▶ 0:20:04Committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare recess at any time pursuant to committee rule two house rule 11 clause 2. The chairman may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. Now recognize the gentleman from Kansas to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
▶ 0:20:26To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for Thank you, gentlemen. Pursuant to notice I call up HR59, the men's ray reform act of 2025 for purpose of a markup and move the committee reported favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill HR5. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
▶ 0:20:56Bigs, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you bringing this bill uh forward today. In 2010, the Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers published a report titled Without Intent: How Congress is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law. Uh, and I would ask for unanimous consent. That'd be without objection. Thank you.
▶ 0:21:17The report authors analyzed 446 non-violent criminal offenses proposed in the 109th Congress and they found that 50% of the analyzed offenses lacked adequate men's rape provisions. In 2021, they followed it up. Same group, National uh Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Heritage Foundation.
▶ 0:21:38And they found that the trend continues and only thing different being that maybe even more uh bills are being fed uh without adequate men's REA requirements. Just a couple of weeks ago, we had a hearing and the uh witness uh brought in by the Democrats in his opening statement advocated for the passage of this bill HR59 and also mentioned the the following bill that we'll do also
▶ 0:22:08favorably. What I'm suggesting to you is this should be a bipartisan uh uh approach to this bill today. I'm looking for that. I believe that we should do that because uh there is so many issues here.
▶ 0:22:23So when you begin to uh John Carlo Kaparo during the hearing who was comparing uh federal crimes that are morally wrong and the federal offenses that are regulatory in nature. Uh he cited some bizarre examples uh such as the prohibition on selling Swiss cheese without holes. the requirement for certain toy balls to carry specific warnings.
▶ 0:22:51Um, and the estimate is that there's more than 5,000 of those types of crimes, except for when you get into the rule process, the bure bureaucratic uh crim crime making process, you'll find that there are hundreds of thousands of those and they don't have men's rare requirements. I'll give you a couple cases. The one that really um sings to me is the Gibson Guitar Corporation factories in Nashville and Memphis.
▶ 0:23:19Uh they had they bring in exotic woods, computers, guitars. Everything was seized under under the allegation that they had violated the Lacy Act because they imported rosewood nebony that was not harvested or exported in compliance with Indian and Malagasi law. But the Lacy Act makes it a federal crime to import a wild wildlife or plants taken or traded in violation of any foreign law.
▶ 0:23:42But the relevant foreign laws were not clear, not publicly available, not consistently enforced by their own federal governments, and indeed the statute did not require the importer knowingly or have any culpable middle state um to violate the law.
▶ 0:23:59So uh ultimately they were imposing or seeking to impose the feds were criminal liability without any knowledge or intent on the part of the that is uh against the long-standing um Anglo-Saxon historic jurist history of jurist prudence that we have. There are other cases.
▶ 0:24:21We have we have the individual um case highlighted by the def the Democrats witness Mike Fox. And this is the case of Micholino Sunseri who is a professional trail runner. And he was charged with a federal misdemeanor by the National Park Service for running on a trail that was allegedly closed despite the fact that the trail had been used without incident for more than 50 years and did not have any signage indicating its closure. Again, there was no culpable mental state.
▶ 0:24:49There was no way for him to know and there nor was there ostensibly a requirement for a couple women state. But the men's ray reform act directly addresses these concerns by creating a default knowingly standard for federal crimes lacking explicit men's ray requirements.
▶ 0:25:05By restoring the essential element of criminal law, the culpable mental state, Congress helps can help ensure that only those who act with intent or knowledge are subjected to the penalties of the criminal justice system, which is uh uh which is fair. It reinforces civil liberties and it curbs prosecutorial overreach. And that's the purpose of this bill. And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for for uh bringing it forward. And I encourage uh everyone from both sides of the aisle to vote.
▶ 0:25:34Uh I in favor of this. Let's move this along today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the gentleman yields back. Chair recognized the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thanks for calling a hearing uh markup session on uh these bills and um I'll thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona for his remarks on it. Uh I'm delighted that we're taking up the whole question of overcriminalization which is indeed a serious matter for the people of the country.
▶ 0:26:04Uh just as the people can obviously suffer from there being too many crimes taking place in society, we also can suffer from there being too many criminal laws in the country. Uh everybody knows the the basic legal dictim that ignorance of the law is no excuse. that's not going to get you out of prosecution for an offense that you didn't know about it.
▶ 0:26:26Um uh on the other hand, um if we have tens of thousands of laws, nobody can know what all of the uh laws are. And so it is essential to a society based on ordered liberty and the rule of law that people have the chance to know what the laws are.
▶ 0:26:44Unfortunately, we have a couple of bills we're bringing forward today, including this one, the Mensa Reform Act and the um End Endless Criminal Statutes Act, which put the cart before the horse or put two carts before the horse. The horse is the one that we all agree on, the Count the Crimes Act, uh being done on a bipartisan basis uh by Mr. Roy and by Ms. McBth. Let's determine what the problem is. What's the scope of the problem? What are all of the criminal laws that are out there?
▶ 0:27:12It's remarkable that we have no inventory. We have no basic understanding of what all of them are. Um now in a bunch of those uh I would agree with the gentleman from Arizona that uh we should uh alter the men's rhea to make sure that there is a knowledge level of culpability there. In others that would uh undermine the law and undermine public safety if we were to do that.
▶ 0:27:39And that's why we need to put them all together to figure out what is the actually the landscape we're dealing with. Um so um unfortunately I'm going to uh oppose this law. It is uh or this bill. It's premature to bring it forward right now.
▶ 0:27:55And in fact, in a number of fields, we need stronger anti-corruption laws and anti- fraud laws as we're living through a period of tremendous uh corruption and fraud and scams that are being taken that are taking place against uh our people.
▶ 0:28:12And we would want to uh scrutinize very carefully what the abolition of the men's rehea uh or the the current culpability standards would mean and to replace it with a higher level of culpability with a knowing level uh of menrehea. Um but we we've seen a weakening of the laws against fraud and corruption and we should be moving in the direction.
▶ 0:28:3715 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Jeffrey Skielling, the Enron CEO, whose massive fraud and conspiracy scheme wiped out billions of dollars in employees retirement savings uh and shareholder equity. Uh four years later, the Supreme Court threw out uh Governor Bob McDonald's conviction in Virginia on bribery charges stemming from favors that he did for Virginia businessmen who lavished him with $175,000 in gifts and cash and loans.
▶ 0:29:07Um and the court did that by making it more difficult to prove that a quid quote quit proquo had taken place. And just last year, the court tossed out the conviction of James Snyder, an Indiana mayor who steered a million dollars in city contracts to a trucking company that paid him $13,000 in kickbacks.
▶ 0:29:25These are just a few examples of the kinds of gaps in the anti-fraud and anti-corruption toolbox we really should be fixing at a time when criminal prosecutions of white collar crimes uh have been declining for decades. So, um, if we were to just pass the Men's Ray Reform Act, it would make these problems worse.
▶ 0:29:47It would exacerbate, uh, the ability of people to be getting away with white collar crimes like criminal fraud and tax evasion, uh, kickbacks and other kinds of, uh, corruption. So, uh, we think this is too early, uh, to be doing this. Uh I look forward to working with the gentlemen on uh reform of culpability standards in a far more targeted and selective way moving forward in the future.
▶ 0:30:14And let's definitely go ahead and pass the Count the Crimes Act so we can get a real sense of what is out there. And with that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I think that the gentleman gentlemanly is back without objection. All other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman for uh from Arizona to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. yes. Yeah. I I make the motion to gentlemen as amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 0:30:44Amendment in the nature of objection. The amendment in the nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona to explain the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is just have a couple technical corrections in it. Otherwise, it uh echoes the underlying bill. Uh, anyone seek recognition? Gentle lady from Georgia. Gentle lady from Georgia is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You bet.
▶ 0:31:07Um, our criminal justice system is meant to prevent us from harm and to keep our safe our country safe by creating a system to hold any wrongdoers accountable for their actions. Our system relies on the numerous laws that we already have in place that laws that need to be updated and they need to be clarified to ensure that justice is carried out properly.
▶ 0:31:31That is why I am proud to co-lead the bipartisan count the crimes to cut act of 2025 which would aid Congress in getting the data that we need to determine the exact number of federal crimes on the books and help us to better identify places where we might eliminate crimes that no longer make sense so that we can make sure our criminal justice system is focused on what really matters.
▶ 0:31:58Beyond just identifying the number of crimes, the count the crimes to cut act directs the attorney general to include in the report the men's rail requirement of all federal crimes, which sets the required mental state that a person must have to be uh to be considered guilty of the alleged crime.
▶ 0:32:18Yet before we can even receive that full accounting, my colleagues across the aisle want to pass the men's rehea reform act simultaneously, which would establish a default men's rehea standard of knowingly for federal criminal, statutory, and regulator regulatory offenses that lack an explicit men's rhea standard.
▶ 0:32:40Under this standard, prosecutors would have to prove that defendants knew or did not willingly turn a blind eye to the facts that constitute their offense. So, what does this mean in practice?
▶ 0:32:54Rather than relying on precise data to determine where reforms are actually needed, this proposal would make radical changes to existing law and threaten to undermine the ability of the government to prosecute a range of crimes, putting public health, safety, and the environment at risk.
▶ 0:33:14For example, at a time when the current administration is suspending key quality control programs and purging staff who run our country's health and safety programs, the men's rare reform act could also jeopardize holding bad actors accountable, who put harmful products out in the marketplace.
▶ 0:33:32Take the CEO of the Peanut Corporation of America, who was sentenced to 28 years in prison in 2015 after more than cases of Sal Manila poisoning which resulted in nine deaths. It were traced to one of his factories in my home state of Georgia.
▶ 0:33:50If the proposed men's REA standard applied to conspiracy, one of the charges that the CEO and his fellow executive were convicted of, prosecutors would have to have had to prove both that the officials worked together to ship tainted peanut products and that they understood that such action constituted an illegal conspiracy to convict on that charge.
▶ 0:34:16Taking actions that result in shipping tainted food that kills people may no longer be enough to convict those who are responsible for conspiracy beyond the default mena standard. The bill could also change existing st standards in the law.
▶ 0:34:34And of course, this has to be viewed in the context of President Trump's rampant efforts to let white collar criminals off the hook from uh depprioritizing white collar prosecutions to gutting the Department of Justice uh anti-corruption unit to pardoning those most loyal to him who had already been convicted while ensuring those individuals don't have to pay a dime to those that they have harmed.
▶ 0:35:00Passage of the Men's Rhea Act would allow Trump to achieve his goal of throwing white collar prosecutions down the drain more effectively. It would not help those who are most affected by this country's overcriminalization. While I agree we should have a robust conversation about strengthening men's rail requirements and our federal criminal statutes, let's not put the cart before the horse.
▶ 0:35:25I look forward to joining my colleagues in getting the count the crimes to cut act to president's to the president's desk so that we can identify which laws actually need men's rhea reform. Thank you and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back seeks recognition. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:35:46Uh I I am intrigued to hear that the argument is not that we should not fix mena but that we should first count the crimes. Count the crimes they say. I find it intriguing because their own witness two weeks ago said we need to pass this bill HR59. Their own witness wasn't me. Well I was advocating but their witness said it. Yeah.
▶ 0:36:16And the McDonald case, that wasn't some kind of split along ideological grounds. That was an 80 decision. That was an 80 decision. And I will say the gentle lady from Georgia actually said this correctly. She said, "This bill will fix those crimes that lack an explicit men's That's right. And how many of those are there? Hundreds of thousands.
▶ 0:36:45There are more than 5,000 federal crime statutes, right? But there are over 300,000. And the CRS, when we've acquired multiple times, said we cannot even count the number of regulatory crimes. So while you're busy counting them, how many years will go by with no men's I want you to think about what that means. That means effectively uh strict liability.
▶ 0:37:13Then that's that's what you're that's what you're defaulting to in the American criminal system, the federal level. We're going to default to strict liability because we have no idea what these men's rhea are. And what our bill does, what this bill does is this corrects that. Nothing should tilt the playing field in favor of the prosecution.
▶ 0:37:42that is antithetical to the American system of jurist prudence and criminal law. You are innocent until proven And the very idea that you're going to default to a strict liability standard is absolutely it's outrageous quite frankly outrageous because the bottom line is you need to actually in most cases have some kind of uh mental culpability. It might be criminally negligent.
▶ 0:38:11Maybe it's recklessness, but most often it's going to be uh knowing. Most often it's going to be knowing. That's why the states, which is almost every state that adopted the uniform criminal code 30, 40 years that's why they had the four culpable mental states in there because that is the burden of the of the prosecution in those in those acts.
▶ 0:38:39So you get the actis reuses and then you get the uh the men's rhea. So while you're counting the laws, how many people will be prosecuted effectively on strict liability when the men's rehea the appropriate men's rehea would be And I did get a kick out of this one that if you insert a culpable middle state into a federal crime that somehow that's exacerbating the problem.
▶ 0:39:07I mean How so? How so? That this that the state would have the have the uh the burden, the ungodly burden of saying this person knew that the path that they're running was a closed path and so we can charge him with a crime.
▶ 0:39:34even though we didn't never have it marked and we we had a path there that had been used for 50 years. That's the kind of stuff where you go, what what are you thinking? What truly what are you thinking? This is the American jurisprudential way of of of uh of holding people accountable for criminal culpability. And that typically is going to you got to prove the actis rees you got to prove the culpable mental state.
▶ 0:40:01Everybody knows when you're prosecuting a case, you're counting the elements. You're looking at every element of the crime and you're going to prove every element of the crime and you're going to do it system systematically. That's that's what you do. But here we're saying what the Democrats are saying today is well, we think what what should happen there's literally hundreds of thousands of crimes with no men's ray in it.
▶ 0:40:23So what we want to do is count those first and in the years intervening while they're counting those then we're going to say well too bad too bad if if we're going to apply effectively a strict liability uh type of uh analysis to it because all they're going to look at is the actis reus and that's a problem. That's why you should pass this bill and I yield. Mr. Chairman, gentleman yields. Gentle lady from California is recognized.
▶ 0:40:50Uh, I' I'd just like to say I understand that gentleman from passion, but I think Ms. McBath has laid out a thoughtful and orderly way to accomplish our mutual goals in a way that will be successful and I think uh her uh presentation was very um orderly and persuasive and I would like to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Rascin. I I thank the gentle lady from California.
▶ 0:41:19Uh so uh the gentleman from Arizona has uh invoked our witness on his behalf. So I want to invoke his witness on our behalf because uh his witness Mr. J Carlo Canoparo said the first step toward solving this problem is to gain a clear sense of its magnitude and he argues precisely for uh the count the crimes act. I I I think maybe we're overstating the disagreement uh between us.
▶ 0:41:48the vast majority of offenses already have the men's rehea requirement that the gentleman from Arizona and I concur uh should be the the basis for uh federal criminal law. But uh for the young people present today and there seem to be a lot of them uh Mr. Chairman uh their eyes seem to be glazing over this is actually kind of an interesting thing we're talking about here and uh so let me uh let me try to revive my role as a law professor for one second.
▶ 0:42:17the criminal laws um uh have what's called a standard of culpability. What what does the prosecution have to prove in order to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a person's guilty? And for most of our crimes, it's already the rule that you have to show that the person acted willfully or knowingly.
▶ 0:42:37they knew what they were doing uh was uh they they they they acted knowingly with respect to every material element of the offense or they acted purposefully deliberately with respect to every part of the offense. But there are certain crimes that uh have negligence or strict liability as a standard. Okay? And u we don't even know what all of those are.
▶ 0:43:01That's why we want to count the crimes to round them all up so we don't uh you know engage in an exercise of pin the tail on the donkey where we're blindfolded and we're just saying well let's assign this level of culpability to particular offenses without knowing it. Well, what are some of the strict liability offenses? Well, one of them is selling alcohol to minors.
▶ 0:43:22If uh if so if a bar or a tavern is accused of selling alcohol to minors, they can't say, "Oh, I didn't know that that person was really 17." Uh well, but but but that is the law and that's a policy choice that's been made. And so there are policy choices that have been made like that. Statutory rape is another one.
▶ 0:43:46It doesn't if you have sex with a 15 or 16 year old, it does not have to be proven that you knew the person was 15 or 16. The burden is on you to determine it. That's a policy decision. You might disagree with that, uh, Mr. Biggs, but that was a policy decision made by the legislature.
▶ 0:44:05So I don't think we just want to say we are going to uh with a broad brush go out and overturn the level of culpability that has been assigned by prior legislatures to particular criminal offenses without looking at what they are and what that would mean. Possession of narcotics is another one. Um certain environmental crimes are strict liability offenses.
▶ 0:44:28Um, you can't say, "Well, I didn't know what the precise mixture of that toxic waste sludge was that I dumped into the lake or dumped into the land. You're strictly liable for it." That might be the right policy choice. It might be the wrong policy choice, but that's a policy decision. And now the suggestion is before even creating an inventory of all of these criminal offenses, we're just going to overturn what the existing level of culpability is built into the statute.
▶ 0:44:58And that's just a very, you know, I think a reckless way to go from a legislative perspective. Let's do let's inventory what all the crimes are. Let's count them up. Let's get them in front of us and then we can go one by one and act like legislators and say uh yeah we should go with the basic uh willfulness standard for menoa or there's a reason to keep a strict liability standard but I for one am not willing just to cast one
▶ 0:45:28vote and overturn the level of culpability and the handiwork of prior congresses and just saying we're going to go to this one particular gentleman yield. It's actually my time and I wanted to yield to the gentle lady from Georgia wanted just a final statement and thank you very much. And actually if you take a look it's actually the investigation is only for one year's time. Just one year's time. So you're not talking about an extended period of time.
▶ 0:45:58You're talking about one year's time to do the work that we need to do before we move for move forward. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from Texas recognized. I thank the chairman uh and I appreciate that we are here I think with at least some bipartisan agreement on the extent to which we have an overcriminalized uh federal government and an overcriminalization generally and that we need to review that and look at that. Now let's talk about the count the crimes act.
▶ 0:46:24This is legislation that I introduced I think 5 years ago something like that uh along with the current minority leader Hakee Jeff I who once served on this committee. I'm delighted to uh now have the legislation with the gentle lady from Georgia and we are in agreement on I think the goals of that legislation and I do think it's important but it will take time uh significant time and in fact I'm concerned that notwithstanding our passing the act which I hope we will do out of committee today and from the floor forth with
▶ 0:46:54and hopefully the senate will move it um previous efforts to count the crimes have failed miserably because there are so many of them and because it is so difficult to wrap wrap your arms around 5,500 crimes of varying natures and 300,000 pages of criminal codes and regulations that have now criminalized every act you can possibly imagine for the American people.
▶ 0:47:17And I think the issue here that when I support of course the count the crimes legislation but also the gentleman from Arizona's legislation on menrea is this is not a new issue. This is an issue that has been around for decades. There was committees that were formed in the 1970s to look at this. There have been bipartisan efforts over time with people ranging the political the ideological spectrum because of the importance of men's rehea. Now why does men'sa matter? Because you ought to know you ought to have to know the crime.
▶ 0:47:47You ought to have intent. You ought to have knowingly uh uh committed the crime. The various things that that we have put in the elements of various statutes, but not always. And that's the issue, right? And so what this is attempting to do is say, okay, there are in fact many statutes, including, by the way, a lot of the white collar crimes that the gentleman has alluded to, for example, the Clean Water Act, which has language in there, like knowingly.
▶ 0:48:12And and my concern here is that we have significant statutes and regulations that do not have that clarity. And the gentleman from Arizona, I think, is rightly trying to put the clarity in there. Um, for example, and I'd like to insert in the record without objection that uh or ask unanimous consent, I should say, to put in the record a a report from the right on crime organization. Congress needs to make up its mind men's rail reform and why it matters. Um, so I'd ask consent to do that. Objection.
▶ 0:48:40And and one of the things that they note in here is that criminal penalties were historically imposed for inherently immoral acts such as murder, arson, rape, immorality, some could say, um, can largely mimic rules to protect public safety. But nowadays, criminal penalties attached to a wide range of actions. Uh, take for example, uh, 18 USC 336, which makes it a federal misdemeanor to write a check for less than a sum of $1. Like, that's absurd. I mean, I'm sure some of the folks in the audience don't even know what a check is.
▶ 0:49:10But the fact is that's absurd to write a check for less than a dollar is a federal offense, right? So, you say, "All right, well, do you know that someone's out there and writes the check for 80 cents and somehow you've violated federal crime?" Or consider how a one-year penalty and man mandatory uh I'm sorry, penalty and monetary fine could apply if someone allows his cattle, horses, hogs, or other livestock on federal land for the purposes of destroying the grass or trees.
▶ 0:49:35Well, so for the purposes of destroying the grass or trees, these these laws are are concerning because they make Americans felons for nonviolent innocuous behavior. So these are the kinds of things that I think that we're trying to address. Um the men's rhea element is important and uh and uh I think that it's critically important that we have it without waiting to count the crimes. Uh with that I don't the gentleman the gentleman yield for a question. Well the gentleman from Arizona one at a time with respect to the ranking member. Yeah.
▶ 0:50:05So thank thanks for yielding. I I'm I just want to clarify that in the bill itself, it says any uh any element for which the text of the covered defense makes clear that Congress affirmatively intended not to require the government to prove any state of mind with respect to such element uh exempts you from the bill. So, so maybe some that should alleviate some of your concern. And then when you get to um our witness that you were asserting that he wanted us to count the crimes first.
▶ 0:50:35Let me let me read directly from his testimony. So where do we go from here? For for years now, my colleagues and I have asked the federal government to count, review, and cut the excess federal crimes in both the US code and in the CFR. Likewise, we have asked the government to adopt a default men's ray law, men's rail law that would apply some default intent requirement to any federal crime that lacks one. That's what this bill does.
▶ 0:50:59It's consistent with what the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers wants, what your witness wanted, what our witness wanted, and now we find you guys kind of changing your tune. Yield back. I yield back. Who else seeks recognition? U Mr. Rin, you seek recognition. Thank you, Mr. Isa. Yeah.
▶ 0:51:22Just if I understood my friend from Texas correctly, he was basically saying that the the job of counting the crimes is literally impossible because it's countless or it's infinite and it'll take forever. But I understand I didn't say impossible. I just said difficult. It will take some time. But but the the legislation calls for the count within one year. I get that. And uh and I hope it's successful. Yeah.
▶ 0:51:47Um, I I I mean, I think we're very close on this, but I I I think that to me it feels a little bit like legislating in the dark to say we're going to go ahead and alter the level of culpability assigned to every criminal statute um without even knowing which ones we're talking about. Would the gentleman yield? I know. And I would have liked to have yielded before, but I'd already agreed to yield to the the the sponsor. Yeah. Do do the gentleman because I think we're largely in agreement here. This is not a partisan issue, right?
▶ 0:52:14So I and I understand the gentleman's concern, but can we just the level set on the concerns? Do we not agree that the legislation specifically exempts laws that already have benzraa or have specifically said that we needn't have it? Would you show me that part? Can we look at that? I will defer to the sponsor.
▶ 0:52:45the timekeeper please suspend the time for a moment? Yeah, it needs to clear and it's the ranking members time. I've backed up. Uh so yeah, the the prior the prior language says the bottom of four shall not apply with respect to any element for which the text of the covered offense makes clear that Congress affirmatively intended not to require the government to prove any state of mind with respect to
▶ 0:53:15such element. Um and if if the gentleman doesn't think that suffices, then we we could try to modify that. But I I would think that that I I read it as sufficing. Well, what if the the Congress affirmatively intended for the government to prove In other words, negligence is a lower standard of culpability than willfulness, but it's higher than strict liability. So, that seems to slip out of there, right?
▶ 0:53:47And that there are Would you yield for just a question? Yes. Would it not then specifically stay say in the text negligently and thus be this language would be otherwise sufficient? Well, but that's what I I just don't know. I'm not because negligence is not taking any is not acting reasonably. So it that's not exactly a state of mind. So the all Yeah.
▶ 0:54:14But as the law as a law professor, when you're teaching uh c the criminal code, for instance, in Maryland, which is very similar to Arizona, because they've adopted the uniform criminal code, you're you're teaching four different culpable mental states. That's specific to every state code. And one of those is criminal negligence. One of them is recklessness. Yeah. Is knowing, and one is intent.
▶ 0:54:39So, so yeah, you you're dealing with that c those culpable mental states, but you're also not talking about strict liability too much because a strict liability statute typically will say it's a strict li it it will have indishia in it just like it would that on recklessness. I guess my question for you is is negligence a state of mind or is it not a state of mind in within the terms of this legislation?
▶ 0:55:07I I I think that case law is pretty clear that they they it's treated as a state of mind that okay I I guess this is what makes me nervous just about legislating uh in advance with respect to a number of statutes and I I do want to point out to my friend this is a minority of statutes. The vast majority of them either have a defined willfulness standard or that's imputed by the courts.
▶ 0:55:32So we're talking that it should not be that hard to count these up and look at them and then we can make a specific judgment about whether negligence or strict liability or some other standards appropriate. Just two two quick points. An example of this would be 18 uh USC 1115 which talks specifically of say misconduct or negligence. It it it says it in there but that's the statutory. So when you reference and you say uh it shouldn't be that hard.
▶ 0:55:58Ask Congressional uh service CRS, ask them why don't you how many um statute statutory visav regulatory crimes there are. And they they told us multiple times when we asked there's more than 300,000. They have no idea how many there are. And that means that to count them within a year um for a year you're not going to have some you won't have a men's race status in most of those. Number one.
▶ 0:56:27Number two, when you don't get them all counted within a year, what happens then? You got to keep doing it that way and still go without a men's ray requirement that basically everybody who practices in this area has said you need a men's ray standard. Well, but I guess my response I ask unanimous consent the gentleman have an additional one minute. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:56:49Look, I think we should give it a try and we should see if we can actually inventory the statute so we can look at them to see what we're talking about because uh otherwise it to me it feels like we're legislating in the dark. It's like we've turned the lights off and then we just say let's change uh the culpability standard for all these statutes. We don't even know how many there are or what fields they're in and we'll do that. And as you know, even the question of legislative intent can be indeterminate and inscrutable sometimes.
▶ 0:57:19So even trying to interpret whether what Congress was thinking may be difficult. And I'm not even clear from this language whether negligence is something that we would hold harmless and free from this process or we would incorporate into it. So, um, again, I I don't think we're that far away, and I think we can get this done in this Congress, but, um, you know, for me, I just don't feel sufficient clarity as to what we're do doing.
▶ 0:57:49We're saying it's a job so mammoth that we can't even count these laws, and yet then we want to go ahead and legislate with respect to them without studying, you know, the particular dynamics of of that legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Who else seeks Gentleman from Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I've been listening carefully to this and it's a bit of a sense of deja vu for me.
▶ 0:58:16In I think it was 2009 or 2010, we recottified our criminal code in the state of Kansas. I was in the state senate then and we went through exactly this discussion. Um actually, if my memor is right, I think I was the only no vote on recodifying, but it wasn't because of this issue. that had other issues.
▶ 0:58:34And I I I guess I'm a little bit puzzled by the discussion and maybe I would ask the gentleman from Arizona or from Maryland to help me understand where I'm where I'm missing the point The I'm looking at the amendment in the nature of a substitute. And I'm looking at the top of page three, lines 1 through five, which defines the term state of mind and sets out seven specific states of mind. We have four in Kansas, consistent with what the gentleman from Arizona suggested.
▶ 0:59:04One of which is negligently. And then I'm looking at the bottom of that page, lines 23 24, and then the next page, the completion of that paragraph, which I think is the heart of the bill. It sets out a default rule, as I understand, the gentleman from Arizona, the gentleman from Texas, that if there isn't a state of mind expressed by the creator of the statute, then the default is knowingly. We could change that for any statute we wanted, but it sets out a default.
▶ 0:59:33And I I guess my question for the gentleman from Arizona, and this is where I'm I'm Isn't it the case now that if there is no state of mind expressed in the statute or in the rule or in whatever it is that's being alleged to have been violated, somebody has to fill in the blank on what state of mind applies. And that often occurs in the course of litigation about enforcement or otherwise.
▶ 1:00:00And and isn't it the case that all this does is have Congress express that if we haven't otherwise expressed a state of mind, the courts are supposed to default to knowingly unless and until we specify otherwise. Isn't that all this bill does? And I I uh if you'll yield. Um please. That is the intent and I think that's the way it way way it's written and I think that's what it is.
▶ 1:00:26If if there is a lack of expression in the statutory or regulatory scheme with regard to that crime as to what the culpable mental state's going to be, which we which we iterate in here, which is consistent with the federal laws, is a little bit odd compared to the state laws, but yeah, then you're going to default to knowingly because as Mr.
▶ 1:00:51John Carlo said uh he said if the criminal law extends to accidental violations of arcane policy rules, the person probably doesn't know that they are in violation of the crime. And thus the old axiom uh ignorance of the law is no defense goes down the toilet. And he didn't say down the toilet. That's me saying. But the point is, yeah, that's why it's there. And you're exactly right. That's the nub of it. So, Mr.
