▶ 0:15:25Colin, good to see you. Come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to clear recess any time pursuant to committee rule two, House rule 11, clause two. The chairman may postpone further proceedings.
▶ 0:15:56Today on the question of approving any measure or matter adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered, I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls, to lead us in the Pledge of I pledge allegiance to 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 all. Thank the gentleman.
▶ 0:16:25Uh Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 4638, the PAW PAW Act, for purpose of markup and move that the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill.
▶ 0:16:36H.r. 4638.
▶ 0:16:38Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, for an opening statement. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I I hope you all have a chance to to meet Freddy, uh the beagle, uh [snorts] who's I think in the anteroom right now. Uh Freddy's a 5-year-old CBP detection dog who serves our country every day along with his handler agent, uh Melissa D. Snyder.
▶ 0:17:05Freddy was found abandoned as a puppy at the side of a Georgia road. He was adopted into the USDA's detector dog program. He's since conducted over searches resulting in uh nearly 2,000 agricultural products uh attempting to uh be uh brought into the country. Uh these dogs are highly trained to alert if they smell contraband being smuggled across our our nation's ports of entry.
▶ 0:17:35To them, it's uh it's a playtime game, but they're the most efficient and unobtrusive system we have to secure busy airports. Now, on June 24th of this year, Freddy and Melissa were working Dulles International Airport. On that day, Freddy alerted to luggage on a flight coming from Egypt. While Agent Snyder questioned the owner, this man violently kicked Freddy with sufficient force to lift Freddy off the Freddy suffered contusions to his right forward rib area.
▶ 0:18:04He was taken off duty for 2 weeks to recover. And there they are. By the way, be sure to say hi. Um it turns out this man was smuggling 117 lb of meat and produce which were prohibited from entering the United Well, he pled guilty to harming an animal used in law enforcement. He was deported to Egypt 2 days later. He will never be allowed back in our country again unless, of course, another Joe Biden becomes president.
▶ 0:18:33Now, that same month, leftist protesters in Los Angeles physically attacked horses used by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department for crowd control during an anti-ICE riot. Uh horses are used extensively by federal agencies for crowd control and also for access to remote areas along the border frequented by human and drug traffickers.
▶ 0:18:55So, Congressman Calvert brings us this simple bill that says that you if you were convicted of harming a law enforcement animal or you admit to doing so while you were a guest of our you will immediately be expelled and never allowed to return. Yes, it is true that we have good laws to punish such animal cruelty. And yes, such assaults can be defined as moral turpitude to debar admission, but that finding can often require Byzantine legal proceedings.
▶ 0:19:25They eat up valuable time and resources if they're pursued at all. Now, I I know that many of our Democratic colleagues support the open border policies of the Biden administration which encouraged the largest illegal mass migration in They admitted the world's most violent criminal gangs and cartels into our communities.
▶ 0:19:47They suppressed American workers' wages, and they cost taxpayers an estimated $160 billion a year to I know that many are now vigorously and in some cases violently opposing the enforcement of our immigration laws under the Trump They can't change these laws, so they seek to obstruct their enforcement and attack and harass and threaten the law enforcement officers who are upholding Some Democratic state and local officials have even revived
▶ 0:20:18the disgraced doctrine of nullification to defy federal law that we all thought it died with the Now this is a deep and irreconcilable divide between our parties that only voters can ultimately resolve.
▶ 0:20:33But can't we at least all agree that kicking a 5-year-old beagle at an airport should disqualify any foreign national from entering our country ever That's the entire one paragraph law and I hope we can put aside our political differences and all support it. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement.
▶ 0:20:57Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. As co-chair of the Animal Protection Caucus and a huge dog person, I think I counted seven in our extended family this morning. I've taken a strong interest in this bill and the case underlying it.
▶ 0:21:09The case indeed illustrates the cavalier violent abuse of animals that's still pervasive in our country around the Alas, the bill is a great example of a trend that I think both sides have tried resist, which is duplicating existing offenses and simply filling the statute books with redundant provisions.
▶ 0:21:31It all started as the gentleman said when canine detective Freddy the beagle, who we get to meet today, who was working with Customs and Border detected smuggled agricultural products at Dulles Airport. Apparently he repeatedly barked and alerted his commanding officers to the presence of over 100 pounds of prohibited food items in bags unloading in the luggage pickup area.
