▶ 0:08:14Good 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 two measures and HRES 668.
▶ 0:08:34Energy and Water Development and Related Agency's Appropriations Act 2026 provides substantive funding for our nation's nuclear deterrence, national security posture, infrastructure, and the broader economy overall. This legislation further cementss our commitment to fortify American energy, lower cost, and advance power to the nation that is as affordable as it is reliable.
▶ 0:09:03The nation and especially the American people deserve this. supports one of the largest commitments to expand mining production technologies for critical mineral extraction in decades. It provides continued funding for cyber security efforts that will secure a more resilient and reliable electric grid for all Americans.
▶ 0:09:28It takes a calculated and measured approach to halt foreign adversaries from accessing technology, natural resources, and defense capabilities that make America strong. And this legislation makes a deliberate effort to safeguard the tax dollars of hardworking Americans from being spent on the outdated, misguided priorities of the previous administration.
▶ 0:09:54It is abundantly clear that we need to advance HR4553 to build upon our nation's return to energy independence. HRES 668 directs the oversight committee to continue its work in investigating and obtaining relevant documents related to the Epstein files.
▶ 0:10:16So far, the oversight committee has issued subpoenas on a bipartisan basis and has collected tens of thousands of documents from the Department of Justice. Chairman Comr has been conducting and leading this investigation with openness and diligence. It's how Congress is supposed to operate. We should all take note of how quickly the DOJ has responded to these bipartisan subpoenas.
▶ 0:10:44When was the last time anyone can remember the DOJ under any administration responding to a subpoena in less than a month? Our Democrat colleagues have a unique opportunity here in the rules committee today. So unique, in fact, that they can join Republicans in a spirit of bipartisanship.
▶ 0:11:08They can support, as Republicans intend to do, the oversight committee's continued work to investigate and publicly release the Epstein files. Now, our Democrat colleagues will predictably say that legislation is a distraction. And if they don't want to support transcribed interviews, more documents being obtained, and the bipartisan work of the oversight committee, it will be rather intriguing.
▶ 0:11:38See their newfound interest in the Epstein files, and yes, it's entirely newound will be bill be brought into even more question. They didn't say a peep the last four years when they had the opportunity to release the files. They did nothing. Only reason why they've latched themselves to the Epstein files as of late is because they see it as a politically advantageous Let's see what they decide to do.
▶ 0:12:09With that, I yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to
▶ 0:12:14Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and um it's great to see you and my colleagues on the committee. Um, so here we are again. More Republican measures written for and by big oil, big gas, and big mining for polluters, not people. A deeply partisan energy and water funding bill that will jack up costs for American families while giving China the advantage in clean energy. And hanging over it all is a l looming Republicanmade shutdown.
▶ 0:12:42We are supposed to be here to do the people's work. Fund the government. Keep our water safe. Make energy affordable. But let's be honest, this majority has one obsession. Burying the Epstein files. That's the through line. Every delay, every diversion, every broken promise, it all comes back to the same thing. Protecting the powerful instead of telling the truth. We saw it before the August district work period.
▶ 0:13:10You voted against transparency again and again. Voted against releasing the Epstein files again and again. Then you guys rolled out a laughable resolution by my good friend Mr. Norman. A press release dressed up as a bill. A resolution which didn't even have the force of law. And then you guys skipped town without even ever voting on it. Republicans paraded around a fake resolution but never voted on it because you never planned to vote on it.
▶ 0:13:39It was completely fake, concocted to make it look like Republicans were doing something. And here you go again, another fake resolution that literally directs a committee to do what it was already what it was already doing. Republicans are trying to kick the can down the road even more, telling oversight, "Keep looking into it. Give me a break." translation. You want a congressional committee to sloww walk the release of just some of the files.
▶ 0:14:08At this point, Republicans should just admit that you're covering uh for your rich and powerful friends. It's that simple. This isn't complicated. And even while Republicans stall, even while uh they try to distract, Republicans continue to break promise after promise. Remember the speaker's big promise? No. August recess until all the appropriation bills are done. I'm quoting him directly.
▶ 0:14:36Well, it's September and we are only on bill three. Three out of 12. Nine more to go. Another broken promise. Another failure of this majority. And all the while, Jeffrey Epstein's partner in crime, Elaine Maxwell, magically lands in a country club prison after being interviewed by Trump's political lackey. Trump moved his convicted child sex offender friend into cushy new digs.
▶ 0:15:06And can I even get a peep of criticism of push back from the other side? This is insane. But we're instead told to focus on these absurd partisan messaging bills. That's the Republican plan. Hide the files, distract the public, protect your friends, and cover for Trump. Republican leadership thought a fake resolution would do it. They thought sending everyone home early would do it. Now they think yet another meaningless resolution will do it. Wrong.
▶ 0:15:35The American people aren't buying it, and neither am I. We deserve a Congress that doesn't flinch from hard truths. We deserve leaders who stand up to predators, not cover for them. We deserve real accountability, and we deserve to read the Epstein files and decide for ourselves. Release the files. With that, I yield back.
▶ 0:15:55Thank you, Mr. McGovern. We are in agreement on that issue. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Representative Fleshman and Representative Captor from the Committee on Appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes.
▶ 0:16:21Representative Fleshman, I welcome your Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern and distinguished members of this rules committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am pleased to present to the rules committee the fiscal year 2026 energy and water development and related agencies appropriations bill.
▶ 0:16:45This bill demonstrates our commitment to safeguarding US national security, strengthening our economy, and unleashing American energy dominance in a fiscally responsible manner. This recommendation totals 57.3 billion, a decrease of $766 million below fiscal year 2025.
▶ 0:17:09The bill delivers strong support for our national defense and provides $25.3 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration, prioritizing the continued modernization of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the United States Navy nuclear fleet.
▶ 0:17:27The bill strengthens our nation's energy security by advancing American leadership in deploying new nuclear technologies and supporting the administration's efforts to make full use of our nation's vast fossil fuel resources. This bill will reduce reliance on foreign materials and secure the full supply chain of critical minerals.
▶ 0:17:50The bill furthers our nation's scientific and technological leadership, providing $8.4 4 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. At the same time, the bill reduces funding by 25% across numerous other department programs, including the Applied Energy Technology Offices to ensure taxpayer resources are focused on the highest priority research and developmental projects.
▶ 0:18:19This bill also strengthens our economy and promotes public safety, providing $9.9 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, including full funding of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund activities, and the highest priority, ongoing construction projects on the inland waterways system. Funding for the Bureau of Reclamation is prioritized to projects that increase water supply and support drought resilience.
▶ 0:18:46Finally, the bill includes a number of provisions to codify President Trump's executive actions to protect American values and prevent our resources and intellectual property from falling into the hands of foreign adversaries. This is a strong bill and I ask the committee to provide an appropriate rule for its consideration. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward to your questions. Thank you again for your succinctness.
▶ 0:19:17Representative Captor, you're
▶ 0:19:20Thank you very much, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee. It's heartening to appear before your subcommittee uh along with our very hardworking chair uh Charles Fleshman on behalf of our hardworking subcommittee and one that tries to be bipartisan even in these difficult times. Uh, energy and water undergur America's way of life. They are not optional, but essential to life and prosperity.
▶ 0:19:49Of late, we've been piercingly reminded about our subcommittee's purpose. July brought nearly double the usual number of flood warnings, the second highest in 40 years, including the tragedy that killed 117 in Kurr County, Texas. and the US set new records twice this past July for peak electricity demand.
▶ 0:20:15Sadly, this proposed measure uh by the Republican majority for 2026 in the energy and water bill does not meet our nation's imperative for the future. Half a century ago, our nation had a population of 148 million people. Today it is heading to 350 million and projected to be 500 million by60.
▶ 0:20:40We must invest faster in modern infrastructure and become energy independent in perpetuity. Lowering energy costs requires modernizing our grid and securing its Doing so is expensive. This bill fails to address the reality of the ongoing cost of living crisis. Household electric bills are up 10%.
▶ 0:21:05Nationally, just since January, and in some places where the AI data centers are being installed, energy prices are doubling. Just ask anybody who lives in northern Ohio, and I'm sure your states, too. Meanwhile, China is investing record levels in energy. But this bill retreats from US continental and global leadership. Why do I say this?
▶ 0:21:28This energy and water bill cuts $1.6 billion or 47% nearly half from the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to support local communities and businesses. This undermines our ability to deliver more clean, affordable, and secure energy. Energy security is national security. America must lead the global race toward energy independence in perpetuity.
▶ 0:21:58This bill eliminates funding for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. Worse, it revokes $5.1 billion of bipartisan infrastructure law resources from the Department of Energy that seeds the US global lead in technologies such as hydrogen and batteries. This bill dangerously short changes our national security.
▶ 0:22:22It slashes $412 million, nearly half a billion from the defense nuclear proliferation, non-prololiferation account, a 17% cut. This effectively guts US efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, detect covert nuclear threats, and uphold arms control agreements that keep America safe. So far, so far.
▶ 0:22:47Finally, this bill includes numerous controversial poison pill riders that are too extreme to gain bipartisan support and become law. In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. America must lead, not shrink, in the new frontiers of energy and water. Our nation's future depends on them. Thank you so very much, and I yield back.
▶ 0:23:11Thank you, Miss Captor. Representative Flashman, is there anything that you'd like to respond to? that um Congresswoman Captor said. I'll give you a chance.
▶ 0:23:22Well, I thank the ranking member for her comments, but we respectfully disagree on some major things. Um first and foremost, uh this is a good bill. The the Department of Energy has two very important tangents to it. First of all is the NNSA, which is the National Nuclear Security Administration in my great district uh in the city of Oakidge. We've had the Y12 plant. This was actually the birthplace of the Manhattan project.
▶ 0:23:50We have got to fully fund and we do fund our our nuclear arsenal through the Department of Energy through this bill. It is so important that we do this. Our adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea and and others are are sadly working towards ramping up their nuclear arsenals. In fact, working towards triads. Ours is still the strongest. Ours is still the best. But this bill takes care of that on the advancement of of energy.
▶ 0:24:19And I, Madam Chair, I respectfully chair the American Dominance and Energy Caucus uh in Congress in which we work with Republicans and Democrats in a very strong bipartisan way to ramp up Americans energy production and hence Americans energy dominance. This bill articulates those key goals. We have funds in there for things like geothermal.
▶ 0:24:42I'm a champion of nuclear, of course, but we want to make sure that in our great nation that we not only dominate in terms of energy production, Madam Chair, uh we've got to win this race because I want to see a situation as President Trump's agenda works and we bring back manufacturing and great jobs to the United States that we have the energy to support that. And with that, I'll yield back.
▶ 0:25:07Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
▶ 0:25:10Thank you. Uh Mr. Fleshman, under your bill, um, as M Captor pointed out, uh, Republicans would cut energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $1.6 billion. I mean, that's nearly 50% of total funding. Uh, this would eliminate funding for clean and affordable energy and raise energy costs for families in red and blue communities alike. All while China is literally making record investments in clean energy. Talk about an un an unforced era of epic proportions.
▶ 0:25:40But this bill would also result in a $102 million cut to Tennessee, including $85 million to the Oakidge National Laboratory in your region. Can you tell us how many grants would be paused, reduced, or terminated, and how many scientists and other employees would be laid off due to the cut to Oakidge National Lab?
▶ 0:26:03Well, I appreciate the ranking member's question and Miss Captor did correctly state uh her comments on the record on that, but I would respectfully point out to the ranking member uh um on this issue, nothing will be lost because EER and I'm a supporter of EERE and and what it has done uh as are many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle and your side of the aisle.
▶ 0:26:29But in as we look at the inflation reduction act, prior appropriation bills and the infrastructure investment and jobs act which was was was passed and signed into law. There was literally m Mr. Ranking member so much additional funding it would be like 10 years or so worth of funding given to er they can't spend the money that they've got. So the reality is no jobs will be lost.
▶ 0:26:58We will continue to support EERE, but they've got more than sufficient backlog of funds uh that they've yet to been able to spend. They were almost force-fed money in those how many employees across the 17 national labs would be impacted by a $1.6 billion cut to energy efficiency and re and um and renewable energy account.
▶ 0:27:19My answer would be none. and they should be actually hiring some because of these unobligated funds that they have not been able to spend from this past legislation where we actually had an overabundance of funding there.
▶ 0:27:30Miss Captor, do you share that view that this won't affect anything?
▶ 0:27:33U unfortunately I do not share that point of view, Mr. uh ranking member. Uh we have a fact sheet that I actually will submit to your record uh that outlines the estimated cuts uh to the labs, the finest labs in the world where only US citizens can work.
▶ 0:27:52Uh and those reductions uh are estimated for fiscal year 2026 um resulting in eliminating 7,700 scientists and staff. 7,700. That is an enormous number. And we know that the Department of Energy's fiscal 25 illegal changes uh could result in more than 3,000 lost lab jobs.
▶ 0:28:21This is cutting off America's uh secure research that belongs to the future of this country. So these are significant cuts and uh to the minds of people who you know always got A+ in everything in college uh with their PhDs and experience in the private sector uh these these are significant cuts.
▶ 0:28:47Thank you. Um last week President Trump took another swing at our democracy this time by trying to zero out nearly $5 billion in funding to foreign aid programs without congressional approval. Uh, this so-called pocket recision strategy would cancel funding that Congress has already appropriated and has already been signed into law by the president.
▶ 0:29:09The top Democrat and top Republican of the Senate Appropriations Committee have already said that this move by Trump is illegal and a violation of our Constitution, which gives Congress the power of of spending taxpayer dollars, not the president. And according to the Government Accountability Office or GAO, which provides fact-based nonpartisan information to Congress and the American people, a pocket recision quote bypasses Congress's power end quote.
▶ 0:29:40And is quote illegal end quote. Mr. Fleshman, do you agree with Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, that President Trump's attempt to resend appropriated funds without Congress's approval is quote, these are her words, a clear violation of the law? Mr. Ranking member, uh I don't think that question in all due respect is gerine to the energy and water bill that is before us.
▶ 0:30:06Uh that is in another bill that is before this committee which was used to refer to as statement foreign
▶ 0:30:14Let me explain to you why. So, government funding runs out in less than a month.
▶ 0:30:19We need a bipartisan agreement to stave off a government shutdown.
▶ 0:30:24Right. But Republicans are continuing to move forward, as Miss Captor said, with an extreme partisan goal to loan strategy that has so far only led to two out of the 12 spending bills passing through the House and no plan to get any of these bills through the Senate. So, so, yeah, we all want to work together because I mean that's I mean all of our constituents will be hurt if um if if we continue going down this road of heavily partisan um bills.
▶ 0:30:51But but when Democrats and here's why this what I was asking before is relevant. But when Democrats work with Republicans to pass annual spending bills, we expect that those laws will be followed and funding will be spent as the law says. Just follow the law. And I guess the question is, how can we negotiate uh with you when we can't trust Republicans to abide by spending agreements we pass?
▶ 0:31:17I mean, the question I asked you as to whether or not you agreed with Senator Collins is really not a hard question. Um, it's whether or not, you know, you think she's right or wrong. And if you and if you don't, you know, if you think the president could just do these pocket recisions and not have to abide by the will of Congress, well then, like, how do we where's the trust? How do we how do we negotiate anything? I mean, if President Trump and congressional Republicans cut deals with us, but then cancel the funding we just agreed to spend.
▶ 0:31:47I mean, how can how can we have a a negotiation based on trust? Well, I thank the ranking member for his question and and since he alluded to the other body. Uh, in all due respect, I have never fully understood the United States Senate or its rules and the like. I have enough on my plate as as we do in in our in our great people's house. But I have utmost respect for the Senate as a body. But the the rhetoric coming from Senator Schumer where he is actually threatening to shut the government down. Let me be unequivocal.
▶ 0:32:18I do not believe in government shutdowns. They are detrimental to this country. We do we need to have bipartisan cooperation to keep the government open. I profess and I believe strongly that the way to work through differences. As the ranking member and I have, despite our friendship, there are differences that come up. We keep talking. We don't close the process. If the government gets shut down, Mr. Ranking member, it's on Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats and the American people will be heard loud and
▶ 0:32:47I didn't ask you about Chuck Schumer. I ask you about Senator Collins and I I'll
▶ 0:32:50I don't think she wants a government shut down either.
▶ 0:32:53M Miss Captor again how I mean you're on the appropriations committee. How do you deal um with um House Republicans um on spending levels and on you know on on how the money should be spent when we are now seeing that they're not even willing to defend what they voted for in the past. They're willing to be silent when Trump does these pocket recisions.
▶ 0:33:17I mean, like, you know, we we can have we can negotiate a good deal and then Trump just basically unilaterally, you know, stops funding these projects. Um, I mean, I I think what Senator Collins said is is right. I mean, um, you know, that um, you know, that that a pocket recision bypasses Congress's power. And I think the more we turn a blind eye to the power of the legislative branch, the more we weaken it.
▶ 0:33:46Yes. I would just like to say I wonder if the president even knows what some of his agency people have done. Uh Mr. Ranking member and madam chair uh because some of these changes really don't make much sense and um I think if the president had a chance to review them, maybe he'd change his mind, maybe not. But essentially what happens is it's going to end up in the courts because the um law is not being followed as we as we passed before. And I just wanted to if I could say 15 seconds.
▶ 0:34:16The Chinese currently can uh put a car on the road and it goes 2,000 miles with one charge. I could go through so many accounts and tell you how we are behind in research we need to do. And these are the labs that produce the future whether it's nuclear or whether it's commercial.
▶ 0:34:37And so I would just urge the majority, and I know I've said this respectfully to Chairman Flechman, I think we have to, he and I want to follow regular order, but there are other people involved that don't want to follow regular order. And um but to cut the labs at this level is not in the country's best interest.
▶ 0:34:58And I I thank you. Thank Mr. Fleshman, just one more time. I mean, again, Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that uh attempts to rescend appropriated funds by the president without Congress's approval is quote a clear violation of the law. Do you agree with that sentiment? I mean I mean whether it's Trump or Biden or or any future president, I mean I mean I am differential, Mr.
▶ 0:35:26uh ranking member to not only the administration and I and I do trust President Trump and and his discernment in these issues, but I also trust uh House and Senate appropriators um to to get the job done. And ultimately, as the ranking member knows, it's going to take 60 votes in the United States Senate to affect anything.
▶ 0:35:48If you vote to appropriate funds, right, am I again, this is not a trick question. I mean, uh, would you agree that the president any president doesn't have the right to unilaterally, um, you know, re revoke those funds without congressional approval? I mean, that's
▶ 0:36:08whether it's a fair question whether Republican or Democratic the change the the there is flexibility built into these accounts and the executive branch has to deal with the dayto-day situations in the country and the world and that's why that there is flexibility built in. So I do trust uh what President Trump would do in terms of these decisionmakings. I think our job as appropriators is to give first of all keep the government open.
▶ 0:36:35Secondly give a framework and adequately fund the government which I think the Republican majority can and will do and and then basically work with our colleagues in the Senate and in the White House to make sure this country is run well. And again, I think if anybody were listening to your answer right now on the Democratic side, either in the House or the Senate, uh it create it would it it is it is really alarming.
▶ 0:36:59Uh because basically what you won't answer is whether or not we have the power of the purse, whether we can appropriate funds and the only way to not utilize these funds is for Congress to decide. I mean, you voted for a recision package. I mean, that's that I mean, I didn't like it, but you can do that. Uh but uh but but the idea that we're willing to say the you know the president we can't answer whether the whe the president has the right or not the right to be able to do what he's doing.
▶ 0:37:27I mean that makes it very difficult to have a negotiation. But I thank the gentleman. I yield back.
▶ 0:37:32Thank you Mr. Thank you Mr. McGovern. Miss Fishbach you're recognized.
▶ 0:37:37Thank you Madam Chair and uh chairman. We know that the Americans in general are asking for us to cut. they are asking for us to have a responsible budget. Um they know we are in debt and and is what it is something that I hear all the time and maybe you can just speak briefly a little bit about how this bill meets that demand but also ensuring that um we are funding you know US critical US priorities.
▶ 0:38:08Well, thank you. I thank my distinguished colleague from Minnesota for her questions and I appreciate that this bill actually does cut. It's 766 billion I think I said in my opening statement under fiscal 2025. So it is a fiscally responsible bill. Um given the allocations that we have we have to make difficult decisions. Uh there's been some talk about EERE and other other programs and things like that.
▶ 0:38:36But what we have done, we've plused up the office of science which funds our great national labs which I think all of our colleagues can agree are national assets. There's 17 of them. I have Oak Oakidge National Lab. It it increases funding for nuclear energy. Um so it does make decisions uh in terms of prioritizations while being fiscally responsible and reducing overall Thank you.
▶ 0:39:01And now my district, we were talking about it earlier, my district is western Minnesota and it is uh prone to spring flooding from the Red River. Um and we obviously like so many other districts rely on the Army Corps of Engineers for flood flood prevention and mitigation projects. And um maybe you can talk a little bit about how the funding in this bill will help districts um that rely on projects like that, mine and others.
▶ 0:39:25Well, I I thank you very much. Uh myself, I benefited from the Army Corps of Engineers with the Chikamaga lock. But all across the United States in red districts and in blue dixers, let's face it, we're all Americans. There are Army Corps of Engineer projects. And this bill fully funds that.
▶ 0:39:43And I will say this uh to the credit of of of of this bill, it makes sense that unlike on the energy side where we do not have community funding projects, on the water side we do. And we have been very fair to both majority districts and minority districts to make sure that these community funding projects are spread out across the United States.
▶ 0:40:08So this I would respectfully disagree with some on the other side of the aisle that would say this is a a boldly partisan bill. It is not. It is a very evenly balanced bill because we are delivering to the American people all across the United States, including in the great state of of Minnesota with Army Corps of Engineer
▶ 0:40:27Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I I appreciate the um the thought you put into the bill and the and the balance that you've created. So, thank you. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back now recognizes Miss Scandlin for her time
▶ 0:40:41Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so, you know, here we go again. We're hearing about the difficult decisions that need to be made in order to reduce the national debt, the deficit coming on the heels of our Republican colleagues ramming through a massive increase in the in the nature of trillions to the national debt, the deficit with their tax cuts for billionaires. Um but they'll use it all to justify domestic cuts to the American people.
▶ 0:41:10Um you know, today we're meeting to consider a hyperpartisan energy and water appropriations bill drafted by our Republican colleagues without negotiating with the Democratic members of Congress who represent almost half the country. Uh, so once again, we're faced with a bill drafted to appease the Project 2025 crowd and fossil fuel lobbyists rather than a bill designed to meet the needs of the American people.
▶ 0:41:36The programs funding by this bill may not all be household words, but their impact is certainly felt on a daily basis in all of our lives, in the prices we pay for electricity and in whether or not our homes are flooded in a big storm. So, one would think that House Republicans would take these issues seriously, but one would be wrong.
▶ 0:41:58Because instead of funding crucial federal programs, House Republicans are zeroing out budgets and loading all kinds of stupid culture war issues into this bill. Energy costs are skyrocketing across the country, especially on the East Coast because of the Trump administration. Average utility prices have increased twice as much as inflation during this period. And that's another high cost eating into family budgets.
▶ 0:42:27Electric bills are costing American families more this year than last year. The president's actions are actually increasing energy costs and inflation even though he ran on lowering prices and costs for American families. This year, the Trump White House has cancelled tens of billions of dollars in investment in new clean energy projects.
▶ 0:42:51And just last month, uh, Trump have used federal regulations to stop two massive wind projects in Idaho and Rhode Island. These are projects that would have brought tons of new electricity to the grid, lowering electricity costs for Americans across the country. People are losing their jobs. Electric prices are surging and private investment is being jeopardized because Trump and his cronies don't care about American famil family's bottom line.
▶ 0:43:20Instead, they're pandering to their oil and gas buddies and opposing anything to do with clean energy. The administration isn't focused on bringing down costs. This White House house has from day one had two tandem goals. The first is to enrich those affiliated with the administration. And the second is to fight culture wars in every part of society to divide people and destroy storied American institutions.
▶ 0:43:50Trump, Steven Miller, Lutnik, Bessant, they don't give a damn about working families and they don't care about the cost of living. They just want to use the power of the federal government to punish and penalize anyone they don't like or anyone who disagrees with them. Eager to play their part, House Republicans have drafted a radical partisan energy and water appropriations bill that guts any program related to clean energy.
▶ 0:44:16In one year, China installed more wind and solar power than all of the renewable energy in the United States, and China's on pace to outdevelop us in nuclear as well. Instead of embracing all of the above energy production, Republicans are gutting funding for wind and solar and doubling down on outdated and dying energy sources like coal.