▶ 1:01:18Chairman, reclaiming my time just to be sure I understand for the gentleman from Arizona. So, in the event we had a current law crime, say an environmental crime, which is the classic example here, that is strict liability and if Congress has said this is a strict liability crime, nothing in this bill changes that. Isn't that correct? And I would yield to the gentleman. That's correct. Okay. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would the gentleman yield? Absolutely.
▶ 1:01:45Um, for the ranking member as he he goes through is it is it really just that you need further clarification of you're not objecting to the default, but you're objecting to a basis under which it would be considered absent. Yeah, the thank you.
▶ 1:02:04Um, and to go to the gentleman's question, the I understood the current rule to be that the the courts will say if there's silence in the statute that willfulness is the general standard. Now, so that knowledge or deliberate or deliberate purposeful action are already required.
▶ 1:02:25I understood the purpose of this bill to uh state to basically take away from the court the ability to determine whether there was a legislative intent to the contrary because it's a regulatory statute, an environmental statute or what have you.
▶ 1:02:45And so we would run over the normal rules of judicial interpretation and statutory construction that a court would be deploying. And that that's why I think we should look more specifically at what the statutes are. I believe if all the legislation is intended to do is what the gentleman from Arizona said, I think that's already the law.
▶ 1:03:09That is courts will say if there's no telling what it is then given you know the doctrine of lenity and due process it must be shown that the person acted with specific intent with at least knowledge with respect to every element of the fence. And what I what makes me nervous is just that there are lots of different elements in any particular offense. Take uh you know environmental fence like you dumping in a river.
▶ 1:03:35Um, are we saying there's got to be knowledge that what you put in was toxic? Do we need to do you have to show that there was knowledge that this was a waterway covered by federal law? Does there need to be uh knowledge that the effect of this would be a harm to the public health? What which elements of the offense does the level of culpability carry over to?
▶ 1:04:00And I just feel like we're making one big decision for every statute right now without even looking at how it would affect particular laws. I thank the gentleman. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this bill. Let's look at let's not get caught up in the weeds on this. Um, you know, there is a lot of verbiage in the uh legislation that can be confusing.
▶ 1:04:29particularly to uh lay people. But what doesn't confuse lay people is the time that we're living in. the time that we're living in now and why this legislation would come forward during this time, a time of unprecedented corruption at the top levels of government and at a time where Congress has sherked its responsibility to be a check and balance on
▶ 1:05:00the executive branch and instead is simply a rubber stamp to an And this authoritarian with a playbook, Project 2025, knows exactly what he wants from Congress. And Congress so far has been pretty complicit uh in carrying out his bidding.
▶ 1:05:23And as a former criminal defense attorney, I might seem like an easy yes on this bill, but this bill is not about giving everyone a fair shot in the justice in the justice system. No, this bill is about aiding the Trump administration's continued efforts to let whitecollar criminals off the hook. And by the way, I'd be remiss for not pointing out the lawlessness of this president.
▶ 1:05:50When the first day he's in office, he grants pardons and clemency to 1600 plus January 6 insurrectionists without regard to culpability, without regard to knowledge and intent. Um, he just did that and has continued to do it uh throughout his reign so far.
▶ 1:06:14Trump's Department of Justice has also gutted the top anti-corruption unit in the Department of Justice. They've removed power. They've removed its power to charge politicians and public officials for bribery and extortion and reduced its staff from 30 attorneys down to five.
▶ 1:06:39And I would also be remiss if I were not to point out the fact that this administration, which leads this Congress, also uh let uh a criminal defendant off the hook for a promise to open up uh Riker's Island uh you know, for uh to carry out uh deportations, the mass deportation movement.
▶ 1:07:06Um just uh closed down that case just for that A lawless uh administration, the Trump administration also disbanded anti-corruption task forces, suspended any investigations of United States companies for alleged corruption overseas, and directed prosecutors to stop litigating fraud involving and I and again,
▶ 1:07:37you know, involve this administration in cryptocurrency along with this Congress. Uh this bill is just a handout to Trump's cronies who do not want to be charged with crimes like tax evasion as we pass a massive tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
▶ 1:07:58It's a giveaway to corporate fat cats who want to line their pockets by polluting our air and our water to cut their cost. And if we hamstring the government's ability to charge these corporations for things like environmental crimes, big business will increase their profits by dumping more toxic waste into water. and Americans will pay with their health when these chemicals cause cancer.
▶ 1:08:28But you won't have a health system to get treated by because uh they're cutting Medicaid, they're cutting Medicare. And as a result of withdrawing that much money, trillions of dollar a trillion.5 from our health care system, hospitals and clinics and doctor's offices are going to be closing. So while these polluters are let off the hook criminally, uh the people will suffer.
▶ 1:08:57Uh so let's look at this bill Let's look at it at this time when it's being introduced and let's ask ourselves why now. Uh this is not a serious effort. I'm in favor of bipartisan criminal justice reform, but this is not it. And I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 1:09:21Before we seek further recognition, I've been informed by the ranking member that uh if the uh proponent would uh work with them in good faith to go over cases that have already been decided that are in case law that may uh genuinely uh give an opportunity for a friendly amendment on the floor that they'd be uh they'd be willing to bring this to a close for today. and uh and then we'd move the bill and and move on.
▶ 1:09:50Would the gentleman uh opine on that, please? Yeah. Thank you. I you know um I'm I'm going to let the last commentators it didn't it didn't happen. So please continue. Pretend it didn't happen because it's so idiotic. But the that's just impossible to do at this point. The bill has already been rung and I'm glad to have rung it and I'll The gentleman is not recognized. Please continue. Yeah. Thank you.
▶ 1:10:14I would just point out to the ranking member uh I think his his concerns are assuaged on page five or the ANS where it talks about um any element of a covered offense to the extent that applying subsections B2 and BC2 and C to such element would lessen the degree of middle culpability the government is required to prove with respect to that element under either a president the Supreme Court of the United States or any other provision of this title or an act of Congress.
▶ 1:10:43I'm willing to work in good faith. Um I'm not sure you you're going to have to designate someone, Mr. Ranking member, who can work in good faith because the made about this bill, which were so absurd uh by the the gentleman from Georgia, uh makes me call into question. I I don't question you, Mr.
▶ 1:11:08ranking member because I think you could you and I could work in good faith to see if there's an issue that that we can resolve but but uh I otherwise I I I I thank the gentleman for just a moment the ranking member so so there's a Supreme Court case called United States versus excitement video which found that this that there's a standard presumption in favor of a scient requirement which is a specific intent requirement which is purposefulness willfulness knowledge
▶ 1:11:39Okay. Um, unless there's a contrary congressional intent that's been indicated. So, that's I think the the burden of the legislation and I think it's the current law. The the part that's making me nervous is is congressional intent with respect to prior statutes.
▶ 1:11:57to say you're in a field where traditionally Congress has understood that the courts will treat it as a strict liability offense, say a dumping offense in the environmental field, but they don't specify it. So, it's not it's no longer in the language of the statute because the Congress has taken it for granted that the courts will interpret it this way. It seems to me that the bill at that point would override it because of the silence of the statute on the question. That's why I'm going to want to look at it.
▶ 1:12:27And you know, the the the chairman's very kind to suggest that maybe we could work it out. The problem is that uh because of the proliferation of statutes, we don't know exactly what we're talking about. And that's why I feel so strongly about the bipartisan bill we've got to count the crimes to put them in front of us so we could check it out. But I I'm certain at the end of the day, we're going to get to the same place on this. Okay. Uh, I believe that's an offer by the ranking member to work directly uh between now and the time this bill comes to the floor. Does the gentleman agree to that?
▶ 1:12:58I'm certainly willing to talk and I I appreciate that. In that case, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it, the eyes have it, and the substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? No.
▶ 1:13:26In the opinion, the chair, the eyes have it. The eyes have it. And the bill is ordered. Reported favorably to the house. Members will have I request a recorded vote. Mr. The ranking member requests a reported vote. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, yes. Mr. Isa votes yes. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. McCcleinto. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy. I. Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr.
▶ 1:13:57Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Vandrew. Yes. Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kylie. Miss Hagaman. Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Kn I. Mr. Knott votes I. Mr. Harris, I. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander, hi.
▶ 1:14:27Mr. Ander votes I. Mr. Schmidt, I. Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill votes I. Mr. Bumgardner. Mr. Bumgardner votes I. Mr. Raskin. No. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Offran Miss Offran votes no. Mr. Cohen Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Mr. Lou Mr. Lou votes no. Miss Gyipol Mr. Koreah.
▶ 1:14:58Miss Scandan. Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Negus. Miss Mcbath. Miss Mcbath votes no. Miss Ross no. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballant. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove Miss Camlager Dove votes no. Mr. Mosquitz Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Goldman Maul, you're not recorded. Miss Dryaw votes no.
▶ 1:15:30Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes yes. clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 eyes and 13 nos. Uh the amendment nature substitute is adopted.
▶ 1:16:00The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views without objection. The bill reported as a single amendment the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice I call up HR98 to end Endless Criminal Statutes Act for purpose of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill HR98. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:16:30Chairman. I I'm glad at least there's comedy in the sense that uh we have too many federal crimes. According to one study, the average American commits three felonies per day, which does not consider the overwhelming number of misdemeanors or civil violations. In some instances, the laws are so obscure and vague that even law enforcement and federal agencies are unaware that they exist. The American people should not be burdened with frivolous and unnecessary federal laws they don't even know exist.
▶ 1:16:59So, I appreciate my colleagues have said they want to just wait until we've counted all these. This bill is just to to highlight uh several of these most egregious and crazy um felonies that exist there and to eliminate them. That's what you can do. You can eliminate some of those crimes. So, here's here's what you're going to be eliminating. Writing a check for less than a dollar. And I understand that my colleague, Mr. Mcccleintoch, he wrote nothing.
▶ 1:17:28He routinely tips with a check for under a buck. That's so That's not true. That's not true. Yeah. Number two, selling or possessing colored olio margin or colored margin unless they are packaged and labeled or served in a triangular shape. Discarding produce without sufficient cause or making a false reper report concerning that produce. Removing a stamp from any mail matter. making metal coins of original design or attempting to use such coins.
▶ 1:17:58Detaining a seaman's clothing. Boarding any vessel about to arrive at a destination before such arrival is actually complete. And the last one here, sledding on the capital grounds when the capital police are directed to prevent any portion of the capital grounds from being used as a playground. These are absurdist um overreach. their crimes and this bill would repeal those. It's that simple. I yield back.
▶ 1:18:28Uh gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there as I understand uh the gentleman's legislation? Uh it's an attempt to um preempt or perhaps um foreshadow what might happen once we actually pass the uh count the crimes act.
▶ 1:18:52At that point we would be able to make uh a holistic comprehensive judgment about certain statutes which maybe should just be retired completely. We should repeal them. They should be altered. They should be subsumed. They should be merged or what have you. It looks like if I'm understanding the gentleman correctly, he's gone through some of them and he is intending to make a handful of changes uh to them. And again, um we think this is putting the cart before the horse.
▶ 1:19:22Let's actually engage in the process that's called for by the uh count the crimes to cut act of 2025. Let's do it in a systematic and thorough way. Um, we we've not done a specific study of the legislative history of these particular statutes. We've not done a study, at least I've not done a study of the case law that's arisen out of them. I don't know that there are specific emergency problems relating to any of them.
▶ 1:19:48And I would rather not sidetrack us from the main job here, which is let's try to look at the entire thing. Um and in reaching out to the seven different committees uh who have expertise in the specific subject matter um affected by this bill and particular provisions, we've heard concerns that the bill would do more harm than good. Um we understand the legislation is opposed by the US Capital Police, the architect of the capital and the maritime unions. I don't know why.
▶ 1:20:16Um those are just the few that we've heard from about these. Again, I'd rather proceed in a methodical, systematic, and comprehensive way rather than take a scattershot approach. Would the gentleman yield? Yes, happy to yield. I just wanted to I think it's I think it's opening statements. Oh, it's opening statements. I'll be happy to. That's all right. I'm so sorry. I would have liked to have yield, but I'm going to yield back to you. We'll uh we'll we'll get to all that. I think the I think the gentleman is recognized. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Arizona to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 1:20:46Clerk will report amendment in the nature of objection. amendment nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of amendment. The chair recognized a gentleman from Arizona to explain the amendment. I think we just made a technical change or two in here and it's otherwise the same. Okay. Now, who seeks recognition, the gentle lady from California is recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:21:05I just as a former chair of the House administration committee with oversight over the Capitol police, I wanted to briefly address the issue the sledding issue because as I understand it, the bill actually repeals to USC 1963 which states it shall be the duty of the capital police on and after April 29th, 1876 to prevent any portion of the capital grounds and terraces from being used as playgrounds or otherwise
▶ 1:21:36so far as may be necessary to protect the public property, turf, and grass from destruction or injury. I think the repeal of the statute actually does more than what is intended, which is to let when it snows to let people on Capitol Hill go with their kids and sled down the hill. Everybody thinks that's fine, but I think the statute provides authority for the Capitol Police to take additional steps to secure the facility.
▶ 1:22:07And I think that would be a mistake. And we all know that the threat level is very high. It's not the sledds that we're worried about, but there are other threats that the Capitol Police need to be able to uh anticipate and protect us from. So I think um I'm concerned about this provision and I'm also concerned I represent an area uh with um well it's a lettuce bowl of the world.
▶ 1:22:37I mean Selenus Valley produces most of the lettuce and spinach uh consumed in the United States. What would be making a false report concerning produce constitute? There's a very intricate system set up that is supported by health officials as well as growers to identify um problematic produce.
▶ 1:23:01I mean it's you know you can get um a toxic in produce uh you know despite your best efforts you know birds fly over h head and and you know poop on the lettuce and you can't necessarily you know protect against that and yet it could have um a health implication. So, I I would like to know a lot more about this before I could say yesh to it in addition to the capital police issue.
▶ 1:23:31And with that, Mr. would the gentle lady yield? I would be happy to yield. Thank you so much for that detailed microscopic inspection of what this big bill would do with respect to that particular law because I think there are nine or 10 different laws that would be affected in the same way that the gentleman started off with um uh the reference to writing a check for less than $1. And again, we haven't studied this. We haven't had a hearing on about it. So I'm just I'm just reading from the language of the statute.
▶ 1:24:01But the statute itself appears to be about counterfeiting. Whoever makes issues, circulates, or pays out any note, check, memorandum, token, or other obligation for less sum than a dollar intended to circulate as money or to be received or used in lie of lawful money shall be fined uh or imprisoned under this title. So, I don't think that the intended prohibited conduct is writing a check for less than a dollar. It's counterfeiting for less than a dollar.
▶ 1:24:30And again, I don't know the legislative history to determine why they needed to do it for under a dollar. Maybe it was a dollar and above and then people were creating false coins, counterfeit coins or what have you. In any event, we haven't studied it. We haven't looked at and that's the problem with uh putting the cart before the horse. that is uh rushing to get to the end of this process.
▶ 1:24:50Believe me, I'm as eager as all of my colleagues to find out, you know, all of the unnecessary, antiquated, outommed, outdated, obsolete, obsolescent laws that are out there. Let's get it done. Let's go through it. Let's repeal the ones that we no longer need. Let's merge the ones that can be merged and uh let's keep the ones or improve the ones that that we don't. But we the problem is is that we haven't done the study yet.
▶ 1:25:19Reclaiming my time, the gentleman raises an additional issue which is it's less than a dollar, but what would be the impact on crypto that declines in value? I don't I think that's you know we're in a big debate on what to do in regulatory uh mode on the crypto industry.
▶ 1:25:38We rely very heavily on the financial services committee for guidance on that and I I don't know what the answer is but I think it's a provocative question without an answer at this point and additional you know some of the other things I think you know look reasonable but um you know we don't want to um you don't want to make a mistake and I think you know the bipartisan bill to actually do the
▶ 1:26:08analysis within a year would make sure that we don't do mistaken efforts. So with that, I I yield back. Gentle yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized. I I thank the chairman. I'm going to speak briefly in favor of this um and tell a little story. Uh when I came to Congress, one of my classmates that entered the same year was Jeff Flake who had headed up the Goldwater Institute, went on to be a senator and then an ambassador.
▶ 1:26:37And uh then Congressman Flake used to go to the House floor to the chagrin of people including Zolafgrren and myself and he would find the most obscure grants that threw money at things.
▶ 1:26:51I remember one time it was a study to uh to look at the effects of malt liquor and marijuana on college Um now there were some who thought that it needed to be studied further but none of us that went to college uh had any doubt but he found these uh he once found one about the perfect Christmas tree to the chagrin of the North Carolina delegation.
▶ 1:27:16Each time we voted those on the floor, the one thing we discovered was there was merit to finding anecdotal examples of things that were not necessary. And uh Congressman Flake uh said to me one time, "Well, I use the there but for standard.
▶ 1:27:36There but for this grant, there but for this bill, would we somehow have a disaster?" And I would take for example here today there but for a specific rule on the ability to stop sledding in these winters we no longer seem to have enough of for sledge to occur.
▶ 1:27:55Uh the uh there but four, would the Capitol police be unable to stop There but four, would are there no other rules or regulations, duplicates, triplicates that would allow the Coast Guard to to stop somebody from doing something nefarious before the ship lands?
▶ 1:28:14And the answer is of course we could go through each of these but I think all of them would pass the there but for this bill you would still be able to be unable to name an offense that wouldn't be covered by a host of other laws. And so I'm going to vote for this not because it's a big bill. Matter of fact to my gentleman from Arizona and my friend this is about the smallest request I've ever seen come out of him.
▶ 1:28:41This is really so much lowhanging fruit because these are the bills that that are a starting point for why do we need to have duplicates, triplicates, quadruplicates. It is the reason that often people don't know there's a law about it. Uh when I first came to Congress, they usually talked about Catholics doing something in New York on on on Sundays or something uh that was still on the books.
▶ 1:29:08But for all the young people that have been pointed out here today, we don't do enough elimination of obsolete regulations, obsolete laws because they are burdensome. And I do support along with my colleague from Arizona and others here, I do support the idea that we should have the study done. We should see to the greatest extent possible the additional items.
▶ 1:29:31But don't let the perfect that you're is your goal, the 300,000 you want to eliminate stand in the way of looking at each of these and asking the simply there but for this law is there somehow a criminal a terrible heinous crime that will not be punished or prevented. And I think you'll find that basically there but for these bills we could still uh in fact punish them. Would the gentleman from Arizona concur with that? Yeah. Yes.
▶ 1:30:01Uh and well said and the only thing I would add is that when I hear that we haven't studied this or we didn't have a hearing on this. We actually did May 7th we had a hearing on this bill with witnesses and and didn't they not they noted some of the ones you brought up? They indeed noted these uh these right here. Thank you. Will the gentleman yield? Uh, of course I would yield. Yes. So, basically what I'm, if I interpreted your your statement, we should be able to secure the capital without criminalizing sledding. Is that correct? That's correct.
▶ 1:30:32The the authority to for the capital police quite frankly to escort anyone other than members with their pins off the grounds exists already. They have complete authority. Uh, and it is a crime not to obey a Capitol policeman who tells you to leave. Uh, I I I remember a a a special select committee that studied that in detail not long Yield back. And with that, I yield back. Gentle lady from Georgia is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:31:03Um, I do want to associate myself with the remarks of ranking member Rascin. I agree that we do need real solutions to address the harms of overcriminalization and mass incarceration that particularly fall on the communities of color and affect all of us by eroding trust in our criminal justice system. We should always be looking for bipartisan evidence-based solutions to make our community safer.
▶ 1:31:28And this legislation to repeal time to repeal nine completely unrelated criminal provisions clearly fails to meet this standard. Ranking member Rascin highlighted a few of the provisions that this bill would actually repeal and I would like to address another. This bill would repeal section 1963 of title two, a provision dating back to 1876 that actually I'm going to quote for you.
▶ 1:31:57It says, "It shall be the duty of the capital police on and after April 29, 1876 to prevent any portion of the capital grounds and terraces from being used as playgrounds or otherwise so far as may be necessary to protect the public property, turf, and grass from destruction or injury." End quote.
▶ 1:32:18Uh the findings section of the bill and press releases in support of it emphasize that the reason to repeal this provision is to decriminalize sledding. But this language doesn't include sledding at all and it doesn't criminalize any particular activity. Rather, it instructs the capital police to protect the capital grounds.
▶ 1:32:40Congress enacted this law, the Turf Protection Act, following the destruction of the grass after 10,000 children came to play um and roll Easter eggs on the grass. While acknowledging that it was a a joy to watch the kids, senators noted that the crowds were particularly damaging to the sloped areas of grass and that the damage done cost thousands of dollars to repair.
▶ 1:33:07They don't cite a specific cost, but $1,000 in 1876 is equivalent to about $30,000 today. So, we're talking about a big cost to taxpayers then and now. One senator noted that the grounds were also damaged by frequent cattle crossings and argued it was important to give police the duty to prevent them and to protect the monuments across the capital grounds.
▶ 1:33:32The turf protection act was passed and the tradition that eventually became the official White House Easter egg rule moved across the mall to a flat lawn that was less susceptible to damage. Today, Capitol police no longer have to prevent cows from coming across the lawn, but they still rely on this authority to protect the capital grounds in a wide variety of ways.
▶ 1:33:56They use this authority to promulgate regulations that prohibit skateboarding, ice skating, kite flying, and the use of model airplanes, model cars, and drones on the Capitol grounds, as well as to control concerts and special events. These regulations protect the grounds from damage that promote safety, public safety for people's cars and pedestrians, and even security implications.
▶ 1:34:22These regulations do prohibit sledding, but as the press release for this bill readily acknowledges, the sledding prohibition is not enforced because annual appropriations report language typically directs capital police not to enforce it.
▶ 1:34:38It is our understanding that both the Capitol Police and the architect of the capital oppose this legislation because there are but for repealing this law which has been in place for almost 150 years would limit this ability to protect the grounds and leave them with no recourse if damage occurs.
▶ 1:34:59Since the bill's sponsor agrees that no one is convicted of sledding, this bill is a solution in search of a problem when it comes to sledding and importantly, it is no solution at all with respect to overcriminalization and mass incarceration. I oppose this legislation and I encourage Would the gentleman yield? Yes, I yield. I I'd just like to thank you for that history lesson. It was very interesting.
▶ 1:35:25Uh I think you know mostly you know we could say um the cap sledding should be permitted unless the police uh feel that there is a security issue that would uh prevent it. That would be something we could all agree to. But the fact that the Capitol police charged with protecting us oppose this should be um a warning to us that there's this is more problematic than it's being uh discussed.
▶ 1:35:55And I'm sure that that's not the intent of the author, but we ought to pay attention to the law enforcement people who oppose this while understanding we're not opposed to this sledding. And I thank the gentle lady for yielding. Abs. Absolutely. I think we ought to pay attention to law enforcement. They are here to protect and serve this capital and every single one of us here every day. And with that, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Johnson or the gentleman from Florida. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:36:25Chairman. You know, I was listening to the the ranking member talking about, you know, like going through things and doing like a comprehensive review and then it it dawned on me that Governor Biggs had accomplished something big today, which was this is the first bill they've brought on efficiency. Took six months to do efficiency. Talked a lot about efficiency.
▶ 1:36:47Um, so congratulate uh, Representative Bigs and the uh, for finally doing something efficient. You're shrinking some statutes. It's small, but you got to start someplace. I mean, you know, L Lord knows you you didn't you didn't make the Newark airport more efficient or FEMA, you know, or Congress. Um, no. So, I just, you know, I just wanted to give you your moment, you know, that you're that you're you're leading it off.
▶ 1:37:17And I think the folks in Arizona can look forward to this sort of this leadership for you on on yield. Sure. Yeah. I appreciate that. I appreciate the acknowledgement that this bill is making things more efficient. I do find it ironic though that all the Democrats oppose that kind of efficiency and that but and it's actually well reclaiming my time. We can disagree on how we make things more efficient. Right.
▶ 1:37:41But I just I want to congratulate you that finally a Republican has said enough of this inefficiency we've been doing for 6 months. I finally want to I want to I want to do what we said we were going to do that we haven't done for 6 months. But but now today is the day. So I just wanted to congratulate the governor. I think this will be a big part of his platform uh about you know trying to find ways where we can you know make government better for for the people. So thank you. I yield back. Mr.
▶ 1:38:13Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. Real quick, real quickly. Couldn't let it go. We mentioned Newark airport. The problems in Newark Airport, just to be accurate though, just and and we're kind of having fun today with all of us. Um were there.
▶ 1:38:28I mean uh when the responsibility of New York airport for air traffic control was shifted from New York to Philadelphia uh back in the previous administration they didn't make sure that the proper fiber optic was there they had decaying copper they had issues they didn't have the stars program and they were not ready to deal with this increase in air traffic so those problems you know it's one thing a problem can actually you rear
▶ 1:38:58its ugly head in one administration, but all and everything that led up to the issues there, including not the proper funding for the FAA that went on through a number of years in the past administration as well were all there, all caused by the previous administration. Uh, and just to be accurate, had nothing to do uh with efficiency or lack of time. I yield. It's funny because if we're going back to the previous administration, the administration before that, right?
▶ 1:39:27The this, you know, two administrations ago, they had like infrastructure week every week. Never passed an infrastructure bill. Never did anything for any of the airports in America, even though we were always celebrating infrastructure week. So, if we're just going to if we're going to say previous administrations led us up to that point, I America was not founded in the 2020. I I will reclaim my time.
▶ 1:39:50And let me say that's why the gentleman from Florida should be, as Hubert Humphrey used to say, way before our time, pleased as punch that right now there's a record amount of money going into the FAA and that all these infrastructure issues are going to be dealt with and all the modernization needs to be done will be dealt with as well. So, I'm sure the gentleman is pleased at that. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:40:17Gentleman from I thought the gentleman from Georgia was trying to get in there. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized. Thank you uh Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this Um, you know, we've charged uh the Trump administration, which by the way, I have reason to believe gives clearance to the uh meeting agendas in House committees under Republican control
▶ 1:40:47in this rubber stamp Congress. I'm sure that before these measures come to our attention that they have to be cleared by the Almighty. Uh I have reason to believe that um that is the case. And so the Almighty is in support of end endless criminal statutes the act.
▶ 1:41:13Why would uh the Almighty be in favor of this act at this time? this act which seeks to uh address criminal statutes like writing a check for less than a dollar. Well, you know, writing a bad check or a fraudulent check for less than a dollar, that should have some consequences.
▶ 1:41:37And I don't uh I mean, you can write a million checks, you can write a you can write a billion checks for a dollar. You should be held accountable for writing a billion checks just as you should be accountable for for writing one bad check even though it's for a dollar.
▶ 1:41:58But this under this unprecedented corruption that we're seeing today, nothing is out of the question uh in terms of illegality, how far uh the Almighty will go uh in terms of illegality. Would he remove a stamp from a uh from any mail matter, which is another uh example given in this legislation that they want to uh rescend that criminal law?
▶ 1:42:28Making metal coins of original design. Does that sound crypto to you? uh making metal coins of original design like a meme coin or attempting to use such coins, making that uh legal. That's what this legislation would do in addition to other quote efficiencies uh that the bill uh is introduced uh to address.
▶ 1:42:58These inefficiencies include uh some laws that have real such as reducing the safety of our food and possibly allowing counterfeiters to go unpunished rather than poking fun at federal laws. We should be serious in this endeavor. Let us have a study on whether these crimes are being charged.
▶ 1:43:24Let's talk to the relevant committees of jurisdiction and let's look at it more holistically at uh uh than what we're doing with just passing this legislation. Clearly, these offenses are not the primary drivers of overcriminalization and mass I would love to work on bigger problems like mandatory minimum sentences, prison and understaffing, insufficient resources for
▶ 1:43:54or the many ways in which people are inappropriately funneled into the criminal justice system instead of being offered mental health treatment, drug treatment, or housing assistance. So, let us focus on the real drivers of mass incarceration instead of passing a bill that has not been appropriately discussed or studied. I will oppose this bill. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition. And with that, M would the gentleman yield?
▶ 1:44:23I I I will yield to Thank you for that very thoughtful statement, Mr. Johnson. I I very much appreciate your perspective on it. Um, look, in the last 10 or 15 minutes, we've talked about snowball fights uh on the Capitol. We've talked about writing 99 cent checks. We've talked about uh selling or possessing colored oolio margarine or margarine uh package in a certain way.
▶ 1:44:47Um, you know, if if I were back in um Annapolis in the state legislature, all they would cut this off as not within a single subject rule because we're talking about 10 different things. And so I appreciate the spirit with which it's brought forward to demonstrate to people that there are some laws which may be antiquated which might need to be updated or scrapped altogether but this is not the proper uh process that we should be pursuing to study that we should get all those together do a systematic inventory.
