any term of years or for life. And I just can't make heads or tails of what that means. And I I'm sure that's a drafting error that is not the fault of the author, but that's got to be cleaned up.
▶ 1:12:43Well, there just just a few things, Mr. McGovern, thank you for allowing the discussion. But the uh in terms of of being sentenced to life for just a second illegal re-entry, that's not that's not the full picture. For up to a life sentence, you have to receive a felony conviction and then be deported and then returned. Secondly, there is no compulsion to charge this. So yes, it is an added tool in terms of the prosecutorial discretion. The aim of this is surely for someone who has been convicted, who has been deported and then returns here illegally.
▶ 1:13:13Uh but again, there's nothing that would that would uh compel a prosecutor to charge this. And if someone is just deported and they return, there's no conviction on their record. There is no allowance for a mandatory minimum. Does that make sense? So there has to be a conviction under the statute, then they're deported and then they would be subject to the enhanced penalties. But in terms of of the again the targeted class of defendants, this is for what Mr. Raskin said earlier in his statement, I will stipulate that the existing framework is no deterrent.
▶ 1:13:43And there are numerous examples of people who are deported from this country and they return because the current cap is two years. And the way that practically plays out is they're charged with illegal re-entry. They have um you know an attorney appointed to them. They fight the charges. They plead negotiation. They they plea negotiate. And by the time they say, you know what, I'll plead guilty here. almost two years has gone up. Uh so they get time served and they're either released or they're deported.
▶ 1:14:12So there does need to be in my estimation a greater deterrent for illegal reentry and that's what this this bill aims to do. So again, just to correct it slightly, someone cannot receive a life sentence for just illegal re-entry. There has to be convictions that are in the record before the deportation. If they choose to come back illegally, they could be subjected to enhanced penalties. But again, if you're not convicted of a felony and you don't illegally reenter, this law does not touch you.
▶ 1:14:40Well, the I appreciate the clarification. If somebody's just removed, you're saying, without a conviction, then they could not be sentenced to life. But if they are convicted of a second illegal entry,
▶ 1:14:53that's correct.
▶ 1:14:54Then they could be held for life. So all of which is to say if you've gone through the process, you have two offenses. And one was you came into the country illegally and you were convicted of it. And two, you came back into the country illegally and you were convicted of it. You could spend the rest of your life in prison and the taxpayers would have to pay for that. And I guess I just I don't see the logic of that.
▶ 1:15:17I I actually agree with you um in that conclusion, but I thank you both for being here and I yield back.
▶ 1:15:25Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Norman for his five minutes or his time Gentleman has no questions. I now recognize Miss Scandal in Pennsylvania for time of questioning.
▶ 1:15:37Thank you so much and thank you for being here. Um I I share my colleagues uh objections to what appears to be an unnecessary and bad policy bill. It really seems to be more of a messaging bill. Um not only because of the cruelty underpinning it, but it seems to be based on misrepresentations about what our immigration laws already do.
▶ 1:16:00I mean, we know it's already a crime to enter the country and prosecutions against unlawful entry have regularly been the most prosecuted cases in the US under presidents of both parties. I know you've participated in some of those
▶ 1:16:16And those found in violation of these statutes are already subject to prison sentences and mandatory removal. And we've got some questions about whether that actually has a deterrent effect at all. But you've urged us to look at the costbenefit analysis here. And I think I think we should. This bill would result in jailing undocumented immigrants for up to 10 or 20 years, possibly life, wasting taxpayer dollars, and limited federal prison space.
▶ 1:16:44The US already has a huge, huge mass incarceration problem. You know, we jail more people. I think we're over two million uh folks in jail in this country at this point in time. Um, and I think American taxpayers are certainly justified in asking our Republican colleagues, why should we imprison someone who is subject to deportation? Why should we pay for why should American pay taxpayers pay for them to be jailed for decades here?
▶ 1:17:11And so that kind of leads to why are we considering this bill at this time? And the answer seems to be that after ramming through the big ugly bill, our Republican colleagues are scrambling for something to do and scraping the bottom of the barrel. uh of messaging bills in order to have something to talk about. This bill looks like cover for the fact that Trump's failing immigration enforcement policies are not working and are not broadly popular.
▶ 1:17:40American communities are being terrorized by ICE agents who aren't even targeting criminals. Over 70% of the people that ICE has detained have zero criminal records. 93% have no violent convictions. I mean, the White House rhetoric about going after the worst of the worst doesn't match reality.
▶ 1:18:02American communities are terrified and intimidated because ICE is targeting immigrants who are lawfully present and targeting undocumented immigrants with no criminal records. These are small business owners, people's friends and neighbors, and they are certainly not the worst of the worst. So what we're seeing is Americans feeling unsafe when unmarked masked ICE agents are patrolling our street with the government turning the military against citizens.
▶ 1:18:34And nobody feels safer when the might of the US military is being deployed against all of us. So none of this is making people's lives better or making our country more safe. And I don't think this bill does either. So Mr. Rascin, was there anything you wanted to add? No, just to echo your point, uh, Miss Scandlin, um, this legislation would dissolve the distinction that exists in current law between, uh, an ordinary felony and an aggravated felony.
▶ 1:19:02So the it's not as if this bill is saying, well, if somebody enters illegally, they're removed from the country, they come back in and they commit a murder, uh, then we're going to put them in prison for up to life. This just says if you've entered unlawfully, you've been removed, and you come back unlawfully, now we're going to put you in prison for life potentially.
▶ 1:19:25Um, and so that dissolves the distinction between an ordinary felony and an aggravated felony, and it treats what's a nonviolent offense the way we used to treat uh a violent offense. And I do think some of it comes from people's understandable uh frustration that we're not legislating together to really deal with the problems of the immigration system. And I've seen the president go back and forth on this.
▶ 1:19:51I remember I think it was three Thursdays ago seeing him have a press conference saying, you know, the secretary of agriculture and the big farm concerns are telling me there's people working here who are undocumented, but they're very fine people and they go to work and we need them in the economy. So, we're not going to be conducting these ICE raids and deportations for those people.
▶ 1:20:11And then a couple days later, I think that Steven Miller got to him and he turned around and said, "We will." Then it later, he said, "Well, no, we won't." And I I mean, I don't know where he stands, but all of that indicates to me that the president can't legislate on this. We've got to legislate on this. And that means we got to get together and get serious about it and not just be, you know, fooling around in the criminal code, which I think everybody understands is not going to fundamentally solve our
▶ 1:20:36Thank you. I appreciate that. I yield
▶ 1:20:38And lady yields back. Recognize Mr. Scott for his time of question.
▶ 1:20:43Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The uh I mean the key the key provision of the bill is it raises the maximum term of imprisonment from two years to five years from an alien who illegally enters the United States more than once. Is
▶ 1:20:57that's correct?