▶ 0:44:41Just last week on the 28th, the White House ordered that an electricity generating plant in Eddie Stone, PA in my district remain online even though it was supposed to be closed back in May. This is the second round of orders by the Trump White House to keep older fossil fuel electricity plants online even though they've become increasingly unprofitable, inefficient, and obsolete.
▶ 0:45:09At the same time, this administration has rolled back investments in cheaper sustainable energy projects, including cancelling the wind wind energy farms. And in the process, they're cutting both good jobs and leading to rising energy costs. It's the kind of boneheaded move that you get from a party motivated by reaction, grievance, and fossil fuel donations.
▶ 0:45:32If Republicans were serious about caring about American energy dominance, they'd be supporting production of all energy, but instead they're trying to kill solar and wind to boost oil and gas because that's who their donors are. As Republicans ram this bill through Congress, the biggest winners are going to be the American Petroleum Institute and the American Gas Institute. I I just don't think that's what the country needs. It's certainly not what I'm hearing from my constituents.
▶ 0:46:02Uh, you know, like everyone else, I was home this last month and as these higher electricity bills are hitting, uh, people's pocketbooks are really hurting. Um, Representative Captor, you talked about how China is taking a step on us by our failure to invest at the levels we need to. Could you talk a little bit more about that?
▶ 0:46:22And also, um, I'm particularly interested in the billions that are being cut that would have otherwise gone to, um, helping schools become more energy efficient because I know that comes on top of some impoundment of funds uh, just this last year that we're supposed to help our schools become more energy efficient. We've seen it be really important to the bottom line in our schools that they're able to um, have energy efficient systems. Thank you, Congresswoman Scandlin, for pointing those issues out.
▶ 0:46:52Uh, first of all, in terms of the Chinese, I would just say to all the American people, pay attention because the amount of research and development that is being done there compared to here and the pace at which it's occurring is serious. I represent both an agricultural and a um manufacturing community region and um we need energy on all fronts.
▶ 0:47:19We can't tie our um champion uh horse to uh the last century. We have to move forward. And in terms of battery technologies, for example, the Chinese are way ahead of us. I'm not recommending battery technologies, but some people like those in their cars. My half my staff does actually. And um but the Chinese are very far ahead of us. I mentioned how far they can go 2,000 miles on one charge. And the car costs about 25,000.
▶ 0:47:48If they dump those cars on this market, forget it. Uh when you look at the price of cars here, so we've got a long way to go to catch up just in that one uh in that one sector. We have lost our corn markets. We have lost them to Argentina and uh Venezuela, Brazil. uh that are supplying into the Chinese market, for example.
▶ 0:48:09And so if it were not for ethanol and biodiesel, uh our farmers in districts like mine, which is heavily soy and corn, uh would be uh they'd be making less money and uh it's becoming more uh tight for our agricultural community to ek out a profit.
▶ 0:48:28Uh so we have to be mindful of the international market and use these programs to catch up to the future faster and I don't think there's anything wrong with not wasting energy. If we can find a way to save every kilowatt then then let's do it. We were taught as kids you know eat everything that's on the plate. Well we shouldn't leave anything out and the renewable technologies and in my region we're a glass center of the world.
▶ 0:48:56uh whether it's Libby Glass owns Illinois uh owns Corning First Solar uh we have domestic companies that can compete uh but they're not quite as costefficient as the Chinese are and they dump they dump strategically.
▶ 0:49:14though we need the research in order to advance the technologies rather than throttle this uh down uh when we have this fierce competition staring us staring at us and the tariffs won't solve the problem of invention you have to allow the scientists and the inventors to do that. So, thank you for pointing how out how important that really is. And these cuts to the renewable energy accounts, energy efficiency and renewable energy. It's both things. Not wasting anything.
▶ 0:49:43I could go into geothermal and what more we can do on that front, but I won't go into it. But we're not catching the future fast enough. And these cuts, 47% half of the money in those accounts, that's really pushing America backwards where we can create new forms of energy.
▶ 0:49:58Yeah. I think we've seen I've seen across my community folks being very eager to embrace newer technologies um both for the impact on the environment but also to address the costs that people have right now.
▶ 0:50:12And we saw a huge surge when there were some tax credits available for our school systems to put solar on our schools because it would reduce their costs for the taxes for the schools, but it would also um promote some environmental objectives and labor was on board because it was more jobs there. So, it it can be a win-winwin if uh we can get uh get the investment that we need.
▶ 0:50:40If I could just take 30 seconds to say I've encouraged every school I represent, especially at the high school level, give a solar panel to your school as your departing class gift. And maybe after 10 years, they'll really be able to do that on the roofs or get corporations to help donate that. Uh so pointing out the schools is terribly important with the cutbacks to education and saving on some of those sunk costs of energy uh in the schools.
▶ 0:51:03And by the way, what we're inventing in our district, just so you know, um we have windows now where you can plug in, they're solar windows, you can plug in your iPhone to the window. Uh there are technologies being invented that I I invite everybody on this sub on the rules committee to come with us to some of our labs, see the future that's being invented. Don't throttle it, please. Thank you.
▶ 0:51:25Thank you for your testimony. I yield
▶ 0:51:28Gentle lady yields back. And now Mr. Norman. this time question.
▶ 0:51:35Uh, no questions other than thank you for bringing this forward. You know, to release our energy in in a country that needs it now more than ever with the growth we've had that President Trump released on this country has been unbelievable. So, thank you for doing this, Chuck.
▶ 0:51:54Thank you, Mr. Norman. I agree with the
▶ 0:51:58Gentleman yield back.
▶ 0:52:00Does the gentleman yield back? Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Nagus for his time of questioning.
▶ 0:52:08He passes to Miss Ledger Fernandez.
▶ 0:52:11Recognize Miss Ledger Fernandez.
▶ 0:52:14Well, it' be nice to not be the last one on the Democratic side where I say, is there anything else you want to say, ranking member? But I really do want to say that that uh you know I'll have some uh questions later but I think you know one of the things that's great about this bill chairman Flechman is the fact that there is the funding for the Navajo Gallup water project.
▶ 0:52:36Uh as you and I have discussed is that nearly one in three families on the Navajo Nation live without running water. Families have to haul their water for miles just to cook dinner or wash their babies. When you ask children, "What does water look like?" They draw pictures of trucks. They all happen to be I think Ford with with the water tanks in the back.
▶ 0:53:05Uh and this uh bill has continuing authorization for this funding. Chairman Flechman at the um dedic at the not dedication but groundbreaking ceremony. The Nav had oh had a beautiful blessing ceremony.
▶ 0:53:21Uh and when it came time for me to be able to speak uh I pointed out how I had jumped out of a car to ask you to support this project and they want to convey to you that when they have this um they want you to come. So, I hope you'll come out to Navajo to see this
▶ 0:53:42Um, I want to thank you for those kind uh comments and I recall that very well. I did not know that the Navajo had thanked me and I do uh thank the lady uh like myself. Uh I continue to work for uh Native American rights uh in the third district of Tennessee. I have very few authorization bills, but one is one of my bills is to actually return the sacred 76 acres to the Cherokee in my state of Tennessee. We're working with TVA to get that done.
▶ 0:54:11I hope we can get that done. We have a few impediments in the Senate, but I do thank the lady for working for that and that is a very important project.
▶ 0:54:18Thank you. And I I look forward to working with both and your staffs, both staffs have been wonderful on this issue and it's really important. And the other thing that you and I share um Chairman Blechman is we serve as co-chairs of the House National Labs Caucus together because you're in Tennessee with Oakidge. I've got the Los Alamos National Lab. We also have Sandia Labs um in uh New Mexico although that's not in my district.
▶ 0:54:44But, you know, we understand because of the work that the labs do how important research and development in new energy technologies is if we're going to be talking about energy dominance.
▶ 0:54:59Uh, and and I think you would agree right in the general statement that to diversify our energy sources, we have to continue to invest in research and development so that the United States doesn't lose ground to You agree with that general statement?
▶ 0:55:16I do.
▶ 0:55:16Yeah. So I guess given that we share this concern and I heard uh the ranking members statement just now and earlier about how cutting the research and development and cutting EER is so bad for that challenge for meeting the energy dominance.
▶ 0:55:35Uh and you uh earlier when you were uh when ranking member McGovern was pointing out the massive amounts that Tennessee and Oakidge National Lab are estimated to lose if this bill becomes law. Uh that's $102 million. Is that correct? Uh for Tennessee, that's a 55% cut. chairman.
▶ 0:55:56Well, I I would point out as I did to the ranking member, I'd point out to the general lady that because of first of all, I support ER, but we have actually increased in this bill over OM's request funding for the office of science, which funds all 17 of the great national labs, including Los Alamos.
▶ 0:56:16But I would I would respectfully state that the overabundance or backlogging of funds from those other large S bills that were previously passed that I alluded to have literally given these programs up to 8 10 years worth of funding in one shot. They can't spend all the money that they were given in that. So we these there are some reductions but I do not see any reductions in staff.
▶ 0:56:46Um as the gentle lady knows most of the national labs are contract employees uh contracted to DOE uh like at my reservation uh the University of Tennessee and Battel runs my lab. I think actually Battel and uh I believe it's Texas A&M runs your lab I believe at Los Alamos. Um but uh they do a very good job by the way.
▶ 0:57:10So so we there there uh Sandia Labs is cutting 400 people. It was in the newspapers today because of the anticipated cuts of what's coming down. So people are losing their jobs. And I think that that's that's a major concern that to cut 56% of funding, you cannot cut 56% of funding and say that we're not going to lose jobs.
▶ 0:57:34And I think that the other part of this is we want to bring down electricity costs and and right now in Tennessee electricity has gone up 12%. Um and and these kinds of we we need to invest in the range of activity and not single out things like wind energy which has such low costs of electricity. I think the project that Trump cut was going to be seven cents a kilowatt hour.
▶ 0:58:01So I think we need to make sure that when we talk about energy dominance, it includes all forms of energy and that we bring down energy costs. And I think that's one of the things that you were trying to get at. Is that correct, Ranking Member?
▶ 0:58:14It is. And uh we can't afford to waste any kilowatt and we need more than one type of energy production whether it's fuels for vehicles, whether it's the way in which we heat and cool our homes, our factories. uh we're discovering it is amazing what we are learning now about geothermal energy and the chairman and I both support uh the tax credits that have been extended for for that sector.
▶ 0:58:42Uh but but we have to play the energy piano on all keys and I think what's sad uh what you're talking about the cuts in the labs are significant. Lawrence Berkeley a 61% cut in this budget that's being proposed.
▶ 0:58:59If you look at um uh Argon 54% I mean that's like you know really um we needed to strengthen the labs we're be we're on that curve to do that and now there's this downward slope again going backwards and I think that really hurts and it it hurts hiring it hurts retention it's hurts projects because you can't ramp up you if you were managing that project you don't know how many people you're going to have and
▶ 0:59:29uh there are layoffs as you've indicated. I didn't have the number uh that you've stated for Los
▶ 0:59:35No, that was for Sandia.
▶ 0:59:36For Sandia. Uh these are really important labs that do a lot of
▶ 0:59:42um security work and uh you you don't have a steady state. You don't know where you are. You're you know on one of these ski slopes that's going up and down. So I think from a business standpoint, it's not a very good business model to follow. And I think that OM and helping to recommend all this has really um uh caused uh chaos across the agencies and that's not what we want in our accounts. That's for
▶ 1:00:07No. And and we want to be the United States has always been the premier in research and science and we need to keep investing in that because that's our future. But we also need to take care of our past.
▶ 1:00:21And so I am concerned about the cuts to the environmental management funding because that goes to the legacy cleanup of the waste from the nuclear programs and places like New Mexico and Kentucky and Nevada and Tennessee and Idaho. We have we have some of the mess that got left behind from from the uh from the nuclear testing program. and and and and well, we're not saying we shouldn't have done that.
▶ 1:00:51We're just saying we should clean up our mess, right? We tell our children to clean up our mess. So, we should not be cutting the funds to clean up the sites where there has been waste. Uh and are you concerned about that as well, ranking member?
▶ 1:01:09Yes. I wanted to say thank you so very much for raising that more fully uh before the full uh rules committee. Uh I actually represent a region of the country where we are trying to clean up legacy atomic costs that were into the strategic metals that were very toxic that got into our rivers. When we started almost 20 years ago, uh when I represented this one rural county, I thought they'd be done with $5 million in like two years, right?
▶ 1:01:37It has stretched out because what happened was that the material got into the water into the wells into the and it's turned out to be a major mess that we are cleaning up but we didn't even know at the beginning how big it was and they're still protecting the edge the Army Corps especially trying to figure out you know how to stop the flow underground because our region has so much fresh water and so even
▶ 1:02:07underground rivers
▶ 1:02:10that can carry this material. So, thank you very much for pointing that out and I do not support the majority's cuts to the cleanup programs.
▶ 1:02:18Thank you. And I think that once again we owe it to our communities. Government has important purposes and one is to keep our community safe and that includes safe from radiation and chemical contamination due to our weapons programs. Uh, and with that, uh, unless there's something else you want to add or either of we want to add, I'll I'll yield back.
▶ 1:02:45Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Miss Hchin, you're recognized.
▶ 1:02:50Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Chair Fleshman, I just want to say um how much I appreciate your work on this bill, particularly including a project in my district for restoration and stabilization of the Clarksville shoreline. This is a project that is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Uh it's about 50 years in the making.
▶ 1:03:14uh under the current circumstances with one of our locks uh from the Army Corps of Engineers pushing water directly toward the shoreline in the state of Indiana, uh we've lost the George Rogers Clark home site. Uh the city of Clarksville has had to move um the uh roadway at least twice and it's currently threatening a project that uh Indiana is investing uh in that area close to $140 million.
▶ 1:03:42So, this project is absolutely critical for um commerce in my district, for the future of southern Indiana. We've lost um many cubic yards to the Ohio River because we have not been able to over many years fund uh this stabilization project. I am hopeful, this has been included in two consecutive appropriations.
▶ 1:04:06I am hopeful that we might finally get this across the finish line to give the Army Corps of Engineers uh the necessary tools to uh study and begin work on this critical project. Um so I want to thank you for that. Your leadership on it has been incredibly uh important to me.
▶ 1:04:26I do want to ask if there are any other aspects of the bill uh that you'd like to note that might demonstrate how we are responsibly delivering for constituents with projects like these.
▶ 1:04:38Well, I thank the general lady for referring to that project and once again this is what is so great about this energy and water bill. U I I I respect the fact that some on the other side of the dis want to call it a partisan bill. This is a bill that is good for all of America.
▶ 1:04:57Not only the project that the general lady alluded to, programmatic funding for the Army Corps of Engineers uh is strong and robust, but because on this this bill, we are able, the ranking member and I are able to listen to requests from members Democratic and Republican from all over the United States. If there is something that is missed in the federal budget that comes over from OM, we can supplement that with these community projects.
▶ 1:05:26And we've done that in a very fair and equitable way. Um and and at the same time that does not increase spending. The amount stays the same, but we are able to go in to districts and address that. But um once again, the Army Corps of Engineers relies heavily on this funding. It is robust. Um there are areas they come before us. They do a good job generally.
▶ 1:05:51Um, but we want to make sure that we can continue this funding to complete your project and projects like mine, the Chikamaga lock in in Chattanooga. This was a New Deal era lock. Was actually listening the other day to President Roosevelt when he launched this lock in the very early 1940s. His audio there, that lock is now antiquated. It's old. It's broken. We're building a new one.
▶ 1:06:14And I think the American people really can take solace in the fact that that is really what the spirit of this bill is on both the energy and water side. And I thank you.
▶ 1:06:23Thank you. And I'm glad that you mentioned the lock and dam system specific to the Army Corps of Engineers. Uh because the district uh runs along the Ohio River. Uh our commerce relies heavily on a functioning lock and dam system across the Ohio River.
▶ 1:06:38Um, and our funding in this bill for the Army Corps of Engineers helps ensure that commerce can keep moving uh we can get products out of the United States uh through the river system and our inland waterways and that uh we can do so efficiently uh with no delays um because the cost of a uh closed or malfunctioning lock is substantial if that commerce has to be shut down. So I thank you for your work on this bill.
▶ 1:07:07I look forward to supporting it on the floor. Thanks for your leadership and support for the Clarksville Shoreline.
▶ 1:07:12Thank the gentle lady for her kind words. Thank you.
▶ 1:07:14Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
▶ 1:07:16Thank you, Miss Houchin. Mr. Noose, you're recognized.
▶ 1:07:19Thank I thank the chairwoman. Uh good evening. I say good afternoon uh to Chairman Flechman and Representative Captor. I'm grateful to both of you for being here for your respective testimonies. I would echo the concerns that were articulated by my colleague from New Mexico with respect to in particular the remediation uh and cleanup costs associated with nuclear waste and the fact that that this budget zeros that out.
▶ 1:07:43But I I guess I know you've had a very robust conversation with my colleagues it sounds like especially with our ranking member about the uh energy efficiency and renewable energy program cuts uh Mr. Flechman and I wanted to kind of follow up on that and maybe just to put a finer point on it.
▶ 1:07:59I'm trying to understand your rationale for the cuts to the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs because as I understand it, you can correct me if I'm wrong, the EERE program is going to sustain nearly a 50% cut in your bill, right?
▶ 1:08:20as it is written because as I alluded to in my uh answer to the ranking member, the previous bills that have been passed and signed into law by the last administration have fully and in fact respectfully overfunded for about 8 to 10 years. It'd be like if you had an annual budget for EERE. And by the way, I'm one of Congress's strongest supporters of EERE and RPA.
▶ 1:08:50Okay, they will sustain cuts under this budget, but will be higher than what OM had asked for. So, we did actually increase that, but they've got such a backlog of funds that they unobligated funds that they can't even spend. They had so much. So, what happened with these big bills uh that I did not vote for, but they are they are law. They they overfunded and overgorged, if you will, these very fine agencies with funds that they can't spend.
▶ 1:09:17So when we had to make very difficult choices, the reason is yes, did we reduce it? We did, but we certainly did not zero it out and there's more than enough money there for easily a decade in these programs.
▶ 1:09:28So I think and I'm not suggesting you zeroed out uh that particular program and I appreciate the context that you My understanding is that yeartoear so compared to the last fiscal year this program is being cut by 50%. That's not that's by your math. I mean, that's not for debate, right? So, I understand you're talking about prior years. I get it. I I hear what you're saying about the historical funding of the programs, but year to year, it's going it's getting cut by 50%.
▶ 1:09:58So, running the numbers in Tennessee because as Representative Ledger Fernandez mentioned, you of course have a very prominent laboratory in your district as I do in mine in Colorado. Um, Oakidge of course in Tennessee.
▶ 1:10:12Yes. and and the gentleman's lab is an outstanding lab as well.
▶ 1:10:15I appreciate you know and we're fighting you know tooth and nail to protect it. This bill would amount to about a hund00 million $102 million$170,000 cut from the fiscal year 2024 level for Oakidge.
▶ 1:10:32Well u so that I can delineate the gentleman first referred to eere but for the office of science overall correct we have increased funding in this particular bill from where was so the 17 national labs er is a good program other programs are very good
▶ 1:10:53but using the using OMB as the baseline I mean I I understand maybe that's an argument that you know might be compelling with some of your colleagues on your side of the aisle. I would say with I mean OM's proposal you're talking about the president's skinny budget which basically decimates federal science programs in the United States using that as the baseline and saying well listen you know we we didn't eliminate these centers or programs entirely as Russell vote and OM want us to do instead we've simply taken this 50% haircut to the EP excuse
▶ 1:11:24me the eore programs I I I guess my point here is my argument would be that respectfully my colleague colleagues on their side of the aisle can't have it both ways. You know, either these are cuts that are going to have an impact in your district and in districts across the country, you know, potential folks who may be laid off, right, leave these agencies by virtue of the substantial budgetary cuts that you all are making or they're not.
▶ 1:11:54And in my view, I think it's pretty clear this is going to have a fairly sizable impact on the EER programs that are administered by Department of Energy. But
▶ 1:12:02see, and that's where I would respectfully disagree with the gentleman because of again uh in referring to the inflation reduction act, the infrastructure investment and jobs act uh uh which I did not personally vote for but became law. Okay. there was such a large infusion of federal dollars to these programs, particularly er they could not spend the money. It would be like having somebody just have a big feast just dropped at the table.
▶ 1:12:32They've spent some of them, but they can't spend all of that. And then in looking at that as we had to make difficult choices. Was there a reduction in the funding in an annual year? Yes. But they've got dollars they can't spend. And I would just caution and I've spoken
▶ 1:12:46why would that be a difficult choice? because there's so much money there if you can't spend the money you're already
▶ 1:12:51No, but why would that be a difficult choice for you? I guess I'm saying that's what this point I'm sort of making is it's either if it your view is listen I guess what you're saying is if we went to the folks at Oakidge and asked them they would say we can't spend this money. We we don't we don't need the $100 million that you allocated. We want you to take it. That's not a hard choice for you to make the
▶ 1:13:10only in the eore account and context but their other fund their other uh multiple spending accounts we are plusing up with office of science funding so you've got the office of science e is part uh and and is one program but they're overfunded if you will you're right they can't spend those dollars but they would take dollars and have gotten other dollars as is your lab in in Colorado for for key projects
▶ 1:13:35and that has no ideological component it's It's not by virtue of you or perhaps your colleagues opposing the underlying programmatic investments that the e the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that are implemented. The fact that you voted against these in the inflation reduction act obviously animates some of this. It's not that you're just picking these out of a hat and saying, "Oh,"
▶ 1:13:58once that became law, uh, and those funds were available and applied, it changed the, if you will, respectfully, distorted the entire funding formulas. And that's why, as the ranking member alluded to in her testimony, we want to get back to what we call regular order. I believe the Congress, the the House and the Senate, and appropriators ought to be able to do that on an annual basis.
▶ 1:14:23these large s bills just basically force-fed so many of these federal dollars to programs that they couldn't spend and still can't spend. So that's how we now as appropriators have to go in and fix that imbalance.
▶ 1:14:38Well, I would Oh, happy to yield a minute to the gentleoman here.
▶ 1:14:42Sure. From New Mexico. I I think that it it's important to recognize that where we are at in the United States and where we are with regards to looking at energy independence using all of our resources is that we need to play catchup and this isn't large that wasn't going to be spent. This was going to be spent. There were projects that were intended that were being looked at. There were projects across the country that are being looked at for it.
▶ 1:15:11This is intended to help people save money in their electrical bill, save money with regards to resiliency. These are projects that have jobs and they have benefits. And so it's not large, it is investment. And I think that that's a real different uh way of looking at this is it is investment so that China doesn't eat our lunch, which they are doing right now with regards to renewable energy. Yeah, I I agree.
▶ 1:15:39And um I think now I think a gentleman I'll I'll conclude simply maybe perhaps channeling my friend Mr. Roy who may uh may be here a little bit later or even Mr. Norman because I think maybe he might agree with me on this. Maybe I'm wrong. I my point simply Mr.
▶ 1:15:53Fleshman is I think some of your colleagues on other side of the aisle on on the other side of the aisle in your caucus would be very perhaps proud to say that these programs should not be funded and that therefore these cuts are in their view the prudent course because they don't believe that we should be investing in these kinds of in these kinds of programs along the lines of what representative Ledger Fernandez described. What you're saying is very different. I mean, essentially what you're saying is, well, no, no, no.
▶ 1:16:21It's not a matter of whether or not I agree or disagree with the propriety of these projects or the necessity for these investments. They just they had too much money. They can't spend it all. And so, we're just going to claw the $100 million back. And I I just don't, you know, we'll dig into this further. We'll have a wholesome debate on the floor. I don't think that that uh is accurate in my view, but we'll we'll have an opportunity to to hash that out on the floor. So, I without getting back and forth into it here, I'll yield back to the chairwoman.
▶ 1:16:46Thank you, Mr. Neuse. Mr. Langworth that you're recognized.
▶ 1:16:50Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, we've heard some wild claims from our Democratic colleagues about HR 4553. Uh but this bill delivers the investments that we need to strengthen American energy dominance, modernize our nuclear security, and reduce our reliance uh on foreign adversaries. We are not abandoning innovation. We are prioritizing technologies that actually deliver results for taxpayers.
▶ 1:17:15nuclear, geothermal, water supply development while cutting the wasteful era, Biden era programs that have not lowered energy costs. Um, Chairman Flechman, you have been a strong champion for American energy and your position on the appropriations committee. Can you explain how this bill's focus on nuclear energy and uh critical mineral development helps keep costs down for families while ensuring that America stays competitive with China?
▶ 1:17:44I thank the gentleman for his question and once again this is such a good bill for America because it what what it does is it looks at our energy needs. We need more energy in this country. There is a der of energy. If you look at how our demands for future energy are going to explode and that's a good thing because that means manufacturing is coming back to America. U American our country is growing in in many ways.