▶ 1:45:17If we can do one big omnibus bill, great. But if not, as the gentleman from Georgia said, what we're doing is violence to whatever the legislative history that led up to those particular things. And the committees of jurisdiction don't know anything about the fact that we're considering these bills. Yield back and thank the gentleman. I yield back. I'm move to strike the last question. Gentleman's recognized. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:45:40You know, I I was looking at the title of this bill, uh, End Endless Criminal Statues Statutes Act, um, and I thought, all right, this is could be a real serious effort to streamline uh, our criminal code. Uh, it obviously is not.
▶ 1:46:00It's somewhat silly uh that we're dealing with these things uh which I am almost positive uh have never been charged and we're not actually evaluating the the crimes the serious crimes that are out there that are not being charged.
▶ 1:46:23Um, one such crime that uh is not mentioned here that was historically not charged is uh title 8 section uh the US code section 1325 uh which is a misdemeanor for illegally entering the country.
▶ 1:46:45Uh traditionally uh that is always dealt with by the immigration courts but uh not under the most recent administration, former administration, but the one before that uh where when the current president was also the president. All of a sudden, that criminal provision was used repeatedly.
▶ 1:47:09And it was used solely so that uh criminal law enforcement agents could arrest people entering the the country uh who have had no crime other than they entered the country, which um they you know, understandably there's a good argument they should not have done that. And that's why the immigration courts uh have dealt with that traditionally.
▶ 1:47:37But by being arrested, they were then put in a criminal jail, not immigration detention. And you cannot go into a criminal jail with your family. You have to go separately.
▶ 1:47:55And so this was how the family and child separation policy was executed by using a previously unused misdemeanor statute not designed to actually penalize anyone, but really designed as part of a policy to separate families.
▶ 1:48:19So, I I don't know why we're we're dealing with these nine things when, you know, I would be happy to bet Mr. Big's uh lunch at the members dining room uh that none of these have been charged.
▶ 1:48:34Um, but we're not dealing with other statutes that are not being charged but should be, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which I'm sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know is a primary statute used very frequently by the Department of Justice to prevent companies doing business in the United States from bribing foreign governments in in order to
▶ 1:49:04get business. Now, that seems like an important statute. We should not be condoning and supporting uh companies doing business in America, including American companies, from using to get business.
▶ 1:49:24Uh it would seem that that would be the type of corruption that the United States has traditionally discouraged and even threatened other countries to address and to deal with in order to have our support because it is of course anti-democratic.
▶ 1:49:45And yet this administration has actually made a an announcement an announcement an actual policy decision that it is not going to charge the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is going it has given license to any company doing business in America to bribe foreign governments to get business.
▶ 1:50:10It is condoning and supporting bribery, which is not surprising given how much if bribery the president of the United States is for who knows what. We we don't know.
▶ 1:50:30But the degree of corruption and grifting in this administration and supported by this administration seems much more serious than whether we're selling or possessing margarine or sledding on the capital grounds and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The question is on the adoption of the amendment in nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. In the pin, the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I.
▶ 1:51:00I. Those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. Can we have a recorded vote, please, Mr. Uh, ranking member requesting a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, yes. Mr. Isa votes yes. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch. I. Mr. McCcleinto votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. Yes. Mr. Massie votes yes. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy votes I. Mr.
▶ 1:51:31Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes yes. Mr. Vandrew, yes. Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Miss Hagman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman. Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Not Mr. not votes I. Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander, hi. Mr.
▶ 1:52:01Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gil. Mr. Gil votes yes. Mr. Mr. Raskin? No. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughrren. Miss Lofrren votes no. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Mr. Mr. Lou votes no. Miss Mr. Korea. Miss Scandan.
▶ 1:52:32Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Negus. Miss McBath. Miss McBth votes no. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Balant. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove. Miss Camlager Dove votes no. Mr. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Mr. Bombgardner.
▶ 1:53:04Mr. Bombgardner votes. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes no. That's one. Miss Haggman, you are not recorded. Yes. Miss Hagman votes yes. Mr.
▶ 1:53:33Paul, Mr. Paul, you're not recorded. Mr. Paul votes no. Clerk report. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 eyes and 14 nos. The eyes have in the bill's order to be reported favored to the House. Members will have two days to submit views.
▶ 1:53:57Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuit to notice, I call up HR 2159, the count the crimes to cut act of 2025 for purpose of markup and move the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill HR 215. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:54:27The bill before us today, HR 2159, the Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025, is common sense and happens to be bipartisan. For decades, the American people, uh, Congress, and certain corners of the federal government have tried to grasp a reliable estimate of how many criminal laws exist, either in statute or regulation. In the 1980s, the Department of Justice tried to count the number of federal criminal laws uh, within the US code and estimated there are about 3,000.
▶ 1:54:54In 1998, the American Bar Association attempted to count the criminal offenses, said it was likely higher than 3,000, but to complete the task with accuracy, quote, is likely to prove feutal and inaccurate. In other words, the DOJ and the ABA stopped counting due to the likely near endless quantity of criminal laws on the books. In the nearly early 2000s, retired Professor Dr. John Baker from LSU estimated the US code contains more than 4,000 offenses. In 2008, he updated it to 4,450.
▶ 1:55:26In 2019, the US code uh estimated at according to the Heritage Foundation and the Mercada Center. Additionally, there are estimated to be thousands of criminal offenses, many buried in regulatory codes. For context, there are an estimated 300,000 federal regulations that carry criminal offenses that could put an American citizen in prison.
▶ 1:55:47The these 300,000 regulations with criminal penalties were created through the regulatory process, not drafted and deliberated by Congress, bypassing In some instances, the laws are so obscure and vague that even law enforcement and federal agencies are unaware they exist. It's no wonder why the issue of criminalization has drawn concern from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Every American faces the potential of unknowingly violating these federal statutes at any given moment only to be met with a DOJ charging them with vague or bogus statute.
▶ 1:56:16This must end. The American people in Congress deserve to have a proper accounting. This bill, the Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025, is prudent and necessary step toward restoring clarity, accountability, and proportionality in the federal criminal justice system. It requires the attorney general to provide Congress with a list of all federal crimes in statute and regulation along with pertinent information such as the potential criminal penalty, the men's ray requirements for the offense, and the DOJ prosecutorial history of the statute.
▶ 1:56:44Fundamental to the rule of law is the idea that individuals must have reasonable notice of what conduct is prohibited. Publishing a a complete index of federal criminal offenses supports due process. By ensuring Congress and the public have access to this information by requiring detailed information on prosecution history, criminal penalties, and men's ray requirements, Congress can identify where reform is most needed.
▶ 1:57:06As James Madison said in Federalist 61, when fundamental principles of representative government and the importance of accessible and understandable laws, quote, it will be little of little are made by men of their own choice. If the laws are so voluminous that they cannot be read or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. If they be repealed or revised before they are promagated or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow. That was Madison.
▶ 1:57:35That was 250 years ago. Here we are. And we have a complex code that a large number of the American people have no idea that the behavior in which they are engaging is potentially criminal. And I believe and I just a couple more points to this. I don't want this legislation though to be covered for not taking other actions. I take as sincere the concern concerns that have been expressed already about mena or eliminating certain statutes.
▶ 1:58:01But if we wait around to study it endlessly, we're not going going to act. I would suggest that we ought to be taking action. Uh and I think this should apply across the board. concerns that oh this is only going to have some impact on white collar crimes versus more violent crimes or something along those lines. That's not the the point here.
▶ 1:58:21I could bring bring up numerous examples where Supreme Court Justice Kavanaaugh was inserted himself into saying that the men's rehea question uh with respect to an individual was involved in a gang dispute uh as to whether it should be a manslaughter sentence or a murder sentence, second degree murder sentence, 8 years versus 20 years. the men's ra mattered and clarity was needed. There are things like that that are occurring all the time in our criminal justice system and those of us who are concerned about uh should be mindful of that.
▶ 1:58:51I know it's bipartisan and I I appreciate the support I appreciate the support of the gentle lady from Georgia uh the previous support of the uh of the minority leader Mr. Jeff um and I believe the support of the ranking member and so I'm grateful for that. But I do want to be clear that we need to be taking actions besides just the counting. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Maryland's recognized for his opening statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:59:17And I I want to commend uh Chairman Roy and Ranking Member McBath and Representative Cohen for their excellent bipartisan work on this legislation. I'm very pleased to support it. And as I've been saying this morning, I think it's the foundation for us moving forward on a whole bunch of the different initiatives and endeavors that we've been exploring today. Um I agree with my friend uh from Texas that this should not be an excuse for action.
▶ 1:59:43Um and there are some actions that could be taken right now by the executive branch of government to um uh to focus on real crime. Unfortunately, they've been moving in the wrong direction. They keep going after people for engaging in freedom of speech. They keep going after uh news entities which the president of the United States has sued. Then uh the FCC comes after them. Then he gets a private shakeddown settlement.
▶ 2:00:13The Department of Justice has dismantled the crypto capture task force. It is uh dismantled the foreign influence task force. It's uh dismantled the organized crime drug enforcement task force.
▶ 2:00:26So um they are uh actually letting our guard down with respect to real crime while they focus on uh imaginary crimes and things which are constitutionally not crimes at all like people engaging in freedom of expression, writing opeds, attending rallies and so on. But I agree with my friend about James Madison.
▶ 2:00:47The founders envision fed federal criminal law to be limited to national concerns, which is why the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted today at the state and local level, not in the federal government. And uh uh I'd like very much the quote that the gentleman from Texas um repeated from James Madison about the laws should not be so voluminous that they cannot be read, nor so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
▶ 2:01:14There should be simplicity and clarity so people know what is expected of them and what's not so that there's notice for everybody. This legislation will direct the DOJ and other agencies to compile a comprehensive report detailing every federal statutory and regulatory criminal offense um which have indeed grown substantially over the last several decades.
▶ 2:01:37And despite several previous attempts by the Department of Justice, the ABA, and several scholars to determine how many federal offenses there are, no comprehensive accounting exists. And um I I hope this legislation will cut through it. Our colleagues have described this as something like the 12 labors of Hercules just to determine how many federal crimes we've got. I was wondering whether artificial intelligence could help. Maybe somebody could just punch into their AI program if they got it.
▶ 2:02:07How many criminal offenses are there at the federal level? Maybe they could begin to point us in the right direction. But in any event, this legislation will finally provide us that comprehensive in inventory. We will get the elements of proof, the potential penalties, the men's ray requirements that exist or don't exist, and the number of prosecutions each year for the preceding 15 years for every listed offense that's brought to us.
▶ 2:02:32Uh we'll be in a position to thoroughly review the federal criminal law so we can begin to clarify, simplify, streamline, uh and reduce. Uh, and this is indeed as the Heritage Foundation's um, Gian Carlo Canaparro, one of the rep Republican witnesses um, testified, this will be the first step towards solving the problem of scattered, vague, imprecise, and incoherent criminal law. So, I'm glad we're doing this.
▶ 2:03:02I think it is important to point out that there is a move against over incrim over criminalization over incarceration over prosecution in America. There's a separate agenda which is to try to wipe out criminal law at all for white collar criminals uh who some would like to see free to engage in fraud, embezzlement, uh corruption, bribery, kickbacks, embezzlement and so on. Uh that's not the agenda.
▶ 2:03:31uh that I'm speaking for today. I'm for the other agenda of making the criminal law fair and equal for everybody in the society, not undercutting the criminal law just for white collar offenders. With that, I'll yield back to you to Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. The chairman I recognize a gentleman from Texas offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment in the nature of substitute before simply removes the year from the short title. Hang on. Hang on. You have gentlemen has an amendment at the desk. Sorry. Clerk will report. Clerk will report. Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 2:03:59Without objection, the amendment they substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as text for purpose of amendment. The gentleman is now recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment in the nature of substitute before simply removes the year from the short title. Urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back who seeks recognition. Gentle lady from Let's go sponsor first. I think the sponsor. Yeah, let's go. The gentle lady from uh Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. Gentle lady's recognized. Thank you.
▶ 2:04:24The Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025 would mandate the creation of a comprehensive inventory of all federal, criminal, statutory, and regulatory offenses. I am a proud co-lead of this common sense, bipartisan solution that will help us address the pressing issue of overcriminalization, troubling result of the unchecked growth of federal criminal law.
▶ 2:04:48For too long, new federal crimes have been created without a full understanding of what crimes already exist. The result, a tangled web of red tape with thousands of crimes, many of which are redundant, overly broad, overlap, intrude into matters traditionally reserved to the states, or are unknown to the public.
▶ 2:05:13Some federal crimes are so vague that no reasonable person can even understand them. Today, the sheer volume of federal crimes creates risk for well-meaning, law-abiding citizens. Many legal scholars argue that unsuspecting Americans unknowingly commit several crimes a day. I'm sure we're all doing it. Yet, we cannot effectively address the problems associated with our bloated patchwork of federal criminal laws until we know the full scope of federal criminalization.
▶ 2:05:43Between 1982 and 2019, the number of federal criminal offenses dramatically increased by 73% from an estimated 3,000 to more than 5,000. While this increase is undoubtedly significant, the true number of existing federal crimes is actually much higher since many additional crimes are created by federal regulations. And despite several previous attempts to determine the number of criminal offenses currently on the books, the fact is we still don't know.
▶ 2:06:14The Count the Crimes to Cut Act is a necessary first step towards smart data-driven reforms that work. Through this legislation, we can finally learn the true number of federal crimes that exist both by statute and legislation. We will identify the state of mind required by each of these statutes and regulations and find out how these laws are enforced by the Department of Justice, if at all.
▶ 2:06:41We will also be able to identify which laws need men's rehea uh reform, which laws already have sufficient intent standards and which laws cover the same conduct but with different intent standards. We cannot have effective reform of federal criminal laws without first passing and implementing this bill. This is not about making lists. That's not what this bill does.
▶ 2:07:09It's about creating the tools that we need for precise datadriven reform. With concrete data, we can determine exactly which reforms are needed, remove speculation from the process, and avoid unintentional, unnecessary mistakes that could arise from a sweeping onesizefitsall kind of approach.
▶ 2:07:32I thank Chairman Roy for his leadership on this legislation which will help eliminate redundant laws and allows us to focus on real threats to the safety of Americans, a top priority of mine. And I ask all of my colleagues to support this common sense measure um which is long overdue.
▶ 2:07:52And I think it's relevant to note that some of the last times that the laws on the books were actually trying to be counted, the Department of Justice was in 1980s, the American Bar Association 1998. And such scholars such as Professor John Baker 2008. And we know to do this is very very costly, but I think it just makes so much sense to have each relevant federal agency um kind of count and report on themselves.
▶ 2:08:22Uh we've had many many laws that have been passed and as we said many are ambiguous and who knows how many laws we have on the books now. This just makes common sense. Let's put things in order. Let's set things right and let's make sure that the process is fair and let's move forward. And I yield back. Gentle yields back. I would just say I appreciate the gentle lady's comments and her co-sponsorship and the work of the uh subcommittee chair and and the ranking members comments as well.
▶ 2:08:47If I remember correctly from the hearing a few weeks ago, there were thousands of laws that were created by Congress, but there were even more created by people who never put their name on a ballot or never directly accountable to we the people. And that to me is the scariest part of all. So, this is this is certainly needed. And I strongly support the legislation and would now recognize the gentleman from uh Georgia for his uh five minutes. Thank you, Mr. uh chairman.
▶ 2:09:12I get great pleasure out of uh opposing bad legislation that comes before this committee, but I get even greater satisfaction by supporting good legislation that comes from this committee. And that's why I rise in support of this bill. In the last 40 years, the number of criminal offenses in the federal criminal code has ballooned from 3,000 in the early 1980s to nearly 4,500 in 2008.
▶ 2:09:42This has led to the overuse of criminal law to address societal problems. Some of these crimes contain broad or vague terms and they are increasingly duplic duplicating or conflicting with state laws that are already on the books. The complex nature of the federal criminal code can lead to confusion and the potential for overcharging.
▶ 2:10:07It only makes sense to pass this bill, which would require the attorney general to compile a report and public index of federal criminal and regulatory offenses. This bill requires a report to the House and Senate committees on the judiciary, which we could use as a starting point to understand and to address the issues of overfederalization and overcriminalization.
▶ 2:10:36And uh for those reasons I support the legislation and with that I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediate by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. Opinion of the chair the eyes have it. The amendment the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is unfavorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. Uh the eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views.
▶ 2:11:04Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR451, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act for purpose of markup and move that the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill.
▶ 2:11:35Clerk will report the bill or excuse me, I'm sorry, 421. That's HR421 to amend. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Klein, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act is a crucial piece of legislation that will force the administrative state to consider its impact on regulations that it's regulations have on small businesses.
▶ 2:12:03Small businesses across the US are at a disadvantage when complying with burdensome federal regulations. Uh executive branch agencies in particular frequently issue one-sizefits-all rules that do not adequately account for the unique needs of small businesses. These one-sizefits-all rules cause significant economic harm, raising compliance costs for small businesses, and in turn raising prices for consumers. Burdensome regulations also can keep some small businesses out of the market altogether.
▶ 2:12:29Facing insurmountable compliance costs, potential entrepreneurs all too often choose not to open their small businesses in the first place, depriving consumers of potentially innovative new products and services. This bill would strengthen the RFA's uh regulatory flexibility act already existing provisions and deter agencies from ignoring their statutory obligations to American small businesses. HR421 requires that agencies convene small business review panels when promaggating all major rules giving small businesses a chance to voice their concerns about economically harmful regulations.
▶ 2:13:00This requirement extends to all agencies, not just the three currently required under the RFA. It also requires that agencies account for the indirect costs of the regulations which include compliance costs. Additionally, HR421 forces the agencies to conduct a more transparent economic analysis when certifying that a proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. And finally, HR421 mandates that all rules as defined under the administrative procedure act, not just notice and comment rulemakings are covered by the RFA's analysis requirements.
▶ 2:13:30Um, Congress passed the RFA in 1980 to combat overburdensome f federal regulations, acknowledging the detrimental effects such regulations have on small businesses. But many agencies still do not take the specific needs of small business into account when crafting regulations. Uh, this bill is a common sense effort to ensure regulators comply with the RFA's provisions as Congress intended by fully considering the total regulatory impact on small business owners when crafting major rules.
▶ 2:13:55Urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Um, this really isn't the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act. It's the Big Business Regulatory Relief Act. There is indeed broad bipartisan support for small business in Congress. Small businesses include everything from mom and pop stores to budding entrepreneurial ventures to my grandfather's plumbing business.
▶ 2:14:24Um, they are a route by which countless Americans build a better life for their families and grow the economic pie for society. But this isn't about them. Under the guise of helping small business, this bill is another effort to delay, dilute, and derail regulations we have adopted to protect the public health and the public safety for all Since January, the administration has taken a chainsaw to the agencies that Congress created to protect the interests of the American people.
▶ 2:14:55The EPA, which is charged with ensuring that we have clean air, clean air, clean land, and clean water, and uh assessing the safety of chemicals sold in the US, faces a proposed budget cut of 54%. The resources it has left are being used to help big coal by exempting nearly 70 coal plants from rules that limit the amount of mercury and other toxins that they can spew into the air.
▶ 2:15:22And as for its staff, OM Director VA has proclaimed that he wants its people to be put into trauma. The administration is fighting tooth and nail to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects us from fraud by big banks, credit card companies, credit reporting agencies, loan servicesers, debt collectors, payday lenders, lenders, and other fraudsters who has helped by shutting down this watchdog that has helped more than 200 million American consumers recover
▶ 2:15:52more than 21 billion dollar from big financial companies. Despite my colleagues pro pollution, pro- financial scam approach to regulation, we'd still be willing to explore this bill if it were actually about leveling the playing field for small businesses like the Regulatory Flexibility Act did in 1980. But that's not what it's about.
▶ 2:16:14Today's bill reads as if someone went through the RFA and identified every opportunity to make the regulatory process at all agencies more complicated, more tedious, and more time consuming and less efficient and effective. A recipe that allows big business with rooms full of corporate and regulatory lawyers to frustrate regulations that they don't like.
▶ 2:16:37Right out of the gate, the bill starts by expanding the set of rules to which the RFA is applicable from just those with direct economic effects to those with indirect economic effects. The definition of that is not sufficiently explained or cabinet in the bill and could be used to intercept without justification many more rules than are currently considered under the RFA.
▶ 2:17:00This in turn burdens agencies tasked with protecting the interests of the people with paralysis by analysis. The SBA's chief counsel for advocacy, a position that's languished empty without a Senate confirmed appointee since 2017, would acquire new authority to, among other things, issue rules governing agency compliance and to intervene in agency adjudication. And all these powers would reside if Dr.
▶ 2:17:27Casey Mulligan is confirmed with a person who stands ready to deliver on a big business wish list. He opposes the minimum wage. He opposes any fines for polluters and he opposes sick leave for employees. He favors repealing the Affordable Care Act and he blames the 2008 mortgage crisis on unemployment insurance and health care subsidies. The RFA currently requires an advocacy review panel to write a report assessing the impact of a proposed rule on small entities.
▶ 2:17:57This report is then included in the rulemaking record with an agency response. Under the RFA, this review is only required for three agencies, the CFPB, the EPA, and OSHA. It's been criticized as unduly delaying rules from issuance. The proposed bill would extend this cumbersome process and the likely delays to all agencies.
▶ 2:18:19These champions of small business even want these review panels to apply to regulations without a showing of a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Finally, this so-called regulatory flexibility act removes the flexibility of agencies to move forward with regs on a temporary basis to meet emergencies, thereby delaying regulations when they are needed the most.
▶ 2:18:44If my colleagues really wanted to help small business, they would support the nonpartisan GAO's common sense plan laid out in an April report emphasizing the need for the SBA administrator and the chief counsel for advocacy to develop policies and procedures to help agencies better comply with the RFA. If Republicans were interested in supporting small business, they would oppose the administration's efforts to slash the SBA's workforce by half.
▶ 2:19:11They would be going back to basics and supporting the SBA offering the three C's, capital, contracts, and counseling. Perhaps above all, they would be opposing the unlawful and chaotic emergency tariffs that are on one day and off the next and are killing small businesses across the country.
▶ 2:19:29A day doesn't go by that I don't hear from a small business saying it cannot plan, it cannot um make any provisions for the future because of the chaotic disarray we've been thrown into by the president's basically illegal tariffs. This bill is not about small business. It's about giving big businesses with ties to the White House exactly what they want. creating a favorable regulatory landscape by gutting rules to protect clean water and air and workers rights in American consumers.
▶ 2:19:59I oppose this big business regulatory relief act. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:20:26This amendment adds of 2025 to the title of the bill. The change is not intended in any way to alter the important purpose of the bill. I urge support for the amendment and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there any discussion on the amendment in the nature of a Mr. Nadler, M. I I move to strike last word. Gentleman's recognized under the five-minute rule. Mr. Chairman, everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees on the need to support small businesses.
▶ 2:20:53Federal agencies are already required to consider the effects of their regulations on small businesses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or RFA. HR421, however, turns this reasonable requirement into a never-ending hall of mirrors. It would impose burdensome new requirements on agencies that would lengthen and complicate the rulemaking process, exposing businesses of all sizes to nearly constant regulatory uncertainty and posing grave risk to public health and safety.
▶ 2:21:21A few provisions of the bill illustrate just how heavy-handed these new requirements are. First, the bill requires agencies to submit their rules to an inter agency review process and to listenit and to solicit public feedback before they have even published them in the federal register. This requirement applies to all agencies and virtually every rule that results in any increased costs far beyond the requirements of the current RFA.
▶ 2:21:48Second, the bill require repeals the authority that agencies have under the current RFA to wave or delay the laws requirements when issuing a regulation in response to an emergency. This senseless provision would prevent agencies from doing their job properly and directly jeopardizes the health and safety of the American people.
▶ 2:22:08Third, the bill would ve vest expansive new authority over the entire federal rulemaking process in a single official, the chief council for advocacy at the Small Business Administration. Placing this level of power in a single office that has not had a permanent director since 2017 is strange to say the least. As I explained during consideration of the Prove It Act, vesting any new authority in this chronically underresourced and unmanned post is problematic.
▶ 2:22:37And yet here we are again considering another bad bill that would give this office too much power over our agencies and the rules that protect the public. Even more problematic is that President Trump has nominated someone for the position who has questioned limits on polluters, rules that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and the value of sick leave.
▶ 2:22:59putting vast power over the regulatory process in their hands would be a devastating blow to the ability of agencies to protect public health and safety. Finally, on top of all these new burdens on the rulemaking process, agencies who would be under constant threat of judicial challenge. Given the expansive nature of the new requirements that the bill imposes, virtually any re well well-resourced litigant could claim some basis for hauling an agency into court and grinding the rulemaking process to a halt.
▶ 2:23:31Ironically, a bill that seems so preoccupied with the supposedly overbearing power of the administrative state would likely require agencies to hire many new lawyers and other staff just to perform all the additional work the bill requires of them. And yet the majority is proceeding with this legislation at the same time that the Trump administration has proposed cutting almost half of the SBA's staff. Without adequate resources, agencies would struggle to enact their regulatory agendas.
▶ 2:24:01For our Republican colleagues, of course, this is precisely the point. In some, while this bill claims to be about helping small businesses, it is really just another front in the Republicans war on good government. Coupled with the Supreme Court's decision overturning Chevron deference in which the courts defer to agency expertise when analyzing emer agency actions, the bill illustrates the shape of the Republicans give away to big corporations and their wealthy allies, making it easier for them to sue government agencies with one
▶ 2:24:31hand and then stacking the deck in their favor in the courts with the other. If Republicans were serious about helping small businesses, they would join Democrats in protect in protecting a level playing field in the marketplace. This bill does nothing to further that goal and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further Mr. Johnson. Uh thank you, Mr. uh chairman. I rise in opposition to the bill.
▶ 2:25:01Um, you know, if if I went home and told my constituents that I passed a bill called the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, they would think that that's a great bill. That's like asking them to read a book uh by looking at its cover. A more accurate name for HR421 would be the coast is clear.
▶ 2:25:31It's open season for big polluters and fraudsters regulatory repeal act. And I would move that we rename the bill to that more accurate uh description. This bill is nothing more than a big than a handout uh to big corporations and to special interests.
▶ 2:25:52It's another attempt by Republicans to stall and obstruct rules that make our water that make sure our water is safe to drink, our air is safe to breathe, and our food is safe to eat. We should be working to enhance our government's ability to protect the health and safety of the public rather than finding ways to eliminate those protections just like Robert Kennedy Jr.
▶ 2:26:18did yesterday in firing in mass all of the uh uh folks who uh would recommend uh vaccines for to keep our children, our babies and our elderly people uh safe and secure. You just knock you just knocked that out. Just I mean that's what we should be doing trying to protect people rather than uh eliminating protections.
▶ 2:26:45And that's what this legislation does. Unfortunately, this bill opens the door for wellresourced companies and trade associations to challenge virtually any rule, gumming up the gears of agency regulations.
▶ 2:27:02It imposes additional duties on agencies, but it does not give them enough funding to fulfill their duties, especially now that this uh Trump Musk administration has reckless recklessly fired over 250,000 federal employees, our relatives, our friends, our neighbors who get left without insurance.
▶ 2:27:29uh just I mean the the the cruelty, the chaos, the cruelty and corruption that we see happening now is just uh And you got these regulatory agencies that are charged with keeping us safe and protect us from uh protecting us from uh corruption. Uh that is corrupt.
▶ 2:27:55And uh because of all of that uh um we cannot allow uh passage of this bill which is a windfall for special interest and corporations. These are the same folks who they're getting a tax cut.
▶ 2:28:14And that tax cut is being paid for by cutting Medicaid, SNAP benefits, taking food out of the mouths of hungry babies and children and elderly people, meals on wheels. You're going to cut that.
▶ 2:28:34You're cutting you cut the job core just uh trying to stop uh things that help people so that you could give these fat cat billionaires and corporate polluters and fraudsters a tax cut. It's wrong. It's corrupt and uh we should not stand for it. And on behalf of the interest of the public, I announce my full opposition to this bill. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:29:04Is there further discussion? Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to I had another committee I had to go to, so I just got here. I'm not going to go into a discussion of the practices of this administration or the proposals, but I just want to say how I'm happy to see all the people here who fight for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has been in my DNA my entire life. It's important for women's health. It's important for women's choice.
▶ 2:29:34I thank you for being here and standing up for Planned Parenthood and I'll always be with you. And I yield back the balance of my time. General yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentle lady from California is Uh thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:29:48I too am excited uh to see that uh uh the advocates from Planned Parenthood who've been waiting outside for over two hours were finally able to find seats uh because it is open to the public and they should be able to be here um and listen to the words uh and the debate on allowing people to access health care. I also wanted to talk about this bill before us right now which I oppose.