▶ 1:20:59That's correct. If if and if I may have has anyone here on the on the rules charged an an illegal anil an illegal alien criminal or have has anyone spoken to a drug dealer human trafficker? Because I can tell you the construct of it is they do not fear law enforcement in this country unless there is mandatory federal time. I have talked to people who do not speak English.
▶ 1:21:23I have spoken to people who are in custody and they literally tell the police, "You can go pound sand." Until they realize there's federal law enforcement involved and they're looking at a mandatory minimum. When they look at a mandatory minimum, they know that there is absolutely no parole. There's no early release. There's not there's no chance to make bail. They cannot get out. and their posture changes from go pound sand to how can I help you? How can I help you? How can I further your investigation? They're more likely to plead guilty. They're more likely to open up the books.
▶ 1:21:51And if they knew they were going to be federally prosecuted by a serious prosecutor, they would never have come back into the country to start with. When you look at this country, Mr. Chair, there is roughly 65% of the country that is author that is under a sanctuary type policy, low law enforcement. And when that's the case, there is a welcome mat for illegal immigrant criminals.
▶ 1:22:13A bill like this will enable federal law enforcement to target the worst of the worst, the people who come here illegally to inflict harm on Americans with efficiency and with quick prosecutions that do not require massive efforts to build up sentences. When I was prosecuting these cases, the illegal re-entry statute was not one that we could utilize because to hit the the aggravated felony definition, that's one of the most litigated definitions in the entire country.
▶ 1:22:41Every circuit has a different interpretation of what an aggravated felony is. And the more progressive circuits, they will hit down a aggravated felony enhancement faster than I could blink twice. And then it gets remanded to a 24-month cap. This says if you come here illegally, don't come back if we deport you. And if you get convicted of a felony, there is real price to pay. That is not a standard too high for any person. And again, when you talk about cost, there was the the dimension of cost.
▶ 1:23:10I think it's an interesting argument to say we cannot afford to house them in our prisons, illegal immigrant felons who are here to human traffic, drug traffic, commit violent acts. So rather than keep them in our jails, we will either we will either allow them to stay on the streets or deport them when they have a proven track record of coming back into the country illegally. There has to be a massive efficient punishing effort for this specific class of illegal immigrant criminals.
▶ 1:23:40And if that's achieved, there will be a deterrent. And I personally I believe that when someone comes back a second, third, fifth, tenth time, we need to stop assuming they're going to obey the law and we need to put them in
▶ 1:23:53Well, not only that, when you catch them two times, how many times have they done
▶ 1:23:58I mean, it's not like we catch them 100% of the time. I mean, I think time has proven that uh you know, you get the wrong administration in there, they're not real good at uh catching anyway. I think it was an intentional release.
▶ 1:24:10That's right. in the part of uh Joe Biden, you know, accommodating the leftwing faction of the Democratic party, which is about 75 85% of it now.
▶ 1:24:20That's right.
▶ 1:24:20Um but I'm I'm for the legislation. I look forward to it and the rest of the uh measures passing with that. I yield my time.
▶ 1:24:29Gentlemen yields back. Now recognize gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Nagus for his time of questioning.
▶ 1:24:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and ranking member Rasin and Mr. Kn for your testimony for being here today. I do think it's important to recognize that this legislation can't be considered in a vacuum. It has to be considered in the broader context of course Trump administration's immigration policy. So Mr. Knot, you are a supporter of mass deportation,
▶ 1:24:58In large part, yes.
▶ 1:24:59Yeah. You tweeted out earlier today, quote, "Mass deportations must continue in earnest." End quote. Yeah. Okay. So I presume that in your view this mass deportation should include individuals in the United States who are the subject of prior deportation orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
▶ 1:25:20If generally if you're here illegally, I think you should leave.
▶ 1:25:23Got it. Okay. So it should include anybody who's here illegally. That includes people who have overstayed their visas.
▶ 1:25:29Okay. Um, let's say you have a Democratic member of Congress who feels really passionately that an individual who's overstayed their visa and who's a subject of a potential or not potential rather a prior deportation order um should be allowed to stay. You disagree with that advocacy. You don't support
▶ 1:25:51Can you repeat that question? Sorry.
▶ 1:25:52Let's say you you've said that you support mass deportation.
▶ 1:25:56Sure. And you believe that that should apply to anybody who's in the country
▶ 1:26:00Including individuals who've overstayed their visas
▶ 1:26:02or the subject of a prior deportation
▶ 1:26:06And if a Democratic member of Congress in North Carolina, you know, or feels passionately about advocating on behalf of someone whom has overstayed their visa and is the subject of a final deportation order. You disagree with that advocacy.
▶ 1:26:21People are free to advocate. We need to enforce the immigration laws. We have millions of people that advocacy. We have we have we have millions of people who have overstayed their visas and have used the visas as a vehicle to enter the country illegally.
▶ 1:26:33I understand that you feel that way. So that's why I'm so clearly you wouldn't support that advocacy. You wouldn't engage in that advocacy.
▶ 1:26:38I'm in I am for immigration enforcement.
▶ 1:26:40Correct. You wouldn't engage in that
▶ 1:26:45of of advocating for someone who's here illegally? No.
▶ 1:26:47Correct. Advocating for someone who's here illegally who's overstayed their visa or who's the subject of a a prior deportation order. I would encourage them to come in legally.
▶ 1:26:57There's an article here I'm going to read to you.
▶ 1:26:59All right.
▶ 1:26:59CBS News. ICE releases 64 year old Iranian mother that agents detained after US bombed Iran. An Iranian mother detained by the US Immigration and Customs and Enforcement officers was released this week following an advocacy from Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scaliz. It seems that Mr. Scaliz, the Republican majority leader of the House, has a very different view about advocacy for individuals who've overstayed their visas and are the subject of prior deportation orders.
▶ 1:27:30This is in reference to a woman in his district uh who was detained by ICE as she was gardening in the yard of her New Orleans home. She's lived in the US for 47 years. Her husband of 35 years and her 32-year-old daughter are both US citizens.
▶ 1:27:46But after a surge of community support, Scaliz, quote, who represents Louisiana's first congressional district, including the New Orleans suburb, told WWL that he's going to push the Department of Homeland Security to give her a fair shake when she applies for asylum again, the second time after being denied previously. You disagree with this advocacy?
▶ 1:28:08You know, if he's advocating for her, that's his prerogative. And he is advocating for her
▶ 1:28:12like you don't agree with her. Earlier, I heard you say that. Hold on. Mr. illegally. You are taking one example, one example to mask over millions of people who are here illegally and I find that res I would not take that case. I would not take that case. The leader is perfectly able to
▶ 1:28:28but you are using this to score political points. There are millions of Americans who have Mr. Mr.