▶ 1:18:12But we're going to have to make sure and this bill does that to have the proper funding of programs and opportunities from a technological standpoint uh and also to make sure that we take something like new nuclear energy um American technology and we are in a competition with China. We are in a competition even with friends of ours like France and South Korea to develop these technologies.
▶ 1:18:38generation 3 and generation 4 American technologies for new nuclear reactors is growing. These are the smaller, easier to build, easier to license. Their output is not as large as as the large plants. I'm a I'm a big fan of the large plants. We're bringing back some large plants in Michigan. Um in in Pennsylvania, we're we're bringing back uh another large nuclear power plant, but our needs are going to be staggering.
▶ 1:19:07Uh this bill uh does a lot on critical minerals. The Chinese control over 90% of that and our great national labs are doing tremendous research to try to look for some type of um substitutes sometimes for those. But whether or not it makes an unprecedented investment in minerals so that American can get back its strong domestic uh critical mineral supply. So so important. uh if we lose this to China, we've lost.
▶ 1:19:37So, the bill does that. And I would also say this, it looks at the entire energy portfolio, uh nuclear, natural gas, fossil fuels, solar. It does not neglect renewables, but it's got to make economic sense. Uh as as our great utilities have come to me and told me, uh I want to make sure that we work on nuclear, Mr. flashman. But whatever we choose, we can't triple people's electric bills.
▶ 1:20:05So, we are doing in this bill what I think is important for the American people, keeping their costs low while focusing on abundance. Yeah. And I also want to highlight that this bill makes some common sense national security improvements uh like uh going after and prohibiting the sale of crude oil uh to China and blocking Chinese Russian nationals from accessing our nuclear facilities.
▶ 1:20:29Uh, and with that in mind, Chairman Fleshman, can you talk about how these provisions strengthen our national security and make sure taxpayer dollars are not used to benefit our adversaries?
▶ 1:20:40Well, I thank the gentleman. One of the things that in my lifetime and and by the way, I remember when we were dropping our you're a little bit younger, our our thermostats to 68 and turning off lights. I still do that. This was in the early '7s. Those big beautiful cars went away. We used to have an old mobilebile 98. The world changed then, but I was literally taught in school that that last barrel of oil was out there somewhere and it was going to be gone in 30 years.
▶ 1:21:10Thank God they were wrong. We have discovered in our great nation as a resource, tremendous oil and natural gas reserves. And I believe we need to take advantage of that, develop that and use that for abundance, for energy dominance, and to keep consumer costs low. So, uh, I think it it's so important that we develop the resources, the god-given resources that we've got in this country. At the same time, continue to to develop other technologies.
▶ 1:21:39But we've got the oil, we've got the gas, we've got the technologies. We just need to basically grab that mantle and lead because China, Russia, uh, and other countries in including some of our friends, the the French are moving ahead in nuclear ways. I met with their nuclear minister, uh, at at the ambassador's residence. We talked through things. They've made tremendous strides. Um, and we can learn from their technologies and they can learn from from ours.
▶ 1:22:08Well, thank you very much uh Chairman Fleshman uh for all yours in the committee's work on the bill. Uh I appreciate your work in bringing us a bill that truly advances American prosperity and also uh keeps in mind and protects our national security. It sets a responsible course for energy policy and infrastructure investments while making sure every dollar benefits the American people. And I'm proud to support this measure. I look forward to its passage and I yield back. Madame
▶ 1:22:36thank you very much, Mr. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
▶ 1:22:40Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Chairman Fleshman, I'm not so sure that after your comments, you haven't convinced me you should have cut it further. Uh, but I just want to when when they did the infusion of cash with the American Rescue Plan, that they put that money directly in the agencies.
▶ 1:22:58That's correct.
▶ 1:22:59So, they did not use Congress's appropriations committee.
▶ 1:23:03And that's one of the main reasons, Mr. Scott, my great classmate, along with Mr. Griffith, we're both from the same class. The reality is that's why I voted against that. They totally abregated the appropriations process with these big bills. They took us away from regular order.
▶ 1:23:18So, we're doing the same thing to reduce federal spending that they did to increase federal spending effectively with by using by using the executive branch that they they put all that money in and let the executive branch determine how they were going to spend it without regard for the Congress or the will of the people. And and now uh we're trying to get federal spending back to pre-COVID levels on on our side, which is what the federal budget can can support. But the $2 trillion deficit needs to go away.
▶ 1:23:48We have 37 trillion in debt. And let me say this, I'm disappointed uh and I know we have debates and and disagreements, but I will tell you it is disingenuous for the Democratic Party to say the Chinese are eating our lunch. What the Chinese do is steal. That's what they do. They don't develop technology. They steal. and they fund the groups in this country that create problems for our permitting and and increase the cost of doing business inside the United States of America.
▶ 1:24:18That's what the Chinese do. Okay? And so, uh, with respect to the ranking member, the their vehicles don't go 1,000 miles on a charge. They go 1,000 kilometers on a charge, which is about 600 miles. The ones that go further than that are actually hybrids, which y'all did not support, which you should have when you were putting all of the money into uh the battery powered vehicles that you wanted to use. I'm sure Elon Musk appreciates it, by the way. Uh what what y'all did for battery powered vehicles.
▶ 1:24:48Uh but it's not a thousand miles. It's 1,000 kilometers if if you look it up. It's about 600 miles. The ones that go further than that are are hybrids. They're they're hybrids, which which is what we should have.
▶ 1:25:07Sir, since you called my name, uh, Congressman Scott, um, on the issue of automobiles, I come from the heart of automotive America. We know what the Chinese are doing, and they are ready to dump here, but they're not allowed to yet.
▶ 1:25:21So all I'm saying is we have to be the most efficient in the automotive sector and uh that's a whole that's an hour speech I don't want to give but uh the um they the Chinese are absolutely poised including price sensitive I mean a vehicle that'll cost 10 to $25,000 we're not going to let them in the country but we are not poised to beat that we are
▶ 1:25:45are you m are you maintaining that they have vehicles right now today that go a th000 miles.
▶ 1:25:50I do
▶ 1:25:51on a single charge.
▶ 1:25:52I do.
▶ 1:25:52I I think I think
▶ 1:25:54if you if you check your facts when you return, I'm submit it to the record.
▶ 1:25:58I'm not just I'm just saying I believe you're wrong.
▶ 1:26:00I believe you're wrong.
▶ 1:26:01Well, I believe you're incorrect.
▶ 1:26:02You're lying or anything like that. I'm saying I believe you're wrong. I think that if you look it up, it will be a thousand kilometers and it will be 600
▶ 1:26:07We will submit it to the record. I
▶ 1:26:09I don't mean to submit it to the record. I'm just But but where where the Chinese have been very creative and I'm not sure that this bill addresses this. They don't control the minerals. They don't control the mining of the minerals. They control the processing of the minerals. And where um the environmentalists have done tremendous damage to our country is by creating a scenario under which we can't get the permits to do the processing of the critical minerals.
▶ 1:26:38Now, my question for you, chairman, is what in this bill is going to get is going to help us get around the permitting? so that we can actually do the processing of the critical minerals. There's critical minerals in Australia. There's critical minerals in Africa. There's critical minerals uh all over the place.
▶ 1:26:59But it is the processing where we as America have been locked on this issue.
▶ 1:27:10To be candid on the permitting, uh this is an an appropriations bill. we are funding these key initiatives and and so so I I I think it would be um a bit disingenuous for us to attempt in this bill to address permitting. We'd rather leave that to the authorizers, but I would agree with the gentlemen.
▶ 1:27:32Permitting has to be can be done through the agencies, but I just want to make this clear. There is a difference in getting the mineral out of the
▶ 1:27:42And the processing of the mineral and where the Chinese And I I'll say this this way, and I hate to give the Chinese credit for this, but where they're winning is on the processing. You have plenty of minerals in Australia. You have plenty of minerals in Africa. You have plenty of minerals in the United States. But the environmentalists, who I believe are funded by the Chinese, you know, create tremendous barriers to us.
▶ 1:28:08And if we're not able to to actually process the minerals and turn turn that raw mineral into something that's actually usable, then it doesn't matter if you pull it out of the ground or not.
▶ 1:28:21Will the gentleman yield? I'd love to comment on that.
▶ 1:28:25Uh thank you uh very much. I come from a region of the country that is manufacturing America where we process a lot of materials other places don't. So for example uh with burillium or burillium copper or titanium magnesium all of them and I was at a the fossil fuels lab in uh the state of Pennsylvania and where they were actually uh taking coal and finding a higher use for coal
▶ 1:28:55by decomposing it into various minerals that are in coal that they're hoping would get a greater price per ton. Would you would you acknowledge that coal is where China gets the majority of its energy?
▶ 1:29:05I don't Well, they they were. Yes.
▶ 1:29:07Coal is where China gets the majority. So, let's not give them too much credit for being a clean energy mecca. Like,
▶ 1:29:13well, I don't give them credit for that. But, um anyway, my point is that you are correct in being concerned about strategic minerals. And I think that in our country, we're doing our best to not only mine them, but to process them. Uh and it happens in districts like ours. Uh we are short on some and China has gone around the world and bought up a lot of supplies.
▶ 1:29:37Take you to get a a a permit in this country to build a processing facility for critical minerals.
▶ 1:29:44Well, all I know is the companies that I represent already have them. Sir,
▶ 1:29:49I I disagree with you on that. I'm I'm over my time, Madam Chair. Um but it it is the processing of the critical minerals that this country better start taking um very seriously and paying attention to. I yield.
▶ 1:30:03Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.
▶ 1:30:05Thank you, Madam Chair. I I found it somewhat interesting that some of my colleagues have said that we should follow the Chinese on wind and solar and yet we should not follow the Chinese when it comes to coal. My colleague, Mr. Scott just mentioned that the Chinese use an awful lot of coal. They're building coal fired power plants left and right and they don't use the the cleaner technologies that we have developed in this country.
▶ 1:30:31And the bottom line is is that my district when I was a younger person, a much younger person had the third or fourth lowest electric rates in the country. And our electric rates have gone up in large measure because we have banned fossil fuel. And the truth of the matter is whether they're funding the environmentalists or not, the Chinese don't want us to use our fossil fuel resources. We have the most coal in my districts. Stretches over a little bit into West Virginia, maybe a little bit into Kentucky.
▶ 1:30:59We have a seam of coal that is the most volatile, meaning it produces the most energy of any coal in the world. We have the best coal, we have the most coal, we have the most natural gas, and we have a whole lot more oil than China does. Of course, the Chinese don't want us to use that asset because it gives us an edge if we were to actually use all of our resources. It gives us an edge in the AI race and that's why they don't want us to use it.
▶ 1:31:28And so, they're perfectly happy uh moving towards uh these other things. But if we're going to follow the Chinese on wind and solar, we should take a look that they don't rely simply on wind and solar. They don't rely on renewables in order to power their industries. They are relying in large measure on coal. And so, uh, I think it's, uh, something that we need to be aware of. And if we're going to talk about the Chinese, we have to talk about that, too. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Chairman?
▶ 1:31:57Uh, yes, sir. And once again when we were alluding to the uh wonderful vast resources we have in this country whether it's coal, oil, natural gas um uh we are blessed to have that in this country and the more of it we produce um the the the lesser the rates will be. It's it's simple supply and demand.
▶ 1:32:23And certainly we ought to keep up, as you've mentioned earlier, with the French on on producing the small modular reactors. And my district doesn't have any. We want some. Uh but six or seven miles, maybe 10 outside of my district, we have uh BWXT that makes all the nuclear reactors, which are basically small module reactors for the United States Navy. And then not too far from your district. And in between yours and mine is uh Irwin, Tennessee, where BWXT also does a lot of stuff.
▶ 1:32:52And then of course you have the the other issues in in in your district as well. And then if I might, Mr. Chairman, just briefly state that I'm so pleased to hear you talk about the Army Corps of Engineers and how they're fully funded. We have lots in the mountains of western Virginia. We have lots of flooding issues and my district is so long and so large that I I work with my team works with four different Army Corps of Engineer offices.
▶ 1:33:19Norol, uh, uh, Huntington, West Virginia, that's Norfol, Virginia for those who don't know, Huntington, West Virginia, Wilmington, North Carolina, and Nashville, Tennessee. because my district stretches so far west. In fact, they often talk about Lee County is closer, I think, to nine state capitals than it is to Richmond, Virginia.
▶ 1:33:39So, I appreciate the fact that that's uh fully funded and and aggressively funded because my folks need it not just for flooding issues, but for water programs and sewer programs and others. But we do in the mountains, you get a lot of this uh you know, you get a cloud burst over a small valley in between two mountains and all of a sudden you've got a small area that's flooded and we need a lot of a lot of work there. So I appreciate that and I appreciate it and yield back, Madam Chair.
▶ 1:34:08Thank you.
▶ 1:34:08Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Mr. Jack, you are recognized.
▶ 1:34:12Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and I echo many of the the comments some of my colleagues have made. First, I want to thank you, Chairman Flechman, uh not just for working with me to solve some problems within my district, but also, as you know, perhaps some on the committee do not know this, but as I was thinking about running for Congress, your advice was advice that I sought, and were it not for some of our conversations, perhaps I would not be here. I um I would
▶ 1:34:38so I would um I'd welcome an opportunity just in as we close out this panel um one of the things that struck me from your opening comments and something I as I keenly follow the progress of this bill um I I would love for you to highlight why first off again for the record how much money you saved from a discretionary spending perspective and reductions from uh FY25 and then likewise u would welcome your thoughts and comments as to why it was so important to reduce uh spending as it relates to some of the
▶ 1:35:08the government spending we've been trying to cut.
▶ 1:35:12Well, thank you, Mr. Jack, and I do appreciate that and I vividly remember that conversation and I'm so glad that you took that piece of advice and and I'm so glad you're a part of this great great body and represent a great district in in Georgia. Um to answer the gentleman's question, we reduced uh overall fiscal spending down from 2025 by $766 million. Uh so there is an overall reduction.
▶ 1:35:40But I would say this within that portfolio or within that that that funding we have prioritized I think in a very good way for the entire country. uh not just red states or blue states but for all of America.
▶ 1:35:56Um the gentleman uh prior to you had talked about the Army Corps of Engineers very good uh and equitable funding to make sure that whether you're in California, New York or in East Tennessee, you're going to benefit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Whether you have a national lab as you do in my district, you're going to benefit uh from these technologies and and these investments.
▶ 1:36:20Um, so given the allocations that we've got, given the need to be fiscally responsible, um, we will only see three appropriation bills, I believe, increased. All of the other nine will be decreased in terms of their funding. And, and the reality is this is a bill uh, that I think right now addresses the needs of the nation.
▶ 1:36:42And and I do want to thank uh our our chief executive, President Trump, for his executive orders which have actually helped facilitate my work in doing this bill. I can fund uh whether it's a national lab or some new technologies and and in and in and critical minerals and the like. But without expediting and tightening up the the process as he has done, u my dollars would probably go uh off into obeyance.
▶ 1:37:11We are going to target this and get America into a better place.
▶ 1:37:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both you and Representative Captor for your comments today. I also want to thank your staff, appropriation staff is a hard job, but I appreciate your staff's willingness to engage with my office and I I know I speak for all my colleagues as it relates to our relationship with your team. With that, Madam Chair, I yield.
▶ 1:37:33Thank you very much, Mr. Jack. And I want to thank our um distinguished colleagues from the appropriations committee for being here today. It's been a a great conversation. I think um a lot of issues raised and I appreciate the good work that uh both of you do. Thank you so much. You're excused.
▶ 1:39:06I now welcome our second panel, Chairman Comr and Ranking Member Garcia from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Comr, I welcome your
▶ 1:39:24Thank you, Dr. Fox and Mr. McGovern. Today, the oversight committee met with survivors of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Gain Maxwell. Their stories are heartbreaking. What they have suffered and endured should never have happened and is sickening. They were not only victims of crimes but were betrayed by their own government. Since 1996, let me repeat that.
▶ 1:39:51Since 1996, the FBI has ignored tips. Then, US attorneys gave Epstein a sweetheart deal to avoid significant jail time. The government simply disregarded the law and ignored the victims of these crimes. It was and is unacceptable.
▶ 1:40:14For the past six weeks, the House Oversight Committee has worked tirelessly to request documents and testimony regarding Epstein and Maxwell. We have subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition, DOJ for documents, 10 former federal officials for depositions, the Epstein estate for documents, and agreed to a transcribed interview with Alex This is the most thorough investigation into Epstein and Maxwell to date and we are getting results.
▶ 1:40:45We have already deposed former Attorney General Bill Barr. The Department of Justice provided nearly 34,000 pages of documents and will produce more which are being made public as we speak. When I conclude when we conclude this, all those documents should be online unless we have a crash or something with the computer. The estate will begin producing documents September the 8th. That's the Epstein estate.
▶ 1:41:14The committee is working at an unprecedented pace and doing the work as it is supposed to be done. What we heard today is that these survivors support these efforts and support transparency and accountability. Goals we all share. This resolution furthers those goals. It supports our work. It supports the release of documents. And most importantly, it achieves what the survivors want. There is no question that Epstein and Maxwell were terrible criminals.
▶ 1:41:44With your support and the support of the House, we can continue to do the work to provide closure and justice to the hundreds of victims. I urge support of this resolution and I welcome your questions. Madame Chair, I yield back and thank you for uh being in that discussion today as
▶ 1:42:03Thank you, Mr. Comr. Mr. Garcia, you're
▶ 1:42:07Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to just begin in a very bipartisan manner earlier today just horrific horrific stories and to hear these incredible brave women. Thank you.
▶ 1:42:26Uh earlier today we heard of course these horrific stories um from these women who are incredibly brave and the courage that they showed to be here uh to share stories of sexual abuse some of them when they were girls young girls uh is I think has shaken a lot of us on this committee and reaffirmed our commitment to the truth and transparency.
▶ 1:42:50Now, the oversight committee, particularly Democrats, are going to continue to investigate the Epstein files and bring justice to the victims of these heinous crimes. After meeting with the survivors, of course, of Epstein and Galain Maxwell, we're once again reminded of the monstrous actions that they took against over a thousand women and girls. It's important that we center their stories and work for accountability.
▶ 1:43:17And I want to just remind this committee and the public that Jeffrey Epstein and Galain Maxwell are monsters, and in no way should they be lionized or supported. And it is it is a outrage that Galileain Maxwell has been moved to a facility where she is now more comfortable.
▶ 1:43:42And I think it's also appropriate to say that that was also to the women in the testimony that we heard today. And retraumatizing the victims because of this move is shameful and should never have happened in this country. When you harm innocent women and girls, you should be held accountable. And I'm hopeful that in a bipartisan way, this committee will do that. Now, I appreciate that.
▶ 1:44:10Of course, close to 33 34,000 pages of documents have been released by the Department of Justice that is complying with the subpoena, of course, that was that was put forward. But over 97% of those documents have already been released to the public. And I'm glad that we're releasing all those files to the American public. Most of it's already in the public record. What we need right now is full compliance with the subpoena.
▶ 1:44:37and the attorney general who once said that the files were on her desk should release all the files immediately. There cannot be additional failures or additional cover-ups by this government that has already failed these victims now for decades. That cannot continue. We've got to follow the facts. We got to get all the files out to the public and we've got to ensure that there's justice for all of the victims and the girls.
▶ 1:45:09I also just want to add that oversight Democrats have supported every single time there's been an opportunity to support transparency. We of course forced a vote to release and get the subpoena out. We will continue to take those actions. But any action that promotes transparency, we're going to support. If there's going to be a resolution, of course, it's going to come in front of the Congress to support additional transparency and openness in the Epstein files, we are going to support that.
▶ 1:45:39And any other committee that brings forward any other resolutions, we will support. But that does not somehow supplant the work on the discharge petition that Congressman Connor and Congressman Massie are moving forward. We will continue to support that discharge petition and we will support any other resolutions that come forward that also holds Epstein, Glenn Maxwell and anyone else accountable.
▶ 1:46:05And I'll conclude just by saying that it is our hope that this investigation takes on and leads us to the truth. And we do not care how powerful you are, what political party you're in, how much wealth you have, or how connected you are. If you cause harm to these women and these girls, then we're coming after you, and justice should be served. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 1:46:29Thank you very much, Chairman Comr. Would you like to respond to anything Ranking Member Garcia had to say? I appreciate his uh statement that uh this has been bipartisan thus far. I think this is an opportunity for this committee to demonstrate that we can work together in a bipartisan way. This is a bipartisan issue.
▶ 1:46:56Uh every Republican I know in Congress wants the Epstein files to be released. Every Republican in Congress I know wants the uh the the people that were trafficking women to be held accountable.
▶ 1:47:17Uh every single Republican I know wants the officials who were involved in any potential cover up or or blackmail operation, if there was one, uh to be uh outed and held accountable. So, we're going to try to do everything we can to to get this. And I think we've demonstrated that. Uh I'm I'm a Republican. We f we subpoenaed Bill Barr. We subpoenaed Alex Aosta.
▶ 1:47:46We we subpoenaed uh Pam Bondi for the Epstein documents. I don't remember when I was in the minority a Democrat chairman subpoenaed any uh Democrat officials in the administration. So, we've demonstrated we don't care about political party. We don't care about what your la what your last name is. We don't care uh how powerful you are. We want to know the truth. And we're doing everything we can.
▶ 1:48:15and I hope that the Democrats will will work with us in this endeavor and not and not politicize it.
▶ 1:48:23Um, thank you. I I agree with you and I was in that hearing for most or the meeting with the victims today and I appreciated very much, Mr. Garcia, what you said about this being a bipartisan effort and there being so many Democrat members there. But I also agree that there hasn't been this level of interest in this issue before. Right? I've been here a long time.
▶ 1:48:52It dates back what we learned from today. It dates back to 96. It dates back six administrations, six prior administrations. So there have been many other administrations that that could have released it for whatever reason hasn't. But uh thus far this administration is producing documents like we've asked and I appreciate that.
▶ 1:49:13So would you you've stated a little bit already the information you've already received from the Trump administration after the subpoena for the records was executed and how quickly the committee started receiving the information. Yeah, we uh as soon as the subpoena went out, we heard from the Department of Justice. Their attorneys started communicating with our attorneys and they they started uh gathering the documents and I think we got the documents in record time.
▶ 1:49:42I can't remember a time when we subpoenaed the Meritt Garland Department of Justice and never got anything from them. So, I applaud the Pam Bondi and the Trump administration for working with the committee uh and for being transparent
▶ 1:50:01and um as as you just mentioned um there have been times when you have requested information. I can remember what I've been here three months and I was on the oversight committee on a subcommittee and we had a a bureaucrat come in and the chairman of the committee said, "I've asked you for three years to give us information." And the person just sat there and wouldn't say a word
▶ 1:50:30and wouldn't respond in any way. Wouldn't you rather have a subpoena in hand above everything else, even a law passed by Congress? Absolutely.
▶ 1:50:41Which can be challenged in court immediately to get this information.
▶ 1:50:45Absolutely. We're doing what that uh discharge petition wants done. And we we're three steps ahead of that discharge petition. We've already deposed former attorney general Bill Bar. We've already subpoenaed the estate, the Epstein estate for all the documents. We've already
▶ 1:51:02September 8th, the material would come from them.
▶ 1:51:04I'm sorry. You said the Epstein estate is going to start producing the
▶ 1:51:09September 8th.
▶ 1:51:11September 8th, they're going to produce the documents from the estate. I believe September the 16th or 19th one, Alex Aosta's coming in for a deposition. And uh I know that during our discussion, uh Miss Crockett and and Raj Christ, I believe, asked questions about what we should ask Okcasta. So everybody, both sides are going to get equal time to interview Augusta on on all of that.
▶ 1:51:37And and again, uh the administration has complied with with our request and uh you know, they're they're I think we're we're getting those documents and as we speak, they should be being uploaded to a website right now. And it it's my understanding that the Massie um document, the Massie legislation only asks only for information from the administration. Is that correct? That's
▶ 1:52:07It it doesn't go beyond the administration. And we're going to go beyond it. We've already we're already getting the the information the documents from the administration and we've gone we've moved way past because that that discharge petition was filed six weeks ago. We we've we've already deposed you know again a former attorney general. We've got dates set for uh others to come in. We've got we're downloading 34,000 pages of documents.
▶ 1:52:35We met with the victims today and got more names that they said in front of uh you know in front of the minority and and we're we're going to press forward with that. So we're we're way ahead of this discharge petition. I don't think it's necessary at all.