▶ 2:30:17Um, it's so long and you know, if you're trying to help small businesses, you probably only need one page and says, "Hey, I want to help small businesses. I want to make sure your taxes are lower. I want to make sure that we don't have these arbitrary taxes, tariffs being levied on you, uh, that are preventing you from hiring employees, keeping your doors open, keeping inventory on the shelves.
▶ 2:30:41So when I see something that's teen pages that's all about helping small businesses, I do get a little curious and maybe even skeptical. So I actually shared this with some small businesses in my district who were like, you know, WTF because it does not say anything in here about helping me lower the costs.
▶ 2:31:02And while it pretends to be opening the doors for small businesses to find success, you know, this is an administration that is killing the successes of small business because it's killing trade opportunities. I mean, I was just reading through um some comments from a number of small businesses that said, you know, hitting companies like mine with tariffs are going to, you know, jack up my costs to over $100,000. Many of our materials are imported.
▶ 2:31:28We are concerned that the price increase of our raw goods is going to go up. Small businesses like mine run on a small margin. So a 25% increase in any product is going to hurt like the Dickens. Um that is what small businesses care about, not the word salad that's in this uh legislation. And it really does.
▶ 2:31:56It's subtuge truthfully because um it opens the door to corruption. I think there is a conspiratorial element to this piece of legislation because it allows any kind of entity to challenge regula regulation. Anyone can slow the process down. And once again, when I'm talking to small businesses, they're not interested in this. They don't have the lawyers to read and translate all that's in this legislation.
▶ 2:32:24But you know, big corporations do they have warehouses of council whose sole job is to figure out how to slow down the process so that they can get more out of it. Um, small businesses are looking to open their doors, stay open, hire our community members, make a little bit of profit so they can put more inventory on the shelves and maybe hire more employees and maybe contribute back to the community. That's what they're talking about.
▶ 2:32:52And folks in my district are scared. They're not if they're going to be able to stay open. They're not interested in all this hocus pocus, you know, in this legislation. That actually creates large opportunity for manipulation because anybody can challenge the regulation. Anyone you can open up another fake entity that's really designed to muck up the system. So I I know that this is a talking point, right?
▶ 2:33:20We're helping small business, but you're not by doing most of the stuff in here. And then you're going to cut SBA. I mean, the Small Business Administration is actually one of the best tools for helping small business. It actually says it in the title. You know, Job Core and vocational training programs that are designed to get us a workforce that's trained to actually go into small businesses or open them doesn't say anything about helping them.
▶ 2:33:48But this really does sort of give cart blanch to big entities with a lot of donor muscle, legal muscle to either work with a complicit or get incredibly uh and dispiritedly negative with one and try to break them for their own benefit.
▶ 2:34:14So we also should acknowledge that oftent times small businesses are used as a pawn for the handouts that big business wants and that's also what is part of this legislation. So I on behalf of all the small businesses in my district we all oppose this bill. Thank you and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Is there further discussion?
▶ 2:34:43Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is now on favorably reporting the bill as amended. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 2:35:07No, the eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported Uh, we have recorded a recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Mcccleintoch, I. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy. I. Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Mr. Klein. Mr.
▶ 2:35:37Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Vandrew. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore. Mr. Kylie. Miss Hegman. Miss Haggman. That's I. Miss. Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Growthman. Mr. Knot. Mr. Not votes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Ander. Mr. Mr. Her votes I. Mr.
▶ 2:36:09Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Raskin, no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofrren, Miss Lofrren votes no. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Miss Gyipol. Miss Jipal votes no. Mr. Ka Miss Scandan Miss Gandlin votes no Mr.
▶ 2:36:40Miss Mcbath Miss McBth votes no Miss no Miss Ross votes no Miss Ballot Miss Balant votes no Mr. Garcia Miss Camager Dove Miss Camlager Dove votes no Mr. Mosquitz Mr. Goldman Mr. Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett. Mr. Jordan. Mr.
▶ 2:37:10Jordan votes yes. Mr. Massie. Yes. Mr. Massie votes yes. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Bombgardner votes Mr. Schmidt. You're not recorded. Mr. Schmidt votes yes.
▶ 2:39:54Mr. Vandre, you're not recorded. Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Isa, you're not recorded. Mr. Isa votes yes. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 eyes and 12 nos.
▶ 2:40:22The eyes have it and the bill is already to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views without objection. The bill will be reported as a single amendment. The nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. UC request. Uh, gentleman from the gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a UC request for two letters opposing HR421. One from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, one from Earth Justice. Without objection. Okay.
▶ 2:40:52Pursuant to notice, I call up HR589, the Face Act repeal act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. HR58. Not objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, for an opening statement. Thank the chairman. We've had this hearing today talking about overcriminalization.
▶ 2:41:15This is another area in which I think the federal government has inserted itself in a way that has now been used and politicized and weaponized against people across this country, including people of faith, uh, and is doing so with a very specific and biased political purpose. Enacted 1994, the Face Act was passed with significant debate uh prohibiting uh threats of force obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive healthcare services. It also prohibits the obstruction of and damage to houses of worship.
▶ 2:41:46Yet, the Biden Harris administration disproportionately used the Face Act to target pro-life Americans. For example, Biden's own Department of Justice provided FOYA data demonstrating that a mere 8% of the Face Act cases filed under his administration were against agitators at pregnancy resource centers with 92% being against pro-life individuals protesting at abortion clinics. I introduced the Face Act repeal Act HR5577 last Congress after witnessing how the federal government used the Face Act as a pretext to go after pro-life demonstrators.
▶ 2:42:17That is why I reintroduced the FACE Act HR589 in this Congress. The previous administration weaponized the Face Act to prosecute non-violent pro-life Americans with the harshest sentences. Through my office's review of federal data, the Biden Department of Justice brought almost a quarter of all the Face Act prosecutions, 24% of all charges targeting pro-life activists in less than four years.
▶ 2:42:43turning a blind eye to the anti-life activists engaged in destroying, vandalizing, even firebombing pregnancy resource centers and churches. At the same time, over the last four years, the Biden Harris DOJ demonstrated their interest in catering to the anti-life movement, more interest than protecting facilities that assist pregnant women in need. While the Trump administration continues to take positive steps to remedy the damage inflicted by the Biden Harris administration, it's not enough to merely end this one-sided enforcement of the law.
▶ 2:43:11This is why we're having a hear a a markup today in which we're talking about overcriminalization. I realize this issue is going to be hotly debated. I realize it is going to be seen as political. Um I'm trying to be clear that I have significant reservations and concerns about overcriminalization generally about the federalization of these issues. the overempowerment of the Department of Justice and those people in Washington DC, regardless of who is in power, regardless of who is in the White House.
▶ 2:43:40And I believe that the FACE Act was used politically and will be used politically again in the future. To be clear, I'm getting some resistance even in our own administration saying we can use the Face Act for their own purposes to target people specifically for varying uh views. say, "Well, we'll use it to defend churches more, and we will not use it as politicized to focus on people at at uh uh places where abortions are performed." But that's not what my goal is.
▶ 2:44:11My goal is to alleviate the politicization in the first place. It's to reduce the extent to which the federal government is empowered to even do this. While the Trump administration takes those positive steps, I believe Congress must fully repeal the Face Act to ensure future administrations are unable to weaponize the statute against peaceful advocates. There are many reasons why Congress should repeal the FACE Act, but here are two examples. First, the Face Act is in significant contrast to our protections under the First Amendment.
▶ 2:44:40The First Amendment guarantees our God-given fundamental right to free speech and free exercise of religion without our government discriminating against our viewpoints. Attorney General Garland and President Biden's DOJ selectively enforced the Face Act by prosecuting pro-life activists overwhelmingly and clearly, statistically significantly more so than anti-life activists, allowing violent pro-choice demonstrators to escape prosecutions at alarming rates. This blatant prosecutorial discretion violated constitutional rights and was used to selectively target disfavored speech.
▶ 2:45:09Such selective enforcement is contrary to the rule of law, which demands equal application. Second, the Biden Harris administration showed us how easy it is to weaponize the FACE act to further partisan anti-life motives. After the DOS decision, the Biden Harris DOJ called to increase the urgency of the DOJ's enforcement of the Face Act to protect abortion access. The DOJ would rather focus its time and resources on going after pro-life grandmothers, sentencing them to years of federal prison for at best a trespassing charge instead of targeting actual criminals who walk free for violent crimes.
▶ 2:45:39And by that I'm referring to a a literal grandmother who was put in prison for having sat at a uh abortion center and She was put in prison for years while sick for exercising her beliefs and her rights.
▶ 2:45:59In the wake of hundreds of churches and pregnancy resource centers being attacked, the Biden Harris DOJ focused its resources on using the Face Act against pro-life advocates peacefully exercising their rights and beliefs to defend the unborn, sentencing many of them to years of federal prison for at best trespassing charges instead of the actual criminals who walk free. In 2022, the Biden Harris DOJ brought 26 prosecutions under the Face Act, and all of them involved pro-life defendants protesting at abortion clinics.
▶ 2:46:24In 2022, the Biden Harris DOJ brought 26 prosecutions under the Face Act. All of them involved pro-life defendants protesting in abortion clinics. Perhaps the most egregious of these was Mr. Hal. In 2021, Mr. Hul was doing sidewalk counseling outside an abortion clinic. During the incident, a clinic volunteer began verbally harassing his 12-year-old son, who accompanied him that day, which led to him to push the belligerent volunteer escort of the abortion clinic away from his son. After local authorities declined to press charges.
▶ 2:46:55After local authorities declined to press charges, the Biden DOJ stepped in, dispatching a team of FBI agents to arrest Hul at gunpoint during a pre-dawn raid in front of his terrified wife and children. The Biden Harris DOJ charged Hal with two counts of violating the Face Act. Hal faced 11 years in federal prison if convicted. Thankfully, a jury rightfully and swiftly acquitted Hal on all charges, but many such defendants are not as fortunate.
▶ 2:47:19At a hearing in my subcommittee last December, we discussed the stories of Paul Vaughn, Lauren Handy, by the way, who is a a progressive activist, Eva Idol, who survived concentration camps in Europe, and Pette Harlo, the grandmother to whom I was just referencing, going to jail. The FBI raided Mr. Vaugh's home, arresting him in front of his wife and 11 children for praying outside of the clinic. The Biden Harris DOJ prosecuted Mr.
▶ 2:47:46Vaughn and sentenced him to 6 months of home confinement and 3 years of Juxtapose Mr. Von's Mr. Hawk's cases with those of anti-life individuals. In 2023, the Biden's DOJ prosecuted four individuals for spray painting threats on Florida Pregnancy Resource Center. Three of these activists received 30 days in prison. The politicized nature of these prosecutions cannot be ignored. HR589 eliminates the possibility that everyday Americans can face felony convictions for peaceful acts such as sidewalk counseling or singing hems.
▶ 2:48:16Passage of this bill is a crucial and necessary step. To be clear, it does nothing to undermine existing state laws. Does nothing to undermine the ability of local and state prosecutors to enforce the law in their communities as appropriate. Does nothing to undermine the ability to use other federal laws when you're engaging in criminal enterprise across state lines. If you're engaged in that behavior, there are plenty of other ways to go after and prosecute individuals who are carrying out dangerous acts of violence. And certainly you can do it at the state level and the federal level.
▶ 2:48:45But having a statute such as this in place is begging for it to be politicized. It was politicized and Americans have been put in prison as a result of their beliefs and it should not remain in place. With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The ranking members recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:49:07Um, here's the the danger of uh making legislative decisions based on anecdotes or single cases because I had not heard about the the alarming case of the the grandmother who was sentenced to years two years in prison for praying outside a clinic. Uh, when I entered that into uh a search, what I got back was claim. A 75-year-old woman named Plet Harlo was sentenced to two years in prison for praying outside an abortion clinic in Washington.
▶ 2:49:37Uh AP's assessment false. Harlo was convicted in August 2023 of federal civil rights offenses for her role in the October 2020 invasion and blockade of the Washington Sergey Clinic along with other activists. Harlo used force and physical obstruction to execute the blockade according to the Department of Justice. Um, so I mean I don't know all of the details of that one. Obviously there's no grandmother exception to this statute or any other criminal statute that I'm aware of.
▶ 2:50:07But it doesn't sound like she was arrested for praying or put in jail for that reason. But look, let's let's grab the bull by the horns and look at what is really at stake in this statute uh and in this legislation. We're we're here to consider a bill that would repeal the FACE Act just weeks after a self-described pro-mortalist suicide bomber targeted an IVF clinic in Palm Springs, California.
▶ 2:50:35Uh while only the bomber died in that particular attack, the episode reminds all of us of why the Face Act is necessary, why it was passed in the first place, and why repeal will be dangerous. The FACE Act draws the line between protected first amendment expression, whether it's speech or writing or praying, and unprotected violent conduct and physical obstruction. This is a proper exercise of congressional authority.
▶ 2:51:03This is why no challenge to the face act has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court. And the act has been repeatedly upheld as constitutional by every single federal circuit court asked to consider the constitutionality of the law.
▶ 2:51:20The FACE Act prohibits the use or attempted use of force, threats of force or physical obstruction intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the obtaining or provision of reproductive health services or similar interference by force or obstruction with religious free exercise at a place of worship.
▶ 2:51:46Um the term reproductive health care co services covers all reproductive health care providers which includes also IVF facilities like the one that was recently targeted as well as counselors operating in the self-described prolife pregnancy Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994 after a wave of violent blockades, attacks, and obstruction of
▶ 2:52:16abortion provider facilities that culminated in the murder of Dr. David Gun and the shooting of Dr. George Tiller, who years later was actually murdered by an anti-abortion activist while attending church services in 2009. And it's not just murder that the Face Act covers. It protects patients and providers against non-lethal violence and physical obstruction.
▶ 2:52:42Just last year, the DOJ obtained a conviction against defendants who had physically blocked a patient from getting into a clinic from entering a clinic in Sterling Heights, Michigan. The patient and her husband made an appointment at the clinic after learning that their fetus suffered severe fatal abnormalities and that continuing the pregnancy carried carried serious risks to the mother's health and future fertility.
▶ 2:53:07Yet, the defendants physically blockaded her from getting the health care that she so desperately needed, surrounding her car in the parking lot and trapping her helpless in her car for several hours.
▶ 2:53:22On its terms, the statute deliberately covers violence and obstruction directed not just against clinics but also against churches and also against all types of relig of reproductive facilities including the pro-life pregnancy centers. Despite claims to the contrary, the Biden administration did prosecute face act cases involving obstruction uh at so-called pro-life pregnancy centers.
▶ 2:53:50Just last year, DOJ obtained a conviction against a defendant who spray painted several pregnancy centers with threatening messages, including, "If abortions aren't safe, then neither are you." The Face Act is completely viewpoint neutral in its textual scope and viewpoint neutral in its application.
▶ 2:54:13If more people have been convicted of attacking pro-choice abortion clinics than have been convicted of attacking pro-life pregnancy centers, as my friend from Texas uh suggests, uh it is because there have been vastly more people attacking abortion clinics than attacking pregnancy centers. And obviously it would make no sense as a matter of law to make up cases that don't exist or not to prosecute cases that do exist to somehow even the score.
▶ 2:54:42That's not how we think about the law. We punish actual acts that people engage in and not political philosophies. Yet some of my friends are so committed to uh and I I don't include my friend from Texas, but others are so committed to uh a self-pittitying victim politics and so committed to signaling permission for vigilante anti- anti-choice extremists that they're pushing the repeal of a critical public safety law which protects
▶ 2:55:12them just weeks after what the FBI described as an intentional act of terrorism that took place against a face uh act protected facility, an IVF facility. That act of terrorism isn't isolated.
▶ 2:55:28According to the National Abortion Federation's 2024 report, the DOBS decision has emboldened anti-abortion extremists with NAF finding quote an immediate spike in major incidents targeting abortion providers, including arson, burglaries, and death threats.
▶ 2:55:45The report noted that extremists are traveling, even moving to states where abortion remains legal, and proceeding those states not just to protest, which is perfectly constitutionally protected, but to intimidate, harass, and attack abortion providers, to interfere with people's access to abortion care. The people targeted by the FACE Act are not peaceful protesters praying outside a clinic and not blocking access.
▶ 2:56:13If they were such people, they would be completely protected from a criminal prosecution. In fact, even menacing protesters are still protected. For example, if you look at the man in this photo, a protester armed with an actual assault weapon standing outside of a clinic in Michigan where the right to medical abortion is protected by the state constitution.
▶ 2:56:36Even his form of protest, as threatening as it may appear to be to patients and passerbys, does not violate the face the face act. It was never prosecuted um because he was not engaged in violence or a direct threat of violence, nor was he engaged in physical obstruction. So whether you're praying or you're actually carrying a weapon, that in itself does not come within the prohibition of the law.
▶ 2:57:03Repealing the Face Act is part of the long-term plan to achieve the long- soughtafter and extremely unpopular goal of effectively banning abortion nationwide. While a series of stinging defeats and statewide ballot questions have caused our GOP friends to downplay for now their dream of a nationwide ban, a majority of them signed on to a ban with Speaker Johnson just a few years ago.
▶ 2:57:28and they continue to do whatever they can to restrict and obstruct women's physical access to abortion regardless of the effect it may have on their health and safety. As one anti-abortion activist said over 30 years ago during debate over passage of the initial face act, we may not get laws changed or be able to change people's minds. But if there's no one willing to conduct abortions, then there are no abortions.
▶ 2:57:54If the FACE Act were repealed today, extremists would be further emboldened to obstruct and attack abortion providers and facilities and to intimidate both doctors and patients. Indeed, that onslaught has begun. Uh on the Senate side, uh Republicans are in the midst of advancing a budget bill to defund Planned Parenthood. President Trump Trump's HHS Secretary RFK Jr.
▶ 2:58:18directed the FDA to review regulations for methapristone, the most widely used uh medical board efficient drug. And um a pregnant Georgia woman who was declared brain dead, remains on life support against her family's wishes and is being used as a human incubator because of that state's abortion ban.
▶ 2:58:37Today's effort to overturn the Face Act follows President Trump's use of the pardon power to grant pardons and clemency to nearly two dozen people convicted of Face Act criminal violations, including the defendants I just mentioned who trapped a woman in her car for several hours to stop her from seeking the medical medical care she needed. Political reports that several of the other defendants, pardoned by Trump, have said that they plan to go into abortion clinics, either by force or stealth, to block women from getting healthcare services.
▶ 2:59:08The DOJ has recently announced a policy pulling back on enforcement of the Face Act by limiting abortion related prosecutions only to cases presenting extraordinary circumstances or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors such as death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage. They're essentially putting the statute into an administrative straight jacket so MAGA in Congress can give it the legislative guillotine.
▶ 2:59:35The administration is sending out disturbing signals when it comes to violence against women. It's cut millions of dollars in grants, as we've discussed, Mr. Chairman, that would have supported the victims and survivors of sexual and domestic violence. It jumped to provide aid and comfort to the Tape Brothers, misogynist manosphere social media influencers when they were charged with rape in Romania.
▶ 2:59:56It pardoned nearly 1,600 riers and insurrectionists from January 6th, including Steven Randolph and Ryan Saml, who violently assaulted a brave uh female police officer, US capital officer Caroline Eders uh Caroline Edwards with a metal barricade. So, the common denominator is that we're not paying attention to the real needs of women or public safety. We're doing everything we can to curtail their rights.
▶ 3:00:25I urge my colleagues to vote no on HR589 to oppose violence and obstruction in all its forms and guises to protect the safety of the American people and to resist continuing efforts to enact a nationwide ban on abortion. I yield back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a objection.
▶ 3:00:55Amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Texas to explain the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes the year from the title of the bill. It is not intended any way to alter the substance or important purpose of this bill. I urge support for my amendment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Gentle lady from North Carolina is Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:01:18Before the enactment of the FACE Act, doctors and patients seeking reproductive care had to physically push their way through threatening crowds to reach clinics. They had protesters stick pins in their legs, pinch them. They faced threats of arson, found their homes picketed, and dealt with frequent death threats.
▶ 3:01:46When the FACE act was enacted, patients and providers found that this intimidation decreased significantly because those harassing doctors and patients and interfering with clinic access knew they could be prosecuted.
▶ 3:02:04The Face Act prohibits conduct, not speech, which is why multiple federal appeals courts have found that the law does not violate the First Amendment. The Face Act works. And the sad thing is that's why Republicans on this committee are so intent on repealing it. They want doctors to be so intimidated that they cannot do their jobs.
▶ 3:02:34And they want patients to feel unsafe seeking care so that they will give up entirely. Imagine if those of us in this room faced the same intimidation and threats as we went to work to do our jobs as doctors and patients feel when they didn't have protection from the Face Act.
▶ 3:02:59Imagine if protesters surrounded the Capitol and stuck pins in our legs when we tried to go to the floor to vote. Imagine if we had to push through walls of people blocking house building e entrances to get to a hearing or markup. We wouldn't let that stand.
▶ 3:03:19The capital police would be on the scene to disperse the crowd within minutes and DC and federal prosecutors would charge anyone who intentionally injured or intimidated or interfered with our work. Why do we deserve more safety than women exercising their rights and doctors providing care?
▶ 3:03:46These are basic healthc care actions. We have got to protect people. The only reason we have for the most part ex escaped the same kind of threats and is because people know that they would be prosecuted. Now they might be pardoned like our president did but they will be prosecuted.
▶ 3:04:13The face act works because it tells people that they will be prosecuted if they intimidate and threaten doctors and patients. These doctors and patients can't always rely on police and local prosecutors to come to their aid because of politics. Threats to reproductive health centers, even those that do not provide abortion care, are on the rise.
▶ 3:04:41This is evidenced by the bombing of an IVF clinic in Palm Springs just a few weeks ago. The best way and the proven way to address this behavior is to ensure people know that the federal government itself can and will prosecute those who threaten the safety of patients and doctors.
▶ 3:05:06The FACE Act must stand for the good of public health, for the good of women seeking necessary care, and to protect our health care providers. And I too join my colleagues in commending the work of Planned Parenthood. I live right down the street from a Planned Parenthood in Raleigh, North Carolina. Thank you so much for being here to petition the government for redress of your grievances. and I yield back.
▶ 3:05:36Gentle yields back. Gentleman from Missouri is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend my colleague Chip Roy for bringing forward this long overdue piece of legislation. When the Face Act was passed in May of 1994, a number of members of Congress warned about the potential unintended or I would argue intended consequences of the Face Act.
▶ 3:06:05Congressman Chris Smith warned that that the House is poised to stack the deck against peaceful pro-life activists so as to make them pray and easy mark for ruinous prosecution and civil suits.
▶ 3:06:20Senator Dan Coats warned that the legislation singled out the pro-life cause for harsh penalties that would not apply to other causes engaged in similar conduct and that it would quote chill core forced for first amendment free speech to lawfully protest abortion. How right they were.
▶ 3:06:39The alliance defending freedom has pointed out that the face act on paper protects pro-life pregnancy care centers as well as abortion But you would never know it. In 2022, the Department of Justice brought criminal charges against at least 26 pro-life individuals under the FACE Act.
▶ 3:06:59Meanwhile, there were over 200 acts of vandalism against pregnancy care centers and churches since row was overturned, but almost no charges were filed. And clearly, the Biden Harris administration has engaged in thuggish, intimidating behavior against peaceful pro-life activists, including Mark Hawk and Paul Vaughn. Both being arrested staring down the barrels of pointed guns for at worst trespass.
▶ 3:07:30And in 2023, the Biden DOJ indicted eight pro-life activists, including 87year-old Eva Adele, a communist concentration camp survivor, for protesting at an abortion clinic. Since 1994, 97%, I repeat that, 97% of FACE Act prosecutions have been against proifers.
▶ 3:07:55It is time to end the weaponization of the Face Act against peaceful first amendment protected speech. The Face Act was a bad law when it was enacted and it's time to repeal it. I proudly support HR 5890. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, back in 1994, I was one of the authors of the Face Act. I was right then and we're right now.
▶ 3:08:26And the slanders against the FACE act today are simply not true. Praying is not prohibited by the FACE act unless while praying you are physically obstructing access to an abortion clinic or for that matter to a pregnancy crisis center. It doesn't or to a church. It doesn't matter. The act goes all ways, but the key thing is the use or threat of use of physical force.
▶ 3:08:55Now, the gentleman from Texas said that 90 92% of the prosecutions were for abortion clinics and only 8% for pregnancy crisis centers. Well, that may simply show that 92% of the crimes committed were against abortion clinics and 8% against pregnancy crisis centers, which would not be surprising since we know that there were two murders in connection with abortion clinics.
▶ 3:09:22We are not aware of any murders in connection with pregnancy crisis clinics. The gentleman said that this inhabit inhibits first amendment rights. No, it doesn't. First amendment rights are speaking or advocacy. Now, if you're speaking and advocating while physically blocking an abortion then the Face Act acts not because of your speech or advocacy, but because of your physical uh blocking.
▶ 3:09:52That's what the Face Act prohibits. That's what we still need prohibited because abortion clinics are still threatened. Sometimes pregnancy crisis clinics are also threatened. Either one both of them if threatened both classes I should say if threatened should be protected and that's what the face act does.
▶ 3:10:15an attempt to repeal the FA if the FAC act were repealed, you would return to the situation before you had it where you had physical violence in front of abortion clinics. We do not want physical violence in front of abortion clinics or for that matter anywhere else. That's why we must keep the face act on the books, oppose this legislation and defeat it. I gentlemen I I'll I'll yield to the gentleman. Thank you very much, Mr. Neller.
▶ 3:10:42Um you the last point you landed on um is a very powerful one which is I understand that we've got millions of fellow citizens who want to end abortions in America. So how can they do it? Well, you could come to Congress and try to pass a national law. Uh this is what Speaker Johnson wanted to do with his life begins at conception act. I suppose a lot of our colleagues on the committee are on that.
▶ 3:11:11They don't have a majority in the House of Representatives to do it and they don't have a majority in the Senate to do it. I don't think so. They they can't do that. Then they could do what civil social change movements have done in American life forever, which is to try to engage in moral persuasion to try to convince people don't have an abortion to write letters, talk to people, counsel, and so on. Um, but they don't want to they don't want to leave it at that.
▶ 3:11:38They want to try to actually intimidate people to obstruct people's access to clinics to violently shut them down. Some people have tried to bomb clinics and bomb clinics. Some people have killed um doctors uh who provide abortion services. And so the face act was passed and you were here and most of us were not Mr. Nadler.
▶ 3:12:00But the Face Act was passed in order to make it a federal offense to use violence or obstruction against people exercising a constitutional right. Now, it's not a constitutional right because of the DOS decision. Um, but it is a constitutional right in the states that permit it to happen. It is health care. And so people have a constitutional right to exercise their health care options.
▶ 3:12:26And so I can't understand for me whether I can't understand for the life of me why whether you call yourself pro-choice or pro-life you would want to have scenes of violence and obstruction taking place in front of abortion clinics or other reproductive uh advice clinics or churches. I go back reclaiming my time.
▶ 3:12:48There is one reason and one reason only why people would want to uh uh pass this bill and that is because lacking other options in pro-choice states. They want to they want to see violent obstruction in front of abortion clinics which is what we had before the face act was passed. What the face act is designed to stop what it does stop and it's all that it does. So we should not countenancely repeal unless we support violence. We should vote against this bill.
▶ 3:13:18I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California uh is recognized. Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, I've always believed in the right to life and I've always supported legislation supporting that right. But as I look at this bill, it's not about the right to life or abortion. It's about whether any person has the right to obstruct another in their right to move freely, go about their business peacefully, and worship openly.
▶ 3:13:46I agree completely that the abiden administration weaponized this act to single out one side, those opposing abortions, while ignoring the other, those supporting them. Uh the abuse of this act was egregious. Uh it was a direct attack on the right of abortion opponents to peacefully assemble and to express their views. I have no doubts of that. The face act though doesn't affect the question of abortion.
▶ 3:14:11Rather, it protects every person pro-life or pro-abortion in their right to peacefully assemble and to express their views openly. The fact that it was abused was the fault of the Biden administration and and not the the fundamentals of the law itself. Now, when this bill was drafted, great pains were taken to keep its enforcement balanced. Obviously, our recent experience is that those provisions were not enough.
▶ 3:14:40But rather than repeal it, I'd prefer to see that we use this experience to revise it to asssure that its administration is even handed in the future regardless of who's in power. Perhaps it could include a cause for action for the abuse of this law. add clarity that it applies solely to physical obstruction of an individual seeking access to any facility, whether it be a church or a pregnancy center or or an abortion mill. I agree that the law itself is viewpoint neutral.
▶ 3:15:10It was intended to be, but it wasn't used that way by the Biden administration. That's a legitimate concern for anybody who's pro-life. But if I were pro-abortion, I'd be just as concerned that in the future it could be selectively used against them. with the gentleman. But but rather than repeal it or or leave it intact, I think they too should seek to tighten its provisions so that it can't be used against either side as was the intent of the Congress when it was adopted.