▶ 1:28:35Stop Mr. N.
▶ 1:28:36Mr. Chairman,
▶ 1:28:37hang on.
▶ 1:28:37I would ask you to intervene to be bered by the witness here.
▶ 1:28:40You you were
▶ 1:28:41this is Mr. who's advocating for this individual, not me.
▶ 1:28:44Hang on. Hang on. Everybody calm down for a minute. Let me get control of the
▶ 1:28:51It has happened on a number of occasions in a number of different committees, but in here we like what we like to do and you were doing it earlier. Talk through the chair. Don't get into a spat with each other. Do the philosophical
▶ 1:29:03trying to answer the question.
▶ 1:29:04I understand. But then but then your advocacy as you are a great advocate overtook and and it got into more of a debate between the two of you and it's actually Mr. Nagus's time. I appreciate that. Don't worry, I'll give you time to respond later. But right now, it's Mr.
▶ 1:29:19I appreciate the chairman. I would just simply say that in so far as the gentleman from North Carolina is interested in berating someone for making political points, then perhaps that he should have that conversation with the majority leader of the US House of Representatives of his own political party because it is that individual who's been advocating for this woman. And by the way, I agree with his advocacy. This is a a perfect example of the president's mass deportation policy wreaking havoc in communities across our country apparently including in Mr.
▶ 1:29:48Scalis's community because it served as the impetus for him to go directly to Department of Homeland Security and advocating on her behalf. You have a position. You've taken that position. You can defend that position. Clearly, if a similar circumstance arose in your district, as I'm sure has over the course of these last 5 months, you would not be interested in such advocacy. That's your prerogative. Mr. Scaliz has a different view. And my simple point is that I don't think a system by which Mr.
▶ 1:30:18Scaliz is able to advocate and pick and choose which individuals in his community, which constituents who have lived there for decades raising their families, which ones he will choose to convince Secretary Gnome to allow to stay in the United States, that that is not a fair or permissible or orderly process for enforcing our immigration laws.
▶ 1:30:42You may not be willing to admit that given that this is involving the Republican majority leader, but I certainly am, and I'm happy to give the ranking member an opportunity to expound if he'd like.
▶ 1:30:51I I appreciate very much your point. And I just I want to say that on behalf of my friend, he's trying to look at things systemically and he's a he's a prosecutor, so he's got a tough line, whereas you and Congressman Scle are looking things from the standpoint of an individual. It's the job of Congress actually to try to put those two things together and legislate, but it's not happening. And so this legislation is more of the same in terms of the failure of our citizen of our uh system right now. Mr.
▶ 1:31:21Knott's argument that he made just a moment ago proves way too much. He talked about uh violent criminals. He talked about big-time drug dealers. He talked about people uh who've come in five or six or 10 times. But that's not what the legislation addresses. The legislation says you could have come in twice and been convicted twice of unlawful entry and nothing else. Not bank robbery, not dealing drugs, nothing else.
▶ 1:31:48And suddenly on your second time, you're facing, if again, correct me if I'm wrong, a mandatory minimum of 10 years. And then shall be in prison for not less than 10 years under 526 and may be in prison for any term of years or for life. Again, I think that it's a separate problem, but it's incoherent. I'm not quite sure what that's saying, but it it does seem to import the possibility of somebody going to prison for the rest of their life on their second entry.
▶ 1:32:16And in response to that, the distinguished advocate simply says, "Well, prosecutors don't have to charge that." Of course, they don't have to charge it, but the point is we're legislating from the standpoint of determining what they could charge, and they could charge that. somebody could end up in life for prison on a second offense if it's a really bad case about how they swam across the river or what have you.
▶ 1:32:39So I, you know, I think my friend, my friend, for the purpose of intellectual honesty does have to defend that possibility because that could happen that somebody who's not been involved in drugs, not been convicted of any other crime, not come in eight or 10 times, but on a second attempt to get back in, say to portray the most sympathetic circumstance to resume a job they had as a bus boy or a dishwasher, they come back in and now suddenly they're looking at life in prison and we got to pay for that.
▶ 1:33:08At the same time that the president is saying let's take actual convicted violent uh criminals and drug dealers and just get them out of the country, commute their sentences in order to remove them, which I do think again I will stand corrected, but I do think that that's the policy of the administration right now. So, it's incoherent to be pasting this on top of the law in a way that I think doesn't accord with people's sense of justice at a time when the administration's moving in the exact opposite direction.
▶ 1:33:39I think the ranking member I yield back.
▶ 1:33:43Gentleman yields back and I will now recognize myself for such time as I'm allowed to consume. Uh try not to get too long-winded as sometimes I do. So, welcome to the United States Legislature, Congress. It gets a little crazy here sometimes, as you know, in absolutely short time you've been here.
▶ 1:34:02And I think that my colleagues actually have some valid points, but it's based on a different viewpoint than mine.
▶ 1:34:08And those valid points are is that we really need comprehensive reform. But we've tried that in my tenure here and it's been blocked on regular basis oftentimes with votes from both sides of the aisle because I do believe we need to reform the American immigration system. I think that anyone who wants to come here and share in the American dream should have an opportunity to do that. The problem is we have made it more difficult than it ought to be.
▶ 1:34:33that creates the stress that that sometimes when we can sometimes agree even when we're going to disagree on the outcome of a bill that we get into is because I think most of us as the example that was brought up about a Republican member helping out somebody most of us care about folks who want to share the American dream and come here. The problem is dating back to the Reagan administration, there were attempts to do that. And yet the promises of securing the border never were fulfilled.
▶ 1:35:03What we're trying to do now is if if I might, I know this is what I would like to see happen is that we secure our borders. Thanks. uh we work on doing things in uh not only on the southern border but what we need to do on the northern border and what we need to do uh on the waters of the US etc to to secure our borders and then we're in a better position and to make sure that the criminals know and the people who are violating the law know that they're going to be dealt with and then
▶ 1:35:34because of the promises that were broken back in the 1980s then we can look for more comprehensive I have voted for some stuff before that my colleagues didn't always agree with me on. Um, and I am uh on the other side of the aisle. I was a criminal defense attorney for most of my career. Um, but but and so I'm hesitant on mandatory minimums, but interestingly, the ranking member probably talked me into it today
▶ 1:36:02I withdraw my arguments in that case.
▶ 1:36:05Fair enough. But what I heard was that we've had these sentences for years and and I interpreted a little bit, but because the sentences haven't been significant enough on a general rule, people keep doing it and they don't care if they get caught five, 10 times because the punishment is going to be little.