▶ 1:52:50And the and you are going to be in a very unique position of being the arbiter of any needed redactions keeping that decision in the hands of members of Congress. Correct. Correct. And and there were one of the victims today made it very clear she didn't want her name, you know, made public. Others said they were willing to let their names be public and and were willing to testify in a public hearing.
▶ 1:53:18And so, uh, you know, that's you have to know, you have to have, uh, grant privacy, privacy rights to the victims. Some of the victims want their names out there and some want their names to be redacted. That's my understanding that was not sufficiently right uh taken care of. That's correct.
▶ 1:53:37In the mass correct and I also want to mention that Mike Johnson, Speaker Johnson sat through the whole meeting today with the victims, the entire 2 and 1 half hour uh discussion we had bipartisan discussion
▶ 1:53:52and and what I heard from the victims was that they feel for the first time that they're being heard. They they they they feel that they're being heard, but they made it very clear they're they don't have a lot of trust in anyone affiliated with the government because they believe that their government has let them down. And the timeline of that would date over both Republican and Democrat administrations in the past.
▶ 1:54:18Correct. So, let me see if I can put all this together. Do you believe a formalized investigation by the House is the best path forward to obtain the records and disclose them to the people?
▶ 1:54:35You've made a commitment
▶ 1:54:37and our resolution makes a commitment to
▶ 1:54:42everything that can possibly be disclosed short of violating the privacy rights of others.
▶ 1:54:51Yes, ma'am. 100%. And by having the full House vote and speak in support of this investigation, it will be helpful to you in executing the mission that you're about. Is that
▶ 1:55:05Absolutely. If we have to go to court for something, if it's a good bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives, that that only helps.
▶ 1:55:12Okay. I appreciate that very much. Mr.
▶ 1:55:17thank you very much. First, I I think I I want to ask unanimous consent to assert into the record the Massie kind of resolution because you keep on saying that it uh it doesn't protect the victims, but it's this in yellow here. There's some pretty explicit language about protecting the identity of the victims. So, I don't want there to be any confusion.
▶ 1:55:36Without objection.
▶ 1:55:37And you know, and um and uh Mr. Comr says it's unnecessary, but this bill we're doing right now is unnecessary because you're already doing something. Um, so I I I can't help but feel that this is like cover. And I got to be honest with you, I've been, you know, we've been trying to bring um, you know, legislation to the floor. We've tried to, you know, amend bills to try to uh, get this administration to do what Trump said he was going to do during the campaign, and that is release all the files.
▶ 1:56:08Um, and uh, you know, I mean, we had a recess early because we didn't people didn't want to take a vote on it. Um, and I think, you know, let's I you know, I appreciate the the nicities uh of both of you appearing before this committee right now. But I I gotta tell you, I think uh I think what's going on here today is the Republicans are terrified. Um and you know uh and and I think we all know why. Uh and that is because the president uh doesn't want to release all the files.
▶ 1:56:37I mean, after promising that he would release them during the campaign, uh then he is that was in 2024 and then 2025 he says it's all a big hoax is perpetrated by Democrats and some stupid Republicans. That that's his quote verbatim. So when you say all Republicans want this stuff released, I don't think that guy does. That's right.
▶ 1:56:58Um and what you're telling us that you're going to release some of the files uh tonight? Um if I heard Mr. I see it correctly. 97% of which is already out in public. So, we get 3% that that's new. I don't know what it's going to say. Uh but I just don't understand what the big deal is. Why can't the administration just release the files? Uh you can do the investigation, but just release all the files.
▶ 1:57:24Um you know, be be uh you know, Trump and the people he put in charge of the FBI and the DOJ promised that they would. And it's just kind of strange that they haven't done so yet. I mean, don't you think? I mean, we just want to know what are they trying to hide? Why is this such a a difficult thing for them to do? You know, before we left for recess, you guys all told us that you wanted to release the files and that a non-binding resolution authored by Mr.
▶ 1:57:51Norman was an important step forward to getting the Epstein files released. Why hasn't that been called up yet? Mr. Scott um had the authority to do so for weeks. uh he could do so this week. Uh hasn't done it. I don't know why not. Maybe Mr. Norman can explain to us why his Epstein resolution never made it to the floor. Maybe Mr. Scott can tell us why uh would like to share with us why he decided not to call up the rule for its consideration when it was when when is well within his power to do so.
▶ 1:58:22But honestly, the answers they give really don't matter because the resolution was nothing more than a distraction to buy time. And I think we're doing the same again today. Uh, but today's resolution is even worse. At least Mr. Norman's do nothing resolution had a deadline of 30 days. If I'm reading your resolution correctly, there's no deadline. It's just an open-ended distraction with the same goal. Uh, protect the powerful, hide the files, and buy some time for people to forget.
▶ 1:58:52So, you know, all that has to happen for the files to be released is one thing. The Trump administration needs to release them. That is all. Uh, and if that's too complicated for some Republicans to get their arms around, that's okay because they're in luck. Someone has already done the work for them because there is a bipartisan bill offered by Mr. Massie and Mr. Connor that would force the administration to release the Epstein files while protecting the victims. And Mr. com.
▶ 1:59:20I just just for the record, I think you I think you're not in support of the Massie counter bill, but let me ask you formally, I mean, do you support the Massie counter bill to release the Epstein files?
▶ 1:59:30We're doing that as we speak. And and you said uh some of the documents were going to be released, all 34,000 documents will be online, hopefully in the next 5 minutes, if they're not now.
▶ 1:59:41Yes. But 97% of which we've we've already seen. Mr. Garcia.
▶ 1:59:45Yeah. I just want to add I mean first appreciate the um the comments but let's let's we should be clear I if if it's true as as the chairman said that every Republican supports disclosure around the Epstein files then every Republican should sign the discharge petition from Congressman Khana and Congressman Massie there's no no question and the diff key difference in that petition as well is that petition ensures one that members of Congress are all on the record on releasing the files and two that petition as you have in front of you also ensures
▶ 2:00:15that the files actually go to the American public, that they're actually released to the public. I appreciate that the subpoena that we forced a vote on is going to our committee and it's important work. Most of the most of the documents that were sent to our committee, those initial documents were given to right-wing influencers back in February. The files and the full report, according to the attorney general, were sitting on her desk ready to be released.
▶ 2:00:43We know that the attorney general herself has shared with the president directly that he was also in the files. The reason and we don't understand why this cover up by the president continues to not release the full files. And so the discharge petition is an important additional step forward for the Congress, the full Congress to be on record to release the full files.
▶ 2:01:06And so that piece is important and and it's clear that while maybe there are some Republicans in Congress and hopefully all that want to see disclosure that is not the case with the Republicans in the White House and the Department of Justice.
▶ 2:01:18So 7 months uh to get released uh docu 97% of which already been released but again Mr. Comr I mean do do you support the Massie counter resolution? Yes or
▶ 2:01:30We're already doing it and and let Mr. No, the discharge petition does not have the force of law. We've already subpoenaed it.
▶ 2:01:38You can be and I'll let
▶ 2:01:40No, look, Mr. McGover, it's very disappointing that you're trying to politicize this. We're trying to get answers. We're trying to do everything that's in this discharge petition, but but you're trying to politicize it.
▶ 2:01:51No, I'm No, it's a yes or no question. It's not a trick question. I mean, do you think
▶ 2:01:56we've already done what the discharge petition's asking? Do you think the resolution saying to keep doing what you were doing is better than a bill that could become law?
▶ 2:02:06The bill The bill has no force of law. It has no force of the law. You're just trying to do a political stunt.
▶ 2:02:14Look, ask the question, Mr. Governor.
▶ 2:02:18Well, I was asking a question. He interrupted me.
▶ 2:02:21It's a simple yes or no question. Simple yes or no question.
▶ 2:02:25We're already doing it.
▶ 2:02:26All right. Well, that's not a yes or no, but but do you think the resolution saying to keep doing what you were doing is better than a bill that can become law, which would require the release of all the files?
▶ 2:02:36It doesn't have the force of the law. It's just a political stunt. It's just a political stunt. And and
▶ 2:02:42this is a resolution. Um the count is a Massie bill uh would become law. If all you Republicans want everything released, then you know, you could vote for it and then if he decides to veto it, you can override the veto.
▶ 2:02:57The subpoena goes further than the discharge petition. Discharge petition is just a political stunt. Just a political stunt.
▶ 2:03:05Are so you
▶ 2:03:06and look, we've we have done everything bipartisan in this investigation. This is an opportunity. And I think most of the Democrats on the oversight committee want to be bipartisan in this, Mr. McGovern. So, so you're not going to answer my question, but look, we we're meeting here under an emergency procedure uh to consider this resolution, which if I'm reading it right, simply tells your committee to continue doing what you're doing. Do you need this resolution to continue doing what you're doing, Mr. Garcia? I mean,
▶ 2:03:34we don't we uh the resolution as presented is not necessary. Uh again, we want we want disclosure. We want the files released, but this what should have happened is we should vote on the discharge petition and move it forward and then continue our work. Can I say one more thing, Mr. Mr. Ranking member? I also want to be clear that the DOJ has not been forthcoming or presented everything that we've asked for in the subpoena. And I think it's important that even in our recent interactions with the DOJ, they're essentially now not giving us any new additional information as to when we're receiving the rest of the files.
▶ 2:04:04And so having Congress act and taking a vote on the full release of the files is an important additional step which is why the discharge petition is important and the resolution should not somehow take precedent or discourage members from somehow signing the discharge petition.
▶ 2:04:21So help me understand what we're considering right now. Does this resolution grant you any new authority? I think the resolution will send a signal if we end up in court. If, as the victim stated today, there some of the most powerful and some of the richest names in the world were involved in a cover up, we're going to end up in court.
▶ 2:04:44And I think the resolution will demonstrate that that Congress is working in a bipartisan manner, not trying to be partisan to get the truth to the American people and hold people
▶ 2:04:54Yeah. Why don't why don't we do both? I mean, Mr. Massie, last time I checked, is a Republican. other Republicans will sign that. I mean, it's a I mean, we Why can't we do both? I
▶ 2:05:03I think we can. I think
▶ 2:05:04would the Excuse me, Mr. McCart. Would the gentleman yield one? Yes,
▶ 2:05:08we can. We certainly can do both.
▶ 2:05:11We'll pass this resolution here and then if sufficient people sign the discharge petition, then it will come out. And it's my understanding there is a significant difference in the resolution that we have here and the Massie um resolution and that is it dem our this resolution demands disclosure whereas the Massie resolution does not.
▶ 2:05:38So I think we can do both and let that happen that we want to show that we want this done in a very in a very important way.
▶ 2:05:49Well, if we can do both, then why is the rules committee standing in the way of allowing I'm I'm going to have a vote on the Massie um uh counter resolution. Why would the rules why would Republicans of the rules committee block us from just bringing it to the floor? Um we could we could vote on both. because it they've already started the discharge process.
▶ 2:06:10Well, that does you
▶ 2:06:12they've already started it.
▶ 2:06:13Yeah. Well, I that's a nice Well, that's what whatever. That's I I don't even want to say what I'm thinking about that answer, but uh uh let me um let me let me uh let me just ask this a yes or no question. Does the administration have the power to release the Epstein files with appropriate redactions to protect the victims and the survivors? Do they have the authority to do that?
▶ 2:06:37I I think so with the subpoena.
▶ 2:06:40All right. They do. Or so, but they're not. Um, and Mr. Comey, this resolution that we're that is before us right now says that you're investigating mismanagement that led to Mr. Epstein's death.
▶ 2:06:54Um, who was the president of the United States when Mr. Epstein died in custody?
▶ 2:07:00It would have I would assume it would have been Trump.
▶ 2:07:03Yeah. And one I I have another just one last question. Um you you referred to Gileain Maxwell as a terrible individual. Um and I guess the question is maybe you can align us. What do you what have you done to investigate why Miss Maxwell was moved to a minimum facility? I mean she's a convicted child predator. Um uh sent to prison.
▶ 2:07:30She testifies before uh some people the administr she didn't testify. She she um answers questions um that are put forward by somebody in this administration. Um she basically says the president didn't do anything wrong and then all of a sudden is moved to a minimum security um facility. Um are you are you going to do have you done a hearing on that? Are you doing a hearing on that? We're we've subpoenaed Miss Maxwell.
▶ 2:07:59Uh she sent a letter via her attorneys and said uh that she requested that we wait for the deposition until after the Supreme Court rules on her appeal. Uh that should we we're hoping that's this month. So as soon as the Supreme Court rules on her appeal, we'll go in and do a formal deposition. So Mr. Garcia will be there. I'll be there if he wants to be there.
▶ 2:08:24I'm not interested. And those questions can be asked. Those are legitimate
▶ 2:08:28Well, I but I don't I don't think Miss Maxwell can answer those questions. I mean, I I listened to some of her interview and it sounded like there was no cross-examination. I'm just curious why after she said what she said was she moved. So, it's not about Miss Maxwell. It's about somebody made the decision to move her. Uh which I I I don't think uh was expected. Mr. Garcia.
▶ 2:08:50Yeah. I mean, look, let's be let's be really clear. Um, first of all, Democrats on the committee, we did not support moving Gla Maxwell's testim testimony after the Supreme Court heard her heard her appeal. In fact, that was a decision that um the majority made that we did not support. We think that Miss Maxwell before she was interviewed by Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, should have been in front of a bipartisan committee in a deposition.
▶ 2:09:13And so to be clear, and I think it's safe to say that it's an outrage and shameful that Glen Maxwell was moved to a facility where she is now more comfortable and has more access uh to to folks both on the outside and her ability to to move freely when she has victimized over o hundreds and hundreds of women. And I'll and I'll add one more thing to that. We've written to the DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Prisons demanding answers, yet no response from the attorney general.
▶ 2:09:43We have no idea why she was moved and who actually at whose direction was she moved to that
▶ 2:09:48but she was moved, and correct me if I'm wrong, by this current administration,
▶ 2:09:54Absolutely. I mean I I
▶ 2:09:56I just and I and I again I I I would think that you know I mean this is so outrageous that that that a big part of the investigation of your oversight committee should be on that as well. Um and I mean I I I hope that I hope that you pursue that. But again, I mean, I um I I think it is imperative that we pass the messy kind of bill um because I think it does have the the force of law.
▶ 2:10:25Um and um because I don't I don't trust this administration uh to basically I mean something's going on here. I don't know what, but there's a reason why everybody went from we're going to release the files one day to the next day saying we're not. Um, so in the in the spirit of full transparency and the spirit of demanding that they do what they said they were going to do, I think it's it I think we need to do more uh than what we're doing. M Mr. Comr.
▶ 2:10:50Yeah. U I was just told by council the documents pertaining to the move would fall under the Department of Justice subpoena. So I think that's a fair question that that I'm confident if we don't ask it, Mr. Garcia will in a whenever we're
▶ 2:11:05Yeah. I'll tell you this whole episode has been outrageous and it's disgusting. Um, and it's been strange, especially the way this Congress has dealt with it up to this point. And so, uh, so, so some of us believe we ought to, you know, we ought to also pass the Massie uh, bill. And I hope that we will do that. And I hope my friends on the rules committee will allow us to offer it um because I'll bring it up as an amendment. I yield back.
▶ 2:11:31Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Miss Fishbach, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I I I I am confused because the oversight committee is trying to do the investigation, trying to get the information, trying to get it released. They have been working on it most of August to significant port part of August.
▶ 2:11:53Um, so I am confused as to why the Democrats are opposing this because you are doing it in the way that it should be done, not some resolution added, you know, that like you like the Democrats attempted to um in rules committee in the middle of well it wasn't in the middle of the night in the but instead this is a thoughtful
▶ 2:12:18way that you are handling this Um I and so I I am just really confused about that and I just want to say that I thank you for doing what you're doing because we obviously need to figure this out in a in a respectful manner so we are protecting those those um victims who don't want to be um publicized.
▶ 2:12:44We're doing it in an organized manner so that things happen in a transparent manner and we are going to and you're my understanding is you are going to disclose and publish everything
▶ 2:12:57everything that
▶ 2:12:58and so I um I don't know if you have anything you want to add to that but I just wanted to point out how confused I am about this because
▶ 2:13:06this is just grandstanding and and and political theater
▶ 2:13:12from the other side because you're doing what you're supposed to be doing.
▶ 2:13:15We We want to know. I want to know. Uh if you look at the roster of the committee, Marjorie Taylor Green, Anna Paulina Luna, Nancy Bass, they want to know. I mean, they ask tough questions. And and look, when Aosta is interviewed, there'll be some tough questions for him. He has a lot of questions that need to be answered with respect to some things. So, we we've not put a line down. We're only going after the Democrat.
▶ 2:13:43that happened in in the past when the Democrats were in charge, they only went after Republican. We want to get the truth and it it goes back it scans spans six administration. So um look for for whatever reason according to the victims today and Dr. Fox was in there, Mr. Garcia was in there.
▶ 2:14:06The uh you know, they've been giving interviews to FBI and other government officials, people in in various departments of justice for for decades and and name names and nothing's nothing's been done. You know, the the Biden administration had an opportunity to release the Epstein files and they didn't do it.
▶ 2:14:29uh you know you you you go back uh I mean this this is something that we're committed to doing and and we want to do I want to be able to say the oversight committee this was a big investigation the American people are watching it I want everything out in the open so u you know we're trying to do it and we're trying to be bipartisan and and hopefully my friends across the aisle my I think the majority of the oversight Democrats are sincere and want to do this in a bipartisan way hopefully the
▶ 2:14:59Democrat leadership will let this be bipartisan and not play political games.
▶ 2:15:05Thank you.
▶ 2:15:08I will yield.
▶ 2:15:09So, I'm I'm confused too about something um that Mr. McGovern said that 97% of what's been released was already public information. I'm I'm not sure why that that's negative because they keep saying
▶ 2:15:30okay 3% is new
▶ 2:15:33but now it's all available to the public. Is that correct? Cuz you're maybe it was released to some people but now it's released to everybody. Right. So everyone can see it. Absolutely. I don't know what the 3% is that hadn't been released before, whether it has any significance, but I'm confused as the gentleoman from Minnesota's confused as to why are they downplaying that or why are they saying that's a waste of time?
▶ 2:16:01I I I don't know. It's not. And you know, I think all of us during August, if we went out and met with constituents, they were all asking about this. The American people want to know. Uh they want to they would like I' I've said this in a million interviews.
▶ 2:16:16They want to know you know who all was involved in in the the sex trafficking what big names were were uh victim take taking advantage of those girls and was the government involved. Those are the three questions and and I hope we'll be able to get as much information as possible. Look, this dates back according to what what we heard today from the victims as far back as 96.
▶ 2:16:44So, you know, we we're have let's hope that there's still documents around. I've I've always had a huge distrust of the FBI and the Department of Justice under uh various administrations and and I've always had a theory that sometimes documents don't survive from one administration to the other. uh we're going to do everything we can to to get that information and and I think this resolution's a step in the in the right direction. I think uh I don't think the other thing's needed.
▶ 2:17:12I thank the lady for uh yielding.
▶ 2:17:16Thank you. Um but and and just to just to reiterate, um I just hope that the Democrats will stop the grandstanding and really,
▶ 2:17:28you know, work on the bipartisan oversight uh committee and making sure that these things are dealt with. I think it's a disservice to all of the
▶ 2:17:37to not work and to pretend that this is somehow bad. Um, but focus on it and and and make sure make sure I'm asking the Democrats, make sure that it's bipartisan. Make sure that you're doing what needs to be done, the disclosure is done, and the investigation is done.
▶ 2:17:53Um, because it's this isn't something that should be about political.
▶ 2:17:59This is about something that we should investigate. And so with that, um, I just hope that they would come with us and help with the oversight committee
▶ 2:18:07Thank you.
▶ 2:18:08With that, I yield back. Thank you,
▶ 2:18:10Miss Scanlin. You're recognized.
▶ 2:18:12And I would yield to Mr. McGovern for a
▶ 2:18:15I'm sorry there's so much confusion on the Republican side of the aisle. Um I mean I mean I don't understand why we're just not all demanding that the administration release all the files and we could do that if we were able to vote on the Mass Eye counter resolution, but apparently we can't do that.
▶ 2:18:36And forgive me if I'm just a little bit suspicious about all that's going on here because I mean I' I've been on this committee all year with all of you and I have watched as we have weaved and dodged and avoided uh bringing anything to the floor dealing with this. And I've also you know you you we we we began our August recess early because you none of you wanted to take a vote and hold this administration accountable and you ran out of town.
▶ 2:19:03Um, so, um, so again, uh, and you know, want to do something bipartisan, maybe we all can join on a bipartisan appeal to this, uh, administration to find out why Gain Maxwell was moved to a cushy, uh, facility, uh, after she exonerated Donald Trump. Um, so I I'm I'm sorry. I mean, we we've we've lived through the last several weeks as Republicans have tried to avoid dealing with this issue.
▶ 2:19:30And so I hope, you know, and I trust that there's bipartisan cooperation on the oversight committee. Uh, and I I I want that investigation to move forward, but for the life of me, I do not understand why the administration, after promising to release all the files, has chosen not to. Uh, so that's what I'm confused about. I thank the general lady for yielding.
▶ 2:19:51Thank you. Um, Mr. Mr. Comr, I think in your introduction, just for folks who are trying to play catch-up here because there's a lot of details and a lot of names being uh thrown around. You said that one of the issues here is that the US attorney who initially handled Mr. Epstein's case gave him a sweetheart deal. That's right, isn't it?
▶ 2:20:12Was was the initial US attorney was who?
▶ 2:20:17Well, you didn't name him, but it was Alex Aoster, right?
▶ 2:20:20I don't know if he was the initial, but he was one of them. Yeah. He gave him.
▶ 2:20:23So he was the US attorney appointed by George Bush in whatever district and he's the one that gave the deal to Epstein where he served a couple months who basically got out on release every day despite all the horrific crimes that we now know occurred.
▶ 2:20:38Okay. And in his later career, he became Secretary of Labor in the first Trump administration. Right.
▶ 2:20:44And he had to leave after reporting disclosed this sweetheart deal. Is that right? I I don't know what caused him to leave, but
▶ 2:20:54It was about that time.
▶ 2:20:56Um, so, Mr. Garcia, I I know we've heard that you've received some materials. Are there redactions in those materials?
▶ 2:21:07Yeah, there there are uh appropriate redactions. We we've we'll be able to review the full materials. there there'll be some opportunity to review the materials without some redactions for from the committee staff and committee members that don't put any of the victims in harm's way.
▶ 2:21:21But there are some again the the reality with the materials though is there's nothing really with a small amount a couple thousand pages of new information and all the information was first given to right-wing influencers back in February and then has been released to the public whether it's been through the media or or other ways. And so uh we can get the full files today. We know the DOJ has them. They're not answering our questions. We're asking when are we getting the rest of the files. We get no response.
▶ 2:21:48And to clarify one one thing, um, Miss Scallin, I think it was said earlier by another member of the committee that we're somehow opposing this resolution or we're not opposing anything. We want full disclosure. If the majority wants to put together a resolution uh to add to more disclosure, that's fine. But that resolution should in no way supplant the discharge petition or serve as some kind of distraction to not get the full Congress on record to release all the files.
▶ 2:22:14Okay. I I mean I guess I was asking about the redactions because there's been reporting that under Attorney General Bondi um hundreds of FBI and DOJ men hours have been dedicated to redacting all references to the president. Um, so is there anything to indicate that the materials you've received thus far contain some of those
▶ 2:22:36So, we we believe that the materials that we've received so far um have there there are there are redactions in there. We are reviewing some of those redactions. Currently, the team still is, but we believe that that again that a vast majority of those documents are not actually not presenting any new information. Uh, and we do believe there are important and critical documents that we have not yet received from the DOJ that contain important information to this investigation and we have yet to see those.
▶ 2:23:04Um, do you have explanations for the redactions that you have seen thus far? Have those been provided by DOJ?
▶ 2:23:10We we do have some explanation of some of the redactions, but there are no documents in what we have been presented that are of concern as it relates to redactions. I'm I'm just concerned because that is one of the pieces of the Massie underlying reg uh underlying legislation which is that to the extent the DOJ turned over any materials it would have to explain any redactions or um claims of privilege or whatever
▶ 2:23:37but but that's important certainly in future documents. So as more documents come forward ensuring that that is a piece of it is going to be important. Um, and I guess going back to this issue of Galileain Maxwell getting this cushy assignment, my understanding is that when she was moved to this new facility, that was against Bureau of Prison regulations and someone higher up from the White House or the Attorney General's office would have had to uh
▶ 2:24:07excuse um that normal Bureau of Prison uh rule.
▶ 2:24:12That is correct.
▶ 2:24:13Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. Anything else you want to add?