▶ 0:21:58And the prohibited food belonged to Hamed Ramadan Bayoumi Ali Marie, age 70, a traveler and a foreign national visiting from Egypt. this gentleman, apparently frustrated and angry angry over the dog's excellent detective work, kicked Freddy so hard he became airborne and suffered bruised ribs.
▶ 0:22:22And if you're an animal lover like me, you would exclaim, "That should be illegal." And sure enough, it was illegal. Mr. Marie was promptly held by the police for several days, and then he pled guilty to one count of harming animals used in law enforcement under 18 USC 1368. He was convicted and he was sentenced to time served by the ordered to pay the veterinarian's bill, which records show was $840.
▶ 0:22:52I'm glad to see that Freddy is doing fine. And then he was promptly Mr. Marie was promptly deported and sent back to Egypt. So, as the case itself demonstrates, the conduct is already criminally proscribed and is the basis for removal of a non-citizen. It's against the law now to kick a police dog and Mr. Marie won himself 3 days in jail for doing it.
▶ 0:23:17But the opportunity to introduce a redundant bill was apparently impossible for us politicians to pass up. HR 4638 would render inadmissible and deportable any non-citizen who willfully harms a police dog or a police horse. I'm unaware of any mad rush of immigrants roaming the country and attacking police animals, so I'm not sure what crisis this surplus language is responding to. I don't know if it's about horses being bootstrapped in.
▶ 0:23:45I'm sure anyone attacking a horse would also be swept under the current statute. In any event, what should have happened here did happen here. Mr. Marie was criminally charged, prosecuted, convicted, and removed from the country. In other words, the criminal justice system and the immigration system worked just like they're supposed to. A foreign national committed a crime, he was arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, and removed, all without being stripped of any of the due process protections that we afford people in America.
▶ 0:24:13So, all this bill really does is short-circuit the need to actually prosecute someone for an alleged assault. The bill would render not just a vacation traveler, but even a green card holder deportable for kicking a police animal even if he or she is never arrested, charged, prosecuted, or convicted of the crime. And think of that. That That's what this bill is doing. It is short-circuiting the entire process which took place in this actual case.
▶ 0:24:42So, there's no crime so serious that people don't actually have to be prosecuted it prosecuted for it before being punished. If a citizen or a green card holder murders someone today, we require that they be convicted prior to being sent to prison or to being rendered deportable. There must be an actual conviction.
▶ 0:25:04If this bill were to become law, individuals accused of attacking police animals will be treated in the immigration system more harshly than people accused of murdering a human being. That just makes no sense and it sticks out like a sore thumb in our statute books. Under the INA, a non-citizen convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or CIMT is automatically deportable. And the gentleman has conceded that this was treated as a crime of moral turpitude and can be treated that way.
▶ 0:25:35There are a wide variety of these offenses including acts to impede law enforcement and to harm animals. The key point here is that only persons who are convicted of such a crime are rendered deportable. This bill eliminates the conviction requirement, which is a very dangerous road for us to go down.
▶ 0:25:55And I know that the Homeland Security Secretary infamously in her book bragged about killing her dog, but she should not be fired or punished for that with all the protections of due process even though she wrote about having done it. If she were to be prosecuted for that, that's something that she should actually be brought to court for and not simply say, "Oh, there's evidence of it. She's admitted it." I urge the members to oppose this bill and I yield back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record.
▶ 0:26:26The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got an amendment at the desk.
▶ 0:26:32will report the amendment.
▶ 0:26:33Amendment in the nature
▶ 0:26:34the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to explain his amendment.
▶ 0:26:42This amendment just makes a small technical change to the short title. It doesn't change the substance of the bill and I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. The gentleman from New York has an amendment. The gentleman may or excuse me, the clerk may report. I reserve a point of order. Point of order reserved by the gentleman from Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 4638 offered by Mr. Goldman of New York. Page one, strike lines
▶ 0:27:10the amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman from New York is is recognized to explain his amendment. Well, let me read it, please, if I may. page one, strike lines two through four and insert the following. This act may be cited as the Kristi Noem Canine Relief Act of 2025.