▶ 1:36:27And if the and if the consequences are we just send them back, commute their sentences and send them back, there's no reason for anybody not to continue to violate those laws. So, I mean, I recognize the weaknesses of mandatory minimums because there's always the case that you wish there weren't a mandatory minimum. Done some of those and they're tough, but we got to do something. Is that your position, Mr. N?
▶ 1:36:51It is. And if again if I if I might just kind of rec-calibrate this, we have up to 40 million illegals in this country. And to disincentivize the ongoing flow of illegal immigrants into the country, we have to secure the border and we have to punish people who come here not for the American dream, but to commit harm here in the country. And the harm cannot be overstated.
▶ 1:37:17um 1990 there were 4,500 Americans who died because of drug overdoses in the country. Illegal drug sales resulting in a death. In the last 20 years, there were over 1.2 million Americans who died because of drug drug death. You can't overstate the cost of that.
▶ 1:37:38And yes, I know Americans are involved in some of those drug distributions, but the open border and unchecked mass migration has been the primary driver of the drug epidemic in this country. And that's just one. You go down the list, whether it's schools, whether it's hospitals, whether it's health care cost, housing costs, public safety, mass migration has been a tremendous drain on this country. I agree with you that we do need to probably reform some bits and pieces of the immigration system. But we cannot do that.
▶ 1:38:05We cannot engage in that discussion until we punish the criminals. And just a brief example of why this bill is needed. When I was prosecuting, if we came across someone who had served federal prison time, let's say 1 2 3 5 years, they were deported. Oftentimes, they would be back in the country within six weeks.
▶ 1:38:27to to glean a big sentence, a a deterrent sentence, let's say 5, 10, 20 years, you had to reallocate thousands of law enforcement dollars, sometimes millions if you're doing a big investigation because the illegal entry statute was dimminimous. And the illegal criminal knows that this fundamentally changes that once you punish the criminals, there will be a deterrent effect. I have talked to these criminals and if the deterrent effect is successful, which I believe it will be, then we can go forward and start to address some of the other issues.
▶ 1:38:57I yield back.
▶ 1:38:59I would just say to the gentleman that I think it needs to be more when we get to that point. And I agree with you. We've got to get to that point where we have the border secure, where people realize that the
▶ 1:39:08the uh the flood of folks coming into this country has not just been stopped for a few weeks, but is has become the policy of the United States long term. Not just for one administration, but for multiple. Uh but somewhere along the way we have to figure it out because it's the more you study this the more you realize it's not bits and pieces.
▶ 1:39:26For example, one that's just driven me crazy is it takes some people from the Indian subcontinent because of rules that were passed in the 1960s that were well-meaning at the time, but it it takes some of those folks 2530 they've come in legally,
▶ 1:39:42but to but to gain citizenship, it's 25 30 years in some cases before they're eligible to become citizens of the United States even though they've obeyed all the laws and they came in legally. So that's not just a bit b bit b bit b bit b bit biten piece.
▶ 1:39:56So, I I I recognize that we need to have the huge reform on the one side, but my constituents and most Americans don't want that until we've secured our borders because of all the things that have happened over the last 30, 40 years since that deal was made uh with President Reagan that then there was never any followup on securing that southern border with something like a wall and in enhanced and increased
▶ 1:40:24That's right. Yes, sir.
▶ 1:40:26All right. I appreciate it. I yield I yield my time back and now recognize Miss Ledger Fernandez for her time
▶ 1:40:32Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and Representative Na, I find it of interest. Uh, I don't think we've much had much conversation before, but you were a former federal prosecutor.
▶ 1:40:42That's correct.
▶ 1:40:43Great. So, uh, do you agree that grand jury material cannot be unsealed just because a president asked for it or because the Department of Justice asked for it? It's up to the federal judge whether John seal in a grand jury.
▶ 1:40:59I believe it's a a particular need standard or some some something like that. There's got to be a specific need,
▶ 1:41:04but it's it's the judge which will who will decide.
▶ 1:41:06That's correct.
▶ 1:41:07And and isn't it also true that grand jury material is what is needed to indict. It doesn't include everything that might be part of the investigation that you would present at trial because you just need the indictment. Correct. case-bycase analysis, but generally not everything in term in part of as part of investigation is presented to the grand jury, although sometimes it may be.
▶ 1:41:29Yeah. But in general, it's not and anything that happened after the grand jury indictment would also not be included uh in the grand jury materials.
▶ 1:41:38That's correct.
▶ 1:41:39Right. So we have been having a conversation here in rules where they have voted six times ideally it's six times uh to not release material to not call and require that Trump release material related to the Epstein files.
▶ 1:41:53Based on your answers today, it's very clear that the kind of material that the public wants to see and that voters want to see, especially voters of Republicans, is not included in the grand jury materials because it's stuff that was collected afterwards or it's stuff that would not have been included in an indictment because it might not have been available.
▶ 1:42:17That's is that a question?
▶ 1:42:18Is that a question? Would you agree with that? Um, I didn't disagree with anything you said, but I do direct you to my Twitter. I released a statement again consistent with what you said that we should release.
▶ 1:42:28We should release that, but in order
▶ 1:42:30as much as we can to be as transparent as we can.
▶ 1:42:32So then I hope that you will then be signing on to the petition to discharge the Kamasi uh bill, which would require that release because right now that would be the only bill that would require that
▶ 1:42:45We'll look at it.
▶ 1:42:46Great. I look forward to that. And then let's get to the issue with regards to um the bill before us. And it strikes me that something that the ranking member said earlier was follow the money. And you know, we know how much does it cost to detain a person a day in average.
▶ 1:43:08The the the cheapest that we found, because I wanted to be fair, was $150 a day. The other estimates range up to $250 or $300 a day.
▶ 1:43:18Yeah. And so we know that uh private prison companies stand to make a lot of money if we start uh locking up a bunch of immigrants. people who aren't just serving us in restaurants, but they're actually picking the food and doing the hard work in the poultry processing plants and and work that others don't want to do.
▶ 1:43:47Well, that was President Trump's point when he started to say, "I'm going to rope off the farm sector and restaurants and food from the ICE raids." Again, it looks like Stephen Miller got the better of the argument then and they've kind of gone back and forth several times, but you know, my friend uh keeps talking about drugs and violent offenses. I couldn't agree more, but that's not this statute. This statute, this bill doesn't mention drugs. It doesn't mention violent offenses. We've already got mandatory minimums in that field.
▶ 1:44:17And this isn't even increasing the mandatory minimums there. So, I don't know why we would legislate for drugs when we're talking about people who are just crossing the border unlawfully. They shouldn't do that and they can be removed and they should be removed. This goes in the other direction saying no, let's in let's make a mandatory minimum sentence of uh is it is it five for the first one and 1325 and then uh 10 or any term or life in the in the second time.