▶ 2:24:17Uh just just that I think that Republicans should join uh Democrats on the oversight committee and others in demanding answers as to why Gain Maxwell was moved and who gave the orders to move Gain Maxwell. We still don't know that question, that answer.
▶ 2:24:31I think that's an important part as well and uh pleased to have been able to sign the discharge petition before we came up for this hearing. So, thank you.
▶ 2:24:40Thank you, Miss Scan. Mr. Norman, you're recognized. Thank thank both of you for Um, you know, I think what's interesting about this hearing, Mr. Govern, you've been kind of very critical of everything that's been going on here and about you need answers and some of it uh we do need answers on, but the biggest and you you said things were outrageous and whatnot. You're, you know, confused.
▶ 2:25:10What I'm confused about, you were elected to Congress in 1997, 28 years. You were chairman of this committee, the rules committee from 2019 to 23. Now, if this is all of a sudden so important, when you was chairman, you had every right to bring up everything we're talking about now. What do we hear from you? Crickets. So, that's the big confusion I have.
▶ 2:25:35and J repres the U thing about political grandstanding that's all this is and I didn't campaign
▶ 2:25:45if I've got the floor I recognize you but I'm not we're not going to talk over each other have some decency this is an anti-Trump you asking all these questions uh you know who released Jelene Maxwell when you had the opportunity you didn't say one word this is anti-Trump and it's it's coming out for that
▶ 2:26:04let me ask you this. How many how many victims were interviewed today?
▶ 2:26:11And you think it's hundreds?
▶ 2:26:13They said it was hundreds. Hundreds. Like close to a thousand, but hundreds. That's what the attorneys for the vict There were the attorneys were represented by four. The the the victims were represented by four attorneys and that they said as many as a thousand.
▶ 2:26:28Well, the process is moving forward. We all know the discharge petition. I don't I don't mind having two tracks. Uh but the bottom line is Mr. Governor knows it has to go to the Senate. Uh I don't know what they'll do with it, but it's going to take time. You're not waiting on anything. No,
▶ 2:26:43you're moving forward.
▶ 2:26:44We're moving forward.
▶ 2:26:45And like uh Chairman Fox said, everything's going to get released. Now, let me ask you this. Are the flight logs public information? Who flew on the
▶ 2:26:55Is that okay? Uh, some are, but the estate subpoena should cover
▶ 2:27:05more of that.
▶ 2:27:06We all know anybody that's How far back with the flight logs? You can't alter a flight log
▶ 2:27:11on an air. If you're flying on a plane, you can't
▶ 2:27:13back to 1990.
▶ 2:27:15Okay. 1990. We know people that were on that flight weren't going over there to have Bible studies,
▶ 2:27:22They were doing other things. So, we'll see is your opinion all the flight logs of whoever went Doesn't matter that will be released.
▶ 2:27:32Yeah. I mean that I want to know. I think everybody wants to know.
▶ 2:27:35You hit it on the head, James. I mean, people want to know the names. If a crime has been committed against the,
▶ 2:27:41you know, thousands of women, young
▶ 2:27:44This transcends politics. That's why I I don't The fact that you're politicizing this is not right. This transcends this is young girls getting abused. Um, so the fact that the flight logs will be released, we'll know the names of who flew over there
▶ 2:28:02and then the public I think that's the big name. If crimes have been committed, who did it,
▶ 2:28:07And then let them face a trial. Let them face a um
▶ 2:28:11the a jury appears.
▶ 2:28:13Now, I think Miss Scandlin said the redactions by Attorney General Bondi contained things with President Trump. Now, what did you say, M Representative Garcia, that was not right,
▶ 2:28:27right? I I think well, first to be clear, I think the attorney general herself has said that President Trump is in the Epstein files. To be to be clear, that's been that's been reported.
▶ 2:28:36And as far as what redactions include the president, we don't have the files yet to know what those what those redactions actually are. And
▶ 2:28:43when you get the files, y'all, both of you will ask the question, why were they reacted redacted? Who did it? And as far as who put Miss Maxwell in in another prison, I assume that will come forward.
▶ 2:28:59Well, and to be clear, our request has been to redact the names of the victims. Uh there shouldn't be circumstances, nor would we support redacting the names of the perpetrators or anyone that actually committed the harm. And so that would not be our expectation. And so we're we're we think the full release of the files is important to check that work, of course.
▶ 2:29:19Okay. So if if so it's not nothing with with do President Trump was has been redacted to your knowledge of what's been released so far.
▶ 2:29:29If anything with President Trump's name has been redacted. It has not been um it's not something that's been in anything. It's not any new information.
▶ 2:29:37So that that presented to the public.
▶ 2:29:39So this just further illustrates this is just a hatred of of a president who has got support of
▶ 2:29:4577 million people. I mean sir, I mean it's it's the president that actually campaigned on releasing the full files when he was running. I mean this this he had made this the central issue of his one of the central issues of his campaign. Aside from that though you had four years under the bid administration he was chairman of a committee. He could have brought it up day one. He didn't do it. So if all of a sudden the interest and I to be honest I'm glad it's coming out now. It's been a lot transpired with Gilain Maxwell the death of I don't even know when did when did Epstein die?
▶ 2:30:152019 August
▶ 2:30:172019. Okay. So, a lot's happened over
▶ 2:30:2020 years of this. Um, well, I think thank you for what you're doing. Um, I think that public needs to know uh as they do on most everything. There are a lot of questions of the government involvement than the shooting of President Trump.
▶ 2:30:33I mean, that's going to come out at some
▶ 2:30:36not only Butler, Pennsylvania, but the golf course. So, uh, is there anything you want to add to what Mr. RC or any
▶ 2:30:43No, I just think that, you know, the subpoena covers everything. I mean, if there are flight logs with the estate, that'll fall under the subpoena. If there are questions about why Maxwell was moved from Florida to Texas, that'll fall under the DOJ subpoena. So, we we we are moving forward and and the Department of Justice has been uh working with us to to turn over those documents.
▶ 2:31:08It takes a long time to gather and uh transfer 34,000 pages and u we're hopeful there's more and we'll look at that and then post it online as quick as we can.
▶ 2:31:20Mr. Norman, would you yield for a
▶ 2:31:22Pardon me?
▶ 2:31:23Would you yield for a minute?
▶ 2:31:24Oh, yes ma'am. I'll yield.
▶ 2:31:25Sure. I just wanted to seek unanimous consent to put in the Newsweek article from August 1st of this year. So just last month in which it talks about the fact that Trump's name was in the Just Free Epstein files and that a thousand FBI agents were redacting those files to remove his name and others. So it's an August 1st, 2025 uh Newsweek report. It was also in Bloomberg and several other things but I know we were on break so you might have missed it.
▶ 2:31:52I without objection.
▶ 2:31:54So what she just said y'all will be able to get into that won't you?
▶ 2:31:57So you'll be able to answer every question. Now Mr. government fairness to you. You want to answer why when you were chairman of this committee, you didn't bring up anything about Jeffrey
▶ 2:32:06Uh, yeah. I mean, I I one is I didn't campaign that I was going to release the Epstein file. Donald Trump made it into a big issue and then we all expected it was going to be released and then he decided at the last minute to change his mind. Called people, said it was a big hoax, said Republicans were stupid as like for going along with it. Um, and so those are his words. Um uh and by the way, Gla Maxwell just got transferred like what a month ago. Um so I I wasn't chairman then um of the of the
▶ 2:32:35No no of 2019 to 20 I I I would have
▶ 2:32:41Yeah. I mean if I if if people have brought to my attention uh that there was something there I I would have demanded that they be released.
▶ 2:32:48No. The victims No.
▶ 2:32:50Well, I mean I if the victims came to to us Yeah. But the victims want want the files released and Republicans have been frustrating that effort for months and months and months. And we we you you even adjourned early
▶ 2:33:04to uh to avoid having to vote on it. That is we want we want the we I want I want the truth out there. I want the files out there.
▶ 2:33:11Taking my time back.
▶ 2:33:13I'm take I'm reclaiming my time. The fact is if you had all the interest that you do now, it's just because of Donald Trump. You had four years to do it as chairman of this committee and you've been you've been in Congress 28 years. You and I both know the victims. Th this has been out that that young girls have been victimized for the last 15 years and you did nothing, which is is uh is it shows you the the hatred they have and everything's political up here, particularly when it comes to Donald Trump.
▶ 2:33:43But the American people don't agree with you. Um thank you both of you for testifying. I yel back.
▶ 2:33:50Thank you, Mr. Norman, Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.
▶ 2:33:54Hello, Chairwoman. We are back, aren't we? And we're back on Epstein, which is where we were before indeed Johnson shut down Congress early so we would not have to vote on a motion to put on the floor of the House the Massie Kana resolution to force the release of the Epstein files to the public, to pass a bill that would make it law
▶ 2:34:25that all of the files would have to be released. And there is no reason why we cannot still have that be a rule and we can do both. But Republicans and Trump especially seem terrified of those files and seemed willing to do all kinds of things to avoid a vote on that bill.
▶ 2:34:51I know. Now, I want to go into some other things, but I'm going to uh uh yield some time to my ranking member.
▶ 2:34:58No, I I just want to respond to Mr. Norman. I I knew there was some there there when this administration was trying to hide everything. Um and uh and that's quite frankly what uh you know uh what has a lot of us concerned about uh what we're not doing here today, and that is not voting on the Massie counter bill. And my understanding is that there's some reporting out now. We're hearing that the White House is calling Republican members asking them not to sign onto the discharge petition.
▶ 2:35:24Um, and yeah, and I don't even know what the hell happened to your resolution that you brought up uh before we kind of abruptly uh left early for our August recess, but uh yeah, this doesn't smell right. Um and um I think we need to get to the bottom of this and that means that all the files have to be released. Uh I yield back. I thank the general
▶ 2:35:45Thank you, ranking member. And you know, I am chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus. And we are always concerned about the fact that in this country, women and children and girls are attacked. They are abused. They are raped. They are trafficked. And they are done so by men like Epstein and by women like Maxwell.
▶ 2:36:08And I think that it is an outrage, as you pointed out, ranking member Garcia, that she has now been treated favorably by the Trump administration after saying some things they liked. And what we haven't heard from you, Cherr, is a commitment not to say, well, it's going to be in the subpenas, but to have a hearing on why.
▶ 2:36:33Will you commit to having a hearing to determine why she was moved to a more favorable conditions after that interview?
▶ 2:36:42We'll have a hearing to determine the crimes that were committed. The the hearing is going to be geared towards seeking justice for the victims, not scoring political points like you all. We're concerned about the victims and and their request that someone finally be held accountable because they weren't during the Biden administration. They weren't during the o Obama administration.
▶ 2:37:09I'm going to take they weren't during the Clinton administration.
▶ 2:37:12The question was whether you would hold a hearing as we'll have a hearing was
▶ 2:37:17Why she was transferred after that?
▶ 2:37:19We'll have a hearing and if someone wants to ask that question, they can ask it. You can ask any question. We'll have a hearing. you but it wasn't a hearing on what the question was and rank
▶ 2:37:30you want to have a whole hearing a whole entire hearing not about the victims not about a government cover up not about human trafficking but about uh Maxwell be who you all were like begging to be deposed and I did the subpoena now you want to now you don't now you're mad because she exonerated Trump we brought in Bill Barr who is no you know I don't think it's secret that he and Trump aren't uh best of friends and he
▶ 2:38:00I'm going to I'm going to reclaim my time. Well, that
▶ 2:38:03the time
▶ 2:38:05the question wasn't about shouldn't we do all these things, but this is something very specific that indeed as I understand the victims raised today, they're outraged that this has happened. And it is indeed a retraumatization when somebody who has done such horrible is then treated favorably under these conditions. And I think that's where where it's at.
▶ 2:38:28And uh I really want to thank you, Ranking Member Garcia, because you focused in your opening remarks about the horrors of what you heard today and of why it is so important for these survivors that they get justice. And it needs to come in many forms. And and I think the fact that Trump doesn't us to vote on this bill tells you a lot, right?
▶ 2:38:57and and and and why are Democrats worried? We are worried because Trump keeps distracting and lying about things, right? Anytime he doesn't like something, he distracts and he lies. He claims inflation is down, but America's working families who are paying more for energy and groceries know the truth or small businesses are closing because of those tariffs. Trump didn't like the fact that Americans are losing jobs, so he fired the person who gathers the data.
▶ 2:39:26And with the Epstein files, he's terrified of what's in those files. And he knows his name will keep coming up again and again. And it is tied to the fact that Trump himself, Representative Garcia, you know that he's been accused of sexual misconduct at least 28 times. He's found liable by a jury of his peers for sexual abuse and defamation.
▶ 2:39:52So, we're not going to be surprised when we find out that his when we found out that his name has been in his files, and we want to see what they are. Is that
▶ 2:40:03I think we want to know um what Attorney General Bondi uh told the president as it relates to his name uh being in the files um and has been widely reported. And I think the American public deserve they have a right to know,
▶ 2:40:17right? And I think that Americans are worried about trusting Republicans on this because now Chairman Comr saying was doing all these things. Had they done anything at all before Democrats forced the vote on the subpoena? Had the had oversight done anything on?
▶ 2:40:34Well, I think that's a good reminder. I mean, the the the vote was a force vote by a subcommittee of Democrats on oversight where we got not all but some Republicans to join all Democrats to subpoena the Epstein files. And had Democrats not taken that action, we'd have no subpoena and we'd still be much further back in this investigation.
▶ 2:40:56Right. And there were two Democrats who voted against that subpoena. Is that
▶ 2:41:00All All Democrats.
▶ 2:41:01I mean, so two Republicans, all vote, all Democrats. Democrats forced the vote. Oversight had not done anything with regards to this until Democrats forced the vote and then you had two Republicans vote against it nevertheless. Is that correct?
▶ 2:41:15Including the the subcommittee chairman, I believe.
▶ 2:41:17Including the subcommittee chairman. So leaders in the committee voted against the subpoenas. Now they're taking and so this is why Americans might be worried about whether they're going to be forthcoming. Now, Chairman Comr, this resolution would give you and only you the power to decide what information in these documents is redacted or withheld. Is that correct?
▶ 2:41:43Well, the uh you know, we're trying to do this in a bipartisan manner. Our staffs are communicating. I think I I hope Mr. Garcia would agree. I think our staffs, he's new to the new to the job and and I think our staffs are are working together really well and hopefully we'll continue to work well. Like I said, I want this to be bipartisan. I don't want members of the committee and members of the committee haven't been making the accusations that members of the rules committee have been making that uh you know, this isn't bipartisan.
▶ 2:42:14We want this to be a bipartisan investigation. We want to get the truth and and uh hopefully we'll do that. and and you know, you're trying to I feel like create a false narrative here to say that the Trump administration isn't working. They have been turning over the documents. And I mean, I feel like we're we're on a pretty good roll here.
▶ 2:42:35So, uh, Chairman Comr, I appreciate that fact that you said you want to work on a bipartisan uh basis on this, but the does not require you to consult with the ranking member. Only thing that's going to be redacted are names of victims.
▶ 2:42:53Does the resolution give the ranking member any role in approving redactions? And if you want to be bipartisan, would you you would you be willing to uh accept an amendment to
▶ 2:43:03I'm I'm making a a pledge to work with Mr. Garcia. Hopefully he'll keep Mr. McGovern and Mr. Raskin out of the room and we can get some good things done in a bipartisan manner. Well, a pledge is a wonderful thing, but an amendment that actually puts it into writing would be great. Would you be willing to accept that amendment?
▶ 2:43:24I think we're I think the resolution's good and hopefully we'll vote it out in a bipartisan manner and if we need to use that as as a basis in court to get more documents, we'll do that.
▶ 2:43:35Okay. Okay. So, you're not willing to actually put it in writing that you will uh that the ranking member will be consulted before you approve. I guarantee that I'll consult with them a heck of a lot more than uh Elijah Cummings and Carolyn Maloney consulted with me when they were chairman
▶ 2:43:51asking about past I'm asking about what's this and this is the problem and and and the reason why we're concerned about this is chairman comr uh I've read accounts of you describing yourself as a Trump man
▶ 2:44:06as a what?
▶ 2:44:07Trump man. I'm a Trump man. You and
▶ 2:44:11you said I'm a Trump man. I I I mean,
▶ 2:44:15I support I support the president.
▶ 2:44:17You support the president and this is why it would be important to have in writing the bipartisan nature because we want there to be bipartisanship so that it is not a
▶ 2:44:28I I wanted too, but you all are making a good case up here, but I'm trying I'm hopeful that Mr. Garcia is going to see past the behavior of the Democrats on the rules committee. Madam Chair, Chairman Comrar was speaking and I think that it is important that we have people looking at these docs that are not a Trump man so that we can make sure that everything gets responded to because right now we haven't seen it. And that's why we want to make it the law of the land.
▶ 2:45:00We want to make sure that all the all Republicans vote on the Mass Eye Con resolution so that they can say we want to make sure it becomes available to everybody without it going through any process of redaction. I think that's the key to have your investigation, but it's good to have other things, too.
▶ 2:45:21Miss Ledger Fernandez, do you want to vote tonight? Would you like to vote tonight? They're gonna call the vote at 20 minutes after. And so I I I don't know if you want to finish before we I'm gonna make a recess.
▶ 2:45:37I think I'll be done before 20. I I I think less than 40 minutes.
▶ 2:45:41I'm going to call for a recess in about 3 minutes
▶ 2:45:44so that we can go vote.
▶ 2:45:47I I wanted to see if there was anything else that uh the ranking member wanted to add to this discussion. And I think the only thing that I think is important is um all Republicans who support transparency and accountability should support the Thomas Massie resolution. I think it's clear. It it sets it puts everyone on record. Um one would actually be a law versus a resolution.
▶ 2:46:13And again, we we're happy to support any resolution or any effort to uh support transparency. And I think the same should be said for the other side of the h the other side of the aisle in support of this resolution which is bipartisan.
▶ 2:46:27Right. We can do both.
▶ 2:46:29We can do both.
▶ 2:46:29So if we can do both, I look forward to everybody on this committee doing both, voting for this and voting and signing on to uh either an amendment or the discharge position. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
▶ 2:46:42Thank you, Miss Lois Fernandez. We were warned that they will close the vote after 20 minutes. I don't want anybody to lose the chance to vote. We do have members who have a conflict uh right after the votes. So, we're going to delay coming back and for a little bit so that those members can get to the other meeting where they have to vote.
▶ 2:47:07And but for those members who do not have to go to the other meeting, I ask that you come back at about 7:20 and we will proceed. And then those of you who cannot be here will get take your place when you get back. We will reserve your time for you. Okay. I think it'll it'll take us to about where you want to be. Thank you very much.
▶ 3:38:07Thanks everybody for getting back on time. Um, and we'll call the uh committee back to order. I um believe that we will um recognize Mr.
▶ 3:38:24Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And uh I'm always sympathetic to people who are sitting at home watching the rules committee, but I think if they were sitting there watching at least the first start of this uh especially if they were victims that they were probably uh pleased to see the two committee chairs uh working together and uh were both did both of y'all get the opportunity to meet with them today?
▶ 3:38:52Both of the chair the chair and the ranking members.
▶ 3:38:54Yes, both. Is that correct? You were you did get to meet with the victims today.
▶ 3:39:00Yeah, we did.
▶ 3:39:01Um what I was saying before is I think it was good that that if the victims especially and they're the ones that matter the most were watching the start of this, I think they would have been pleased to see the two of you working closely together. And if I if I understand correctly, Mr. Garcia, you want both to pass. you want, you're in favor of this resolution, but you're also in favor of the um Kana Massie or Massie Con or whoever's language it is.
▶ 3:39:31You you're supportive of both. Is that correct?
▶ 3:39:33I I don't know that the resolution per se is necessary, but we're happy to support it moving forward, but it should that should not preclude the Massie uh resolution with Conor to move forward.
▶ 3:39:43Fair enough. And and I'll tell you, I mean, I think the signatures will be there. I'm I'm just talking about my opinion. I think the signatures probably are there on the discharge petition. Um and then obviously if the signatures there probably it would I expect pass on the floor of the house and then um you you would you would both agree with me. I would hope though that it'd be in a bill.
▶ 3:40:07It would then leave the House and go to the Senate and then in order for it to have any effect of anything, it would have to be passed by the Senate and signed by the president. Is that correct?
▶ 3:40:21Both of you that's correct. Okay. And so, um, we'll see what happens next week. For now, Madam Chair, I'm glad that we're we're going to pass this resolution. I think it uh ensures that the committee continues to work for and push forward hopefully in a very bipartisan manner. I care about the victims. I don't care about I don't care who the perpetrator is. I don't care if they ride an elephant or a donkey. I hope they get stepped on by whichever one uh they're part of.
▶ 3:40:50I mean, ultimately um you know, I think I I I actually think the I don't care how we get there. I think the files, the aviation files, the people who were flying is probably gonna
▶ 3:41:05expose expose a lot. But I'm I'm happy the two of you are working together. I'm gonna vote for this resolution. I'll make my decision on uh I will not be signing a discharge petition. That is a that's a tool of the minority, as you know, and it it it's it's not something that I will do as a member of the rules committee. I will not sign the discharge petition, but I intend to support this resolution. I appreciate both of you working in a bipartisan manner. The victims deserve it. And if I understood you, Mr. Comr, how many years did you say some of those victims have been going through depositions?
▶ 3:41:35According to uh what they said today, this dates back to 1996 where they first started reporting u where they were.
▶ 3:41:44So, some of these ladies have been being deposed since 1996 with nothing being done. I don't know if it was a deposition, but they've been reporting these crimes dating back to 1996.
▶ 3:41:58Well, I listen, I I wish you both success in in making sure that the truth sees the light of day. And uh as they say, the truth will set you free. And with that, Madam Chair, I uh
▶ 3:42:13Thank you, Mr. Nagus. You're recognized. I'm happy to yield to uh Ranking Member Garcia in so far as he has anything that he'd like to add, but absent that, I will uh yield the balance.
▶ 3:42:26No, I mean, look, I just I'll just reiterate what I said um Congressman before, which was that um we in no way oppose any effort for more transparency and accountability. And if that's if the resolution moves forward and it moves forward, at the end of the day though, every single Republican that wants transparency and accountability should sign the discharge petition and every member of Congress should be on record supporting the full release of the Epstein files.
▶ 3:42:50Well, I thank the ranking member. I certainly agree with him. Uh I just left the floor, just signed the discharge petition. I hope my colleagues will do the same. I'm happy to yield to the ranking member. And the one other thing you could we could do other than signing the discharge petition which I urge everybody to do is that we will offer the Massie County resolution as an amendment to the you know to make it in order under the rule and we could then all vote on it tomorrow as well. I thank the general
▶ 3:43:16agreed. I I yield back to the chair.
▶ 3:43:19Thank you Mr. Mr. Griffith you're recognized.
▶ 3:43:22Thank you Madam Chair. I associate myself with the comments that Mr. Scott made just a couple of minutes ago and I yield back.
▶ 3:43:30Thank you, Mr. Jack. You're recognized.
▶ 3:43:34Uh thank you, Madam Chair. I you know, I just want to note um as it relates to this resolution, obviously it's my resolution, but you know, I find interesting as it relates to the 24 election, 74 million Americans voted for House Republicans to lead the House of Representatives. and the body that is responsible for leading it, the Republican party as a steering committee. And on that steering committee on which I serve, we unanimously elected Mr. Comr to lead the oversight committee.
▶ 3:44:02And then he was unanimously ratified by our conference. So to me, you know, we as a a body have spoken as it relates to who we want to lead investigations and investigative work. The oversight committee, as the chairman has no doubt noted throughout this entire hearing, has already yielded what is it 34,000 documents that were publicized just hours ago. I mean, unprecedented transparency.
▶ 3:44:26And I want to commend him and also just note that for the record, you know, your leadership on this committee is an affirmation of how this entire Republican conference feels about your ability to lead uh complex investigations as such. And I think that's one of the reasons why this investigation must be housed in oversight and one of the reasons why I support it uh being there. I um I am just curious, obviously Mr. Norman had some, you know, some interesting thoughts and comments as it relates to, you know, what happened over the the four years of the Biden administration.
▶ 3:44:56If I could just ask Mr. Garcia, do you have any thoughts as to why the Biden administration never released any
▶ 3:45:03I don't I'm not aware as to why uh or what the DOJ was investigating at the time. Uh, what I do know is that the current president campaigned on releasing the files, which is why I think it's of such high interest to so many of us now.
▶ 3:45:16But fair enough, but no no thoughts as to why it wasn't a pressing issue for the Biden DOJ in the four years that that Attorney General Garland led it.
▶ 3:45:24I'm I'm I'm not sure what the DOJ or what their effort was as it relates to this case. I mean, obviously, I know in all previous administrations, there has been work done on this on this case. As to why things were released or not released, I'm not aware. Is that something that oversight Democrats would be interested in exploring as to why the Biden Department of Justice refused to investigate this?