▶ 0:27:31It is noteworthy that we are doubling down on deporting, arresting individuals who assault dogs in this case. And make no mistake, I am strongly against anyone assaulting dogs. And I think the ranking member laid out very clearly the the problem with this bill.
▶ 0:27:58But I really want to know how, if at all, it would apply to cabinet members who have admitted that they have shot and killed a dog.
▶ 0:28:11Is it only at the ports of entry or is this just broadly against any any [clears throat] assault on on dogs my understanding if I'm reading the bill is that this would apply to someone who kills a dog.
▶ 0:28:36Now, obviously, we're focused here on the deportation of people who kill dogs. And presumably that would not apply to US citizens, although I understand my colleagues on the other side are in many cases trying to denaturalize people, but certainly the Secretary of Homeland Security as a as a born American subject to birthright
▶ 0:29:08would not be able to be denaturalized. So, I understand that this bill would not necessarily apply because it is really focused on making sure that we double down and deport not just people who are convicted of killing dogs, but people who have been alleged to have killed dogs.
▶ 0:29:31And so, this renaming I think would really capture the true essence of the bill, which is that we really don't want anybody to kill dogs, especially the Secretary of Homeland Security. And so I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would rename the bill the Kristi Noem K9 Relief Act of 2025.
▶ 0:30:01And I yield back. Mr. Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:30:03The gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California. I would insist on my point of order because of the nature of the the amendment, but since I've been told that it is technically in order, I would rather say, can I please call the previous question and dispense with this Can you also can maybe you say I'll strike I'd like to strike I'd like to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman is recognized. Mr.
▶ 0:30:29Chairman, the word kill, I'm looking for it in the The word Kristi Noem is being injected by the other side. This is about about in fact a difference between many of us on the right and many on the left, which is do people at the time of their request to enter the country or during their stay as visa do they have the same right against being
▶ 0:31:00deported that American citizens have? And the answer obviously is no. And I think the gentleman wisely said, citizens are not to be deported. a visa or an a visa at the port of entry when you're attempting to enter, uh particularly carrying drugs as this person did. And I only question why he isn't still in jail rather than uh having been deported.
▶ 0:31:24I report protest. Pardon me? But oh, okay. Uh it wasn't drugs. The I apologize, but the fact is this is an example of the difference between the two views.
▶ 0:31:41The view that everyone has a right to be here with or without a visa, with or without good It is clear that this is necessary for the very reason of the argument by the my colleague is he is arguing that somehow, you know, we don't need this We need the law if there's ambiguity as to whether or not your entry into the country is at the discretion of the United States government based on your clear
▶ 0:32:11living up to the standards for which we have granted that entry. And the standards for granting that entry are higher than just a question of breaking the law. And I think that's the important point that if you want to say that you have to, as as has been said in this committee repeatedly, you have to do egregious things.
▶ 0:32:32I remember markups in this committee where we said, if you have been convicted of DU of driving under the influence a hundred times, is that enough times to deport you? That was after we did 50 and 25 and 10. We kept increasing it and at no point could we get a clear agreement that you there must be a point at which somebody is a clear and present danger based on driving under the influence or other offenses.
▶ 0:32:58And yet we could find no basis for it, only that if it was a violent felony meeting some requirement. With all due respect for today, when they've killed somebody, maimed somebody or committed a violent felony, but they have done other things indicating their failure to be on good behavior earlier, we have missed the point because we have caused egregious harm to our cities and to our citizens because we waited too long.
▶ 0:33:27This if you're going to kick a dog because it's simply trying to investigate whether you're carrying contraband and doing the job at a port of entry, then you've already shown that you are not fit to come into our country based on our rules.
▶ 0:33:43And for that reason, I oppose any changing of the name that would distract from the obvious goal that the gentleman wrote this bill for, which is to protect the law enforcement people and their animals from the kind of attacks we saw here. And with that, I would yield back.
▶ 0:34:04Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:34:04The gentleman yields back. Gentleman from New York is recognized. I move to strike the last word.
▶ 0:34:08The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, I don't really care about the title of the bill. It's clever to call it the Kristi Noem bill because K9 Relief Act to to remind people of how cruel she was to an animal when we're talking about animal cruelty. But the real issue of this bill is not that. The real issue of this bill is that it applies penalties to people who have not been convicted.