▶ 1:44:47So, following the money, uh, do you know how much money private prison companies uh, gave to, uh, Trump? Representative,
▶ 1:44:55I didn't hear your question. I'm sorry.
▶ 1:44:56Uh, how I'm sorry, representative not how much money private prison companies gave to Trump in terms of
▶ 1:45:03I don't know that it was actually a million dollars. Uh, Coriv and CEO both gave 500,000 and they are looking to have a 400 million increase in revenue. uh they've been they've been engaged in these calls with their investors saying we are going to make a whole bunch of money because we now have $4 billion for prisons and I think this following the money is really important that there are a lot of people who are going to make a lot of money out of this
▶ 1:45:35and I would say a lot of those people shouldn't be um in our prisons they shouldn't be in our country and we can just remove them if they've not committed other violent offenses or drug offenses. is they should be removed from the country. But why should they just become kind of fodder for the prison industrial complex to be making money and so I'm very skeptical of an approach that would just swell the prisons with nonviolent offenders.
▶ 1:46:01Um we've always viewed in our history immigration as a civil matter and not a criminal matter. And what it is is transforming all of uh these immigration violations into serious crimes. So we're treating people who've entered the country unlawfully like drug dealers or like violent offenders and putting them in proximity to those people.
▶ 1:46:26Right. And and uh uh Mr. chairman. Uh the Reagan uh pathway to citizenship for people hardworking, lawabiding, except for the except for the immigration offense. And that's the important thing. Except for the immigration offense, except for the immigration offense, lawabiding, hardworking, taxpaying resulted in $1.4 trillion dollars in economic benefit to the United States.
▶ 1:46:53And if we did the same here where we actually created a pathway because people want that. Americans want us to solve our immigration problems. Yes, secure the border, but we need to fix it. And the way to fix it is not to make sure that all those uh donors to Trump uh make a lot of money by just locking people up who did nothing more than cross the border. And I have talked to people representative not and sometimes they've left because their mother was dying.
▶ 1:47:23and they nodded to say goodbye to her and then have crossed back over. And it's those kinds of minor offenses that then would become the disaster we're seeing. Uh I'm the last Democrat on. I'm ready to yield back. Was there anything else you want to add?
▶ 1:47:39I I would just say this.
▶ 1:47:41no. No. You were looking at me. I just want to make sure.
▶ 1:47:46Yeah. No. Ranking member.
▶ 1:47:47No. I'm glad that Congressman Negus raised um Congressman Scaliz and what he's doing for his constituent because I think that lots of us are trying to help particular constituents who've been part of their communities for decades. They're other people in their family are citizens. They're working here productively. They've been in the military. There's the guy in California who got manhandled by ICE who's got three sons in the Marines. Um and when you hear those individual cases, it tugs on your heartstrings.
▶ 1:48:17you view it from a human perspective and not simply from a criminal justice perspective. And I can understand where Mr. Nuts coming from having prosecuted a lot of drug cases and he might be seeing the intersection of that. Again, I would argue that as a matter of uh legal analysis that we can get the people we need to get on the drug offenses or on the violent offenses. We don't need to completely revolutionize the immigration code to give people life sentences for entering the country unlawfully.
▶ 1:48:48But you've introduced another really important factor which is there is a profit motive at work here to keep people in the country in prison for their whole lives. And having just finished um uh Mr. Noni's book, which you know he wrote from prison uh before he died. Um we should think real carefully about what it means to give somebody a life sentence. I recommend Nani's book really highly about what it's like uh to be in prison.
▶ 1:49:16Um and of course he was in prison in an authoritarian autocratic regime with Vladimir Putin. But we don't want to become an authoritarian autocratic regime. We want the sentences to fit the crime and we want the crimes to be real crimes. Right. And I think that you know many of our colleagues have been going to many of these ICE detention uh facilities and and witnessing firsthand the inhumane conditions.
▶ 1:49:40I mean alligate Alcatra alligator Alcatra is just horrible what we've heard and we just needed Americans are not supportive of that. While they want to address criminal activity we have the laws to do that. We do not need to be engaged in activity that is inhumane and that does not meet what is good about America and what is strong about America. With that, Madame Chairwoman, I yield back.
▶ 1:50:12Thank you very much.
▶ 1:50:15Uh, Miss Leisure Fernandez, Mr. Kn, do you have any additional comments that can be said quickly? I'll just briefly again just reiterate there's a lot of talk about people who are here illegally and people who are honest and hardworking and want to stay here. If you do not commit a felony and you do not reenter illegally, this bill does not touch you. And uh it takes a lot to convict someone of serious crime in this country.
▶ 1:50:42And if someone makes a habit of returning to this country to commit serious crime, we need an efficient way to charge and to remove them. And I will just keep saying this over and over and over. The cost of mass migration criminals, you cannot overstate. We must make it easier to deter them from coming back. And that's what this bill ch tries to do.
▶ 1:51:02Thank you very much. I appreciate our panel for being here. Um, and you all are dismissed.
▶ 1:51:11Madam Chair, may I say one more thing? I want to return the nice word to Mr. Raskin. Always enjoy seeing you. Thank you so much. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Kn. I now welcome our third panel, Representative Collins and Representative Schultton. Representative Collins from Georgia, Representative Schultton from Michigan uh from the Committee on Transportation Infrastructure. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes.
▶ 1:51:42Representative Collins, I welcome your testimony.
▶ 1:52:16Oh, I thought that thing was on. Sorry about that. I'm proud to sponsor this legislation which was favorably reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June the 25th, 2025. HR 3898 as amended is a comprehensive common sense package of reforms to strengthen and modernize the Clean Water Acts permitting process.
▶ 1:52:41For far too long, these processes have been weaponized to block critical energy and infrastructure products, not for legitimate environmental concerns, but for political and ideological reasons. HR 3898 as amended rebalances the Clean Water Act to encourage economic growth while simultaneously supporting environmental protection.
▶ 1:53:02It does so by closing loopholes in the Clean Water Act permitting process, clarifying congressional de direct directives and codifying helpful permitting practices that have worked for decades. The bill will ease overbearing regulatory requirements, protect good actors against frivolous lawsuits, and increase transparency, all while continuing to provide meaningful water, clean water Put simply, this bill increases regulatory certainty while simultaneously
▶ 1:53:33providing a pathway for the regulated community to achieve and maintain compliance with the strict standards of the Clean Water Act. In the five decades since its enactment, the Clean Water Act has proven effective at providing a framework for the federal government for the federal government, states, localities, and private entities to work together to improve water quality nationwide. However, as with many things after five decades, the Clean Water Act requires some modernization.