▶ 3:45:43I think I think oversight Democrats are interested in any and all information as it relates to any administration uh as to why things were released or not released or what information they have or may not have and we're interested in all of it.
▶ 3:45:55And and just I want to note and I'll ask the chair and the ranking member too, obviously you've served on this committee longer than us and this is this resolution is pretty unprecedented. I think it's the first time, you know, this committee has ever directed another committee uh to release documents in this capacity. Is that a fair a fair statement, a fair accurate assessment of what this resolution is doing?
▶ 3:46:15I don't I don't quite frankly understand why we're doing this resolution because the committee is already doing what this resolution says it's supposed to do. Um so I I but but I I don't so I don't I I don't think it's earthshattering that we're that we're going to vote on on on this resolution. Uh again, I I think that the the reason why some of us are pushing for the Massie counter resolution bill is because um we think all the documents ought to be released.
▶ 3:46:42Um and the president said promised he would do that during his campaign uh and right-wing media said he was going to release it and then um all of a sudden his his tone has changed. Uh so uh I I don't have any problem with this resolution that we're dealing with right now. I just I just I think it's unnecessary and I do think we need to pass the Massie counter resolution.
▶ 3:47:04Well, and I just Fair enough. I just want to acknowledge that as I understand it and would welcome you correcting me later on that this is the first time and so far as any of us know that a committee has directed another standing committee to act in this manner which I think is very um important and I think it shows the seriousness of this resolution. So I I don't you know view it as um anything other than productive. Madam chair,
▶ 3:47:28if I could if I could respond to that also. Um I think the Massie resolution has asked for a similar scope of DOJ docu DOJ documents, excuse me, but it's not binding and and it also doesn't have the force of law.
▶ 3:47:51Right. and and there's much that is in this resolution um that uh is not requested in the massive resolution. So, we're doing a lot more than the massive resolution and mandating it from this committee I think puts an extra emphasis on it.
▶ 3:48:16Um, and I I want to point out something earlier that was said by Miss Ledger Fernandez. She she brought up the issue that Democrats forced this out of the oversight committee. But I if if the gentleman would yield.
▶ 3:48:36Mr. Comr, would you explain that? Because we do have a majority on the oversight committee. How could the minority force the chairman of the subcommittee to do anything?
▶ 3:48:49They they can't. Well, there was a motion and uh the Republican subcommittee chair, Mr. Higgins, uh accepted that motion and uh it was voted on by a majority of Republicans as well. So, it was we weren't forced to do anything. Uh the the committee wanted to do it.
▶ 3:49:08I mean, our oversight committee uh has been very vocal that they they would love to take part in investigation with respect to finding out the the truth about Epstein Island. So, our committee's been on this and uh there was nothing forced down our throats. We we operated the way we operate.
▶ 3:49:29Madam Madam Chair, just
▶ 3:49:31Well, would the gentleman
▶ 3:49:32Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 3:49:33I'll yield to you yield.
▶ 3:49:35Yeah. First of all, I think the subcommittee chair voted no on the subpoena, but but let me let me put that aside for now. Just I just I don't mean to correct the the chairwoman, but um the what we're talking about here is a resolution and um and the uh and the and the discharge petition would bring to the floor a bill that would become could become law. And a law has more force than than a resolution.
▶ 3:50:01Um, and so all we're saying is, you know, let us pass the law, um, and put some teeth in it because again, uh, the president of the United States has changed his tune. He now is saying that, uh, this is a hoax and that Republicans who go along with it are stupid. That's his quote. I think I think the gentleman or the gentle lady, whoever yielded me.
▶ 3:50:22Well, I think the reason we are involved with this in this committee is because the House can bind the the rules committee can bind a committee of the House and that's what we're doing. We're binding the committee to do its job. And if Mr. comr as the chair doesn't do his job.
▶ 3:50:45I believe he could suffer consequences as a result of this um is this resolution. And I think that's important. It's showing that we mean something. And I think as as Mr. Jack
▶ 3:50:59the bill then if you do the the other the um Massie resolution has to go to the Senate.
▶ 3:51:06We could do both we do both.
▶ 3:51:08Well, we'll see. It's again, it's being there's been a um um the petition is being signed to release it. If it's released, fine. But we're doing this
▶ 3:51:20But Republicans could accept my amendment to make it in order, and we could do it immediately.
▶ 3:51:25Oh, and and we'll have that debate. I'll just close by saying that again, I want to commend Chairman Comr under your leadership. More more transparency has ever occurred under this issue because of what you've done over the last three or four weeks. And um it's why I think the conference elected you to to to lead the oversight committee and why the conference chose you to be the person responsible for these complex investigations and it's already produced a lot of transparency in that regard. So with that, Madam Chair, I will yield
▶ 3:51:54Pardon me. Thank you very much. Um I'm Mr. Roy. I'm going to recognize you then Miss Houch and then Mr. Langworth.
▶ 3:52:03I thank the chairwoman. Um, Chairman Comr, is it not true that it was the Trump administration in July of 2019 that arrested and indicted and went after
▶ 3:52:19That's true.
▶ 3:52:20Um, was it not true that it was the Trump administration uh in 2020 that arrested and went after Maxwell?
▶ 3:52:30And in fairness, that then proceeded into the Biden administration for the ultimate conviction. Correct.
▶ 3:52:35Right. Correct.
▶ 3:52:36So that was preceding and so the Department of Justice had a lot of these
▶ 3:52:41For both of those two prosecutions.
▶ 3:52:45And so well into the Biden administration, they were prosecuting Maxwell. Correct.
▶ 3:52:51And so they would have had access to a lot of information,
▶ 3:52:56And didn't do anything to pursue uh our current president. didn't do anything to go pursue any other potential uh criminals that they might want to go indict. Didn't do anything material to have legislators in this body or Democratic colleagues offer any resolutions or any legislation. Is that
▶ 3:53:16That is true.
▶ 3:53:17Okay. So, would you not agree with me that this is entirely political?
▶ 3:53:22It's 100%. Because at the end of the day, we all have the same purpose as stated by and I would assume that the ranking member has stated that he his purpose uh ranking member Garcia, would you agree to seek the truth wherever it may lead?
▶ 3:53:36That's what I've heard you say
▶ 3:53:39Right. and wherever that may lead in terms of who that might land on. And I don't think there's anybody in this room or anybody uh affiliated with any of us in the Congress that doesn't want to pursue justice here and that aren't horrified by the events and by everything surrounding this whole affair. Would you both gentlemen agree?
▶ 3:53:58And so I I think for me there's a fundamental question. I applaud the purpose of the Massie uh bill
▶ 3:54:07um and Mr. But would the chairman elaborate to the extent he hasn't already? Aren't there mechanically with the bill as it relates to the potential unmasking of individuals? Yes.
▶ 3:54:22as it relates to particular reference to statutes and do we not also believe that is it not your belief as chairman of the committee that you are essentially pursuing all that that bill's intent would be to pursue would you agree
▶ 3:54:39I agree and and and something else the the Massie and Connor resolution doesn't have anything to pertaining to financial
▶ 3:54:51the even the victims attorneys today quoted something I said on on a TV interview, follow the money. And where you where we intend on going with the advice for the council of the victims today, which we had already planned on this, but we're we're definitely moving in that direction, is to is to go after the the bank records and the suspicious activity reports, much like we did in the in the Biden family influence pedal investigation.
▶ 3:55:21identify accounts and and see what the usually the banks catch. Ralph and and and Langworthy and and Byron and everybody that's been involved in banking, they know the banks are are usually on top of any type of suspicious activity like that. So, uh we're going to we're going to go that route. That's not addressed in the Massie Kana. They're only talking about the Epstein document.
▶ 3:55:46There's there there are people to bring in and depose which we're already in the process of doing including the former attorney general Bill Bar. There are there are financial documents that we believe uh we can uh subpoena that that will allow us to be able to follow the money just like what the victim's attorneys requested. None of this is addressed in the mass econ bill.
▶ 3:56:09And so to to the point that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly made that well why didn't Democrats do something about it for four years and then the answer has been repeatedly well President Trump campaigned on it.
▶ 3:56:22Well to the extent that we have a collective bipartisan desire to seek the truth wherever it may lead. Is it not a good thing that President Trump campaigned on this great
▶ 3:56:32and is has a Department of Justice that in the spring released the uh flight logs 117 pages whatever it is I don't have it in front of me uh and other information and that now there's been continued efforts such that even now just today we have what 33,000 or 34,000 records that were released pages of records correct
▶ 3:56:52and that through your efforts as the Republican chairman but I would like to say in in working with the Democrat ranking member that you all are pursuing truth and having people come forward issuing subpoenas with the full force that a subpoena carries absolutely
▶ 3:57:07as a congressional committee on oversight. Correct.
▶ 3:57:09And that is all underway and that to in truth there are legitimate questions about the underlying legislation that is attempting to be discharged. Therefore, it might raise questions as to whether it would pass the Senate or whether the president would sign it because it raises questions of separation of powers. It raises issues involving grand jury secrecy and involves questions involving the statutes and the errors that are in it.
▶ 3:57:35Whereas we have a resolution with the full force of the House of Representatives that would be reinforcing what the oversight committee as led by you but also in in in direct working with with your colleague is carrying forward to bring forward all this information. Is that is that all
▶ 3:57:52They're 100% right. And lastly, is it not true that whatever is being presented to you all, whatever information is given to you, uh, to the extent that you're adding any redactions or anything, your colleagues on the other side of the aisle are getting the unredacted material,
▶ 3:58:06they get exactly what we get.
▶ 3:58:08So, to the extent that you make a determination about releasing something, to the extent there was something politically sensitive or untored, your colleagues on other side of the aisle would have all the same information and they could raise us,
▶ 3:58:19they could call us out on it at that very second.
▶ 3:58:22Yeah. I look I just think for the average person watching this to be very clear the Trump administration died at Epstein. The Trump administration went after Maxwell. The Trump administration released records uh within two months of assuming office. The Trump administration has been complying with subpoenas and providing information to the oversight committee. Republican oversight committee has been putting forward information. We now have 35 34,000 more records out for the public to be able to look at.
▶ 3:58:47In addition to the reality that the people charged with prosecuting crimes have to be able to look at information that isn't necessarily going to be made public and shouldn't be.
▶ 3:58:58Like we don't just say, "Oh, here's the mob boss files here, America. Go forward and find all the mobsters."
▶ 3:59:04We don't do that with drug kingpens or cartels. Right. We don't just say, "Man, there's a lot of bad guys out there. We got a whole file of stuff. Who are you protecting? Right. We have oversight. We look at it and you're conducting that oversight on a bipartisan basis. Is that
▶ 3:59:17That's true.
▶ 3:59:18I yield back.
▶ 3:59:21Thank you, Miss H. Miss Henry.
▶ 3:59:25Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh we've heard a lot of words tonight from our Democrats uh across the aisle. We've heard words like shameful and does things don't smell right. Well, what I think is shameful is playing political games with these victims. What I think it doesn't smell right is only caring about these issues when campaigning on it. Democrats under Joe Biden had uh four years to release everything and they didn't release a thing.
▶ 3:59:51Chairman Comr, you've now released more than 30,000 pages of documents related to the Epstein files. How many pages of documents were released under the Biden administration?
▶ 4:00:02You know how I know this is political gamesmanship? Because now by amendment to unrelated bills in nearly each of our committees, the Democrats have put forward Epstein file amendments to unrelated things, including in the rules committee. That's not a serious effort in seeking transparency or justice. If they were serious about it, they would have already done it.
▶ 4:00:28Now, it is House Republicans under your chairmanship and your leadership, Mr. Homer providing the only transparency that anyone has done to date save for the Trump administration and what they've already done. And it's only because of your work that we know the scope of the number of victims today. Is that correct?
▶ 4:00:48That's correct.
▶ 4:00:49And there are key differences between this resolution that we're considering in our committee and the Massie Connor Mr. Chairman, does the Massie Connor resolution request all documents from the Epstein estate related to Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell with a subpoena that has the force of law?
▶ 4:01:08No. And we we subpoenaed the estate for all the documents that's not mentioned in the discharge petition.
▶ 4:01:15Does this current resolution include requests that all documents related to the Epstein estate be released under subpoena with a force of law?
▶ 4:01:25Uh, our resolution does. Yes.
▶ 4:01:28Does the Mass Eye Connor resolution issue any deposition subpoenas for
▶ 4:01:33Does our resolution?
▶ 4:01:35Yes. 11 thus far.
▶ 4:01:37Does the Massie Econor resolution request Jeffrey Epstein and Justlain Maxwell's bank records from the
▶ 4:01:44Does our resolution?
▶ 4:01:45Yes. And that's going to be a big deal. Am I will predict that will be a big deal. The bank records.
▶ 4:01:51Does the Massie econor resolution require any interviews to be scheduled?
▶ 4:01:55No. does our resolution.
▶ 4:01:58So, forgive me if I'm suspicious of the motives of our colleagues who were silent on Epstein for four years. And one of the things that has been discussed today is well, why not just do the Massie resolution?
▶ 4:02:16Well, I think we've laid out some of those reasons why, but also because doing this resolution allows your important work to continue right now without having to wait on the Senate to pass it or the president to sign it. Is that correct?
▶ 4:02:30That's correct. I would hate to wait on the Senate for anything, but uh especially this. It would slow us down.
▶ 4:02:36So, the Democrats are cloaking themselves in the victimhood of the families and the young women that were heinously abused. that is beneath this committee. Their so-called concern only uh eventualized when they thought they could derail President Trump's agenda by using the Epstein files as a cudel when we know that the only administration to ever provide any transparency has been the Trump administration and House Republicans leadership on the oversight One
▶ 4:03:06of the things that I think disgusts me the most is when we talk about how Republicans are abandoning victims and we don't care about human trafficked women and children. When under the Biden administration, we know that the Department of Homeland Security lost track of thousands of migrant children. They failed to provide complete SP uh sponsor addresses for 31,000 accompanied minor children. Without sponsors, law enforcement had no ability to track them.
▶ 4:03:35DHS officers under the Biden administration failed to enroll over migrant children who crossed the border since January of 21 in immigration proceedings, increasing their risk of being human traffked and exploited. Of the ones they did enroll, 43,000 failed to appear.
▶ 4:03:57Health and Human Services failed to provide updated sponsor information to DHS when sponsors changed addresses, further hindering DHS's ability to find children. So, we know that law enforcement has extreme concerns about the way in which these children were handled under the Biden administration.
▶ 4:04:17But we haven't heard our Democrat colleagues express an ounce of concern for the 233,000 children that have been misplaced and 43,000 who just didn't appear. In fact, migrant children of that number were placed with unrelated sponsors or distant relatives that law enforcement has concerned that these children are at higher risk of trafficking. I worked in child services.
▶ 4:04:46I know what stringent requirements are necessary for making sure that children who are in placement are protected. The Biden administration did none of that and our Democrat colleagues have remained silent. I think that is horrible. Absolutely horrible to sit here today and lecture us on how we do or don't care about the victims of human trafficking when the Republicans are the only ones who've provided any transparency at all. I think it's despicable.
▶ 4:05:14Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I yield back.
▶ 4:05:17Thank you very much, Mr. Langworthy. You're recognized.
▶ 4:05:20Thank you, Madam Chair. I I think that my colleague from Indiana, Mrs. Houchin did a pretty brilliant job of going point by point through the Massie resolution and showing why it's not equipped to get the answers that the oversight committee is. And I want to thank the chairman for your work uh for the last five weeks and the ranking member um and and and hopefully we can get to a place of bipartisanship here. Um Democrats have tried to rewrite history in relates to EP Epstein over the last two months.
▶ 4:05:49uh these files sat under lock and key and they stood by and did nothing for the last four years. As my many of my colleagues have pointed out here, these sudden calls for transparency only came after the Republicans in the majority were achieving the agenda that they ran on. They they look for a distraction. They look for a political tool.
▶ 4:06:11And this is a pretty craven political tool to question the character of your colleagues um in in the name calling in the assaults on individual member character because of this issue when it was actually your party when it was in power and had the opportunity to do something with it and you did nothing. Uh the fact is Republicans have led the way on transparency from the very beginning.
▶ 4:06:36It was the House rules Republicans who first advanced meaningful calls to release the Epstein files. And since then, Chairman Comr, uh I I salute you. You've already publicized 34,000 plus documents today uh from the Department of Justice. The subpoenas um and subpoena in the Epstein estate. I think that's a a huge step towards transparency in conducting interviews with key officials with many many more to come. And meanwhile, the Democrats have been all over the map.
▶ 4:07:06Uh, first they demanded the release of files with no protections for the victims. Uh, then they scrambled to backfill safeguards and then flip-flopped on whether or not the resolutions even matter. Uh, this approach is not grounded in principle. It is grounded in pure craven politics. Um, we've heard a lot of fear-mongering, misinformation. Uh, Chairman Comr, is there anything you'd like to respond or clear up? I'm the last one up here on the deis and I'd like to give you some time. No, I appreciate it.
▶ 4:07:33I I I'll just state again, I really believe that this can be a bipartisan investigation. This is a, you know, bipartisan issue. The American people, whether you're liberal or or conservative, whether you're urban or rural, they're interested in the uh tragedy. They want to know uh who all was involved. They want to know if the government was involved. They want names. And they want some accountability.
▶ 4:08:00They want justice for the victims and and I hope that's what we can do and we're well on our way. I mean, I think that some of the Democrats on the rules committee are trying to create a a false narrative that nothing's been done and the Republicans are against uh releasing the Epstein files. We just released 34,000 pages. We've already deposed a former Republican attorney general. We're fixing to bring in another former uh US attorney who served in the Trump administration as a cabinet secretary.
▶ 4:08:30Uh we haven't heard back from many Democrats yet that we've subpoenaed. So I I think the Republicans have stepped up not just in Congress uh but also in the Trump administration releasing the Epstein files. I expect to have 100% of uh of the Epstein files. And and and look, we're as soon as we get them, we're going to look at them and we'll make sure that that no names of victims are are published who don't want their names published. If if Mr.
▶ 4:08:57Garcia sees something fishy, I'm sure he'll he'll cry foul. And I know that the the media will pick it up. So, we're going to do everything we can to be 100% transparent and and expeditious. And I think that uh what we're doing tonight will will help us uh if we end up in court with anything. Uh but the the discharge petition and waiting for the whole process, that just slows us down. That just slows us down. And we're moving at a at a rapid pace. And hopefully with this resolution, we can keep keep moving.
▶ 4:09:27And like I said, we've already got scheduled dates for more interviews and expect to receive more documents. The September the 8th is when the state is going to turn over the document. Uh we'll be hopefully looking at bank records very soon. So I think you're going to see a lot. We've already moved quickly over the last 30 days and I think you're going to see a lot more movement over the next 30 days.
▶ 4:09:49Thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and and Madam Chair, I yield Thank you very much, Mr. Langworthy. Um, uh, gentlemen, I believe that concludes the questions and answers and, uh, I appreciate your coming. Uh, you are dismissed from the committee.
▶ 4:10:29chairman of the financial services committee, Mr. French Hill is here. Uh I understand to offer an amendment.
▶ 4:10:38Thank you, Madam Chair and ranking member. Thank you for letting me appear before the committee to discuss my amendment to 4553, the Energy and Water Development Agency's Appropriation Act, amendment 43. As you may know, my amendment highlights the funding to operations and management account under title one of the bill, which deals with the funding for the core of engineers.
▶ 4:10:59This account houses funding for the sustainable sustainable rivers program for which the Little Rock Army Corps in my district has submitted an application for the Little Red River uh to Army Corps headquarters here in Washington. Arkansas is a leading outdoor recreation state and as such welcomes millions of Texans uh and others uh to enjoy its rivers, lakes, and other natural beauties.
▶ 4:11:24Recreational fishing especially has drawn visitors to the state and contributes an estimated$1.2 billion dollars and 10,000 jobs to our state. The Little Red River has become home to a sizable and attractive wild brown trout population and is a regional mecca for trout fishing. However, the river's existing tail water fisheries have been struggling in recent recently years.
▶ 4:11:48After conversations with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Little Rock Corps of Engineers, and groups recreation, uh, representing recreational fishers, uh, fishermen, I've been supportive of the Little Red Rivers application to the sustainable rivers program. While a forecast informed reservoir operation has been discussed, optimizing water control plans, their concerns with that as well.
▶ 4:12:11These include rainfall accuracy and their impact on gate decisions, the expense of what new and required equipment would be made necessary for implementation and environmental reviews. All these considerations together could add serious cost towards implementation as well as many many years. That's why the SRP study would allow the Little Rock Corps of Engineers to operate effectively an environmental stewardship that would benefit the water trends in the Little Red River.
▶ 4:12:40It's come to my attention, however, that without proper funding in fiscal 26 and energy and water appropriations bill, the core is unable to support the Little Red Rivers application as there only be enough funds for projects that are already selected and continuing. no new ones despite it being highly desirable and recommended by the core. As such, Chairwoman, I respectfully ask the committee to make and order my amendment so that I can speak about the importance of this matter on the floor.
▶ 4:13:08I know that it's one of many amendments, but the fishery uh on the Little Red River is important to my district, to the sportsmen across uh the Midsouth. The Little Red River is home to a long-standing international record for the brown trout, 40 lbs and 4 ounces. That record lasted from two 1992 to 2009. So we need to ensure
▶ 4:13:32brown trout. Yes. Not even in North Carolina, Madam Chair. As as that ex but as we all work together to put this bill through the best to the best benefit of the American people ask that this small program and its impact on the Little Red River not be overlooked. And as always, I thank each of you for your work on the rules committee. All the members on both sides of the aisle are grateful to you and ranking member McGovern and all the members for the incredible work you do on behalf of the House. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 4:13:59I apologize. I should have waited till my turn to ask that question, but I was taken a little back. Um I don't have any questions. Uh Mr. Chairman, um I know you do a great job to represent your district, and I appreciate your being here tonight and being very patient with us, Mr. McGovern.
▶ 4:14:18Oh, I it sounds like a good amendment. I hope it's made in order. Um, and um, thank you for coming.
▶ 4:14:24Miss Fishbot,
▶ 4:14:28Miss Scan,
▶ 4:14:31Mr. Norman,
▶ 4:14:34Mr. Noose, Mr. Roy, Miss Leisure, Fernandez, anyone down there.
▶ 4:14:41Okay. Thank you.
▶ 4:14:42Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 4:14:43Thank you, Chairman.
▶ 4:14:43See how bipartisan I am? Is there anyone else seeking to testify on HR4553 or HRES 668? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting.
▶ 4:15:14Without objection. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
▶ 4:15:25Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee grant HR4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act 2026, a structured rule. The rule waves all points voter against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective design. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read.
▶ 4:15:49The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill for fail to comply with clauses or clause 5A of rule 21. The rule makes an order only those amendments printed in the rules committee report. Amendments in block described in section three and pro- former amendments described in section four. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report. May be offered only by a member designated in the report. Shall be considered as read. Shall be debatable for the time specified in the report.
▶ 4:16:15Equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waves all points of order against the amendments printed in the rules committee report or amendments in block described in section three of the rule.
▶ 4:16:37The rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designate may offer amendments in block consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments in block shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective design shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
▶ 4:17:07the question. The rule provi the rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or the respective design may offer up to 10 pro- forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommmit. The rule further provides for consideration of HJRES 104, HJRES 105, HJ res 106 under closed rules. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of each joint resolution. The rule provides that each joint resolution shall be considered as read.
▶ 4:17:37The rule waves all points of order against provisions in each joint resolution. The rule provides one hour of general debate on each joint resolution equally divided or controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on natural resources or their respective design. The rule provides each joint resolution one motion to recommmit. The rule further provides that HJRES 668 is hereby adopted. The rule further provides that HJRES 605 is hereby adopted.
▶ 4:18:04Finally, the rule provides that HJRES 598 is laid on the
▶ 4:18:11That's so moved.
▶ 4:18:14You've you've heard the motion from the gentleman from Virginia. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?
▶ 4:18:22Yeah, Madam Chair.
▶ 4:18:23Mr. McGovern.
▶ 4:18:23Uh, first I just want to respond um to the accusations made by some on the other side about our motives. Um, our position is that we should pass the bipartisan Massie counter bill and we are fine with you also passing your resolution directing a committee to do what it is already doing. Uh, your position is to block the bipartisan Massie bill. Those are the facts.