▶ 3:15:39Now, I don't have a proposal to bring to the the committee today, but if this bill passes a committee, I think that both sides would be well advised to agree to to to provisions that prevent abuses of this act on behalf of either side. But more to the point, I am watching the lawless and violent mobs that California authorities have allowed to run a muck on the streets of Los Angeles in recent days.
▶ 3:16:04Uh I believe that the Face Act is potentially an important law to protect the prolife minority in California, of which I am one, against violence, intimidation, and destruction if and when the increasingly violent left turns its wrath upon us. With that, I yield back. Mr. Chairman, I would the gentleman yield for a question? Sure. Gentleman uh Clint talks time. He yields to the gentleman from New York. Did he yield for question? He did. Yeah. Thank you. So I I I take it from what you said.
▶ 3:16:34Am I correct in taking it from what you said that you oppose this bill, support the Face Act, and would bring some other bill to our attention? Would would bring amendment to the face act that tightens it up. So that you oppose this bill to repeal the Face Act would bring amendments. What's that? So, you oppose this bill to repeal the Face Act and instead we'll bring amendments to the FA. I I'm so happy to see that the gentleman's finally listened to me. I'm glad to hear you oppose this bill. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back.
▶ 3:17:04Gentleman from California is recognized. Oh, gentleman from Georgia. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in uh strong opposition to this bill. We've just sat through this morning the of uh protection to the public uh from corporate fraudsters and um polluters and other miscreants. So let's see.
▶ 3:17:29And um and now we're doing something or this committee is doing something far more ownorous, far more ominous, far more disturbing, for far far more frightening, and that is to protection for reproductive health care providers and their patients.
▶ 3:17:56Uh the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, the FACE Act was passed with bipartisan support in response to escalating violence and intimidation directed against reproductive health care providers and patients. Shortly before its passage, one abortion provider was murdered outside an abortion clinic and another abortion provider was shot and wounded.
▶ 3:18:27Abortion facilities across the country were the targets of arson, bombings, and chemical As an anti-abortion activist told the Washington Post, "The goal of those terroristic actions was to make it so that no doctor was willing to conduct abortions even if they had a legal right to perform them.
▶ 3:18:53Clinics were forced to close and women were deprived of needed health services beyond just abortions. That's why pass pass passing the face act was so vital to protect women and health care Now with the overturning of Row versus Wade, anti-abortion extremists have become emboldened and we have seen a spike in major incidents against abortion providers including
▶ 3:19:23arson, burglaries, and death threats. are traveling or moving to states where abortion remains legal. In 2023, there were 296 death threats or threats of harm aimed at abortion providers and patients and 777 incidents of obstruction of abortion clinics, exacerbating the potential for
▶ 3:19:54vi for President Trump pardoned almost two dozen people convict convicted of face act violations, some of whom said that they plan to resume those same activities and they've started recruiting others to join them. Women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and that includes decisions about their reproductive health care.
▶ 3:20:22Every time abortion rights are up for a vote on a state ballot, most voters want them to be legal. I will fight like hell to make sure that they have that right. And I will not allow it to be undermined by extremists.
▶ 3:20:42And it's so ironic that as we debate this uh very dangerous bill that with the tax cut that has already been passed by this house, which is paid for by cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP benefits, food stamps, that these Republicans want to deprive women of the right to have freedom for their
▶ 3:21:12while at the same time denying them health care for their pregnancies and denying those babies that they produce They don't care about humans. It's a political issue for them and they have um they have uh stoked it and worn it out. And let's not continue to play politics with women's reproductive health and with women's freedom.
▶ 3:21:41And I appreciate the ladies from Planned Parenthood who are here today. You've shown up in mass. You have your uh sweatshirts on and t-shirts on and we appreciate uh your support and we support you. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. Mr. Chairman have the unanimous consent request. Gentlemen, pause for a second. Unanimous consent from the gentleman from New York. Mr.
▶ 3:22:08Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement on the Face Act from Judith Applebound, council to Senator Edward Kennedy, chief Senate sponsor of the FAC Act. Without objection, gentleman from New or New Jersey is recognized. I thank you, chairman. So, I always like to say it's tell the truth time. And regardless of how you feel about this issue, prolife, pro-choice, the face act was not enforced properly.
▶ 3:22:35And the fact that it could be misused, and I've met some of the people it was misused against, young women who feel strongly, and it is their right to feel strongly, they're pro-life. prayerful, kind, nice women that were mistreated because they had a different opinion and did protest. You all that are here from Planned Parenthood, and that's a good thing.
▶ 3:22:58You're exercising your right, your first amendment right to be here and to state as you have it right in front of your t-shirts how you believe. But what has happened here is if you have a different opinion, which is not the way America is supposed to work, then you're going to be hurt. there's going to be ext a much stricter level enforcement against you. And it's not even enforcement. It's worse than enforcement. So the stories they've told are true.
▶ 3:23:27The old woman that was almost 90 years old could have gently been just somebody a police officer could have taken her hand and gently moved her away if she was blocking a doorway. This is an old lady. Instead, she was put in jail for years. Come on. Nobody thinks that's right. Nobody thinks that can be good. And it's it's it's interesting if you read the stories. There are many of these stories. It just isn't one incident in one story.
▶ 3:23:58The truth is the act is faulty because it allowed this kind of enforcement unequal application under the law. It allowed the law to be misused for a political force. It allowed people that really disagreed with what was happening in an abortion clinic and wanted to protest and they do come in. But by the way, somebody said, "Do they come into the capital?" Yeah, there are people all over the place.
▶ 3:24:24I walk down the hall sometimes have people that'll corner you, you can't even move around. They're giving you their opinion. But we try to heer on the site of freedom of speech on that side. And here what we did with the face act is truly misuse the law and if you were prolife and you had a pregnancy center somehow you were not protected. That's the reality.
▶ 3:24:49And I could tell I could take you to meet some of these young ladies, some of these people at work. They're not just cranky old people that are there. Young women, some of whom had an abortion themselves and feel that they want we should go about things a different way. It is their right. they also should be protected. They were not protected. And there's been plenty of violence, plenty of problems uh at the pregnancy centers.
▶ 3:25:15And you know, there's nobody here that thinks you should be allowed to bomb any facility. There's nobody here that believes that somebody's free speech should be restricted. There's nobody here that believes an that an assault should ever be allowed upon another human being. But there are many people here sitting here today.
▶ 3:25:38And I think the sponsor of this bill who believe that the law should be enforced uniformly and fairly and evenly and without prejudice. and when it is not and if the law allows it to not be enforced the right way there shows there are faults with the law. So, I don't know. I'm not going to give the answer whether it needs to be amended or appealed, but something's wrong. And you meet those people, you'll find out that something wrong. And we should.
▶ 3:26:08And by the way, the fact that it was enforced that way, I know everybody wants to be mad at Donald Trump and wants to be mad at Chip or me or anybody that's sitting up here. The reality is honestly you should be mad at President Joe Biden because it was under his administration that it wasn't enforced properly that it was enforced unevenly and with prejudice. It was wrong and it was unamerican. And now we are where we are.
▶ 3:26:37So we don't have a bill to amend here. We have a bill to appeal. Maybe after it's appealed, if it is, then we will move forward and we will be able to do something if it's needed. There are plenty of laws in place to be honest with you. If you are assaulting somebody, if you are you just can't bomb a building anywhere in any state, regardless of how the the issues or how the laws are pertaining to abortion.
▶ 3:27:03So, we already have laws in place to stop any of these violent acts that everybody's speaking about here. But there's one thing I'm sure of. What's happened in the past was wrong. It was wrong for Americans. And quite frankly, it was wrong whether you were pro-life or pro-choice. It was unamerican what was done. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania is Gentle lady from Washington. Thank you.
▶ 3:27:30Um, as as we've heard, the FACE Act was enacted in 1994 in order to address rising violence against abortion and reproductive health care providers. And ever since its enactment, there has been a concerted attack on the FACE Act, part of a longtime coordinated extreme anti-choice agenda that has been openly seeking to gut reproductive rights and effectively ban abortion care in the United States.
▶ 3:28:00You can see references to the face act in the infamous Project 2025 manifesto. So, for years, our Republican colleagues have ignored the facts, and they're doing it again today, pushing out a for false narrative that the Face Act, a law that is meant to keep all Americans safe, is being selectively enforced. And we're hearing stories about people being arrested for praying. No, people are not being arrested for praying.
▶ 3:28:28People are being arrested for making threats and for blockading the entrance to clinics. Um, and I would seek unanimous consent to introduce into uh the record an AP article dated June uh 5th, 2024. So, not even recent, but anti-abortion activists convicted for blockading a reproductive health clinic, not for praying there. Without objection. Thank you.
▶ 3:28:54So there is no evidence that people that there is selective enforcement here or that the face act has been weaponized against peaceful protesters because to the extent that there's any disparity in face act prosecution that's a reflection of the facts the facts that anti-abortion extremists have historically engaged in higher incidents of violence than those who've protested the often misleading
▶ 3:29:24uh practices of the so-called pregnancy crisis clinics. Look, we should all be condemning political violence on any front, but in repealing the face act, our Republican colleagues are inviting anti-abortion extremists to use violence and threats and intimidation to block access to abortion care everywhere.
▶ 3:29:47This is an invitation that they've shown they're only too willing to accept, particularly in the wake of the president's pardoning of people who have been in fact prosecuted for those threats and intimidation and blockading. So all women deserve the freedom to work with their doctors and their families to decide on and access the health care that is right for them without the meddling of politicians or extremists.
▶ 3:30:14No one should be denied medical care because of someone else's religious or political beliefs. And everyone deserves the freedom to provide or seek appropriate medical care without threats to their safety. So I obviously oppose this bill and its underlying agenda and I would yield back. Wait, will the gentleman? Sorry, I would yield to the ranking member. Thank you very kindly, Miss Ganon.
▶ 3:30:38Your remarks prompted a thought which is several of our colleagues have described the purpose of the face act as unobjectionable. They've described uh its meaning as good in terms of protecting public health and safety. Their argument is that there has somehow been discriminatory or selective enforcement of the statute.
▶ 3:30:59Now, President Trump pardoned every face act convict uh during from the Biden administration and some people will be cheering that and others will think that that was totally inappropriate. But in any event, those people have been pardoned at this point. Now, our colleagues come forward and say this law which they otherwise support and whose unjustly convicted offenders have been pardoned should be repealed.
▶ 3:31:27Well, that's the exact same situation that the January 6th uh insurrectionist and riers are in. They were convicted of things like assaulting a federal officer. They've been pardoned, all of them, by President Trump. Would our colleagues now say we should repeal the law against um assaulting federal officers because they allege with President Trump that it was somehow misused and they were targeted for political purposes? What about sedicious uh conspiracy against the government?
▶ 3:31:57Several of the Proud Boys in the Oathkeepers, including Enrique Tario, they were convicted for organizing to overthrow the government. That's what sedicious conspiracy is. Now, President Trump felt he didn't articulate it as well as our colleagues today. But our the president felt that somehow it was selective prosecution. It was a political prosecution. He pardoned them. Well, why aren't our colleagues saying we should repeal the law against sedicious conspiracy? Why aren't they saying we should repeal the law against assault of federal officers?
▶ 3:32:28If it's a crime, it's a crime. No, no crime should be selectively enforced. We can agree or disagree about whether or not that happened, but I just find it odd that after they've gotten their way by having these people pardoned that they still want to go ahead and just overturn the law completely. Thank you for yielding. Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:32:49So, in the wake of the DOS decision uh and the leak regarding the DOS decision, uh there were more than 100 pregnancy care centers and pro-life organizations attacked, even bombed. And there were more than 300 churches And uh that's that's pretty stark.
▶ 3:33:17Now, so so why didn't we see more prosecutions? Now, what we heard today is that well, wait a second. The 90 plus% of people who are pro-life that were prosecuted. That's because they're the ones that just get out and protest and cause trouble.
▶ 3:33:35But I I just gave you a bit of a figure, but I think this is important to to reflect upon what uh then attorney general Merritt Garland said in March of 2023 when he was testifying to the United States Senate. He said it's quite easy for the DOJ to catch pro-life protesters because they protest protest in daylight. So that's why they that's one of the reasons they were going there.
▶ 3:34:02But as uh uh re uh Attorney General Garland said, those who are attacking the pregnancy resource centers, which is a hard thing to do, are doing this at night in the dark. That might have some influence on on your pro prosecutorial statistics is that uh they're going for the for what I might generously call the lowhanging fruit that it's easier to go after them.
▶ 3:34:29uh pro President Biden's prosecutors almost completely ignored the vandalism firebombs at the uh pro-life uh churches and pregnancy centers. So let let's not forget there was absolutely a gross Um during the four year during the four years that the DOJ did a civil rights uh uh study and and set this thing forward, they
▶ 3:35:00prosecuted only 57 people for crimes against reproductive health Only only 57. That's that's interesting to me. So, I think you got to remember significantly what was happening. I think Merrick Garland laid it on the table and in a in a very kind of disgusting, cynical manner, saying it's easier to prosecute prolifers. That's what he's saying.
▶ 3:35:25It's easier to prosecute prolifers than people who are firebombing and uh pregnancy centers and churches that represent pro-life. That's the problem that the FACE act gives you and uh for that reason I support this underlying bill and I'll yield to the to the chairman. Yeah. I just want to comment on this selective prosecution and selective enforcement of this uh law that certainly was the case.
▶ 3:35:52Remember what happened May 2nd 2022 the DO's opinion is leaked. By the way, we still don't know who did that. Be kind of nice if we knew who did that because remember what that resulted in. 40ome different churches and pro-life pregnancy centers were attacked between the day of the leak and the day of the opinion which was June 20. And so in a seven-week time frame, you got like all these places being I'll go through the list. I'll go through the list. Some of them activists vandalized the Carnet Pregnancy Center in Frederick, Maryland.
▶ 3:36:21Graffiti and everything else all over the pregnancy center in Portland, Oregon. Vandals smashed numerous windows. Spray painted graffiti on Southeast Portland Pregnancy Resource Center on Mother's Day. Vanals attempted to break into the Oregon Right to Life office in Kaiser, Oregon. Use Molotov cocktails to try to do so. May 13th, activist threatening messages all over the Alpha Pregnancy Center in Risertown, Rystertown, I may have pronounced that wrong. I coded my colleague on the proper pronunciation.
▶ 3:36:50Anti-life a June 2nd anti-life activist targeted the community pregnancy center in Anchorage, Alaska. Broken glass. It was all over the place. And then also what remember what happened in the interim between May 2nd and June 24th there was an assassination attempt on one of our chief justice on Justice Kavanagh.
▶ 3:37:08So there was all kinds of violence going on but throughout all this there were five prosecutions by the Biden DOJ only five of these these people attacked and I just I just read a couple of the list and I just focused on the crisis pregnancy centers not the churches that were attacked attacked. So this is this is our concern. There has most certainly been the egregious abuse as Mr. Mcccleintoch pointed out. There was selective enforcement. We know that that is our concern. Now what does that mean? How we change it? That's a debate we can have.
▶ 3:37:38I respect that. But it seems to me if you're going to have this kind of selective enforcement, this kind of problem with this law, maybe the gentleman from Texas is right. We should repeal it. M Mr. Chairman, I have unanimous consent. The gentleman can state his request. Yes. Uh I have four articles. One is Biden is abusing the FAC act to silence his pro-life critics from Newsweek from Fox. Objection. More than 100 pro-life organizations churches attack since DOBS leaked. Without objection.
▶ 3:38:04Um vandalized pregnancy centers cry for justice one year after DOS leak. Without objection. And the the the fourth one is DOJ wins guilty plea for one of few pregnancy center attackers caught while proifers sit in prison. Without objection. M. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. Okay, let's we'll go there and then we'll come down in this room.
▶ 3:38:25Uh, in response to my colleague statement that folks on y'all's side of the aisle uh don't want or advocate for violence, I have a article axios uh written just a few minutes ago. Mike Johnson says uh Governor Nam should be tored and feathered. Uh without objection. Okay, let me get a swallow. I think we got another then we'll go there. Two UC's. Okay, Miss G. Thank you.
▶ 3:38:55I have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a statement opposing HR589 from the National Council of Jewish Women. Without objection. Another unanimous consent request to enter into the record a statement opposing HR589 from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Without objection. And a final. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement opposing HR589 from resolve the National Infertility Association. Without objection, gentle lady from Vermont is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 3:39:25Uh two UC's here. Um FBI offering $25,000 reward for information in series of attacks against reproductive health services facilities. That's from 2023. And FBI Memphis field office offering $25,000 reward for information in the hope clinic for women arson investigation. again both in the B administration. Uh without objection, gentleman from Florida, did did you have a unanimous intent? No. Okay. I thought I thought I saw your hand.
▶ 3:39:54Uh the chair now recognizes uh the gentleman from California. And let the record show Mr. Mr. It was Mr. Raskin who said Mr. Mr. Jipal had to wait, not me. So I feel I feel bad that she's left. But the gentleman from Cal Okay. Gentleman from California is recognized. My Republican colleagues do not trust women.
▶ 3:40:14That's what this is entirely The only people in America who are asking for this legislation to be repealed are terrorists. people who would choose to show up and terrorize women as they make a very personal, intimate decision that nobody else should be a part of. You don't trust women.
▶ 3:40:43That's what it comes down to. It's not lost on me that on the other side of this debate, it's mostly old men, who are partaking in it. I don't see any women on their side, but they sure want to tell women what to do with their bodies. It's an obsession, a sick obsession.
▶ 3:41:08They want to tell them what to do before the child is born, but boy, do they take a walk once that kid comes out. They ain't going to be there for their healthcare. 40% of moms in America give birth funded by Medicaid. Well, they just knocked 15 million people off of that.
▶ 3:41:33Most moms in America worry about whether their kids going to be safe in their classroom from a mass shooting. They just made it easier for people to buy silencers. They made silencers tax exempt. But they're going to tell us that they're here because they're pro-life. There's nothing pro-life about this legislation.
▶ 3:42:00Actually, it's anti-life because it with and in alignment for people who would bring harm to women. Do you all ever talk to women? Do you know that this decision about what to do with your own body once you're pregnant is the hardest, most personal decision most women will ever make in their life?
▶ 3:42:29And that the overwhelming majority, like 80 to 90% of women who make this decision do it early in the pregnancy. an overwhelming majority, it's because of a healthc care issue. And you want to stand with some violent who's going to get in their way as they make this decision. I mean, give me a break.
▶ 3:42:55And then one of you had the nerve to say, "This is about standing up for peaceful protesters. Your guy just sent the Marines to Los to confront protesters. You sent the Marines. And by the way, I don't know if you've seen the pictures. They are sleeping in squalor. They are sleeping and living exactly the way you would expect them to sleep if their commander-in-chief called them suckers and losers.
▶ 3:43:23These pictures are This is not about protecting peaceful This is about harassing women. They deserve better. Sure, if you think it's the most important thing in your life to go to an abortion center and stand outside and think that you're going to persuade a woman to make a different decision, I guess you have a right to do that. I feel sorry that you think that that's your responsibility, but I guess you have a right to do that.
▶ 3:43:53But you don't have a right to obstruct them. You don't have a right to get in their way. and you certainly don't have a right to bring violence upon them. And this is right on the heels of a 25-year-old man detonating a car bomb outside a fertility clinic in my state last month. This is a green light for more violence against women making this very personal decision.
▶ 3:44:23Guys, it's none of your business. You have no business being a part of that decision and it's a shame that you're going to stand with the terrorists who want to go and try and influence it. We should be doing more to protect women as they make this decision, not taking away barriers. And we have more men on their side coming to join this debate. Still, no women. Trust women, my friends. Trust women.
▶ 3:44:53They will get it right. And I yield back. Someone yields back. The The committee will stand in recess. We have votes called on the floor and we'll come back and resume uh and have the vote on the this legislation. And uh we have one other bill on the calendar for today. With that, we'll stand in recess.
▶ 4:44:59committee will come to order. The gentle lady from Washington is um recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I appreciated Mr. Mcccleintoch's comments earlier. uh just really making the distinction between a law as it's written and how it is applied and the need to maybe look at this to see if there's anything we need to do to um improve the application of it.
▶ 4:45:27But I think we all are here understanding that any law can be weaponized by any administration and we rely on the executive, the good intentions of the executive of Congress and of course of the courts to ultimately determine um in individual cases whether a law is being applied fairly.
▶ 4:45:49Uh I think it's important in this bill and I appreciate the sponsor's comments earlier on too because I think that it is sometimes difficult to be consistent and I think um Mr. Roy is is very consistent on a number of issues even if we disagree. Um and I appreciate that very much and I think it's why we've worked together on on any number of things.
▶ 4:46:11Uh th this bill is a bill that prohibits the use of physical force, threats, and intimidation designed to interfere with those who are exercising first amendment rights of religious freedom at places of religious worship. It is not, as has been said, a bill that distinguishes on speech. Um it applies to violent conduct.
▶ 4:46:37whatever the situation might be, whatever your views might be um on being pro-life, pro-choice, uh that means that no matter which side of the abortion issue that you're on, your speech is protected, but your violent conduct is not. And I think that is the important part of why this bill is so essential and why we shouldn't repeal it if we want to look at ways to make it better. I'd certainly entertain that.
▶ 4:47:04But I think that we should all be able to agree that harassing, intimidating, and bullying patients who seek reproductive care, services or information, whatever their belief is on which services should be offered, um that that harassment, intimidation, bullying, violent behavior is wrong.
▶ 4:47:22And so for those of us who do believe that people's personal reproductive choices should be theirs and theirs alone, it has been horrifying to see clinics burned to the ground by arson, to see gunmen murdering abortion providers and bombings that hurt both property and providers.
▶ 4:47:42In November of 2015, three people were murdered and nine injured when Robert Deer opened fire with an assault style rifle at a Planned Parenthood health center in Colorado. In 2021, a gunman attacked the Planned Parenthood clinic in Knoxville, Tennessee. And later that year, that same clinic was burned to the ground by arsonists. And last month, a fatal car bombing partially destroyed a reproductive center in Palm Springs.
▶ 4:48:12The FBI labeled that an act of terror. So, it should go without saying that when we're talking about enforcing the FACE Act, we are not talking about peaceful protesters. The FACE Act has kept patients, staff, and providers on both sides of the abortion issue safer in their clinics.
▶ 4:48:32And I'll remind my colleagues that just six months ago under a Democratic president, my colleagues in this very same committee held a hearing on the face act and seemed to imply that they wanted more prosecutions under the act, not less. So again, it wasn't about whether the act itself was smart or made sense. It was really about how it was being applied. Since the face acts enactment, violence at anti-abortion clinics has dropped by 30%.
▶ 4:49:02But the DOS decision did embolden anti-abortion activists to escalate their targeting of providers and clinics. And the point has been made by our ranking member and by others on the committee that um just simply looking at the numbers of who's prosecuted is not a good way to determine whether or not the law is being applied fairly because it depends on how many acts of violence there are. And so just consider that between 2023 and 2024 there were 621 incidents of trespassing.
▶ 4:49:31296 death threats, 28 assaults, 12 bomb threats, and three arson. These were on the on the uh around uh protesters who were committing violence against abortion clinics and abortion providers. Um this is still a very real issue that needs to be addressed. And I'm going to speak now as one of the one in four women in America who's had an abortion. Um, I am very grateful that the Face Act was in law when I had my abortion.
▶ 4:50:01These are not easy decisions. They're incredibly personal and private. I never had thought I would have to talk about it. In fact, when I did write my op-ed in the New York Times, I actually had not even told my mother. Um, I think we should be very concerned about making sure we could keep the protections for everybody to be able to have these decisions be private medical decisions of their own. and I'm grateful for the Face Act um and its protections in that respect. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 4:50:32Gentle lady from Wyoming is recognized. Yes. I understand that Mr. Swallwell was waiting for me to come in and speak on this bill so he could I don't know who you are. So so that he could decide uh how to vote. Who are you? I don't know who you are. I will uh explain belongs to the gentle lady from Wyoming. Uh what my position is. Um, the Face Act very simply has been weaponized against the pro-life community and ignored when real terrorism is carried out.
▶ 4:50:58It has become just one more tool in the anti-life, anti-humanist, anti-American toolkit based on forgiving the unforgivable and criminalizing our reverence for life. It has been broken and the Democrats, the radical leftists, uh, prosecutors and judges and bureaucrats are the ones who broke it.
▶ 4:51:18We now recognize that while the original intent of this law may have been good, the implementation, especially under the Biden administration, has been ugly, ugly and unconstitutional, and it has now been turned into a cudgel to destroy the pro-life community. As a result, it's time for it to go. And I support the FACE act. And with that, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr.
▶ 4:51:46appreciate my friend from Wyoming and I certainly know who she is. Um she's a fantastic lady and fantastic representative for the great state of Wyoming and um she is one of the many uh women members of Congress who are co-sponsors of this legislation and women who have written in support of this legislation because there are many people in this country who believe this legislation is critically important so that you can end the abuse of the existing federal statute to be used politically to target
▶ 4:52:17uh American citizens for political purposes as was evidenced repeatedly over and over and over again under the previous administration. The fact is we're talking about that difference of if you look at the data since the enactment of the face act since 1994, if you look at the uptick in attacks on churches, for example, an 800% increase in violence against churches uh since 2018, an average of 39
▶ 4:52:47attacks every month. There have been 96 violent attacks on pregnancy resource centers since the DOB's uh opinion was leaked in May of 2022 as the chairman of the committee observed in some data that he put forward. The fact of the matter is it was politicized. But look, we're not going to agree on this. Okay? And there's even some colleagues on this side of the aisle who seem to be not bothered by this reality. My concern is that we have too many damned laws.
▶ 4:53:16These laws, these issues that we're dealing with right now are all capable of being dealt with at the state level. We either believe in that or we don't. And we can stick to the premise that we recognize these statutes and these laws exist in every state and every jurisdiction of the country, murder laws. And by the way, to the to the extent, and I appreciate the comments from the gentle lady from Washington about some consistency, and look, and nothing's 100% black and white. you have to figure out these issues.
▶ 4:53:47But, you know, arguing with the uh Fraternal Order Police and some of my uh friends in that community about whether we should have a statute essentially federalizing uh uh statute against cop killers and making sure that they're punished accordingly. Well, I I mean I I despise cop killers. Uh but at some point I have to say, well, at what point and when is this a federal issue and and and why should it be? And I understand this.
▶ 4:54:12you say, "Well, there's there's constitutional rights at play here." Uh, from the perspective of of the of of my colleagues on other side of the aisle, obviously, this is a hotly debated topic about our views on all of that. My friend from California just talked about being able to freely go in and out of engaging, but we don't we don't need a federal statute to talk about freely going in and out of some place of business. We don't need that. I mean, the fact of the matter is there's plenty of state statutes that defend that ability to move around freely in the United States.
▶ 4:54:39And if I need the federal government to defend my ability to move around freely, will God help us all? So, forgive me if I don't think this statute is necessary, nor the countless others that I think we will be able to uncover through the Count the Crimes Act of the numerous federal laws that have been written and put into place because busy body members of Congress feel like they've got another damn issue they got to go solve by introducing yet another law to tell me how to live and tell me what to do and how they're going to give power to bureaucrats at the FBI and law enforcement authorities to come
▶ 4:55:09after me or to come after law-abiding citizens. And the fact is you say, "Well, okay, that all they were they weren't engaging in just prayer." Well, some of them were. Some of them were engaging in protest, no doubt, but I really look forward to all of the uh venom being issued towards the people that are destroying the city of Los Angeles as we speak when we have at least one sentence of over five years for one of these individuals protesting at an abortion clinic. I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 4:55:39question is on Oh, I'm sorry. Gentle lady from uh uh Vermont. Oh, it's actually Oh, I'm sorry. Gentle gentleman from Illinois is recognized. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Is recognized. Thank you. We're considering this legislation for one reason, to greenlight violence against abortion care in this country.
▶ 4:56:05As my colleagues have said, there's a reason why the FACE act was first enacted. After the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion care in Ro v. Wade, the anti-abortion movement embraced violence and terror as tactics to end abortion access nationwide. These right-wing extremists killed and assaulted doctors.
▶ 4:56:31They bombed and set fire to clinics and stalked and harassed patients. After the tragic murder of Dr. David Gun in March of 1993, Congress decided and enacted the Face Act with bipartisan support. And after it did, incidents of murder, attempted murder, bombing, and arson targeting uh abortion at abortion care locations. all decreased.
▶ 4:57:02But these threats are not gone. Violence and intimidation are still a part of the anti-abortion movement in this country. After the fall of Row, there were huge increases in stalking, burglary, and anthrax and bioteterrorism threats targeting abortion clinic staff, patients, and providers. My home state of Illinois is not immune to these tactics.
▶ 4:57:31activists have threatened to slaughter and murder doctors and patients at abort at an abortion clinic in Chicago in Firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria. So despite all the rhetoric, the reason the face act exists is because anti-abortion extremists refuse to renounce violence and intimidation to forcibly enact their unpopular agenda.