▶ 1:54:03By modernizing the Clean Water Act in a responsible way, we have an opportunity to rebalance the scales to better promote both environmental protection and regulatory My colleagues often talk about rivers catching on fire as a reason for needing a heavy-handed federal government. But unlike more than the 50-year-old scare stories, the real success stories have come from federal state partnerships and a regulatory framework that allows job creators to be part of the solution.
▶ 1:54:34After receiving testimony at water resources and environment subcommittee hearings that I've chaired, it is clear we need to re-evaluate the Clean Water Act after years of weaponization of the law by various administrations, radical environmentalists who seem to have forgotten the role of the re the regulated community plays and not only ensuring water is clean, but in strengthening our economy for every American.
▶ 1:54:58In addition to my own provisions, this legislation includes provisions from bills offered by many other members of the TNI committee. I want to thank representatives Crawford, Perry, Rouser, Lamalfa, Stalber, Dusty Johnson, Owens, Berles, Herd, Shreve, Taylor, and Patronis for their contributions and work on this bill.
▶ 1:55:20Some of the highlights of the 3898, HR 3898 as amended include stopping the weaponization of the section 401 process used by radical states to halt important energy projects by limiting the scope of 401 review to water quality standards. Codifying longstanding bipartisan exemptions from the definition of waters of the United States or WOUS.
▶ 1:55:47directing the Army Corps of Engineers to address the current backlog of section 404 permit applications and jurisdictional de detriment providing increased certainty to permit holders by codifying and clarifying section 402 permit shield, extending the maximum le for permits and clarifying when section 404 veto uh may be used.
▶ 1:56:12Reducing duplicative and unnecessary permitting processes for agricultural storm water discharge and the use of pesticides and aerial fire retardants. Increasing increasing transparency in the development of water quality standards. Placing clear timelines on judicial review for clean water act permits and improving the process by which states can assume permitting authority.
▶ 1:56:37At the TNI committee, we have been focused on the theme of America builds and HR 3898 as amended will unleash America's ability to do so. The bottom line is that without reform in the Clean Water Act, America cannot effectively build roads, bridges, pipelines, ports, dams, levies, airports, homes, farms, or other infrastructure we need to put America first in the 21st century.
▶ 1:57:03In closing, I urge support for this common sense and necessary bill for the rules committee to grant a rule for its consideration on the floor. I look forward to answering any questions you may have and I yield
▶ 1:57:17Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Collins. Miss Schultton, you're
▶ 1:57:23Thank you so much, Chairwoman Fox, uh, and Ranking Member McGovern. As was the case when my colleagues and I marked up this bill in the TNI committee, I remain strongly opposed to the permit act. I challenge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to envision a world in which we can both expedite permitting and protect access to our clean water. That is wholly plausible.
▶ 1:57:51But it will not be accomplished by continuing to erode what is left of the Clean Water Act. My colleague scoffed at Dems's fear-mongering over 50-year-old uh scare stories about rivers catching on fire. Madam Chair, the reason those stories are 50 years old is because of the Clean Water Act, which not coincidentally was enacted into law 50 years ago.
▶ 1:58:19The Great Lakes at one point were declared dead, but thanks to reinvestment and revitalization, they are back alive and thriving. We do not want to reverse the progress we have made. The Supreme Court has time and time again chipped away at this bedrock law. We've seen federal protections slashed for over half of our wetlands and up to 70% of our streams.
▶ 1:58:46On top of these disastrous rulings, HR 3898 will gut federal investments and take a final blow at Clean Water Act protections. This bill will trample on states rights to regulate the water that make our communities unique, saddle everyday taxpayers with the cost of dirty water rather than holding the polluters who make these messes accountable to pay the cost.
▶ 1:59:11It will risk the health of American families and fail to meaningfully meaningfully reform the permitting process. In my home state of Michigan, water is life. Our Great Lakes are an essential part of our culture, our economy, and our environment. I have always understood my colleagues in the majority to be supportive of increased state rights.
▶ 1:59:36But HR 3898 will actually undermine states authorities to protect their own water quality. In addition to hindering local protections, this bill is going to jack up costs for working Americans. The Permit Act is going to turn a blind eye to bad actors who are polluting our waters. This has real consequences. And you know what? It's going to start with our utility bills.
▶ 2:00:01While Americans are already struggling to make ends meet, between the president's chaotic trade policies and the majority bankrolling tax cuts for billionaires, HR 3898 is going to make it more expensive to access safe drinking water and enjoy recreational water activities. As if shifting costs from polluters to taxpayers wasn't enough, this bill is going to risk the health and safety of American families.
▶ 2:00:30I'm a mom of two boys and protecting my two sons well-being is always my top priority as is the case for parents across the country. But the Permit Act is going to make it easier for toxic and cancer-causing chemicals to enter our water. This threatens pregnant women, young children, as well as the water we rely on to drink and grow our crops. Now, this all sounds bad and it is. So we have to ask why are we even considering this?
▶ 2:01:01My car my colleagues are going to argue that this bill is necessary to expedite the permitting process. And while I certainly support that sentiment and I'm actively working on permitting reform in many other ways, this bill does not accomplish that goal. The current president is cutting the very staff that administers these permits, slowing the entire process to a grinding halt.
▶ 2:01:25We've seen the Army Corps's three most senior experts leave the agency and regulatory staff have been gutted by an estimated 15 to 30%. Congress should be investing in skilled personnel to meaningfully reform the permitting process. We could be creating jobs, investing in water infrastructure, and boosting local economies.
▶ 2:01:44But instead, the majority is missing the mark on permitting reforms and harming our natural resources, public health, families, and our wallets by shifting the cost from polluters who should be responsible for cleaning up their messes to the American taxpayer. I strongly oppose HR 3898 and I yield
▶ 2:02:07Thank you very much, Miss Schultton. Um, Mr. Norman, do you have a question? Mr. McGovern.
▶ 2:02:17Yeah, Mr. Collins. Section two of the bill would allow the Trump administration to deem a sewage discharge as quote too expensive end quote to clean up, leaving poorer communities completely unprotected from raw or partially treated sewage waters. So, how are rural and underserved communities supposed to clean up sewage discharges if the EPA deems them as quote too expensive to clean up? Now, Mr. Governor, uh, Mr.
▶ 2:02:46McGovern, sorry about all kinds of things.
▶ 2:02:51Listen, this uh, this legislation would require the water quality criteria developed by the EPA under section 304 of the Clean Water Act to go through a rulemaking process allowing more stakeholders and outside experts to participate in the development I'm not sure that answers my question, but Shelton, do you do you want to take a I'm just trying to figure out how
▶ 2:03:13No, I mean that's exactly right. You know, we we have seen polluters uh you know, ditch their pollutants in our rivers uh in streams in Michigan and then uh pass the cost on to taxpayers. I don't know um at which point it becomes quote too expensive to clean up. Um but that is obviously just another reason I I oppose the bill. But you're you're exactly right and I'd love it if Mr.