▶ 4:18:48And if you don't like every word of the bill, uh, why haven't you come forward with any amendments to improve it? Uh I'm fine with an up or down vote on it, but uh we could easily take testimony on the bill and uh add amendments to it. So the argument uh that it is somehow flawed, I think rings hollow. And now I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 4:19:10Uh, I move the committee consider as adopted amendment number one to HRES 668 offered by Representative Garcia, which deems the attorney general in contempt of the US House of Representatives should the Department of Justice fail to fully comply with the subpoena of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform dem uh demanding the documents and other materials related to the Epstein case. We heard uh during testimony how useless uh this non-binding resolution is.
▶ 4:19:40No one is asking for an oversight investigation, but they are asking for the files. They're asking for all of them. And with this amendment, if after 30 days the attorney general does not release all of the Epstein files to the oversight committee, then the attorney general will be held in contempt of Congress and fined until she complies. Enough fake actions. If you want the oversight committee to get all the files, then put your money where your mouth is. I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.
▶ 4:20:09Well, I think this is a clear example of the of of the politicization of what's going on here tonight. It's unprecedented to preemptively hold an individual in contempt of Congress when they're already complying with the directive of Congress.
▶ 4:20:28The attorney general is releasing the files as and you you just want to do a got you amendment to get us to vote no and then say we voted no against holding the attorney general in contempt
▶ 4:20:45if she doesn't
▶ 4:20:46what we need to do well if she doesn't do it you come back in 30 days and offer an amendment or if the if Mr. Garcia says, "No, we're not getting all the information." You bring an amendment then to do that and we'll be happy to consider it. But for you to do this in advance shows again how political this whole operation is. And I think you've revealed yourself right here with your first amendment.
▶ 4:21:15We need to support the work, the bipartisan work that the oversight committee is doing on pursuing and acquiring and releasing publicly releasing all the documents and communications regarding the Epstein amendment. You've already said tonight you trust nobody. You've revealed that too as you don't trust anybody. Well, we do trust people on our side of the aisle.
▶ 4:21:43And you know not trusting is the way I see it. And so give the process a chance. If attorney general does not release the the material then you could come back at a later date and say you have just caused to do this.
▶ 4:22:03So that's the response.
▶ 4:22:04But madam chair I would just say this is an amendment that Mr. Garcia who testified here before us offer it. And I would also point out that there is no deadline in your underlying resolution. So we could be here three years from now. Uh so um I urge you
▶ 4:22:18we're not going to be here three years.
▶ 4:22:19I urge you yes vote on my amendment.
▶ 4:22:21Okay. We have a motion by Mr. McGovern. Does anyone else wish to speak on the Hearing no one speaking. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 4:22:38Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 4:22:40In opinion, chair, the nose have it. The amendments not agree. I ask for a roll
▶ 4:22:44The clerk will call the role.
▶ 4:22:46Mrs. Fishbach, no.
▶ 4:22:47Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman,
▶ 4:22:48Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy,
▶ 4:22:50Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Houchin,
▶ 4:22:52Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy,
▶ 4:22:54Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott,
▶ 4:22:56Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, no.
▶ 4:22:57Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack,
▶ 4:22:59Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern,
▶ 4:23:01Mr. McGovern, I miss Gallen.
▶ 4:23:03Miss Scan, I Mr. Negus, hi.
▶ 4:23:05Mr. Nagus, I Miss Ledger Fernandez,
▶ 4:23:07hi. Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Madam
▶ 4:23:10Madam Chair, no.
▶ 4:23:11The clerk will report the total.
▶ 4:23:13Four yays. Nine AS.
▶ 4:23:15The nose have it. The amendments not agreed to.
▶ 4:23:18Madam Chair,
▶ 4:23:19Mr. McGovern,
▶ 4:23:20I have an amendment to the rule. I move the rule also provide that immediately upon adoption of the resolution. The House shall consider HR4405, the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, introduced by Representatives Massie and Kana under a closed rule with one hour of debate. This is issue isn't going away. The American people want the Epstein files released. Enough half measures. If the administration isn't going to do it, then the House should vote to force them to do it.
▶ 4:23:48This bipartisan bill does exactly that while protecting the victims and the survivors. and I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.
▶ 4:23:58The gentleman yields back. Mr. Let me let me see anyone here wish to make a comment. Oh, Mr. Nush, you're
▶ 4:24:06I thank the chairwoman. I guess I just want to make a brief comment which I suppose is in part a response to some of the comments that were made by my colleagues on the side of the aisle during the course of the testimony from Chairman Comr and Ranking Member Garcia.
▶ 4:24:20I've served on the rules committee now for I suppose almost five years and during that period of time I can't recall an example of an issue on either side of the aisle that for whatever reason my colleagues are unwilling to support notwithstanding the repeated public outcry in support of that particular amendment or
▶ 4:24:51proposal. And by that I mean this Massie resolution which was introduced, you know, a month and a half ago now is bipartisan. It's a member of the Republican caucus that introduced the legislation. As we know, we've made multiple efforts during multiple committee hearings in front of this committee to consider or rather to force a vote on that particular resolution.
▶ 4:25:16multiple times that ultimately culminated in this committee being recessed or cancelled. And of course, as we know, the House began the August work period early by virtue of the decision made by House Republicans, which we know was in part connected to not wanting to consider the Massie resolution on the floor. And I guess what I'm trying to understand, I I recognize, you know, the arguments that were made in support of the resolution that's been introduced by Chairman Comr.
▶ 4:25:45I recognized the arguments that were made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle five weeks ago before we recessed in support of the other resolution that House Republicans had introduced and that we were going to have a floor vote on and that ultimately that floor vote didn't materialize. So, I get it. I understand those arguments. I still don't really understand why the committee just refuses outright to just have an up or down vote on this particular resolution.
▶ 4:26:12And obviously, as many of you noted, that may very well come to pass. That is to say, we may have an opportunity to vote on it because four Republicans have signed a discharge petition. So, if two more Republicans join the discharge petition, then, you know, presumably, ostensibly, we'll have an up or down vote.
▶ 4:26:30But I I I'm just struggling to kind of understand why my colleagues didn't, I suppose, follow the course that Representative Norman had set out six weeks ago when we first had that initial vote and he voted for Mr. McGovern's amendment to consider the Massie resolution. And had my colleagues done that, this would have already passed. I mean, I think it it would pass by a very strong margin, frankly, Republicans and Democrats on the floor.
▶ 4:26:59So, I I just don't get it. I don't understand why we don't just proceed and just have the vote and we can move forward. But anyway, um I I'll yield back to the ranking member if he has anything to share with I yield back to the chairwoman.
▶ 4:27:13Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Mr. Noose?
▶ 4:27:17I I would just add to that that that what is so puzzling here and and our colleagues have said, well, why didn't Democrats do something about this? Well, this is obviously an issue that there's been a steady drip drip drip of information.
▶ 4:27:32The information keeps acrewing, but what has really fueled it, I think, is the the attempts to suppress the investigation, the lobbying by the White House um to keep Republicans from signing onto the discharge petition. I mean, it's this absolute battle to um keep people from voting for it that raises the question of what is there to hide?
▶ 4:27:59And I think that's why it's going to keep being of interest to everyone. I yield back.
▶ 4:28:06Any further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 4:28:08Madam Chair,
▶ 4:28:10Miss Leisure Fernandez.
▶ 4:28:11Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think that what the Massie kind of bill does is it also allows every member of Congress to vote on whether or not this material should be disclosed and disclosed to the The maneuver of what we're doing now limits it to just the rules committee and then to the oversight.
▶ 4:28:39Whereas a vote of the entire Congress, both the caucus and the conference, would signal to both the victims as well as to the administration the support for full disclosure.
▶ 4:28:57And I think that that's an important thing that that what the rules committee is doing by refusing to put that bill on the floor is preventing a vote of your members of those Republicans who might want to vote for that bill, the Democrats who said they are going to vote for this bill. So it's it's a it's a it is an interesting thing of where they don't want to do both, right?
▶ 4:29:26If if the sentiment is let's do both, then let's do both. I mean, that was expressed on the floor and I'll yield some time to my colleagues.
▶ 4:29:34Yeah, I I I think the the gentleoman from Mexico, she articulated this far better than than I did, I suppose. I mean, I I maybe this is really is a question for the speaker. I don't understand why the speaker or the speaker's office sort of constantly constructing these different resolutions and different vehicles as opposed to just simply letting the Massie resolution come to a vote. I mean that that's part of what I my colleagues on the side of the aisle.
▶ 4:30:00I think what you're hearing from us is we're just a bit befuddled by why the speaker's office is working so hard to prevent this resolution from getting a vote. And every week we're in this committee. Of course, we were on the work period, but the last time we were sitting here, we were having a very similar debate where Mr. McGovern offered an amendment to consider the Kana Massie resolution on the floor.
▶ 4:30:25And the response from House Republicans or from the speaker's office was to construct this other resolution that they believed uh you know would would would would satiate you know folks in terms of their desire to see something done and to see these records released. And of course that did not work and here we are 5 weeks later and it's the same you know it's a different resolution of course different vehicle now that's been constructed but the outcome will be the same.
▶ 4:30:53I mean, fundamentally, I think what the American people want to see, certainly our constituents want to see is Tom Massiey's resolution get an up or down vote on the floor. And as I said, hopefully two other Republicans will join the four Republicans who've already signed on to the discharge petition and we can have that vote. But I think it this would be a lot simpler if this committee just did, you know, unanimous vote in favor of of putting the mass resolution on the floor so that we can move forward.
▶ 4:31:23But anyway, I'll yield back to the general.
▶ 4:31:25Thank you. And so I think the the question is if we're going to have nine Republicans voting no on this committee, it would be nice to have at least six signing on to that resolution and several have expressed that they would be in favor of it. So hopefully we will get those six Republicans.
▶ 4:31:43And with that, I urge uh maybe one of the nine on this committee uh to vote yes to allow us to uh have both uh uh efforts move forward, have one have the force of law and allow every member of the House to be able to vote on it. And with that, I yield back. Madam Chair,
▶ 4:32:02is there any further discussion on the Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 4:32:10Those opposed say no.
▶ 4:32:13In the opinion chair of the nose have it. The amendments not agree.
▶ 4:32:15I ask for a roll call. Madam chair.
▶ 4:32:17The clerk will call the role.
▶ 4:32:19Mrs. Fishbach? No.
▶ 4:32:20Mrs. Fishbach? No. Mr. Norman? Mr. Norman? No. Mr. Roy?
▶ 4:32:24Mr. Roy? No. Mrs. Hton?
▶ 4:32:26Mrs. Hton? No. Mr. Langworthy? No.
▶ 4:32:28Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Scott?
▶ 4:32:29Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Griffith?
▶ 4:32:31Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Jack?
▶ 4:32:33Mr. Jack? No. Mr. McGovern.
▶ 4:32:35Mr. McGovern. Hi. Miss Scallan. Hi. Miss Scallan I Mr. Negus.
▶ 4:32:38Mr. Nagus I Miss Ledger Fernandez Miss Ledger Fernandez I. Madam Chair
▶ 4:32:43Madam Chair No.
▶ 4:32:45The clerk will u report the total
▶ 4:32:48four nine a
▶ 4:32:49nos have it. The amendments not agreed
▶ 4:32:52Madam chair.
▶ 4:32:53Mr. McGovern.
▶ 4:32:54Yeah. Well I I um I have one more amendment. I was going to have two more amendments. In the spirit of bipartisanship. I was going to have an amendment to strike the provision of the rule that uh uh delays hres 598. um on the table. That was Mr. Norman's uh resolution that non-binding resolution that he proposed. Uh but um but I I think I'll just let let let that be. But I have one final amendment to the rule.
▶ 4:33:19I move the committee strike section nine of the rule and replace it with a section directing the architect of the capital to install a plaque honoring the law enforcement officers who responded to the violence that occurred here in this capital on January 6th, 2021 as already required by law. Madam Chair, the January 6th Select Committee did an incredibly thorough job investigating the events of January 6, and I have their report right here.
▶ 4:33:49Uh, and if my colleagues haven't read it, I would urge you to read it. Um, I think trying to rewrite history with a new select subcommittee is a slap in the face to the law enforcement officers who bravely came to our aid that day. And instead of creating a new select committee, you should be hanging the plaque to honor those law enforcement officers.
▶ 4:34:11A plaque that is required by law every day that goes by without hanging that the plaque and I believe is an insult to those heroes. But if you insist on creating this select subcommittee, I'd suggest they investigate the uh the mass pardoning of violent insurrectionists, some of whom have committed other crimes. And here are just a couple of examples.
▶ 4:34:34One man convicted of assault and pardoned by President Trump was recently sentenced to life in prison for plotting to murder nearly 40 law enforcement officers who investigated him and to bomb the FBI. He has shown no remorse and his lawyers tried to argue that the pardon should have also covered this conspiracy. Another rier was arrested for a home invasion committed less than four months after his pardon.
▶ 4:35:00I'm sure those terrified homeowners wish he had been in prison serving his eight-year sentence for assaulting police officers on January 6th. All told, at least 10 pardon insurrectionists have already been rearrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes. So maybe the select committee can look into why violent offenders were mass pardoned without any due consideration.
▶ 4:35:22But I fear this is just another shiny object to distract from the fact that this majority is blocking the bipartisan effort to release the Epstein files. And I urge a yes vote on my motion to honor law enforcement and hang the plaque. And I yield back.
▶ 4:35:39Anyone wish to speak on the amendment?
▶ 4:35:42Madam Chair,
▶ 4:35:43Mr. Griffith,
▶ 4:35:44I would urge a no vote on the amendment. The amendment, as I understand it, and maybe I don't have it here, maybe I do, but as I understand it, it strikes section 9 and inserts the other language. And my objection to the amendment is that it strikes the other language.
▶ 4:35:58Um, most people don't know that this this work has been worked on as a part of the uh house admin committee and I serve on the House admin committee and served in the capacity as a member of that subcommittee while it um it seemed to be more appropriate to move it to judiciary. Barry Louderdermick headed it up in admin. He's going to head it up in this as well. It's his resolution.
▶ 4:36:24And what we found was that there were a number of items in the original select committee that were not turned over or were not included in the report that Mr. McGovern referenced. and and so this is just to clean up all of those details to make sure that the American public has all of the facts that everything is released.
▶ 4:36:46I mean it was really interesting and I'd have to estimate this evening, Madam Chair, but approximately 25 to 30% of the information that the original select committee gathered was ne not only wasn't turned over to the house, it's missing and there's there have been attempts to find it. Some of it was found at the White House, some of it was turned over to archives. It's actually the property of the United States House and we're just trying to make sure that we have full disclosure that we're releasing all of the January 6 files and we're just trying to get to the truth.
▶ 4:37:16And one of the things I found most interesting in the um in in the situation as we were as this committee was moving forward, it's got a different name now, but the committee is basically the same concept is we found that the um Secretary of the Army got the instructions on January 6th to send in from so as you know there was a controversy over you know whether or not the Capitol Police Board authorized National Guard to come in.
▶ 4:37:48Trump had offered it in advance. It was turned down. It was offered again. There were requests by chair by Chief Sun and I need help. Bring them in. And there were about two hours from the time that President Trump gave the instruction. Yeah. Send him in. He got the request finally following protocol. He sent immediately sent the order.
▶ 4:38:11Secretary of the Army uh McCarthy got the order from Trump and then for some reason which we don't know spec we can speculate but I'm trying not to speculate McCarthy didn't get that order to General William Walker for four I mean excuse me for about two hours about two hours the National Guard was sitting there of course they got vilified in this whole thing unfairly and we had a hearing where we brought in the four officers who sat with Walker
▶ 4:38:41the whole time his line of communications was open. He never received a call and that's not in the January 6 select committee's report. The the testimony of McCarthy's in there that he called him and then they were slow to act. Four different officers said we were sitting with him. He did not get that call for over two hours and that there was a discrepancy in the
▶ 4:39:07We're just trying to get to the facts on things like that. In fact, one of those witnesses, Madam Chair, and I found it, I still to this day find it very unsettling, was promised anonymity by the J6 select committee. The previous J6 select committee was promised anonymity if he came in and testified.
▶ 4:39:25He came back to testify to us again because within about 48, I might be wrong, it might be 72, I didn't bring all my notes with me today, but within 48 to 72 hours after having given testimony in what was supposed to be a closed box, protected his identity was revealed to the press and the press started calling him. He was the lowest ranking member who was there and he had just come on on board and really didn't want to get into the crossfire between different parts of the United States military.
▶ 4:39:54Madam chair, one of the officers and I believe he was a colonel if memory serves me right, a Harvard grad. He was a lawyer. He outright said that some of the witnesses who'd come to the to the J6 committee previously and who were included in the report, but his testimony wasn't had lied to the J6 committee. So, these are the kinds of things that we're trying to wrap up. We're just trying to get to the truth. And if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, just let me finish. I'm on a rant.
▶ 4:40:22If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want full disclosure, they should be voting for this HJ REST 605 because that's what we're after. We're not trying to to do anything except get all the facts, lay them out on the table, bring them to the entire United States House, put all the facts on the table, and let history be able to judge. We don't want to hide anything. We don't want anything missing. We don't want to have computer files that have disappeared. We want to put it all on the table. We're going to use everything we can.
▶ 4:40:49And the House Admin Committee didn't have the tools necessary that the judicial uh judiciary committee has available to it in the way of subpoenas and etc. And thus you have the language before us today. So I feel very strongly that we need to keep the HJ res 605 language and um and move forward, Madam Chair. And with that I will yield back. I'm sure the gentleman
▶ 4:41:10Yeah, I do madam chair.
▶ 4:41:12Yeah, I I have strong feelings on this too. I was in the chair that day and I'll never forget what happened on on that day. But you know what? If if that's your only objection, I withdraw my amendment and I have a different amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a section directing the architect of the capital to install a plaque honoring the law enforcement officers who responded to the violence that occurred here on January 6, 2021 as already required by law.
▶ 4:41:39Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Mr. McGovern?
▶ 4:41:45Yes. I mean, I obviously support the amendment, support the installation of the plaque, which the speaker has now blocked for well over several years. Um, but I'm also astonished that this rule would seek to just put into place this January 6 commission with no testimony, with no notice to the public, with no floor debate that it's just going to happen as a result of a rule.
▶ 4:42:11I mean, talk about hiding something from the public, especially after there's already been a January 6 commission that has produced thousands of pages of documents and videos and everything else. And this this resolution doesn't even say what the unresolved questions are.
▶ 4:42:28And given this administration's attempt and the House majority leaders attempt to rewrite the history of January 6th, I think it's a gross dereliction of duty and a gross abuse of power to try to slide this thing through. So I would strongly object to its inclusion in the rule and I support uh Mr. McGovern's amendment and I yield back to him. And just and just to be clear, I mean, we're keeping this committee in place. Um, which I think is a mistake.
▶ 4:42:59Um, but we're just merely adding a section that would require the speaker to hang the plaque honoring the officers who protected us that day. Um, as required by law. So, that's what this is. Pretty straightforward. I I yield
▶ 4:43:15Madam Chair, I am a little bit confused on two points if I might. One, could we get could we see the exact language of the new amendment? And two, and two, um, if it's already the law,
▶ 4:43:28how does a resolution change anything?
▶ 4:43:31That was that was going to be my comment, but thank you very much.
▶ 4:43:34And the reason why is the speaker is not complying with the law. I mean, we pass we passed a law in this body uh requiring that a plaque be produced, which it has been. It is here somewhere in this building in some closet. Um and it is displayed and it and and it and so again we are we have been trying to get it displayed. So may if if you don't want the plaque if you don't believe we should have done that if you don't believe we should honor the officers who protected us.
▶ 4:44:04If you don't believe the pres the speaker should comply with what what we all voted to do then you can vote no. But I've simplified it. This is just about the plaque honoring the officers who defended us on that day. I yield back. Yes. Welcome.
▶ 4:44:20Does any other member wish to speak on the amendment? Mr.
▶ 4:44:23I don't know if I'm in order to speak
▶ 4:44:25I will I will yield time to you.
▶ 4:44:28All right. I I would just say that it's already the law, Madame Chair, and I want I want to see the plaque go up. I don't disagree with that, but it's already the law and putting it into a resolution really doesn't do anything. Um, I mean, it's already the law. I don't know why it hasn't been put up. Uh, I do know that some of the co my colleagues Hang on. I do know that some of my colleagues
▶ 4:44:53uh have put up uh
▶ 4:44:58flags of their own or factimile thereof.
▶ 4:45:01I kind of like them. I kind of like having a multiple around the capital, but um but that's that's outside of uh my jurisdiction is to determine where, when, and how it's put up. Uh I think it's outside of our jurisdiction on this committee, but it's already the law, and I believe it'll get done at some point in time. I will tell you, I was on the floor that day when the uh Capitol Police came to me and said, uh you need to leave. and I followed those.
▶ 4:45:26I was sitting on the floor obviously watching rules issues and parliamentary procedure and um and I left because they asked me to and I appreciate them taking those actions but um uh so I'm very appreciative of the capital police and what they did
▶ 4:45:44that would be
▶ 4:45:44uh but but I don't know why we would add that to this rule when it's already the
▶ 4:45:49This is awful.
▶ 4:45:51Madam Chair, I think the chairwoman it's ridiculous ridiculous to argue that you don't know why the plaque is up. You you that's legitimately it's intellectually honest argument. Your your position is you have no idea why this law that was passed by the Congress, signed into law by the president to put up a plaque here in the capital to honor the police officers who protected you and protected me on the house floor. And Mr.
▶ 4:46:21McGovern, I remember remember you being there. I remember Mr. Govern being there. I was there. We all know why that plaque is not up, why it's sitting in a basement here or in a closet. And it may be convenient to argue now that somehow it's not gerine to this particular provision of the bill which creates a new select committee to investigate unanswered quote unquote questions regarding January 6th.
▶ 4:46:47And somehow it's not pertinent there to say that maybe the speaker of the house should follow the law and put up the plaque that is sitting in the basement to honor the capital police officers that defended you and me. I hope they're listening tonight. I I really it's just farcical. Very easy for my colleagues to simply say, you know what, Mr. McGover met us halfway. He doesn't agree that this committee is a good idea. I'm with him.
▶ 4:47:13I I I don't no idea why you've decided in September to now create this select subcommittee on January 6th. You waited 9 months. You seem to be very intimately familiar with the the the justifications for this subcommittee. I I I don't understand why you waited nearly 7 months, 8 months, nine months to decide to now create this subcommittee that is so urgently required. But in any event, Mr. Mr. McGover met you halfway and said, "I'll change the amendment.
▶ 4:47:43You can keep your Just add a couple of words to say that the plaque should go up." I don't know how you look the Capitol police officers in the eyes of these these people defended you. They defended me. They defend us every day. And there's a plaque honoring them for their sacrifices on January 6th. and it's sitting in the basement. The speaker could put it up today. He chooses not to.
▶ 4:48:13You could ask him to do so. You choose not to. This committee could compel him to do so by adopting Mr. McGovern's simple amendment. And I presume it will choose not to. So I I don't I think it's shameful. I don't I don't understand why my colleagues have refused to take this up for the last nine months. I know why. I think we all know why. We know that the reasons why the speaker refuses to put this up, but it's shameful
▶ 4:48:44Well, Mr. Negus, I s I just suggest you ask the speaker why he does not do that, but I really am losing my patience over being told why we do things.
▶ 4:48:56Tell us why.
▶ 4:48:58Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this amendment? Yeah, Madam Chair, I'd like to speak on the amendment.
▶ 4:49:07Miss Leisure Fernandez,
▶ 4:49:08I'll yield that to my colle.
▶ 4:49:11Yeah, I'm happy, Madam Chair, not to impugn your motives. Tell me why. What? What? Why is this not possible been put
▶ 4:49:18I didn't I say you may ask the speaker put up.
▶ 4:49:22I appreciate that. I suggest
▶ 4:49:24I will ask the speaker tomorrow if I can find him and I will come back to this committee on Monday and reintroduce this amendment because I am sure that he will not oblige because I am not the first person to ask him why this plaque has not gone up. We all know it is obvious the president does not want this plaque to go up. What? This is fantasy land. What are we talking about? We all get it. We all know it. So I dispense with that please.
▶ 4:49:50I mean, I understand if you don't want it to go up, you don't, you know, the president doesn't want it to go up on the capital complex, you know, stand by that. But making this argument that somehow we we just don't know and we shouldn't impute motives because, you know, who knows what why they wouldn't want to put up the plaque honoring the police officers who defended us on January 6. So anyway, I I yield back to the chair. I mean to the gentleoman from New Mexico.
▶ 4:50:14And and I think that to say that this committee doesn't have jurisdiction, we you just discussed how amazing it was that this committee was going to direct another committee to do something. This committee could do this. It is a vote and a choice that each of us will make on this amendment for whatever reasons you choose. I will tell you the reasons I will vote for.