▶ 4:57:59That's why Democratic and Republican presidents alike have enforced the law, including President Trump in his first administration. It's also why federal appeal appeals courts that considered the statute found it to be And as we know, the Face Act doesn't just protect abortion care providers.
▶ 4:58:23It protects anti-abortion pregnancy counseling centers and other reproductive health facilities. Those facilities should also not be subject to violence and intimidation and those who engage in it uh should be held accountable across the board. But the fundamental problem here is not the face act.
▶ 4:58:48It's the reason the FACE act exists because parts of the anti-abortion movement embraces violence to achieve its political ends. That's why we need this important law. And it's why I'm proud to have joined a letter earlier this year led by Congressman Nadler affirming our support for the FACE Act and its equitable enforcement.
▶ 4:59:13Because the reality is that Republicans talk about crime and then fuel violence in our communities. Whether it's an anti-abortion violence, gun violence, immigration enforcement violence, or anti-protest violence, the right-wing playbook in violence and domination. I stand against it and yield back. Gentleman yields back. J from California is recognized. You know, thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 4:59:42Uh, and I I love this. A colleague from the other side of the aisle said, "If I need the federal government to tell me how to move around freely, then God help us." Then I would just ask him to call the president and ask the president to get the Marines out of my city because chaos only ensued when this president was looking for a spectacle to distract this country from the recision package that we should be talking about that is essentially going to kill Elmo among a number of other things.
▶ 5:00:12this divorce without a prenup from Elon Musk and $880 billion in Medicaid cuts. So, I am tired of that. I am also tired about the duplicity around this bill. And I love that folks keep saying that they support this legislation and then start talking about the Face Act. That's how you know that this issue once again is being The issue isn't the face act.
▶ 5:00:43And what does this do? It prohibits the use or attempted use of force, threats of force, or physical obstruction intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the obtaining or provision of reproductive health services, or religious free exercise at a place of worship. It also prohibits a person from intentionally damaging or destroying a facility.
▶ 5:01:07So I am godsmacked once again that we have people in this body who are essentially saying it is okay to harm, to hurt, maybe even to kill someone because of a view because where were you on January 6th when all this stuff was going down? And it's not about little old ladies. And by the way, little old ladies can be dangerous, too. But it's not about little old ladies praying.
▶ 5:01:38At best, trespassing crimes. We're talking about murder, attempted murder, bombing, arson, death threats, invasion, blockades, anthrax, bioteterrorism threats, assault and battery, kidnapping, stalking, vandalism, and yes, trespassing. We are saying don't do this.
▶ 5:02:01And if you want to repeal this act, then you're saying, "Oh, I condone all of I work with abortion advocates." And earlier this week, I got a call about a woman who was trying to get an abortion because she was being brutally assaulted and beaten and had been raped, had been raped by her partner.
▶ 5:02:30was living in a domestic shelter, went to the clinic to get services, was turned away, and she was found by the partner and beaten again and put in the hospital, wasn't even well enough to get back to the shelter. And essentially, if you want to repeal this, then you're saying it's okay for that to happen to her. And you know what?
▶ 5:02:59It's also okay if there are protesters outside the clinic waiting to assault her for trying to handle her medical business. And you cannot be a Christian and condone that kind of activity.
▶ 5:03:17And I get those calls on the regular because of the work that I do in my And it's not about repealing the act. If you don't like the fact that it's being enforced inconsistently, have that discussion. But hey, wait a minute.
▶ 5:03:41Your raptors in the department of justice that they are reiterating the commitment to using the face act to protect fake clinics. Okay? Otherwise known as crisis pregnancy centers. and they are going to refuse to do the same for clinics that provide abortion care.
▶ 5:04:01So, you want to make it like we're having an agnostic conversation about safety, but you have people in DOJ right now saying that they are going to continue to politicize this issue to help one side over the other. I thought at the end of the day, we're trying to keep people safe regardless of your stance on abortion.
▶ 5:04:27So, I just this is a hot mess that we have to even be here talking about this and I do oppose this bill and I yield Gentle lady yields back. The uh the gentle lady from Vermont is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Donald Trump's plan to kill the national right to abortion essentially worked. Uh 13 states have complete bans on abortion.
▶ 5:04:54Now anti-abortion activists are emboldened. Extremists are continuing to harass and intimidate people at their doctor's offices simply for seeking medical care. And now Republicans want to repeal the one law we have to protect access to reproductive health care. Now the majority's view is clear. We've been here for hours.
▶ 5:05:18Uh they want to eliminate the face act, the law that protects reproductive health care clinics and patients from violent threats and attacks. In other words, they don't want to protect Americans at their doctor's offices. The FACE Act is still so relevant. In fact, it's more important than ever.
▶ 5:05:38The American people need strong enforcement of the FACE Act in the face of continued and escalating violence, threats, and intimidation against women and their doctors post jobs. According to the most recent report issued by the National Abortion Federation, anti-abortion extremists have now shifted their efforts to block access to health care facilities in those states that protect the right to obtain an abortion.
▶ 5:06:07Obstruction of clinic entrances in states where abortion is legal increased by over 500% from 2021 to 2022. The pattern is the same when we look at assaults, when we look at stalking and bomb threats against abortion providers.
▶ 5:06:23In 2023 and 2024, even with the Face Act in place, there were nearly 1,400 reported incidents of obstructing or trespassing at clinics that provide Losing Face Act protections would no doubt put health care professionals, their staff, and patients that the law currently protects in more danger from extremist terror attacks.
▶ 5:06:53We need to enforce the laws that protect our access to abortion, not repeal them. The FACE Act protects access to reproductive health care and places of The law was enacted because doctors were Murdered by anti-abortion religious extremists. That is the hard cold truth of it. That's why we needed it in the first place. Nurses were assaulted. Security guards were killed.
▶ 5:07:24Arson and bombings were common place. It's been well documented. And I fear if we repeal this, we are headed right back to that state of violence and lawlessness. I absolutely oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. At this incredibly dangerous time, we cannot repeal the law that Congress put into place to protect patients from violence. It's unconscionable. And I see that uh the member, would you like me to yield time to you? Yes.
▶ 5:07:54Only when you're finished because you're doing a great job. Yeah. I yield to the member. Um thank you very much, Representative Ballot. You know, we've been talking about the right to reproductive health care and I used my five minutes focusing on that.
▶ 5:08:09But while I've been listening to my colleagues and reflecting on the FACE act, I also um started to think about the calls that I made last week and yesterday to the rabbis and members of the Jewish community in my district.
▶ 5:08:27And one of the things that I reiterated to them was that once again I had written a letter to the appropriations chairs asking for additional security assistance given the um anti-semitic acts and violence that had occurred in Colorado and here in um Washington DC. And unfortunately, um, when I do go visit the synagogues in my district, I have five.
▶ 5:08:58Two of them have armed guards in front of the synagogues. And it just occurred to me as we were having this that I didn't tell them that the judiciary committee was going to try to take away the ability to prosecute somebody who might want to come in and injure them. But that is what the Republicans save Mr.
▶ 5:09:26Mcccleintoch are looking to do today. So if this bill comes out of committee, I will make sure that I will call all of them back and report that the Republicans on the judiciary committee no longer care about enforcing federal law when it comes to our synagogues. Thank you. And I yield back. And I yield back. Yields back. Yeah. Unanimous consent. Yes. Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 5:09:53Uh chairman, uh I seek unanimous consent uh to enter into the record and inmemoriam page from the National Abortion Federation noting that there have been 11 murders due to anti-abortion violence. Objection. Gentleman from Maryland's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's excuse me. It's a UC to enter the record statement opposing HR589 from Renee Chileian, the founder and the CEO of Northland Family Planning Centers in Michigan.
▶ 5:10:24Uh without objection, the question occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed. No. Uh the the eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be I could request the I thought you might do that.
▶ 5:10:55Uh the clerk call the role. Mr. Jordan. Yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. Yes. Mr. Massie votes yes. Mr. Roy I. Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, yes. Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nells, Mr.
▶ 5:11:25Moore, Mr. Kylie, Miss Haggamman, yes. Miss Hagman votes yes. Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Not votes I. Mr. Harris, Mr. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Hder. Mr. Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill votes yes. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Raskin. No. Mr. Raskin votes no.
▶ 5:11:56Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughrren. Miss Laughrin votes no. Mr. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Swallow votes no. Mr. Lou. Miss Jipal. Miss Jipal votes no. Mr. Koreah, Miss Scandlin, Mr. Negus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, no. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballot, no. Miss Balot votes no. Mr.
▶ 5:12:26Garcia, no. Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camel Dove, no. Miss Camager, Dove votes no. Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett. Mr. Isa. Mr. Isa votes yes. M. Bombgardner. Mr. Bombgardner. Yes. Mr.
▶ 5:12:44Bombgardner votes Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes yes. Clerical report. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 eyes and 10 nos.
▶ 5:13:14The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. The uh committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. Nice. Now, where's he going? Saved.
▶ 5:21:49Committee will come to order. Uh pursuant to notice I call up HR 3492, the Protect Children's Innocent Act of 2025 for person of markup and move that the committee reported favor to the House. Uh the clerk will report the bill. HR. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Wyoming, Miss Hegman, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in favor of HR 3492, the Protect Children's Innocence Act.
▶ 5:22:20Mr. Chairman, today we are facing one of the greatest crises of our time, child abuse disguised as medical intervention. Children are being coerced by adults in positions of authority into lifealtering gender transition procedures without a full understanding of the meaning or impact. Democrats have embraced an extreme position on gender and the biological differences between boys and girls and men and women.
▶ 5:22:46They are clearly more interested in promoting radical leftist policies than protecting protecting children from harm. The radical left has deliberately distorted the public debate surrounding what they refer to as gender affirming care, which is really nothing of the sort. Instead of accurately describing the procedures as harmful, lifealtering, and barbaric, which they are, the left deceptively frames the procedures as being necessary to improve the health and well-being of children.
▶ 5:23:17By advocating for these procedures and this level of medical intervention, Democrats are indoctrinating children and encouraging them to make lifealtering decisions about their body involving hormones and jeopardizing their health. Let's call this for what it is. So-called gender affirming care is the genital mutilation and chemical castration of children. It is not life-saving care.
▶ 5:23:43It is child All evidence points to the fact that these barbaric procedures, including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries, are a form of genital mutilation. More and more individuals who were convinced to go down this road are now coming forward to share their horrific experiences of being used as experiments of the medical establishment. The majority of these brave individuals are girls and women. The first rule of medicine is do no harm.
▶ 5:24:11Yet those in the medical community performing these grotesque procedures on children are committing serious harm. Thankfully, doctors across the United States and in other countries are also beginning to take a stand against those in the medical community who insist that these are quote life-saving procedures and should not be questioned. Thankfully, my friend and colleague, Representative Marjgerie Taylor Green, stepped up and introduced the Protect Children's Innocent Act.
▶ 5:24:37I thank Representative Green for her important work on this legislation and for her tireless efforts to protect our children from this evil. The Protect Children's Innocence Act will hold those accountable who perform or attempt to perform genital mutilation or chemical castr castration on children. The bill expands covered offenses to include the bodily mutilation and the chemical castration of a minor.
▶ 5:25:03Victims are protected by ensuring that they cannot be arrested or prosecuted if one of these or other prohibited procedures are performed on them. This issue is really quite simple. Do not force children into making decisions they will not be able to reverse. Do not make these children life lifelong patients dependent on the medical system. A civilized society protects its children first. And that is what this bill does. In short, do not abuse our nation's children.
▶ 5:25:32I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, we know that one of the basic tactics in every authoritarian's playbook is to pick out a small minority group in society and scapegoat them, castigate them, demonize them, deny them basic rights and freedoms, dehumanize them, deny their very existence.
▶ 5:26:00Jews and gypsies in Nazi Germany. Christians in Pakistan today, African-Americans in Jim Crow America, gay people in Putin's Russia, weaggguers in Tibetans in China. Just pick out a minority and mobilize the society against them and you won't have to ask tough answer tough questions about your own authoritarianism, your own corruption. Mr.
▶ 5:26:27Chairman, I had a very disturbing meeting at the beginning of this Congress with parents of transgender kids who came to see me from my district and I was prepared for them to be lobbying me on this or that and I began to talk about different legislation and they said, "No, we know that you're with us on the legislation.
▶ 5:26:46We're here to ask you how far you think this campaign is going to go because a lot of families have started to leave the country and are talking about leaving the country, going to Spain or Portugal or France, somewhere where their families can feel safe. And so I was so taken aback by the conversation and their true alarm and what they're reporting about their kids that I have followed this issue very closely since the new administration started.
▶ 5:27:16And indeed, the campaign of demonization and vilification and scapegoing began on the very first day in office. President Trump issued an executive order denying the very existence of transgender Americans. That's an order that George Orwell would have recognized. Well, he purged government websites of any reference to transgender Americans, just disappearing them.
▶ 5:27:44He issued an executive order directing that Americans serving honorably in the armed forces for years or decades be summarily kicked out for being transgender. That's right. a guy who avoided military service himself because of his serious problem with bone spurs and who told Howard Stern that his Vietnam was trying to avoid sexually transmitted diseases at the discos and clubs of Manhattan is now kicking
▶ 5:28:14out of the military thousands of honorable patriotic Americans, more than a thousand at least who've already been kicked out. people who have faithfully and bravely served their country because of Donald Trump's intent and determination to scapegoat these people. He's threatened to defund schools just for supporting trans students.
▶ 5:28:39He's trying to bully schools into banning trans girls from playing sports with other girls. And understand what the Biden policy was. The Biden policy was to leave it to the school districts. no categorical ban on transgender kids across the country, across different school districts, but it's up to each elementary school, middle school, high school to work out those issues for themselves.
▶ 5:29:04Trump's ordered transgender women incarcerated in women's facilities to be immediately transferred out and placed in male facilities, putting their bodily safety into jeopardy. Today during Pride Month, no less, which is not to imply that our colleagues are necessarily celebrating Pride Month, but uh our colleagues go one step further now in this cruel campaign.
▶ 5:29:29They seek to deny transgender youth access to potentially life-saving health care, access to the treatments and medications prescribed to them by their physicians in accordance with the wishes of their family, their parents. And they do this while they try to pass the big beautiful bill that will cut health care to more than 14 million Americans.
▶ 5:29:55For the life of me, I don't understand how a party which prides itself so much on the individual's right to make his or her own decisions, the family's right to make the decisions for their own kids, so much so that they would reject the obligation of anybody to get a vaccine in the country at this point for any purpose. I understand it's a principled position.
▶ 5:30:18Now, you want to say that you're going to make a decision for a family and their kids about how they're to be raised and what health care they need. Big Brother loves their children more than they do. Is that what you're telling us? I mean, give me a break.
▶ 5:30:33the so-called Protect Children's Innocence introduced by that famous advocate of public health and children's safety, Marjorie Taylor Green, would make it a crime for doctors just to care for their transgender patients in accordance with the wishes of their families. All major medical associations in America agree evidence-based gender- affirming care is necessary and in many instances lifesaving for transgender youth.
▶ 5:31:04And while my colleagues across the aisle today will likely tell you there are young people across the country being mutilated by evil malicious doctors, that is not the real story. Like all medical care, gender affirming care is tailored to the age and the unique needs of individual patients in consultation with the families, medical doctors, mental health professionals.
▶ 5:31:28And I'm sorry, I trust them more than I trust Marjorie Taylor Green, who has shown nothing but a spectacular disrespect for scientific professionalism and expertise in the United States of America. Let's not turn the Congress of the United States into a supreme medical board for the country that will override not only the states and the localities and the medical associations and the physicians but even the wishes of the parents.
▶ 5:32:00I wish one of my colleagues would explain that to me. How you expect big brother to make better decisions than the families of the kids involved in this situation. It is to elevate your ideological dogma over the needs of real Let's stop attacking transgender kids. Let's instead fight to support the programs all of us need.
▶ 5:32:27My colleagues voted for a bill that threatens healthc care for over 37 million children who rely on Medicaid and CHIPS, the children's health insurance program. They supported cutting benefits for nearly 15 million children who rely on SNAP benefits to get adequate nutrition in America.
▶ 5:32:45They want to gut the Department of Education, which ensures nearly 26 million low-income students and 7 and 12 million students with disabilities will have access to meaningful educational opportunities. If we want to talk about children in America, let's talk about children in America. Let's not demonize and scapegoat. Less than 1/ half of 1% of the population. Somewhere around a million people in America are transgender.
▶ 5:33:14So, let's not pounce on them and demonize them and vilify them and the people who love them and who are trying to take care of them. This so-called Protecting Children's Innocence Act from Marjorie Taylor Green is the latest effort to attack, demean, scapegoat transgender Americans. I won't stand for it.
▶ 5:33:35I urge all of our colleagues to oppose this and I yield Without objection, all of their opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes a gentle lady from Wyoming to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the Amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Wyoming to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 5:34:04This amendment clarifies the definition in the health of the minor section of the bill and it also clarifies that necessary medical procedures are not defined as mutilation. I heard support for my amendment and I yield back. I thank gentle lady from Wyoming who seeks Uh the gentleman from New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:34:35Mr. Chairman, this bill is a disgrace in a long line of disgraces. It outlaws gender affirming care. Gender affirming care we know to be life-saving The suicide rate of transgender teenagers who are denied this care is We started out with the president's executive order denying the existence of transgender people.
▶ 5:35:01They don't exist, but they obviously exist enough to be kicked out of the military, not categorized in males. Now, if you say there are only two sexes, males and then the males in the military who are transgender should have been declared males and kept in the military. Instead, we kicked them out. That doesn't make sense. It's just an exercise in prejudice.
▶ 5:35:28And who are we to dictate to families and doctors as to the proper medical care for their teenagers? We know that the suicide rate of trans teenagers who don't get gender affirming care is very high. It is a uh and this bill would make it a crime to properly treat transgender people. The medical societies recognize that transgender is a category. We know that there are not just two sexes, male and female.
▶ 5:35:56For decades it was criminal to be gay, to be homosexual, to be um lesbian, and people were subject to blackmail for that. Just watch The Manurion Candidate. Good movie. We know better than that now. So why don't we know better than that about transgender people, too? We have to open our eyes and see what's in front of us.
▶ 5:36:22Enabling families, troubled families to go to their doctor and say what's wrong and the diagnosis is that this kid is trans and needs gender affirming care. If they decide to do it, who are we to tell them not to? Are we a dictatorship? We we we dictate to families. That's what this bill would do. This bill is a disgrace. It is big brother. The Republican party supposedly is the party of small government.
▶ 5:36:53And here it is saying that big brother knows better than the family the family doctor. That is not right and we shouldn't pass this bill. And I'll yield to the gentle to the uh Mr. Rasin and I I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York. I wanted to enter for the record a unanimous uh consent request.
▶ 5:37:18This comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of um Obstitricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association, and American Psychiatric Association titled leading physician groups oppose infringements on medical care patient physician relationship dated May 1, 2025. And I want to just quote a paragraph.
▶ 5:37:45Our organizations have consistently opposed any legislation, regulation, or executive action that interferes in the confidential relationship between a patient and their physician or undermines the provision of evidence-based standards of patient care and physician training and education. Patients must be able to discuss health issues with their trusted physician to determine together what care is best for them. They make a very powerful argument against what Marjorie Taylor Green wants to do in this bill.
▶ 5:38:15And I must say, Mr. Chairman, in requesting UC, I trust the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of OBGYNS, the American College of Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association, American Psychiatric Association. Then I would trust uh before I would trust uh Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor. Without objection, claiming my time.
▶ 5:38:41The gentleman has recited the list of just about every medical society in the United States and this committee through this bill proposes to execute our judgment bunch of politicians over all the medical professionals over all the societies representing medical professionals in this country. If it weren't for the fact that doing so would h would hurt many people would commit would cause many suicides.
▶ 5:39:11This would be laughable. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Who seeks recognition? Gentle lady from Um I can understand why there are some in the medical field that support these kinds of procedures. They're huge money maker opportunities.
▶ 5:39:27Recently discovered video from 2018 revealed a Vanderbilt University Medical Center doctor touting the pediatric gender affirming procedures are quote huge money makers for hospitals and a staffer saying anyone with a religious objection should quit. The video further featured a doctor hyping the profits hospitals can make from performing medically unnecessarily unnecessary double massctomies on young girls.
▶ 5:39:52Such a vile procedure is widely referred to as top surgery in the contemporary language of transgender ideology. The fact is a growing number of experts in Europe and elsewhere are proposing that there is limited existing evidence that supports gender affirming treatments in children with gender dysphoria.
▶ 5:40:10For example, the National Health Services of England and the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services conducted two recent systematic reviews to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and gender reassignment surgeries in adolescence with gender dysphoria. The 2021 and 2022 studies determined that quote the scientific evidence is insufficient end quote to accurately evaluate the effects of these treatments in minors.
▶ 5:40:40Though both studies concluded that there is some support to suggest that the hormone given to delay puberty G&R may inhibit normal bone development in children. In fact, what we know is that this particular drug carries risks of significant harms including infertility, sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density, acrruel, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and
▶ 5:41:11regret. So yes, it makes sense for those in the med some in the medical field to pursue this because as they've been indicated themselves as they've admitted they can make massive amounts of money by uh undertaking these absolutely brutal type of treatments on minors no less. And what do I mean by the brutal types of treatments? I'll read some of them to you. Uh it's not just quote top surgery that can make the hospitals money. These doctors shockingly boasted about lucrative quote bottom surgeries.
▶ 5:41:40What a what an interesting euphemism we have here. And promoted the money to be made on phaloplastes performed on girls. These quote bottom surgeries for girls nonsensically claim to help masculinize gender affirmation and involve numerous high-risisk procedures including creating the penis, lengthening the ureth urethra so that a biological female is able to stand to urinate, creating the tip or glands of the penis, creating a scrotum, removing the vagina,
▶ 5:42:11uterus, and ovaries, placing erectile and testicular implants and skin grafting from the donor tissue site. Isn't it nice that they refer to this as quote bottom surgery? When I talk about this as being barbaric, I think that's actually an understatement.
▶ 5:42:26And I can see that in uh you know, in a couple of years, we're going to look back on this period of time and we're going to be absolutely horrified that we allowed people to do this to our children to that we allowed them to make these decisions for children so that they could have these kinds of surgeries and medical intervention.
▶ 5:42:46Um, so yes, it is not surprising to me that you have some in the medical field that want to continue making money and the younger the patient that they can bring in, the more money that they can make because once you start down this road, you will be a lifetime medical patient both in terms of the uh uh the psych psychiatric care that will be necessary as well as the uh pharmaceutical intervention that will be necessary and the ongoing surgeries that will be necessary.
▶ 5:43:15in addition to, as I've indicated, having problems with cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders. Uh, with that, um, uh, Mr. uh, Roy, I will yield the remainder of my time back to you. With that, I'll now, uh, recognize M. Uh, okay, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
▶ 5:43:39I strongly oppose this bill because it's an extreme attack on parents, on doctors, on science, on freedom, on This bill would throw doctors in prison for providing medically necessary care.
▶ 5:43:57care that is supported by every major medical and mental health association in the United States of America, including the American Medical Association, the Academy, the American Academy of and the American Psychological Association, among others.
▶ 5:44:18And not only that, this bill would throw parents in jail if they help their child access evidencebased treatments from a medical When a child is suffering and needs medical care, I want them to get the treatment that they, their parents, and their doctor believe is best.
▶ 5:44:43There's no space in that exam room for a MAGA Republican politician who wants to deny appropriate medical care from your kid out of either cruelty, ignorance, or This bill shows Republicans hypocrisy. It allows puberty blockers and hormone therapy for cisgender youth, just not for transgender youth.
▶ 5:45:14That's because Republicans want to target and demonize trans kids. And that targeting has real consequences because gender affirming care has been shown to decrease the dramatically high rates of suicide and depression for transgender and gender diverse youth.
▶ 5:45:38We need to be giving kids the tools to thrive, not taking away their health care as a political ploy. I was proud to join an amicus brief in the pending case of United States v.
▶ 5:45:53scrimer, which highlights the role animosity has played in legislation banning medically necessary care for transgender youth and urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Tennessee law at issue in the case because this bill ignores science, puts young people's lives at risk, and criminalizes doctors for for providing appropriate care.
▶ 5:46:21I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. Orton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since my first week in Congress, I've been calling for federal action to dismantle the transgender industrial complex. One essential step is defunding sex trade altering treatments on minors.
▶ 5:46:49During the con during the constitution subcommittee's hearing on Congressman Green's bill, I spoke about the costly sexaltering treatments that are being paid for in some states by the Medicaid program. I led a letter to CMS trying to quantify how much US taxpayers were spending on this grizzly activity. But pinning down that number is difficult because of the rampant fraud and abuse in billing and coding for these procedures.
▶ 5:47:18For instance, these transgender clinics billing for precocious puberty or hypogonadatism when really they are being using using those drugs for gender transition. It is essential that we preserve the language and the House passed one big beautiful bill that defunds mutilating and sterilizing sex trait altering treatments in Medicaid. Our Senate colleagues must preserve that language. As medical doctors, we take an oath to do no harm.
▶ 5:47:46There is absolutely nothing evidence-based about chemical castration or gentle genital mutilation of children. The Dutch protocol and the WPATH guidelines are garbage. Three systematic reviews in the UK, the US and Sweden have refuted and shown the utter scientific nonsense embodied in the Dutch protocol.
▶ 5:48:13basically the protocol that's being cited by my Democrat colleagues today. The reconciliation bill um reflects the thrust of one of the first bills I introduced when I came into Congress, HR 2387, the No Harm Act, along with which contains the defunding of transgender mutilation, as well as conscience protections and a private right of action for those harmed by this grizzly industry.
▶ 5:48:41Over the past few years, so-called doc doctors working in pediatric transgender clinics have prescribed medicines or done procedures they know will permanently sterilize children and leave them with irreversible psychological and physical damage. This is done in service of their poisonous gender ideology. They also exploit vulnerable children and young adults, often those suffering from anxiety, depression, autism spectrum disorder, or are victims of domestic violence.
▶ 5:49:11They promise these poor young people that their problems will go away and they will be happy if only they embrace gender ideology and undergo gender transition. These so-called doctors do this in service of their sika ideology. And as one of them put it, because the procedures are big money makers, the No Harm Act cottifies President Trump's day one executive order and protects taxpayers from being forced to subsidize the abuse of the vulnerable.
▶ 5:49:39Another federal solution, of course, is before us today. This is to hold the quack doctors accountable for performing these horrific treatments on minors. Congressman Green's bill does so by instituting criminal penalties on anyone who performs sex trade sex trade altering treatments on minors. This so-called gender affirming care is clearly child abuse.
▶ 5:50:03In 2021, 4,000 Americans aged 6 to 17 began crossex hormone treatment for gender dysphoria. Most of those 4,000 children didn't even know at the time they were signing up for a lifetime of fertility issues and other serious health problems. If a child takes puberty blockers before beginning hormone therapy, they will not develop gonatal tissue or gametes, resulting in permanent loss of reproductive capacity.
▶ 5:50:28We do not even let children get their ears pierced without better informed consent than this. There is also a long list of side effects in addition to infertility. I'm proud to support the Protect Chen's Innocence Act of 2025 and I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Is there further discussion? Miss J. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, sorry, Mr. Garcia. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.
▶ 5:50:56The gentleman is recognized under the five-minute act. He doesn't need to strike the last word. Thank you. I join the uh Democratic colleagues and strongly opposing the criminalization of gender affirming health care for minors. This bill is a shocking overreach, even for a party that does nothing else except overreach. It ignores science. It endangers young people and criminalizes doctors for doing their job.
▶ 5:51:25The reality is that every major medical and mental health association, as has been shared, in the country supports age appropriate gender affirming care for transgender people. And like other kinds of health care, Congress should not be in the business of dictating medical decisions.
▶ 5:51:49And far from protecting young people, this bill only continues the Republican party's ongoing war against the most vulnerable communities in our country. Criminalizing gender affirming care will only stigmatize and endanger the lives of young people who should be making sensitive medical decisions in consultation with their medical providers and parents or guardians. Not with Marjgerie Taylor Green.
▶ 5:52:20But this outcome isn't a coincidence. It's exactly what Republicans want to do. as they have done in states around the country. Republicans pretend to be protecting children when they're just punishing medical providers, caregivers, and the children themselves. Let's take a step back and just think about how absurd it is to be prioritizing a bill like this.
▶ 5:52:45Right now, Trump has tanked the economy, declared a war on immigrants, repeatedly violated the Constitution, and directed Republicans in Congress to destroy Medicaid, food assistance, and PEL grants to give hundreds of billions of dollars to ICE and the richest people in the country.
▶ 5:53:07Instead of even pretending to defend liberty, freedom, and small government, Republicans are rushing to embrace deportations of US citizen children with cancer, the militarization of our communities, with violent suppression of speech and descent, and the persecution of the most vulnerable amongst us. And it's only going to work if we allow it to.