▶ 2:03:36Collins had anything further to say on that or maybe they could submit something for the record, but um you know, we need to be safeguarding the health of our communities. You know, there's no mess that is too expensive to clean up, but the question is who pays for it? This bill would shift that cost to the taxpayers and allow polluters to get off
▶ 2:03:57And just and by the way, can someone explain why is there a complete exemption from Clean Water Act permitting requirements in this bill for pesticides? I mean, America uses over a billion pounds of pesticides annually. Yet, one-third of those pesticides are already banned in other countries because they're unsafe. I mean, even Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again Commission uh report found that pesticides pose significant risks to human health.
▶ 2:04:27So, can you comment on the pesticide exemption in this bill? I
▶ 2:04:31I I don't understand it. In fact, I tried to admit uh get an amendment to uh this portion in particular for known toxins when it came before the committee in TNI that cause harm to women uh pregnant mothers, young children. Unfortunately, uh it was not included and the committee voted that down knowing uh full well that this could could be included.
▶ 2:04:53Mr. I don't know if you want to add anything to either of these things, but
▶ 2:04:56yeah, sure. Those are regulated already under FIFRA so it's just duplicative.
▶ 2:05:02It It's not a a full and robust coverage. This undermines uh the the protections that we have and makes it more harmful for pregnant women, mothers, and small children.
▶ 2:05:11Yeah. No. All right. I I appreciate it and um you know, I'll be voting against the bill, but I thank you for being here and I yield back.
▶ 2:05:17Thank you,
▶ 2:05:18Mr. Scott. You're recognized.
▶ 2:05:21Thank you, Madam Chair. I I don't I don't have any questions for the
▶ 2:05:28Stanland, you're recognized.
▶ 2:05:29Thank you. And thank you to our witnesses. You know, I strongly oppose this effort to roll back the Clean Water Act. I think it's important to realize that this bill is not about permitting reform. It's about making it easier for companies to pollute our groundwater and our waterways. The Clean Water Act is what stops mining companies from uh dumping harmful chemicals into our rivers.
▶ 2:05:55It's what stops large commercial firms from dumping pesticides and fertilizers in our waterways. And it's what holds oil and gas companies accountable so that new energy projects don't unnecessarily pollute our waterways. The Clean Water Act and other environmental protections are under constant attack from this administration and congressional Republicans.
▶ 2:06:18And what gets lost in all the noise is that these environmental laws don't prevent good projects from getting built, but they do make sure that when a company does build something, it doesn't cut corners on safety and force the American people to pay the price. My district, Pennsylvania's fifth congressional district, is bounded to the south by the Delaware River.
▶ 2:06:42Before the Clean Water Act, chemicals in the Delaware River used to strip the paint off passing ships.
▶ 2:06:49Now families can kayak and sail on it. The only law standing between big corporations putting carcinogens in our drinking water and dumping flammable chemicals in our rivers to increase their profit margins is the Clean Water Act. And House Republicans want to gut it. Look, we've seen a number of bipartisan uh proposals for permitting reform over the past few years, and I think our time would be better spent building on those proposals to reach a bipartisan consensus.
▶ 2:07:20Um, Representative Shelton, um, can you just speak a little bit? I I think there was some conversation about the fact that in addition to rivers being set a flame in the past, um women and children couldn't eat the fish in the Great Lakes and in other bodies of water. That's all changed because of the Clean Water Act. Is that correct?
▶ 2:07:39Absolutely. Our our Great Lakes and rivers and streams are alive and thriving. And I can tell you as a a four-season angller uh on those lakes, we are very grateful uh for for the bounty that they provide. And we are not looking back uh we are not looking forward to to going back to a time uh when those rivers you know did catch on fire and could not sus support uh you know life in in the rivers.
▶ 2:08:04We have a $5 billion economy built uh around the Great Lakes and and that's just talking about the Great Lakes. You the thing I also just want to mention which is related to your point, you know, we are not exaggerating the extensive uh nature of these protections as well. You know that they want to the Republicans make a lot a huge deal over the EPA being overly zealous.
▶ 2:08:28But on a bipartisan basis, the EPA has blocked permits for ecologically devastating projects such as Pebble Mine in Alaska, Spruce Mine in West Virginia, and the Yazu pumps in Mississippi. The EPA has utilized this authority to block these projects only 14 times among tens of millions of permitted activities since 1972. Activities that would strip the paint off of passing ships.
▶ 2:08:53Those those are the types of protections that we are talking about in this bill and the types of protections that Republicans want to strip away.
▶ 2:09:01I I think it is really important and in my lifetime I've certainly seen the changes that have been the positive changes from the Clean Water Act. Uh just two weekends ago, I had the opportunity to go kayaking and see a bald eagle pair in the wild. Um and they had not been in the region that we were in for decades because the water wasn't supporting the fish, etc.
▶ 2:09:24So um I think we need to uh continue the good work of the clean water act and not gut it uh for our sakes and for the bald eagles. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 2:09:36Jenny lady gentle lady yields back. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. First, we'll start with the bald eagles. Uh it's true that the pesticide, particularly DDT, was was disastrous to the bald eagle population, but I can assure the gentle lady that as an avid burer
▶ 2:09:53that bald eagles are back in strong across many areas. They're even in my district where where as a child we never saw them. And that is a good thing that has happened. There are
▶ 2:10:05Yes, ma'am. No birds. Absolutely.
▶ 2:10:08If he's going to
▶ 2:10:09and different kind of birds, but uh but um yeah, there there are some good things out there. Unfortunately, there are also some things that aren't so good. And uh so, Mr. Collins, I would ask you uh it sounds like from my colleagues that you're trying to repeal or gut the Clean Water Act, and when I read the bill yesterday morning, I did not get that impression. Is that
▶ 2:10:34Yeah, I appreciate the time, Mr. chairman. Um, you know, Republicans, we also want clean water. Uh, we just want to restore the balance between the federal and state partnership that's going to allow for economic growth. I mean, clear permitting requirements, um, that increases compliance. And we don't have clarity right now. You know, so many times, I don't care if it's a farmer, a home builder, water treatment facility, we I've talked to numerous of them.
▶ 2:11:03They don't understand why it takes so long to get a permit. They don't understand why they are involved in all these frivolous lawsuits and it rains things like that in. We're not gutting anything. We're making it clear and concise just so that people can comply and they know what the standards are and it doesn't take forever. You know, if it takes six years for the EPA to answer when it should take just 60 days, there's a there's an inflationary a lot of money.