▶ 4:50:43I will vote for it because every time I walk by my office and I see the plaque that I have chosen to put up, I am reminded of the fact that the speaker has refused to put up the real one.
▶ 4:51:04And every time I walk into my office and I pass that plaque, I feel bad for the police officers and the Capitol police who defended us that day and who should feel insulted that this body won't demand that they get the respect that they after suffering so much
▶ 4:51:35that day and that night and that morning and for weeks and months and years afterwards from that trauma. And it was a small gesture that flapped and we are not putting it up and this is a vote we will each make.
▶ 4:51:53And as to the committee, the reason why I also am opposed to the committee is that this president likes to rewrite He is telling the Smithsonian that we should not focus on how bad slavery was. So the idea of rewriting history is of concern.
▶ 4:52:17But once again, this is a vote solely on putting up the plaque and honoring and respecting the Capitol police who suffered so much that night for us.
▶ 4:52:37Will the gentleman y or gentle lady yield for a question? If we were to adopt this amendment, I guess this would be a question for all of the Democrats. If we adopt this amendment, would you vote for this rule? Yes or no?
▶ 4:52:50That can
▶ 4:52:51If we adopt the amendment,
▶ 4:52:52that's a ridiculous question.
▶ 4:52:53It's not a ridiculous question. That's not a ridiculous question. I think that's a fair question.
▶ 4:52:57In other words, uh you can't get an amendment made in order unless you vote for the rule.
▶ 4:53:01I'm just asking if we make your amendment in order, would you vote for the rule? That's the question. It's just yes or no.
▶ 4:53:08Just yes or no, Mr. Governor?
▶ 4:53:09I will not.
▶ 4:53:10Okay. The question was
▶ 4:53:12if that's your excuse not to answer it if that's your excuse not to vote to honor the capital police that is
▶ 4:53:19No, I think what it shows is that you're continuing to play political games.
▶ 4:53:22No, I uh
▶ 4:53:24I I so so I think that
▶ 4:53:26political to honor the capital police. Give me a break. That's just that's just
▶ 4:53:32I think I agree with the chair the chairwoman that you can feel free to ask the speaker about the plaque.
▶ 4:53:37It was a bipartisan law by the way. And if you're not inclined to vote for this rule without your amendment, I don't I don't see um anything other than playing a political game yet again with uh these types of items. I yield back.
▶ 4:53:51Well, you're voting for the rules so you can vote for the amendment. You could be consistent. Okay,
▶ 4:53:58Miss Ledger Fernandez, are you finished?
▶ 4:54:00Uh yes, I am. And I urge a yes vote on recover's amendment in order to honor the police.
▶ 4:54:11The Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 4:54:15Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 4:54:19Those opposed say no.
▶ 4:54:21In the opinion chair, the no.
▶ 4:54:23I ask for a roll call vote. Madam chair.
▶ 4:54:25The clerk will call the role.
▶ 4:54:27Mrs. Fishbach, no.
▶ 4:54:28Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman,
▶ 4:54:30Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Houchin. No. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr.
▶ 4:54:36Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith.
▶ 4:54:38Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack.
▶ 4:54:40Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern.
▶ 4:54:42Mr. McGovern. I. Miss. Scallan.
▶ 4:54:44M. Scallan. I. Mr. Noose.
▶ 4:54:46Mr. Nagus. I. M. Ledger. Fernandez.
▶ 4:54:48M. Ledger Fernandez. I. Madam Chair.
▶ 4:54:50Madam Chair. No.
▶ 4:54:52Clerk will report the total.
▶ 4:54:54Four. Yes. Nine. Nays.
▶ 4:54:56Nos. Have it. The amendments not agreed
▶ 4:55:00any further amendment? Yes, madam.
▶ 4:55:04Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I am not as full of the milk of Christian kindness, I guess, as Mr. McGovern, but regardless of whether or not the amendment with respect to putting up the long overdue plaque is adopted.
▶ 4:55:17I find it really offensive that section nine would adopt without hearing or debate or a separate vote a resolution to establish a select committee to investigate unidentified remaining questions surrounding January 6, 2021. So I offer an amendment to the rule that would strike section 9 to put this godforsaken commission out of existence. Um it is a political farce.
▶ 4:55:47Um it does not advance any knowledge or information that we need in this body. And if you are so certain that there are issues which need to be investigated, then you can put together a resolution that identifies them so that the whole world knows what you're trying to do as opposed to what it appears this would do, which is provide yet another opportunity for the president to rewrite history. So I offer that amendment.
▶ 4:56:17there any further discussion on
▶ 4:56:18Madam Chair?
▶ 4:56:21Mr. Griffith,
▶ 4:56:25you know, it is it it's it's absolutely that when the select committee that did not have proper representation from the then minority, our side of the aisle, and then the data is missing. It's gone. Unidentified issues. You say, identify the issues.
▶ 4:56:51How can we identify the issues when the people leading it on your side of the aisle destroyed some of the information? That's what happened. Some of it wasn't put in the report and some of it is missing. That's documented now. How much is missing? It's a large segment of what they did. It's just gone. We're just trying to replicate some of that so the American people can see it all. Some of it may come out and look bad for our side of the aisle. That's fine.
▶ 4:57:20But the, you know, we're here tonight and everybody says they want to release files and see this or that. And now y'all don't want to see this or that. You don't want to see all of the files. Ladies and gentlemen, I got to tell you, Madame Chairman, it is it is absolutely unfathomable that we wouldn't want to have that information where it's supposed to be. And it belongs to the people. It belongs to the House. It's supposed to be out there. It's supposed to be public. And it's not out there.
▶ 4:57:50And the reason I cannot sit here tonight and give you the information you want is that you all spoiled the information. You spoiled the evidence. You come to this argument with unclean hands. I'm sorry. You come to this argument with unclean hands. Now, it's not the four of you individually. I do not mean this personally.
▶ 4:58:11I mean that the Democrat Select January 6th committee did things that it ought not ought to have done and it destroyed or that tried to destroy large segments of the evidence that came before them. That's inappropriate and this select committee will help to resolve those issues. I just want to get the information on the table. I want to get it all on the table. put it all out there.
▶ 4:58:37As as a person who loves history and has a history degree, how can the future judge what happened without all the information being open to the sunshine of of information being laid on the table for everybody to see, good, bad, ugly, etc. It all needs to be out there. And that's why I support HJRES 605.
▶ 4:59:02And and I would submit to you that the point that was raised earlier by my colleague goes back to Jefferson when she said if this passes will you vote for it. As you all know in the original formation of this house we did not have standing committees. And Jefferson has some beautiful language and I'm going to try to paraphrase it but he said in the manual of parliamentary practice and procedure that you shouldn't put somebody into the amendment process. Now back then they didn't have standing committees.
▶ 4:59:32So they would say, "All right, the five of y'all go over there or the 15 of you go over in this corner. Y'all sort out this language." Or like they did with the Declaration of Independence. They send a committee off to draft the language elsewhere. But Jefferson's wording on this in the manual parliamentary practice and procedure, I encourage you to go read it. Says, "Like a child, one who cares not for a bill should not be placed in charge of it." Like a child should not be placed in the care of someone who cares for it not.
▶ 5:00:02Neither should a bill or a resolution be placed into the care of one who cares for it not. So if you are not I mean it used to be the rule. They don't follow it anymore and it's been the president has changed that if you were not willing to support a measure you were not to offer amendments to that measure. That was what Jefferson stood for in that in that comment that one who cares for it not should not be in charge of it.
▶ 5:00:28And I know you don't care for this, but to say that there are unknown issues and that therefore we shouldn't have this investigation, I would submit to you if the full report was there and if all of the data had been provided to the House, we wouldn't need this. But that's not what happened. And so the Democrat party comes to this discussion on HJRES 605 with what we call in legal terms hands.
▶ 5:00:58And the arguments are falling on at least on me as being illegitimate arguments by a party, not the four of you. I respect all of you, but by a party that did not put all the information out. And I don't understand why. What did they have to hide? What did somebody know that they didn't want to come forward? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I want to know because inquiring minds want to know. I yel back, Madam Chair. Madam
▶ 5:01:26Madam Chair,
▶ 5:01:28Mr. McGovern.
▶ 5:01:29Yeah, I was a history major, too. Um, and let me just for the record say that it used to be that every bill had a separate rule. Uh, now we have rules with a thousand bills all attached to them. So, uh, with all due respect, um, this is a very different time. Uh secondly, you know, um some of us are a little sensitive about January 6. Uh because I was in the chair that day. I saw what happened. I saw I was one of the last people off the House floor.
▶ 5:01:56I was there when they were breaking the glass to get at the police. Police were tasered. They were beaten. Um and so yeah, I'm a little I get a little concerned when we have a president that pardons everybody who did that. uh no no exceptions. But we have some members in this house right now who continue to rewrite history or talk about that day uh as as as if it were a peaceful day of people just concerned about uh about the about the country.
▶ 5:02:25I mean I it was a violent awful day. But let me also just say you know there's like a little bit of disconnect here. the gentleman's passion and his outrage and his anger. Boy, I wish there was a little bit of that that would go toward uh the people who attacked our police officers.
▶ 5:02:47Um and you know, again, you know, trying to just say thank you to those who saved our lives that day uh has become an impossibility up here and it is really really frustrating. I support the general lady's amendment and I I hope that uh yeah and I I yield to the general lady. I
▶ 5:03:07I just want to be clear. I mean if if we had any idea what this commission that's just being thrust upon the country was going to do. It might be a different matter. You say there are unanswered questions or at least that's what this resolution says to investigate unanswered questions but there's no nothing there about what those questions are. This is something that deserves a wholesome debate, regular order.
▶ 5:03:34If your questions are what happened to some of the evidence, well, maybe we have some questions about why people were pardoned after they were convicted of abusing the police. So, there's a lot that we could talk about. there might even be agreement about some of the issues.
▶ 5:03:50But to just launch a commission to reinvestigate something with no parameters, I think if you take this resolution and compare it to the original one, you'll see there was quite a bit of direction given to the committee, which was a bipartisan committee, although you seek to disavow the Republicans who participated. Um, I think this is something that deserves a lot more than sneaking a commission through in the middle of the night again. Um, so that
▶ 5:04:19we wouldn't be here in the middle of the night if we hadn't had so much irrelevant conversations. We'd have been over a long time ago.
▶ 5:04:28So, at any rate, if you want the
▶ 5:04:30I'm going to turn the clock on. We're going to turn the clock on because this is going way too long. People are abusing the situation. Okay, we're abusing it. So, turn the clocks on, please. We're going to keep track of who's saying what
▶ 5:04:46and we're going to get over this meeting fairly quickly.
▶ 5:04:50Um, I don't know that there's any clocks part of the rules. It certainly hasn't been the practice in the six or seven years I've been on the committee, but I had finished my remarks, so I
▶ 5:05:00Thank you very much.
▶ 5:05:02I'm assuming there is no one else who wishes to speak on this amendment.
▶ 5:05:06I'd like
▶ 5:05:10Mr. Neuse. I thank the chairwoman. First, just three three points. One, Mr. Gre, the when I said quote unquote unanswered questions, there's a reason I said quote unquote. It's because it's from the resolutions. That's not those aren't my it's not my phrase. That's the language that this resolution uses.
▶ 5:05:30Second, I suspect I know you've been in Congress for some time and I suspected if I looked at your voting record that I would not find any instance in which you voted for a rule that the Democratic majority put on the floor. That's a safe assumption, right? Fair enough. Oh, you voted for Democratic rules. I'll I'll look forward. I I'll go back and I'll check. I don't think so either.
▶ 5:05:56I I I would also say in that same period of time that you have I am sure because I know that you are a a very passionate legislator introduced countless amendments to a variety of different bills or you've you never introduced an amendment during the time in which Democrats had a majority. That that's
▶ 5:06:13if the gentleman would yield. I I don't believe I've ever introduced an amendment to a rule and I make it a a a strict policy in my office that if I propose an amendment, that amendment is adopted, I vote for the bill.
▶ 5:06:26Uh particularly coming to mind is the NDAA where I consistently put an amendment, when the amendment is approved, I vote for the bill. When the amendment is not approved, I don't vote for the bill.
▶ 5:06:35Well, you I I will just say, Mr. Griffith, this is the first time you've served on the rules committee, which is why you haven't had an opportunity to make amendments to the rule in the past. So, I would just simply say this. Let's take you out of it. It is an intellectually dishonest argument in my view to suggest excuse me um to suggest and I'm not I'm not perhaps saying this because I know you reciting Jefferson but to Miss Houchin's suggestion that essentially if you make an amendment to the rule if you're unwilling to vote for the rule you
▶ 5:07:05should not be permitted to make amendments. That's essentially what that argument boils down to. That is the logical extension of that. So I look forward when Democrats have a majority on this committee. Every single time one of my colleagues makes an amendment, every single time Miss Houchin makes an amendment to the rule, our reflexive retort will be, "You have no business, you know, making an amendment to this rule because you don't intend to vote for the bill." That's ludicrous. Let's have a debate on the merits of the amendment that was made by Mr. McGovern.
▶ 5:07:34I would not make that argument to Mr. Roy, to Miss Hchin, to any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in so far as you wish to make an amendment to the rule, you have the ability to do so. And the fact that you were very unlikely to vote for a rule proposed by the majority party is not, in my view, a bar to having a honest debate about that particular amendment. So, I I just think that that's in my view a baseline uh understanding that we should be able to agree to.
▶ 5:08:04Lastly, I would just say because I posed this question to you uh Mr. Griffith about the impetus behind the delay for this select committee because I it was it's lost on me. I don't understand why it's September and we now find ourselves voting on this new select subcommittee on January 6th. A quick Google search answered my question. So, I'll just ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record. This is an article uh from March 13th of 2025.
▶ 5:08:34The headline, "Speaker Mike Johnson and Republicans are at odds over January 6th investigation." This was news to me. I'll just read a bit of it. Republicans quote are at a standstill over their investigation uh relitigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the US capital with House Speaker Mike Johnson and the Republicans leading the effort, disagreeing on how to move forward.
▶ 5:08:57Johnson wants Republicans to stop investigating the former January 6 committee, including former GOP representative Liz Cheney, and narrow its focus, according to three sources familiar with the negotiations. But GOP representative Barry Louderdermilk, I presume, now is going to chair this select committee. So he he apparently won this argument. Uh he has been tapped to helm the probe and he would prefer a broader mandate, a position backed by some officials at the White House. President Donald Trump told Johnson before he took office that he wanted the investigation to be a priority. End quote.
▶ 5:09:27So we have our answer. Apparently the administration Donald Trump won out on this argument, compelled the speaker to finally do what he apparently had promised to do eight months ago, nine months ago, which is to create the select committee.
▶ 5:09:42That's why we're doing it now and deeming it very quietly in a rule with no fanfare lest the public find out because clearly the speaker did not want this to be a priority and I suspect we're going to hear a very similar explanation regarding his declination of putting up the plaque. Uh but I'll certainly report back to this committee what we find and I yield back.
▶ 5:10:07Thank you, Mr. N.
▶ 5:10:08Madam Madam Chair,
▶ 5:10:11Mr. Roy.
▶ 5:10:12Um I know the chairwoman would like us to uh be able to get the rule voted out and get on with our evenings. Um I do think my friend from Virginia deserves um a full elucidation of I think the position from which he comes which is coming at it from my vantage point. a said historian. I know the gentleman well. He's a dear friend.
▶ 5:10:43He's coming out from the perspective of in my view like we were talking about earlier, pursue the truth wherever it may lead. I I guess for me as someone who voted for the electors, as someone who had issues with the way everything unfolded and was very public in his pronouncement of those issues, I will tell you I have serious
▶ 5:11:13issues with what happened to some of my fellow at the hands of supposedly objective jurists and prosecute. prosecutors that put good people that I know in Texas in jail for simply being present near the capital. I know that there are a lot of facts that have been put forward that I don't because I believe was a politically motivated effort.
▶ 5:11:41And what the gentleman from Virginia is simply saying is that we should have a committee to go figure it all out on the judiciary committee with lawyers with the full power of subpoena. And we should know the truth. We should know the truth in whatever direction it goes. We should know the truth. I believe that and have fullthroatedly said it.
▶ 5:12:05But what I'm not going to do is listen to a de dismissal of my friend's concerns as somehow not being appropriate because he's laying out what I think is perfectly appropriate, which is that we have a committee to look into this now. January, February, March disagreements. Well, hell's bells. There's disagreements. Well, at least we're having a freaking debate on our side.
▶ 5:12:28But whatever disagreements there are are is being put forward now with a solution, which is a subcommittee on the judiciary committee to look into the facts and pursue the truth. What the hell are we afraid of? What are we afraid of finding out? If there's something that they're going to put forward that you disagree with, highlight it.
▶ 5:12:49But at least there'll be investigators and staff and members that can go look at a politically charged effort which was by definition one-sided and then go look at the record and decide whether that record reflects the I support my friend from Virginia and I yield back.
▶ 5:13:13Thank you,
▶ 5:13:14Madam Chair. I promise I'll be brief. I'm ready to move on with this, but I would just ask that we remember that when this was set up, Pelosi had eight appointments. McCarthy had five if you recall. Am I correct?
▶ 5:13:31McCarthy picked Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong, Troy Nells, according to my records. And then Pelosi rejected,
▶ 5:13:41the minority appointments and and she then selected both the chair and the vice chair and she selected the Republicans that served on the committee, not the minority leader.
▶ 5:13:58And and had she not done that, we would not be having this discussion right now because then there would then both sides would have been represented and you could have had an objective uh discussion. But it was it was Pelos's rejection of the Republican members of the committee and then her insistence on selecting the Republicans who could serve and picking the chair and the vice chair is the reason we're even having this discussion
▶ 5:14:25with the gentleman yield. also included the current chairman of the judiciary committee, Mr. Jordan. Correct.
▶ 5:14:30That is correct.
▶ 5:14:32I yield.
▶ 5:14:33Thank you.
▶ 5:14:35Any further debate on the amendment,
▶ 5:14:38Madam Chair? Um, so all of us on this side of the aisle were here. It was my third day in office January 6th and it deserved it demanded to be investigated and there were attempts to make sure that there would be a bipartisan commission that stood outside and Republicans voted that down.
▶ 5:15:08But the other thing that happened and I think that this is why uh Representative motion is important. If the public would look at this, they don't know section 9, House Resolution 605 is hereby adopted. There was no presentation of this before the rules committee.
▶ 5:15:36We did not hear from the chair and the ranking member. So we could not have a debate and ask questions. The American people could not see what was happening. It was just here by adopted How does the American people how do the American people know what resolution 605 is?
▶ 5:16:05So that's why we raising these issues because it has been just thrust upon them and if we hadn't brought this is if Chair McGovern hadn't started for this amendment if Representative Scandal had not had hers there would have been no debate whatsoever and I think that that is an important thing and as as as to the issue of if this is passed will you vote for the there are always amendments to the bills that we consider
▶ 5:16:35And in fact, I know that before I got to had the privilege and honor and benefit of sitting on the rules committee when Democrats headed it up, there were many Republican amendments to Democrat bills.
▶ 5:16:50We didn't demand that if your amendment, if you were a Republican and your amendment was passed and many of those Republican amendments were passed and many of these Democratic amendments to the appropriations bill will get passed, there is not a requirement that if your amendment is adopted on a piece of law that you must vote for the bill. That's never been a requirement, right? It's it's just it's just not how it works.
▶ 5:17:19It's just not how it works. And so to demand that does not make sense and it's not consistent to how this legislative process works. And given that it is Representative Scanland's amendment, I'm going to defer some time to her.
▶ 5:17:34I just I just keep coming back to the fact that we have this barebones resolution which is being launched without hearing, without explanation, with no direction as to what these unanswered questions are. And that's not good legislative process. Um, we have Mr. Griffith who thinks that the questions have to do with missing evidence. We have Mr. Roy who thinks it has to do with whether or not Texans were unjustly convicted.
▶ 5:18:01I mean, I think there's some fleshing out that needs to be done if this is to have any kind of legitimacy and be anything other than a fishing expedition for retribution. So that's the basis of why I've offered the motion and I'd urge everyone to support it. I yield back
▶ 5:18:24and I yield back to the chairwoman.
▶ 5:18:29All hearing no further discussion, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 5:18:38Those opposed say no.
▶ 5:18:40No. In the opinion, chair of the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 5:18:45I'd request a recorded vote. Roll call.
▶ 5:18:47Miss Ganlin request a roll call vote. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 5:18:52Mrs. Fishbach, no.
▶ 5:18:53Mrs. Fishbach, not Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, no.
▶ 5:18:56Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Hton. Mrs. Hen. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. No.
▶ 5:19:04Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Hi.
▶ 5:19:06Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scallan.
▶ 5:19:08Miss Scan. I Mr. Noose. Mr. Nigus I M Ledger Fernandez Ledger Fernandez I am Madam Chair
▶ 5:19:15Madam Chair no
▶ 5:19:17clerk will report the to
▶ 5:19:18four yes nine nays
▶ 5:19:21no have it the amendments not agreed to is there further discussion leisure Fernandez you recognized withhold information uh from public disclosure regarding the Epstein files.
▶ 5:19:50But a pledge is not binding. It's a pinky promise. Under the resolution right now, the chair could withhold information from the public if he thinks it's in the interest of national defense uh or foreign policy. There could be executive orders that uh allow him to withhold information.
▶ 5:20:10These are incredibly broad topics and this resolution gives the chair the sole power to decide what's covered and what can be redacted. The resolution also allows the chair to withhold information if it could jeopardize an active federal investigation which the Trump administration could initiate, thereby forcing the withholding of additional information. So my amendment is simple.
▶ 5:20:37It would make sure that the oversight committee chair actually consults with and gets agreement from the ranking member before redacting information from the public. If this investigation is really as bipartisan as people around this table have argued, then my Republican colleagues should have no issue requiring the consultation.
▶ 5:21:02Bipartisanship means that there is and that there is active engagement. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion to the for the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 5:21:25Those opposed say no.
▶ 5:21:27No. In the opinion of the chair of the nose have it. The amendment's not agreed
▶ 5:21:32The clerk will call the role.
▶ 5:21:34Mrs. Fishbach. No.
▶ 5:21:35Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. No. Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hton. Mrs. Hton. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack.
▶ 5:21:47Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern.
▶ 5:21:48Mr. McGovern. I M. Scan.
▶ 5:21:52Miss. Scan. I. Mr. Nagus.
▶ 5:21:54Mr. Nagus. I. M. Ledger. Fernandez. M. Ledger. Fernandez. I am. Madam Chair.
▶ 5:21:59Madam Chair. No.
▶ 5:22:02Clerk. Report the total.
▶ 5:22:03Four. Yes. Nine. Nays.
▶ 5:22:06The nos have it. The amendments not agreed to. Further amendment or discussion. Hearing no further discussion, the questions on the motion from the gentleman from Virginia. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 5:22:21I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 5:22:24In the opinion chair, the eyes have it. The motion is agreed to.
▶ 5:22:27Yes. For roll call.
▶ 5:22:29Recorded votes been requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 5:22:33Mrs. Fishbach?
▶ 5:22:34Mrs. Fishbach? Yes. Mr. Norman?
▶ 5:22:36Mr. Norman? Yes. Mr. Roy?
▶ 5:22:40Mr. Roy? Yes. Mrs. Hen? Yes,
▶ 5:22:42Mr. Sin. Yes, Mr. Langworthy.
▶ 5:22:44Mr. Langworthy. Yes, Mr. Scott.
▶ 5:22:46Mr. Scott. Yes, Mr. Griffith.
▶ 5:22:48Mr. Griffith.
▶ 5:22:49Yes, Mr. Jack.
▶ 5:22:50Mr. Mr. Jack, yes. Mr. McGovern,
▶ 5:22:53Mr. McGovern, no. Miss Gallon,
▶ 5:22:55Mr. Gallon, no. Mr. Noose,
▶ 5:22:58Mr. Nagus, no. Miss Ledger Fernandez,
▶ 5:23:01Miss Ledger Fernandez, no. Madam Chair,
▶ 5:23:03Madam Chair, yes.
▶ 5:23:05Clerk, report the total.
▶ 5:23:07Nine yays, four nays.
▶ 5:23:08The eyes have it. The motion to report is agreed to accordingly. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, will be managing this rule for the majority.
▶ 5:23:17And I will for the minority govern.
▶ 5:23:19Madam Chair, M. I know we're late, but just uh 10 seconds personal privilege. Uh my legislative director, Hannah Arvey, this is her last uh rules committee. She's heading over to the administration. So uh we've only got her the benefit of her services for a few more days, but I just want to wish Hannah well as she heads over the Thank you for your service. Sorry we couldn't have given you a shorter meeting. Thank you very much everybody. The meeting's adjourned.