▶ 5:53:33In this moment of authoritarian overreach, people across the country must stand together in solidarity. We must reject this administration's civil rights violations against people of all backgrounds. We must not fall for the trap and believe that the source of our problems is trans people, immigrants, and young people.
▶ 5:53:58Because the real solution is the real problem is billionaires and politicians who are happy to trample on the Constitution and make a quick buck off of it and the backs of the working class. Let's keep the focus on them and stop them from destroying our country while we still can. Thank you and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Miss Hegman. Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 5:54:29Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3492 offered by Miss Haggman of Wyoming. Page 8, line 19. Without objection, the amendment be considered as read. Gentle lady from Wyoming is right. I reserve the point of order. This amendment simply strengthens the the definitions of biological sex as well as as the definitions of male and female in the legislation. And I urge I urge support for my amen amendment and I yield back.
▶ 5:54:56Gentle lady yields back the questions on the amendment by the gentle lady from Wyoming. Is there further
▶ 5:55:33Is there discussion? But but perhaps uh the the introducer of the amendment could explain what the purpose of the amendment is. Yes, again as I said it strengthens the definition of biological sex and then also it further defines male and female as you can see on it would insert these definitions on page nine after line 18.
▶ 5:55:56Uh identifying male is means a person who naturally has had will have or would have but for a congenital anomaly historical accident or intentional or unintentional disruption the reproductive system that at some point produces transports and utilizes sperm for fertilization. For female the term female means a person who naturally has had will have or would have but for a congenital anomaly historical accident or intentional or unintentional disruption.
▶ 5:56:25the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization. Mr. Raskin has the time. Um, okay. But I Yeah, but I'm no expert in this amendment. Um, and uh, so I'm I'm not quite sure the if the gentle lady would just yield for a quick question.
▶ 5:56:51Is is there some particular scientific provenence for this Is it that what's funny is is if you just read the definition, I think that it is something that we probably all learned in high school biology. Uh for far too long, Democrats have been pushing dangerous gender ideology on children, claiming that you have a sex assigned at birth versus sex that you may identify with.
▶ 5:57:19This is leaving children more confused about basic biology and leading them down the path of lifealtering decisions. Okay, reclaiming my time here. Um, if I'm reading the definition correctly, and again, the the gentle lady has not clarified where it comes from. I don't know which medical association or scientific group came up with this, but this seems to be perfectly consistent with uh with people being transgender.
▶ 5:57:43It says the term meal means a person who naturally has had will have or would have um you know barring congenital anomaly historical access. So I don't know again I we haven't had any hearing on this but this doesn't seem to be incompatible with there being transgender people which obviously there are there seem to be more than a million of them in the country. This is simply this is the definition of male and female included in the bill. Where did they get that from?
▶ 5:58:11Well, again, is there any scientific basis for this or did you just offer this one? Well, it's it's it's so obvious that so many times the Democrats are unable to define men and women and so that's what we've done. We've defined male and female. All right. Well, if you're the expert, you tell us where you got this information. We've we've defined it in this bill. Okay. So, in other words, it's a creation of the the GOP staff of the judiciary committee.
▶ 5:58:35I I think that this is a biological definition of male and female from where says biological physician would be but you're amending a bill which already has the language of the biological definition. It says the term biological sex means the indication of male or female sex by reproductive potential or capacity sex chromosomes and naturally occurring sex hormones gonads or internal or external genitalia present in birth. What I mean, what is your problem with that definition?
▶ 5:59:06We're just I'm not necessarily opposed to yours. Yours seems to be much more embracing of the transgender idea than the other one does, but I I'm just curious where it comes from if we're going to proceed on the basis of Uh this was what I was provided as far as the amendment for the bill. All right. Well, thank you for that inquiry that you made uh into it. Um, and uh, you know, I look, I think that people's privates should be private.
▶ 5:59:34I I'm a little embarrassed by a lot of the conversation today. And I think all of this is unnecessary and all of it is a massive intrusion into the private family life um, of the patients, states uh, power to regulate medicine and the medical associations that have actually worked on this. So, I'm not quite sure which of these two definitions is superior uh to the other. I'd be interested to know whether anybody has any scientific basis for it. I mean, I'm happy to yield to anybody.
▶ 6:00:05Perhaps Miss Valent could help me out. Oh, well I just a question that I had is that I noticed that what the uh what my colleague has brought forward does not acknowledge at all the fact that there are interex people who are born with sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female. And any doctor who is worth their salt will tell you that that is the reality that there are interex people living across this country that do not exactly fit your definition.
▶ 6:00:35So, I want to know where do they fit in? Do they not exist? This bill isn't directed to that. This bill is the mutilation of children. We're reclaiming my time. Let me reclaim my time. Allegedly, we're asking the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, look, um the the gentle lady from Vermont makes a very important point, which is there are people who are born with interex genitalia. and she asked where does this fit into uh this definition.
▶ 6:01:06Uh again, nobody has really clarified why this definition is superior to the one that is already uh in the bill. Um you know, from my perspective, all of it is a massive invasion of privacy. And I'm just surprised that none of my colleagues has mentioned the word parent or mother or father today. You know, if we're talking about vaccines for children, I think everybody would say that should be up to the parents. Why have the parents completely disappeared from the picture here? Is nobody interested in the parents?
▶ 6:01:35I mean, shouldn't we be trusting them to love their their children a little bit more than Marjorie Taylor Green loves them? Gentleman's time is expired. Is there further discussion, Mr. Hunter? Um uh yes. Um will the ranking member yield? Yes, by all means. I'm not sure. Um I believe and I was just handed this definition myself. I I believe that this definition covers a couple of things.
▶ 6:02:04I think it does cover uh the issue of of interex individuals who have congenital anomalies. Also the part about um um the congenital anomalies anomalies could also include genetic abnormalities like Kleinfelder syndrome which is a male with um with with YO chromosomes who are sterile and of course Turner syndrome which is exo which
▶ 6:02:35individuals who are um who are also female but sterile. I I believe that's the that's the purpose of this definition. What Mr. Ander, would you would m would you yield? Yes. Uh for further clarification, this is the definition that was included in Dr.
▶ 6:02:53Marshall's uh Senate uh file 977 in the bill that uh he introduced which was to prohibit taxpayer funded gender transition procedures and for other Is there does the G uh gentleman yield back? Could I answer the Well, gentle Mr. Honor controls the time. Mr. Honor, Mr.
▶ 6:03:23Honor, will you yield for a Um, so your question is a strong one and it raises for me how are we going to interpret and apply these definitions? In other words, let's say uh a person presents themselves to you. What would you do in order to determine whether they have gone through the congenital anomaly or historical accident or intentional or unintentional disruption and so on to qualify as a male or as a female?
▶ 6:03:53Uh in other words, how how does this improve upon uh asking someone are you male or female? Right. Yeah, that that's my question. Well, I think the point is that sex, male or female, is a biological reality. It's not a social construct or a psychological construct. It's not sex is sex. There are males and females and and that is this law.
▶ 6:04:23Well, folks who are interex or male or female, they have gen congenal anomalies, but they um they are. Will you yield for a question, Mr. I will time is I'm sorry. So in good faith here I'm I'm trying to engage with you in a colloquy because I I I do not understand. So you're saying there are interex people. They have sex characteristics of both male and female. And the question goes to the heart of who is deciding that?
▶ 6:04:54Who is deciding how they are presenting? So you're going to tell it's usually decided by gen by genotype most often. And again there then there are abnormal genotypes like No no no like XXY climate if I could I want to get back to I'm asking you a serious question here. I'm asking you a serious question. I'm giving you a serious who but is is that person who is presenting with both characteristics? Do they get to decide how they are presenting in the world?
▶ 6:05:22Well if they if I if I decide tomorrow that I am a woman I'm still a man because I'm talking about interex individuals. I'm talking about interex individuals. That's what I'm talking about here. Are you deciding for them? No. There there is a biological reality that this definition would recognize. Uh well, I disagree, but I I appreciate you. The gentleman would yield for one followup on that. Yes.
▶ 6:05:48So um I I accept your position that it's a biological reality although that departs from the language here which talks about historical accident or intentional or unintentional disruption which doesn't seem to relate to biological condition. No they would the historical accident would mean for instance if someone suffered a a tragic accident that rendered them infertile.
▶ 6:06:12If if that happened to a a man, if it happened to me, I would be rendered infertile, still be male. So my question remains though, say in the case of an interex individual, um or somebody who is born infertile for different reasons. Um who makes the decision? Who applies what you're describing as the biological standard? Who decides that? Is it the person and their family and their doctor or is it the US attorney general, the US attorney for the district?
▶ 6:06:42Well, I think what you're getting at, you're trying to get get me to embrace your idea of this term sex assigned at birth, but the there is a biological reality that the baby born is male or is female.
▶ 6:06:56They may have this this baby may unfortunately have a genetic abnormality like Turner's and be exogenotype or Kleinfelder's XXY genotype or maybe have other testicular feminization various other birth defects but that doesn't change the fact that that individual is male or female and this I think that's what this definition gentleman's excuse me gentleman's time is expired ired
▶ 6:07:27receives recognition question. It's an amendment, right? The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Wyoming. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is The question now is who seeks recognition? Gentle lady from uh North Carolina. Um thank you, Mr.
▶ 6:07:54chairman and um this has been kind of a mind-blowing conversation today, but I just wanted to share something that um this bill and so many of the other um bills targeting the ch transgender community, the effect that it has been having on our children.
▶ 6:08:14So, I had a roundt to talk about nutrition assistance and small businesses um a couple weeks ago in my district and it was just people sitting around talking about how to get more money for the food bank and for school nutrition and how to support our small businesses. And um after we finished the round table, a woman came up to me with tears in her eyes and asked if she could talk to me.
▶ 6:08:44And I said, "Of course." and she told me that what is going on in Congress and with our president and um the lack of any compassion for people who are transgender has caused her child so much distress that her child is thinking about leaving this country. and her child is transgender.
▶ 6:09:14And it feels like ever ever since this Congress has been in session and this president has been um really exploiting that that child's entire being that they're not safe in this country.
▶ 6:09:35And then I started to cry and I hugged her and I said, "I will go back to Washington and share your story." So I'm doing that today. Thank you. And I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Gentle lady from Washington is recognized. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Point of order reserved by a gentleman from Arizona.
▶ 6:10:07Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute will be considered as read. Uh the gentle lady from Washington is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um this has been a bizarre conversation and it's very difficult to engage with it if you're actually engaged in any kind of reality about what gender affirming care is and who trans people are. And we've had all kinds of things be be said here, words be used.
▶ 6:10:35Republicans are bringing yet another despicable bill that attacks the transgender community. And and the the gentle lady who introduced the bill is calling uh practices barbaric, but she can't tell us even where the definition she introduced came from. What is barbaric is this legislation.
▶ 6:10:58What is barbaric is targeting trans kids in this country who are not doing you any harm. Show me a trans kid who's doing you harm. And then tell me how many of you are parents that would do anything that you could to protect your kids and to make sure that they didn't commit suicide, that they were actually able to engage in the world in a healthy way.
▶ 6:11:25Tell me what you wouldn't do for your Because when you introduce legislation like this, it is not only stupid legislation, it is cruel, it is mean, and it interferes with your own conservative principles. You really want to take away the ability to allow parents to make decisions about their own kids medical situation with their doctor.
▶ 6:11:55That's what Republicans want to do. Now, I know we're all inconsistent in different ways, and there are people on that side who have been consistent on issues of debt and deficit. Both of us on either side of the aisle have taken up issues of privacy. This is a giant in the Republican party right now.
▶ 6:12:17You are supposed to be the party of limited government that doesn't get in the way of parents making decisions for their own kids. Remember parental Remember individual rights? But that's not what you're doing. And don't just take it from me.
▶ 6:12:33In 2018, when the anti-trans political attacks were beginning beginning, Barbara Commtock, who is a Virginia Republican who served in Congress, many of us knew her, said, quote, "It opens a Pandora's box when you don't allow the parents and the doctors to make this decision." Who are you to get in the way of a parent making a decision about their own kids' health?
▶ 6:13:00And you know when you talk about I wrote some things down as you were talking this whole thing is ridiculous. You want to talk about the industrial medical complex in healthcare? Well, let's talk about that. Why don't we go after those for-profit private insurance companies that have taken over health care and made one in three Americans have medical debt? You want to talk about irreversible psychological damage?
▶ 6:13:27Another thing that you over there are trying to say about our kids and what we make decisions about. Well, let's talk about cutting nutrition assistance. You want to cut nutrition assistance, $2 a meal from kids who are hungry. That's what your big bad betrayal bill does. You want to talk about irreversible psychological damage? Let's talk or about child abuse. Let's talk about separating moms and dads from their kids.
▶ 6:13:56immigrants, locking them up indefinitely. That's what you just put in the bill that we voted through the judiciary committee. So, what the hell are we doing here, Mr. Chairman? Let's be a little consistent and precise and stop attacking trans kids. That's all this does. Now, I do have an amendment here, but it was all I I I just have been listening to this and I cannot believe what this conversation has been about.
▶ 6:14:26My amendment would allow medical professionals to continue delivering health care to young trans people when it is considered a best practice. It recognizes that this care is safe, widely accepted, appropriate, medically necessary, and most most importantly, it allows transgender people to live safely and authentically as themselves. Any parent over there? Do you want kids to commit suicide?
▶ 6:14:56Is that what you'd like? Do you want them to not get the counseling that they need? Because that's what gender affirming care is. In very rare cases, there is surgery that is prescribed. But you guys make it sound like this is some giant terrible thing that parents are doing for their kids. Your parents, why are you getting in the way? Why are you letting government get in the way of parents making decisions about their own kids with their own doctors?
▶ 6:15:23It is absolutely outrageous and you should at a minimum vote for this amendment. And the chairman is always generous with me because we have spoken about this issue and he knows damn well what it means to be a parent and to protect your child. And I am going to do that every freaking day that I'm here in this committee. when you bring up these ridiculous barbaric bills that target trans kids.
▶ 6:15:54Gentle lady's time is expired. Uh the chair now recognizes a gentle lady from Wyoming. First of all, we're not claiming kids are doing us harm. We are trying to protect them from harm. And protecting children is not inconsistent with our conservative philosophy. We are not mobilizing against our children. We are mobilizing to protect them. We are not demonizing children. We are trying to protect them from people who seek to use medical intervention to re to erase the essence of their very being.
▶ 6:16:23I want to remind the committee that this bill uh HR 3492 is actually an amendment to existing law 18 USC code 11 uh section 116 which was introduced by representative Sheila Jackson Lee and it was entitled female genital mutilation and the very purpose of it was to prohibit female genital mutilation. It was passed. It was a bipartisan bill that was passed.
▶ 6:16:53This is merely an amendment to that bill. Would the gentle lady yield? No, I'm not finished yet. I wanted to ask you if you know what female genitalation I'm not finished. I am not finished. If you will remember at the time that this was brought forward in 2020 and even its predecessor in the 1990s, it was because of the issue of young girls, young women who were having their parents were the ones who were taking them to have the female genital mutilation.
▶ 6:17:22So when you talk about this being a parental right to have to to obtain medical inter intervention for their minor child, the very law, the very statute that we are amending specifically identifies and recognizes the fact that sometimes parents don't have the best interests of their children at heart. And that's why on a bipartisan basis in 2020, there was a law that was passed that made female genital mutilation illegal.
▶ 6:17:53So I want to make sure that people understand that that is the very purpose of the of the uh of the bill that we are considering as an amendment to an existing statute. I also want to point out that throughout history, we have examples where the medical community has been so blatantly blatantly wrong in terms of the advice that they were giving.
▶ 6:18:16For example, in the 1930s recommending that that women smoke cigarettes, it will make them feel better while they're pregnant. We have the situation of the radium recommending the use of radium uh labbotoies in the 19 from the 1930s through the 1950s. The gentleman who invented labbotoies actually received the Nobel Prize in medicine for that. We don't do labbotoies anymore. We recognize how barbaric that procedure is.
▶ 6:18:45Uh hormone replacement therapy without risk disclosures. Uh forced coerc sterilization. We have a history of that. We just went through COVID 19 for goodness sakes. We had Anthony Fouchy lying to us every which way from Tuesday about that masks are unnecessary and that we need to have masks and that you have to have the vaccine and and the vaccines isn't going to cause any problems.
▶ 6:19:09And now we have all of the evidence demonstrating that the vaccines cause incredible medical problems for a certain subset of our population. Yet we were lied to over and over and over and over again just during co 19 and it was the medical field that did it. It's why there is such a distrust in the medical field right now. So when you talk about how there are these medical protocols and this is best practices that's most likely based upon what is the Dutch protocol.
▶ 6:19:38The Dutch protocol that that has been cited so many times by Democrats has been entirely discounted as being a situation where they actually cook the books. You want to know how they cook the books? According to a 2023 study, the premise of the Dutch study is flawed on account of three methodological biases that undermine the research. These include one, dropping subjects from the study who experienced unsuccessful results.
▶ 6:20:03Number two, altering the gender dysphoria scoring mechanism after the treatments were conducted in order to guarantee a significant post-surgical drop in gender dysphoria scores. And number three, compromising findings of psychological benefits of hormone therapy by conflating the results of several treatments and factors such as gender reassignment therapy and psychological maturation. The results of this Dutch study have never been replicated despite the fact that there have been many efforts to do so.
▶ 6:20:32So when you talk about best practices, when you talk about the parents being the ones who get to make this decision and then attack us and make it as though we don't care about children, that we don't care about their well-being, the very purpose of this bill is to protect children from the people who would harm them through this type of medical inter intervention. With that, I yield back. Mr. Lady yields back the ranking members recognized for uh to speak on the amendment. Thank you kindly.
▶ 6:20:59Um, I I rise to oppose the amendment. The gentle lady from Wyoming, I'm afraid, makes a series of arguments. We're on. You're supporting Jip. Oh, we're still on the Jipmen. I support very strongly the Jipal amendment. Uh, and thank the gentle lady for offering such an eloquent defense of it.
▶ 6:21:20But uh in answer to the the criticism from uh the gentle lady from Wyoming, she makes a series of arguments that completely contradict her own position. Uh she says, for example, that there have been all kinds of changes in our understanding of uh vaccines, which sounds like it would be an argument against having a national compulsory mandatory vaccine for everybody in the country, which of course we didn't have during CO 19.
▶ 6:21:50But the logic of what she's doing today would lead us precisely to that because it would say, let's let the federal government decide for everybody. If you don't want your kids to have the COVID 19 vaccine, too bad for you. The federal government now has the power to do it and is invited to do it because they're saying that the United States House of Representatives and Marjorie Taylor Green love your children more than you do.
▶ 6:22:14They are going to make decisions in the best interest of your child uh that you wouldn't make for yourself. We're going to leave it up to Marjorie Taylor Green to do it. And that's just absolutely appalling. And so the general lady uh protests that they care about the kids more than those who would do them harm. I wonder who she's referring to because she's got to be referring to the parents because none of this happens without the authorization of the parents. In pretty much every state I'm aware of.
▶ 6:22:44I stand to be corrected if there's some state that gives it to some third party body, but I think it's the parents who decide. But you want to overturn the authority of the parents to make medical decisions for their own children on the grounds that you're going to protect the children against the parents which cuts completely against I think everything that you and other Republicans were saying about the vaccines.
▶ 6:23:10You didn't want government at any level much less the federal level deciding what was best in the best interest of the children. So this leads me to believe this profound stunning contradiction that you don't really have the best interest of these children at heart. I'm much more drawn to what Miss Gyipol has suggested in her amendment which is we operate on the principle that parents are going to be acting in the best interest of the children.
▶ 6:23:38In fact, that's the standard in any uh family courtroom in the country when it comes to a ward of custody. what's in the best interest of the children and it's going to be one parent or the other except in the most extreme and extraordinary case. Right?
▶ 6:23:53So now uh Miss Gyipol says let the parents trust the doctors the families that go through this question go right to the doctors and physicians and the psychiatrist to find out what is the best evidence available about what's going on.
▶ 6:24:11And now we take what is undoubtedly an extremely difficult situation, as all family medical situations are, and we compound it with the intrusion of the federal government for totally exploitative partisan purposes. And that is a scandal and an outrage. So let's give the families some room to make their own decisions. Let's let the states regulate medicine taking place within their own communities.
▶ 6:24:38Let's let the medical associations advise the state legislators. And we don't need big brother doing this. If we want to help the families of America, let's not throw 15 million people off Medicaid. Let's not be slashing SNAP benefits and cutting child nutrition in the country. And I'll yield the remainder of my time to the offer of the amendment, the distinguished gentle lady from Washington. I thank I thank the gentleman for yielding.
▶ 6:25:00And I wanted to just have a conversation with you because also if you noticed and if we went back and looked at the transcript, the gentle lady from Wyoming actually said we can't trust parents in in your comments. You said parents make decisions that are wrong for the kids. So I feel like you kind of answered the question for me about whether or not we should trust parents. And all of a sudden, the Republican party that was the party of saying limited government, we don't want you telling us what to do as parents.
▶ 6:25:30All of a sudden, now you are saying that you don't trust the parents. It's clear to me that you don't trust the medical establishment. Even though every major medical organization, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of these organizations are saying that this is care that is supported. And yet you're saying you don't trust them either.
▶ 6:25:58So I think what the gentle lady is saying is she's the only one that can be trusted to make the decisions. the Republican party is the only one that can be trusted because can't trust the parents and you can't trust the medical associate. Is that your understanding as well? I think we all have to trust Marjorie Taylor Green is the point of the legislation here. I yield back. Mr. Gentleman gentleman yields back. Mr. the gentleman from Missouri is recognized. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:26:27Without objection, I would like to enter into the record a systematic review of outcomes of hormonal treatments in youths with gender dysphoria from the Carolinsa Kolinska Institute in Sweden. Objection. The the independent review of gender identity services for children and young people by Dr. Dr.
▶ 6:26:47Hillary Cass, also known as the Cass review from the UK, and the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria review of the evidence and best practices from our own Department of Health and Senior Services dated May 1st, 2025. All of which refute the ide the outdated, bogus, and methodologically biased so-called science uh embodied in the in the um in the so-called WP path and Dutch protocol.
▶ 6:27:17Um and final and finally I'd like to introduce a consensus statement on the management of interex disorders by use it at al published in the archives of disease in childhood. Uh too many times our democratic colleagues like to conflate the idea of gender identity with these poor these unfortunate children who have genetic uh sexual uh birth defects and um that likewise I would like to without objection enter into the record. Without objection. Chairman rec the chair recognizes gentleman from Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:27:47I yield to Miss Hag. Thank you. I just want to read the the current statute 18 USC section 116. Whoever knowingly being quote being the parent, guardian or caretaker of a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, facilitates or consents to the female genital mutilation of such person. And then it goes on to say uh shall be fined under this title in prison not more than 10 years or both.
▶ 6:28:15Again, this was a bill that was authored by representative Sheila Jackson Lee. So obvious and and it also goes on to say in subsection C, it shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section that female genital genital mutilation is required as a matter of religion, custom, tradition, ritual, or standard practice.
▶ 6:28:35So obviously, uh, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee recognized that there were circumstances under which, uh, the parents also could be, um, actually guilty of doing things that were really in not in the best interest and were very destructive to their children. So again, I'm just reading from 18 USC. Would the gentle lady yield? In a moment, I will. Okay. Um, 18 USC section 116.
▶ 6:29:00Uh, Representative Lee obviously recognized that there were circumstances where it was uh actually not only uh did she not trust the parent, she thought that they ought to be prosecuted for uh uh having their child doing female genital mutilation on their children. Uh so when you say we don't trust the parents for the most part I do trust the parents. I do.
▶ 6:29:21But I think that there are also circumstances where I do not believe these kinds of lifealtering decisions should be made by minors as they are adults. That is a different circumstance. But we are talking here specifically about minors and I think it's very important that we not conflate the two. So again the existing uh statute that we are amending would uh uh fine and imprison parents uh for the kind of the same thing.
▶ 6:29:50So the gentle lady um I just wanted to know who if if the parents shouldn't make these decisions who who should I mean who gets to make the decision? Well the bill says that we cannot do these treatments on minor. So no matter what a parent thinks right you're not this bill would not allow parents to make any decision about gender affirming care as it relates to their children in consultation with their doctors. It's it's specifically defined in the bill. Yeah.
▶ 6:30:16So, but for gender affirming care, as you talk about it in in the bill, you're saying parents would not be allowed and would actually have to allow the federal government would have to yield to the federal government saying the federal government is going to make all these decisions about anything that qualifies as gender affirming care. Anything that's identified in different and are you aware that in gender affirming care, are you aware of the things that are contained within gender affirming care? Yes, I am. Okay.
▶ 6:30:44So, you know that counseling and mental health is part of gender affirming care. Correct. That's not what is that that's not what's forbidden in this bill. But but it is a part of gender affirming care. You have a very what's forbidden in this bill. But you have a very broad that is not what's forbidden in this bill. Don't don't distort what I'll go. I'm not Don't argue with meong lady from Wyoming. So I just I can I engage with another question here with you? Yes. As long as you don't distort what's in the bill. No, I'm not going to.
▶ 6:31:12I'm going to go back and find the references for what I'm talking about. You talked about female genital mutilation, but your own bill defines female genital mutilation as any procedure performed for non-medical reasons. So in your own bill, you are recognizing that medical procedures are not contained at within the definition of female genital mutilation. And yet now you're expanding that definition.
▶ 6:31:40And I got to say, if Sheila Jackson Lee were here, she would I I don't know how to recreate how she would be. I think she's probably rolling in her grave right now. God rest her soul, you know, because she she was talking about something very specific. I'm just going on what she wrote. But your own bill makes the distinction of what female genital mutilation is, and it doesn't apply to this. So the bill here, the bill hears very clearly.
▶ 6:32:10genital and bodily mutilation of a minor, chemical castration of a minor. That is what is prohibited by this bill. That That's what's prohibited. So, don't you can't you can't bring in all of these other things and pretend that they're in this bill because they're not. That's what's in this bill. That's what this bill The general lady is actually the one who's bringing in a lot of things that are not contained in any medical definitions and assessments. In fact, you introduced definitions that we're not even sure where those came from. I yield.
▶ 6:32:39I if the time is done. Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from Alabama yields back. Question occurs. Gentle lady from Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know what I find in these conversations and and we've had these debates over transgender Americans repeatedly in this committee and inevitably it comes back to somebody on the other side of the aisle.
▶ 6:33:09uh hurling invectives at us saying that this is left-wing ideology. And I just want to bring us back to a hearing that we had on transgender Americans in this committee in which sitting at the table there was a woman who identified as a conservative Republican Christian.
▶ 6:33:33That's how she and she was saying to all of you who were on the committee at that time. It was last Congress and she basically said, "Why are you up in my business? Why are you trying to make decisions for me and my child?" And and earlier today, and I know we've been here a long time, earlier today, my colleague, Mr. Roy, said, you know, we shouldn't be busy body legislators all up in everybody's business.
▶ 6:34:02And he said, we already have too many damn laws. what are we doing here? And I'm just sitting here thinking about the courage that it took for that woman to come here to say to all of you, a Republican Christian conservative, that this actually isn't about politics. This isn't about party. This isn't about left-wing ideology. This is about her job as a parent making sure she's getting the health care that her kid needs and deserves.
▶ 6:34:31And she was completely and totally open with us about the kind of despair that her child was in, the kind of anxiety and depression her child was racked with. And she said it was difficult for her. It was difficult for her and her family, especially in the community that they lived in, to stand with their child and to make this decision. And so I've just had it.
▶ 6:34:57I've I've had it with it constantly coming back to somehow that this is a Democratic issue. There are transgender people living in every single district here and they identify as Republican and they identify as Democratic and some of them don't vote at all because they can't stand that their government is being weaponized against them. So, can we stop this nonsense? You want to have control over our uh conversations with our doctors.
▶ 6:35:25You want to meddle in the relationship that parents have with their child and with their doctors. it is so difficult week after week after week for you to continue to attack such a small minority of people in this country that just want to live their lives. I don't know what the obsession is, honestly.
▶ 6:35:55Because I can tell you the transgender people in my district, they don't want your help. Member from Wyoming, they don't want your help. And their parents sure as hell do not want your help. They want to be able to make decisions in conjunction with their children's doctors. And I just find it so outrageous and insulting that you come here and you claim that this is about a partisan issue. It's not.
▶ 6:36:23It's about any child being able to get the health care that their parent deems is necessary to keep them alive. I do not know why with all of the issues that we have in healthcare right now. From the price of insulin to the fact that we are rolling back all the work that was done on inhalers to PBMs to the fact that health care systems across this country are falling apart.
▶ 6:36:53That this this is the topic once again that you choose to take up. It makes no sense that this is what we're spending our time at. And I can tell you because I talk to parents, not just in my district, but who reach out to me who say, "Thank goodness someone is standing up for us in that committee because once again, they're demonizing us and dehumanizing us and the language that they're using. Thank goodness you're standing up for us.