▶ 2:11:29You you talk about inflation on just completing a project that's going to be passed on to consumers. That's where this comes into effect. It is time to just modernize this thing. It's been around a long time. There's nothing with looking at it and modernizing and uh making our compliance easier and helping our economic growth at the same time and maintain clean
▶ 2:11:50I appreciate that. I was particularly struck by section 10 on page 21, the agricultural storm water discharge. And I was trying to read between the lines on that because uh a big chunk of my district it would qualify as agricultural land because it also says immediately land that is immediately adjacent to and functionally related to land described in clause one or two. So which is where you have crops and animals and fruit and nut trees etc.
▶ 2:12:18and um storm water uh discharge is a big problem for everybody. And the question that I don't know is have there has your committee heard uh concerns that that you've got small farmers who really don't have any way to control a sudden flood.
▶ 2:12:38In fact, the reason that I was up early reading this bill yesterday morning was I had to drive to a small town, not huge, uh that got flooding over the weekend to see the damage and uh to see what was going on there. And u this one, the way it works in the mountains is you can have one town hit and everybody else is wet but not flooded. And this town got flooded pretty heavily.
▶ 2:13:03Um but I started that started me thinking about the storm water management. So tell me, have there been some concerns about small farms being impacted by
▶ 2:13:15and Mr. Chairman, just to just to put it
▶ 2:13:18just to put this in a nutshell, you know, this section, the section 10 that you're talking about, it just amends the the CWA section to clarify that agricultural storm water discharges do not require a NIPE's permit.
▶ 2:13:32Period. So none of my farmers will be fined in the neighborhood because a flood came through in a huge way and and something happened.
▶ 2:13:42All right. And that's what my farmers would want.
▶ 2:13:44I would say that I would ask you to take a look as your committee continues to move forward on some of these issues. One of the big complaints, and I've heard that in this particular county and in other counties before, is that the rules to clean out the uh drainage ditches, which are not uh they're not streams, they don't have water in them all the time, but the rules to clean those out are so uh tight that uh a lot of folks don't clean them out.
▶ 2:14:12That there have been problems with uh Department of Transportation. There have been problems with various railroads that have these uh drainage ditches beside the road or beside the railroad and and what happens is if they're not uh cleaned out on a regular basis and and dredged so to speak uh which apparently they have to get a permit for land disturbing permits etc. And sometimes they're asked even to do studies on what might be living there when it's just a utility ditch.
▶ 2:14:41Uh could y'all look into that some for me because that is that is a contributor to some of the damage caused in these floods that uh we have on a regular basis in the Appalachin uh region.
▶ 2:14:56Yeah. Yes, sir.
▶ 2:14:57I appreciate that.
▶ 2:14:58With that being said, I will yield back and now recognize Miss Ledger Fernandez for her time of question.
▶ 2:15:04Well, thank you again, Mr. Chair. And I know we're trying to uh get uh our three panels done by 6:30. So, I'll just point out in response to your question about farms, um, that part of what we're seeing here is that a problem when we start exempting different chemicals and, toxic pesticides and fire suppressants, we might actually be allowing forever chemicals, uh, to be
▶ 2:15:34uh, uh, discharged on our farmland. And that's a big issue in my area. I have dairy farmers who have been devastated by forever chemicals from fire suppressants. Uh we it's estimated that there is 70 million acres of farmland that is contaminated by forever chemicals. And so these are the kinds of things that I think we need to be careful of that this bill as I read it would allow that to happen.
▶ 2:16:03And I do not think it is fair to put the burden, on the farmer, on the consumer, and on the rural community from these kinds of discharges of forever chemicals. But I am going to yield back because I know we want to be moving forward to get a vote. And uh I I know you wanted to say something. You are the I am the last Democrat. So if there is anything you wanted to add,
▶ 2:16:27I thank you. I I will just add that the CWA also already contains a separate wetlands related exemption for quote unquote normal farming practices. Um you what they're trying to exempt here is a a complete exemption of all agricultural storm water runoff which as you said because so many of these farms are related and and colllocated who's going to suffer from one bad actor the farm down the stream.
▶ 2:16:54Right. Uh thank you very much and with that Mr. chair I and thank you for your concern for farmers and with that I yield back.
▶ 2:17:01Gentle lady yields back and this committee we appreciate you uh being here the two panelists today and with that Mr.
▶ 2:17:10Um when what time we reporting out the rule? We doing it now or
▶ 2:17:16we were we were talking
▶ 2:17:17I have to see if there's other witnesses on this. So, you all are dismissed. Then I have to see if there are other witnesses and then um I we'll go by there depending on what's going on.
▶ 2:17:30All right. Since this panel is dismissed, is there anyone else seeking to testify on HJRES 104, HJRES 105, HJRES 106, HR 3486, or HR 3898. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting.
▶ 2:17:50What time are we going to report out? I mean, we
▶ 2:17:52I don't know, Mr. Mr. Ranking member.
▶ 2:17:54Before votes.
▶ 2:17:55Uh, no, I don't believe so because without objection.
▶ 2:17:58Will it be right after votes?
▶ 2:18:00I don't know the answer because I'm not, as you know, I'm the substitute chair.
▶ 2:18:05Yeah. No, I I I mean, I'm I'm just saying we we we tried to be accommodating here. I understand that. and and and if the rumor is true that it's going to be 9:30 or 10, then you should be prepared to be here for an
▶ 2:18:16All right.
▶ 2:18:17And and I appreciate that. I I don't know the answer to the question.
▶ 2:18:20U but I suspect I I had heard that it might be late
▶ 2:18:25if we could get back.
▶ 2:18:27It'll be very late.
▶ 2:18:28Mr. Chairman, I do I do think it would be I do think there's a Republican steering committee meeting.
▶ 2:18:33That's that's the issue
▶ 2:18:34on appointments and and I do think that it would be 9:30. Well, it'll be it'll be much later.
▶ 2:18:40But but I don't want to be held I don't want you to
▶ 2:18:43No, that that's fine. But just I'm out of courtesy to you be prepared to be here very late.
▶ 2:18:48That's fine. But I I there is a steering committee meeting that is that I do expect to happen after votes and that is
▶ 2:18:54Well, we could do it right now.
▶ 2:18:56So we have plenty of time to do it.
▶ 2:18:59We would have to move quick and not not do amendments.
▶ 2:19:02Whoa, whoa, whoa.
▶ 2:19:02We could do a couple of amendments and that's it.
▶ 2:19:05We have uh we can we have members on the steering committee. So that's the reason that we'll probably go later. But without without objection, the committee will stand.
▶ 2:19:13We're ready to go. We're ready to go.
▶ 2:19:16All right. Wait. Anyway, we'll be here all night.