▶ 6:37:20They can't stand the fact that their own government is spending precious time in committee once again weaponizing government against them. and they just want to get the health care that they need and deserve. I yield back. Back. Gentleman from California is recognized. M. Mr. Chairman, I've been pondering the question that the gentle lady from Washington posed. What would we not do for our children?
▶ 6:37:50That's important question. Well, for one thing, we would not mutilate them. Um, you know, when I was six, I wanted to be a pirate. I was fortunate enough to not to have parents who would have removed a leg and an eye so that I could feel better about myself when I was a child. I I don't think I would have felt the same way turning 18. Um, so yes, parents are the fundamental custodians of their children.
▶ 6:38:18They have a fundamental right to make the decisions over their their children's welfare, health, and upbringing. Uh but there are certain things we don't allow parents to do. We you can't starve your kids to death. You can't beat your kids to death. You can't withhold life-saving procedures from your kids. Such acts are considered child endangerment. And if you cross that line, society steps in to protect the basic welfare of the child. Now, that all changes at 18.
▶ 6:38:49We've decided as a society that at 18, you can now take control of your own welfare and your own future. Your parents no longer control your welfare. And as a society, we no longer act in place of your parents on these questions. At 18, you're a grown-up. If you want to be a pirate, you can be a pirate. All you have to do is find a doctor willing to take off your leg and poke out an eye.
▶ 6:39:11There are uh cases of grown-ups who choose to be lizards and they have their tongues split, their horns implanted, and all sorts of other mutilations that wouldn't be permissible even if the parents decreed it. But at 18, if you want to be a different sex than you are, you can be at 18. These decisions pass to you. But until then, we give broad latitude to parents as long as their decisions do not imperil the life of the child or expose them to permanent lifealtering defformationations.
▶ 6:39:42And this is such a a matter uh and uh it it it stuns so many people that the Democrats can't see that. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I rise in opposition to the bill and I also yield my time or yield some time to the gentle lady from uh Washington. The question is the question on on the table is the amendment from the gentle lady from Washington. Yes, which I know Mr.
▶ 6:40:11Johnson supports. Thank you so much for yielding. Um Mr. Dr. Mcccleintoch, I I think you were saying that um if a parent makes a decision for gender affirming care in consultation with their kids's doctor um that that could be considered mutilation.
▶ 6:40:33And I think the examples you gave don't reflect the reality because you talked about beating kids and things that all the medical associations agree are abuse of kids. What you're doing is adding a word here mutilation to your perspective of what gender affirming care is. That is just your perspective. It is not medically based fact.
▶ 6:40:59And I think you have to consider and I think the Republican party has to consider the struggle that you're having right now about the size and scope of government. And I think the conservatives are losing. You're certainly losing on the size of spending because you kicked 16 million Americans off of healthcare, cut nutrition assistance by 300 billion, and set up massive cuts to Social Security.
▶ 6:41:26Also, you could give $5 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest billionaires and corporations. And oh, by the way, increase the deficit by trillions. And at least my friends, Mr. Massie and Mr. Roy are consistent on this.
▶ 6:41:41But with this bill, you're really in very dangerous territory because the party that believes in individual rights and parental rights wants big government to get right in there between a parent and their child's doctor and assign words that have no medical basis to procedures that you simply don't like. You don't like them. You don't want them for your kids. I get that.
▶ 6:42:08Listen, this was all pretty new to me when I first started to learn about it for my own family's personal reasons. And there was a lot to learn. And I would say to all the Americans out there, I empathize with something that is new and that Republicans are just doing everything they can to scare you. And so talk to people, read actual studies. Don't listen to them. Like, go and research what gender affirming care is.
▶ 6:42:36find out that first of all it includes lots of things and they are all care that has been approved by major medical organizations and understand that surgery is a very tiny piece of it. That's what we spent most of this time talking about on this committee.
▶ 6:42:53But at the core, this is a cruel, cruel of misinformation, of fear-mongering, of distorting what health care looks like for a population that is less than one half of one% of all
▶ 6:43:23Americans. That's what we've spent this whole time talking about. And so I want to go back to what my amendment would do. My amendment would allow medical professionals to continue delivering health care to young trans people when it is considered a best practice. And my amendment recognizes that that care is safe. It's widely accepted. It's appropriate.
▶ 6:43:54It's medically necessary. And most importantly, it allows transgender people to live safely and I can tell you for a fact that these decisions about care in trans families are made really thoughtfully and with a lot of debate and discussion and deliberation.
▶ 6:44:18And all of the trans young people that I know, and I know many of them, go through months or years of consultations with their parents, with their medical providers before they're even able to access care. And there is no standard of care out there that recommends any medical interventions before puberty.
▶ 6:44:39So, I would just say to people who are afraid, I understand why you're afraid because my colleagues on the other side are doing everything they can to make you afraid and to try and blame trans kids for every woe that you face. And let me tell you, trans kids did not raise your rent. Trans kids did not make your grocery prices go higher. Billionaires did. Millionaires did. Republicans who continue to funnel tax breaks to those people did that.
▶ 6:45:06So just leave our kids alone and let parents make the decisions that they need to make about their kids health care with their doctors by themselves without big government making those decisions for them. I yield back. Gentle yields back. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Washington. All those in favor will say I. I. Those opposed? No. No. Opinion of the chair. The nose have it. The amendment is not adopted. Can we have a recorded vote, please? Report vote being requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr.
▶ 6:45:36Jordan, no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Mr. Biggs, Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcccleintoch, Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, no. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr.
▶ 6:46:06Kylie, Miss Hagamman, Miss Haggman votes no. Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander, no. Mr. Herder votes no. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin votes I.
▶ 6:46:36Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Laughrren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Hi. Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Miss. Dry. Miss. Dry votes. I. Mr. Korea. Miss Scandan. Mr. Nagus. Miss Mcbath. Miss Ross. I Miss Ross votes I Miss Miss Ballot votes I Mr.
▶ 6:47:06Garcia Mr. Garcia votes I Miss Camel Dove I Miss Camager Dove votes I Mr. Moscowitz Mr. Goldman Crockett Mr. Mr. Icy, you're not recorded. Mr. votes no.
▶ 6:47:41Mr. Chairman, there are eight eyes and 12 nos. The amendment is not adopted. Who seeks recognition? Gentle lady from Vermont is recognized. I have an amendment at the desk. Report point of order reserved by the gentleman from Arizona. Amendment to the amendment in the nature objection to the amendment be considered as read. Uh the gentle lady from Vermont is recognized to explain her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 6:48:09Uh I want people to understand what's going on here today. Um my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are continuing their obsession with being in your kids pediatric appointment. Uh, I find it insulting and creepy and it's astonishing that we are um allowing this even to come before the committee today.
▶ 6:48:35It's an attempt to interfere with your health care decisions for your kids. Essentially, what's going on here is they want to criminal criminalize health care. These are decisions that should be made by doctors, by parents, by trans young people, not by, with all due respect, uh, by Mr. Jordan, the chair of the committee, or by any other member of this committee.
▶ 6:49:01And we've been in this committee hearing today talking about the incredible amount of federal crimes on the books. And yet, we are sitting here talking about adding another one for no good As I alluded to earlier, this has absolutely no business in front of the committee.
▶ 6:49:24We have other really important work to do here, whether it's on prescription drugs, whether it's on lowering the cost of insulin, or as my colleague said from the state of Washington, pushing back against incredible corporate greed and corruption in healthcare. These are all things worthy of our attention. And in fact, these are the things that our voters want us to be focused on. But once again, no, we are here.
▶ 6:49:50We are beating up on trans kids and their families, and we are trying to criminalize doctors and parents. My amendment strikes the bill's prohibition on providing health care to trans youth. That's what we're talking about. We do not need to be criminalizing doctors or parents for doing what they feel like is in the best interest of the child.
▶ 6:50:11We need to be focused on things that our constituents are clamoring for, which is protecting Medicaid, which is making sure people have health care and food And it's it's frankly pretty incredible that we're here today doing this just a few weeks after, as far as I can tell, every single member except for Mr.
▶ 6:50:37Massie over there voted to kick some of their constituents off Medicaid and by extension shut down rural hospitals as they lose those Medicaid dollars. And if you think that we won't all be impacted by massive cuts to Medicaid, you're wrong. Uh it will impact the doctors, the hospitals, the and this isn't new. We know that this is something that uh President Trump went after in his first term. Uh proposed cuts to Medicaid.
▶ 6:51:08That's was the plan. it continues to be the plan. And if you think you won't be impacted by Republicans um wanting to make medical decisions for your kids and for your family, uh you're wrong, too. My Republican colleagues have no business being in the doctor's office with your kid. Now, this bill is an attack on parents and doctors and on kids. This bill would throw parents in jail if they help their transgender child access evidence-based treatments.
▶ 6:51:38throw doctors in prisons for providing medically necessary life-saving care to transgender youth care supported by every major medical association in the United States and strip parents of their right to make medical decisions about their own kids' healthcare. I mean this this is what requires our attention today. We've sunk this low.
▶ 6:52:03We've sunk so low to jailing parents for trying to do what's right for their kids. Parents and doctors already have to worry about state laws banning medical care for trans kids. This bill would introduce the risk of federal criminal prosecution for basic medical care. And let's not forget the hypocrisy of all of this.
▶ 6:52:26the hypocrisy of banning medical care for trans kids while permitting that very same care for everyone else. Apparently, my Republican colleagues don't have a problem with puberty blockers or hormone therapy only with the trans people who need them in order to live. It's cruel. As many people have said today, it's cruel. And there's no medical evidence behind this bill. It is hatred.
▶ 6:52:56It is bullying. And it's rotten through and through. And this amendment strikes at one of the worst aspects of this truly reprehensible piece of legislation. And I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and keep Republican congressmen and women out of your kids doctor's office. I urge a yes vote on my amendment and I yield back. Gentle yields back. Gentle from Wyoming is recognized. Just very quickly, this bill does not add a new crime.
▶ 6:53:24It just simply amends an existing statute as we've already talked about. And if you're going to use the word creepy, uh I think it's pretty fair to define as creepy bodily mutilations and chemical castration of minors. It doesn't prevent counseling. It doesn't prevent other treatment for uh trans uh so-called transgender youth, but it does prohibit bodily mutilations and chem chemical castrations.
▶ 6:53:49something that I believe many people, in fact, I'd say 80 to 90% of the people in this country agree with. But most specifically, I know that we have the support of Prica Mosley, Khloe Cole, Amelia Schmidt, Laurel Herbert, Per Joseph, Anakah Big L, and Simon Biamaya Price. All of whom signed this letter. I would ask unanimous consent uh for introduc for uh putting this letter in the record.
▶ 6:54:16Uh this is a a letter from uh folks who have uh uh dransitioned after having gone through some of the things that we're talking about. With that, I yield back. Gentle yields back. Gentle lady from California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I want to support this amendment um and speak to uh the underlying bill.
▶ 6:54:40You know, I do I love the title uh Protecting Children's Innocence Act because what a misnomer that is. You know, the bill does just the opposite. You actually protect a child's innocence by not bombarding them with adult ideology and ignorance and immoral Why don't we let our children figure out who they are on their own with us without us
▶ 6:55:10inserting our judgments onto them? How about this? Why don't we love our kids? Why don't we love our kids and trust their parents to let them figure out who they are, who they want to be in this world?
▶ 6:55:27I am struck by the fact that we're actually talking about genital mutilation and trying to prevent that from happening when hey we were trying to do that in our foreign affairs committee with USAID because there is real genital mutilation happening on young girls mostly young girls in other countries around the world but you know what we cut that funding pun intended and yet we're here talking about it
▶ 6:55:58when this is something I mean if it was so prevalent that young kids were being snatched and taken into doctor's offices and all these crazy medical things were happening to them without their parents' consent that would be on the news 247 and it's it's it's not happening.
▶ 6:56:19This bill is continuing to push a false about something that quite frankly we should be talking about the cuts that Republicans just passed to the medical community. You know, we're going to be dealing with hospitals and doctors closing their doors because of the cuts that you all passed.
▶ 6:56:44We're going to be dealing with our grandmothers not being able to get their Medicaid benefits because of what you just passed. You know what about folks who are trying to get fertility treatments? Well, they're not going to have access to any of that because of what you all have been doing. And then how is how is any of this going to be interpreted or even enforced there?
▶ 6:57:07We have been ricocheting in this committee today around states You know, it's wholly inconsistent. Two weeks ago, like no states rights when you want to have a national, you know, carry law. Everybody can get a gun, boom, boom, shoot them up. Then it's state laws, you know, only, I guess, when it fits your narrative. This right here, this right here should not be debated in this committee. It should be left to states and it should be left to the parents.
▶ 6:57:37There are legions of young people who are living in a gray area as they figure out who they are. Heck, there are legions of adults and even some congressmen and women living in the gray area. Give them space, but don't criminalize them or prevent them from getting the medical attention that they need. This bill goes after children and their parents and medical professionals. And then how does this thing get enforced, get interpreted? I mean, are we going to have goon squads?
▶ 6:58:05Are you going to have troops stationed at a at a at a at a at doctor's offices or in schools in therapist's offices yanking down kids' pants to see what they've had done or what they're preparing to have done? I mean, what kind of world are you trying to create and force us to live in? You know, I don't want you in my life.
▶ 6:58:33You probably don't want me in yours, which is why we shouldn't even be debating this bill, let alone passing this bill. And let me just say something else. I have run into so many members of the trans community, young people, adults, and you know where we meet? We meet in church. We meet at the farmers markets. We meet in the parks. We meet at family reunions.
▶ 6:59:03We meet in the grocery stores. And we are all talking about the same things. How we can live our own lives without people that we don't know, without people that we know want to harm us, who don't love us or care about us, coming up with crazy definitions about what a male is and what a female is. We want to live without that in our lives. So vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill. And with that, Mr.
▶ 6:59:32Chair, I yield back. Gentle lady from Washington uh is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleague, Representative Balant, for introducing this amendment um that I think makes it clear uh the most common types of care young trans people receive are safe and medically necessary.
▶ 6:59:57And so I would once again turn to the American people and ask you, do you think that you or your doctor should be locked up for getting the care, getting your child the care that they need? For all the talk from the other side about big government staying out of people's lives, they want to get between you and your doctor. That's what this bill is about.
▶ 7:00:21This is Republicans in Congress forcing their way into your doctor's office and telling you that they know better than you, the parent, better than your doctor, about what medical care is appropriate for your child. And by the way, if you disagree with them, this bill allows them to lock you up for 10 years. And listen, if they can do this on this issue, they can do it on any issue.
▶ 7:00:49They can get between you and your doctor on any issue. And I'll go back to the truth that most US medical organizations through lengthy independent review processes back gender affirming care which normally involves therapy, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy.
▶ 7:01:12And let's remember too, as I said before, just because I think we got to repeat these things, trans children make up around 2% of minors in the United States. And out of this already very small population, only 11% are even prescribed hormone therapy. And that's with the advice and consent of parents and doctors. So, we're literally over and over again talking about this tiny fraction of kids here.
▶ 7:01:41instead of talking about anything that's going to help your lives. For the ma vast majority of trans youth, care comes in the form of puberty pausing medications. And I bet if I were to go through and do a little survey of all my colleagues on the other side and ask you to define what these are, you wouldn't be able to tell me. I bet you wouldn't be able to tell me. And but feel free to come up and tell me later. Maybe maybe the doctor on the front row would.
▶ 7:02:05Um, these medications have been prescribed safely for both nontransgender and transgender kids for decades to treat a whole range of issues. They're well researched. They're standard clinical care. And trans patients use them at exactly the same doses and for exactly the same reasons as their non-transgender counterparts. So, this isn't like crazy treatment that's only used for one small group.
▶ 7:02:33This is actually treatment that can be used by everybody. And let's be clear, while the effects of these medications are reversible, puberty can have irreversible effects on a young person's body. And these life-saving medications prevent trans young people from going through the wrong puberty and preserve their ability to make a choice down the road without any permanent impact to the body.
▶ 7:03:00Gender affirming surgery, which we talk about a lot in all kinds of ways here on this committee, is so rare that a child in America is more likely to die from a gunshot wound than to receive that care. And I don't see a single bill being brought up in this committee that tackles the epidemic of gun violence against young people.
▶ 7:03:25To make this point abundantly clear, I want to read a testimonial from a parent of a transchild on what this care means to them. Alana says, "If not for the support and care my 14-year-old doctor received over the past three years, she might not be alive today. Before beginning gender from care, my daughter would cry herself to sleep, feeling disconnected from her body and from herself.
▶ 7:03:56She often expressed a desire not to live and was overwhelmed by feelings of despair and Her mental health was fragile and she seemed lost in a sea of confusion and pain. It was heartbreaking to witness her suffering and to realize how much she needed support. Since starting gender affirming care, everything has changed.
▶ 7:04:24My daughter now presents fully as herself, confident and authentic. She is an engaged student and actively participates in band roller derby and cherishes her friendship. She has blossomed into a joyful, resilient young person who embraces her identity and her future.
▶ 7:04:43Her experience is a testament to the transformative power of acceptance and appropriate medical care and it is a reminder that every young person deserves the chance to live authentically and happily. I proudly support your amendment, Miss Balent, and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Vermont. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 7:05:11Um, roll call being requested by the ranking member, the clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, Mr. Isa votes no. Mr. Biggs, Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.
▶ 7:05:42Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kylie, Mr. Kylie votes no. Miss Hagman, Miss Hagman votes no. Miss Lee, Mr. Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris. Mr. Ander. Mr. Ander votes no. Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gill Mr. Bumgardner. Mr.
▶ 7:06:12Bumgardner votes no. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Lofrren. Miss Lofrren votes I. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Miss Dryal Mipal votes I. Mr. Koreah Miss Scandan Mr.
▶ 7:06:38Nagus Miss Mcbath Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes I. Miss Balot Miss Balot votes I. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia. You're not recorded. Yes. Mr. Garcia votes yes. Miss Camagerd. Miss Camagerv votes yes. Mr. Mr. Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett, Miss Crockett votes yes.
▶ 7:07:09Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Fry, Mr. Fry votes no. report. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 eyes and 15 nos.
▶ 7:07:37The amendment is not agreed Who seeks recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the Reserve point of order, Mr. Chair.
▶ 7:07:53Point of order reserved by the gentleman from gentleman may state his uh or excuse me the clerk will report amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute without objection the amendment be considered as read the gentleman's recognized explain his so um general mutilation is abhorrent I'm against it I think I know that the author of this bill has the best Um, but
▶ 7:08:23I'm concerned that the interstate nexus, as it's painted here, is overly broad. Um, it may not even hold up in courts. And so, what I'm trying to do here with this amendment is tighten the definition of the interstate nexus such that we have a legitimate federal role here. Child abuse is the subject of state law.
▶ 7:08:50If you abuse a child, you're breaking state laws and you go to a state court. And we are here at the federal law trying to prevent something from happening. Um, which without a federal nexus is the venue of state law.
▶ 7:09:08So there are instances where there can be a federal nexus where this would be a legitimate legislative exercise and that would be if we were legislating for the District of Colombia um territories or possessions of the United States, special maritime and territorial jurisdictions, somebody who's working for the federal government, for instance, that would be the second uh federal nexus. There's four that I'm prescribing here in this amendment.
▶ 7:09:36Instead of in the in the bill itself, there's several nexuses, including if you used an instrument that had traveled in interstate commerce, let's say a scalpel, not to be too graphic here, but there's almost no way to avoid the the federal nexus as it's drafted here.
▶ 7:10:00So it's really the bill itself acknowledges federalism and the 10th amendment but then it it draws the federal nexus so broadly that it ignores federalism in the 10th amendment. So in any case getting back to the the sections where I do believe we have federal jurisdiction it would be any of the federal territories. It would be any individual working for the federal government or under color of federal law.
▶ 7:10:26It would be um if the procedure was performed by an individual entity or institution receiving direct federal funding such as Medicaid, Medicare or involving the transportation of a minor across state lines for the purpose of performing genital or bodily mutilation or chemical castration. This mirrors the language if you go and and look at u federal laws that exist on the books.
▶ 7:10:54How they come up with a federal nexus for sexual exploitation for pornography. The pornography has to be involved actually be transported across interstate lines.
▶ 7:11:07But this is more analogous to sexual abuse which involves or rape which would of a minor which would has to involve transportation of the minor across state Uh again I think it's a I think it's a good bill. U I'm glad that it acknowledges that there has to be a federal nexus.
▶ 7:11:32I think the federal nexus that's drawn here in the bill itself is too broad and doesn't mirror the legislation that's on the books, analogous legislation. And so, um, that's why I'm offering this amendment to tighten the language. And, uh, with that, I yield back.
▶ 7:12:02I would also add, let me let me just say we we don't get we often don't get into try not to assign motives to our colleagues. So I'll assign my own motive here to to why I'm offering this amendment. I can't vote for the bill unless it's modified in this way. And so in good faith, I have to offer a way to fix my objection. This is the objection I have and this is the fix that I propose. Gentleman system on his point of order. Yeah.
▶ 7:12:33Uh question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky. All those Mr. Chairman. All those in I just call the role. I didn't think you guys. All those in favor say I. Mr. Chairman I want to discuss the amendment. Gentlemen gentleman's recognized. I I just want to agree with with the gentleman from Kentucky.
▶ 7:12:53Um, we can sit here and we can go into great detail as everyone on this committee, particularly on this side of the aisle, knows about the abuse under the commerce clause of federal power. And as a party that stands for the proposition of limited government, we are careful about the use or we should be careful about the use of the commerce clause to carry out the power of the federal government and to create crimes.
▶ 7:13:19And so here we're talking about the language that is always used in terms of the instrumentalities of commerce and so forth which is typically used uh to be able to use the commerce clause to apply the power of the federal government um against the u state or actors within a state.
▶ 7:13:38So here what the gentleman from Kentucky is doing is trying to outline what he believes is appropriate um nexus as he used the term which is the territories in the District of Columbia as well as children who have crossed state lines and then another category about those uh hospitals or healthcare providers that are taking federal dollars. Now I think that is a better approach. I think it is important for us to recognize that we have now since Wickard B.
▶ 7:14:06Filurn, we have abused the commerce clause so much as to eliminate any recognition at all of the balance of power between the federal government and the state government. And that is the point. And we've all been guilty of it. It's the same thing that Republicans do when we campaign on balanced budgets and come here and spend money we don't have.
▶ 7:14:30It's the same thing that we do when we go out and try to talk about limited government when we then vote for all of the laws and all the regulations and all the rules that we then campaign against. So here what we're trying to do is tighten down and acknowledge the truth which is that we are all a gasast at what we're talking about with respect to these policies.
▶ 7:14:52Khloe Cole sat at that table and testified in this room to this committee might have been the subcommittee in explaining the extent to which her life was turned upside down by these horrific procedures. These procedures should be outlawed.
▶ 7:15:13These procedures on minors are grotesque and the doctors that carry them out should be ashamed and the doctors that are carrying them out often against state law and using funds they shouldn't use should be ashamed. But at some point we in this committee have got to be the guardians of the constitution and the limits of the power of the federal government and how it is used.
▶ 7:15:33And so we should focus and target the use of that power especially and That is why this amendment is being offered and that's why I support the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Kentucky and yield back and and and I now yield Gentlemen is back. Gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 7:15:58Um well the the gentleman presents us with a bit of a dilemma uh here because uh we think that the whole bill is a dreadful invasion of the regulatory authority of the states, the medical boards and commissions in the states and the families and the parents who should be making these decisions under our constitutional system of government where the people uh have
▶ 7:16:28uh rights guaranteed to the people uh and the states under the ninth and tenth amendments. Uh nonetheless, I would say that uh the gentleman's amendment does narrow the bill significantly, I think, uh because there will be some people who will actually be able to make decisions for their children still after this amendment.
▶ 7:16:51And there will be some people some uh hospitals and doctors who will be able to continue to practice the best practice the best practices of the profession. Um you know I wish that uh the gentleman from Texas uh would go all the way when it came to CO 19. He said the American people are fully capable of making an educated decision about whether they want to get the vaccine or not.
▶ 7:17:18But under the logic of this bill, which he seems to be supporting, it would be fine for the federal government to say, at least where there's a federal nexus, as defined by the gentleman, that we're going to override the judgment of the parents and say it's in the best interest of the kids to get the COVID vaccine or in a uh a hypothetical perhaps a bit closer to home, get the measles vaccine. We lost 1.2 million people in CO 19. We've lost millions of people to measles. I think there's a much better argument for that.
▶ 7:17:46We're not talking about putting other people at risk in danger because of a contagious disease. This is a decision for the family itself. And yet, you want to override all of the decisions of the family, the uh the the best wisdom of the medical profession, the state boards, and the state laws to do this. But having said that, uh my friend Mr. Roy at least makes a gesture at trying to torture out some kind of federal nexus to the conduct that is being proscribed here.
▶ 7:18:16I'm not quite sure why the District of Columbia is treated like a federal enclave. It's not a federal enclave. It's the district that's the seat of government. And uh I wonder if he will he would in the future extend the logic of applying a nationwide mandate to anybody getting federal funding. Uh, nonetheless, I'm I'm going to go ahead and vote for this. I'll leave it to the judgment of my colleagues whether they would want to, but I do think that it narrows the the scope of this uh of this really terrible bill.
▶ 7:18:46We have votes called on the floor. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. No. And you pay the chairs. The nose have it. Could we record a vote, please, Mr. Chair? Or vote be requested to clerk call the role. Mr. Jordan, no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, Mr. Isa votes no. Mr. Vigs. Mr. Vigs votes no. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany Mr. Massie I. Mr. Massie votes I. Mr. Roy I. Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein.
▶ 7:19:16Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Vandrew. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kylie. Mr. Kylie votes no. Miss. Hman. Screenshots. No. Miss. Higman votes no. Miss Lee. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. Growthman, Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr.
▶ 7:19:46Ander, Mr. Herder votes no. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gill. Mr. Gil votes no. Mr. Bumgardner, Mr. Bumgardner votes no. Mr. Raskin I. Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Lofrren Miss Lafrren votes I. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou votes now. Miss Gry, Miss Dryal votes I. Mr. Koreah, Miss Mr.
▶ 7:20:16Negus, Miss Mcbath. Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes I. Miss Balant, Miss Balant votes I. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camagerdove, Miss Camagerd, Dove votes I. Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes.
▶ 7:20:33I cler report 15. That's fine. Where do you want? Where do you want? It doesn't matter. Where do you want? Mr. Knows. Mr. KN. We got to call Freaking wrong. Clerk will report.
▶ 7:21:03Clerk will report. Votes are in 15. Mr.
▶ 7:21:30Chairman, there are 13 eyes and 15 The amendment is not agreed to. We will stand in recess, come back for uh hopefully vote on final passage while we go vote on the floor. We could have we got anything? Oh, you guys you got done with amendments. Oh, let's question occurs on the uh on the final on the amendment the nature of a substitute. This will be followed by a vote on the uh on the amendment on the on the final passage. Clerk will recall the role.
▶ 7:22:00The question occurs. Question occurs. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? No. No. The opinion of the chair. Opinion chairs. The eyes have it. The ANS is adopted. ANS is adopted. The question now occurs. We recorded a on the ANS. Oh no. On the on the final bill. Okay. Question now occurs on the final bill. All those in favor say I. Those opposed? No. No. opinion. Chairs the eyes have it. Recorded vote, please. Clerk will call the RO. Mr. Jordan, yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, yes. Mr. Isa votes yes. Mr. Biggs. Mr.
▶ 7:22:31Bigs votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells Mr. Moore Mr. Moore votes I. Mr. Kylie. Mr. Kylie votes I. Miss Hagman. Miss Hegman votes I. Miss Lee Mr. Hunt.
▶ 7:23:02Mr. Fry. Hi. Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman. I. Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Kn. Mr. Knots I. Mr. Harris. Hi. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Hder. I. Mr. Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill votes I. Mr. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Bombgardner votes I. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughofrren. Miss Lofrren votes no. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson.
▶ 7:23:33Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Miss Gyipal. Miss. Gyipol. Votes no. Mr. Miss. Scandlin. Mr. Nagus. Miss Mcbath. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Balant. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove. Miss Camlager Dove votes no. Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett.
▶ 7:24:05Miss Crockett votes no.
▶ 7:24:38Mr. Chairman, there are 17 eyes's and 10 Members will have two days, excuse me, to submit views. Without objection, the bill report is a single amendment in the nature of substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Gentleman from Wisconsin wanted to make a statement. Gentleman's recognized. Yeah. on this bill. You know, I got here a little late, so had another hearing. I don't understand, and I hope we change this before it hits the floor.
▶ 7:25:09In our society, a lot of times we say things has to be done at 18, sometimes 21. This should be age 55, but if we're going to pick between 18 and 21, I don't know who would say this is appropriate for a 19year-old. So, hope we change it to 21 when it gets to the floor. Thank you. Gentlemen back. Gentlemen yields back. This concludes the committee's business for the meeting. The meeting is