▶ 0:34:38It says convicted or admitted or various other things. But they have not been convicted. It is fundamental to justice in this country that no one can be without being convicted of a of a crime. There's nothing more fundamental to the liberties of this country than the requirement of conviction of a This bill and several of the other bills on the calendar today do away with that.
▶ 0:35:09This is a that is a crime against the Constitution. This is a crime against We cannot have a society in which people can be convicted of a crime, sentenced to jail or to a fine or whatever, without being convicted. That is a fundamental thing [clears throat] in this country. It's been fundamental to to English common law before this And now we're going to repeal that?
▶ 0:35:40That is the core issue of this bill. That's why I oppose the bill. And I yield back.
▶ 0:35:48The gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Florida is recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. First of all, it's good to see you all. It's been a long time since we've been together, since we were all furloughed together by the speaker. Um and so it's good to be with you. I see trying to get some muscle memory back for you all. See if you have a sense of humor. I I want to just set the record straight on a on a couple of things.
▶ 0:36:15We keep referring to Kristi Noem's dog as a dog, but actually it was a puppy. It was 14 months old. Uh and so uh and that puppy had a name. Say its name. Okay, that puppy had a name. And so if you had a couple moments, I would now like to do a spirited reading from the book by our Secretary of Homeland Security. It starts, "I hated that dog.
▶ 0:36:47On the way home from a hunt, the dog on the way home from a pheasant hunt was untrainable. And it went to go attack the chickens. And at that moment I realized I had to put her down. So I grabbed a gun and let led Cricket to a gravel pit.
▶ 0:37:08Wasn't a pleasant job, but it had to be And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be And so I went and got the family goat and brought that to the gravel pit. And unfortunately, I wasn't able to kill that goat with one shot. So anyway, I I think the point of bringing it up is on the merits of the bill, we can debate the merits of the bill.
▶ 0:37:36But if we're going to just going to get on our high horse about animal cruelty, which I think we all agree on by the way, I think there's unanimity here on animal cruelty. I just, you know, want to make sure that we apply that universally.
▶ 0:37:51And I think that's what the gentleman from New York is just trying to remind our colleagues, who we have not seen in a while, um that, you know, the Secretary of Homeland Security also did not treat an animal in which we believe the animal should be treated. Um and with that I'll yield if if Mr. Raskin has any questions. Uh well welcome back, Mr. Moskowitz.
▶ 0:38:15And uh first of all, I think your reference to goats is completely immaterial to what we're discussing today. It's not part of the bill. Isn't that right? There are no goats in the bill. I was meaning is I wanted to I mean, not me. And she wrote this in the book that after she shot the dog, she's like, that was awesome. Go grab the goat. So all right.
▶ 0:38:36Well, they mean getting back to the substance of it, whether it's a magnificent dog like Freddy who joins us today or Cricket uh whose reputation has obviously been besmirched by the Secretary of Homeland Security, all dogs deserve not to be treated in a, you know, cruel and capricious way. Um but the point here is that everything that anybody in this room would have wanted to happen happened in this case.
▶ 0:39:05Right after uh the culprit kicked Freddy, the culprit was apprehended, was arrested, uh was charged and spent three days in jail before being removed and deported from the country. So one asks, you know, other than the opportunity to say we agree with what happened, what are we doing here?
▶ 0:39:26Um all that's really happening is that the majority is using this an opportunity to try to dilute this standard that is working perfectly well, which is that if you are actually convicted of such an offense, um then you will be immediately removable and deportable from the country and there's no reason uh to puncture that basic line as Mr.
▶ 0:39:51Nadler says in our jurisprudence and I I can't see why any of us would want to go down that road. Uh so, you know, I I thank you for reminding us that that animal cruelty is a serious problem across the country uh Mr. Moskowitz and Mr. Goldman. Um and I I do hope that uh we can all agree that what happened in this case is precisely what should have happened. We don't need to be um tampering with the law at this point. I yield back.
▶ 0:40:23Gentlemen, yields back. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um on this particular maybe we should amend this amendment to call it the Shri uh bill. Uh and so with that uh I think this particular interesting article here is uh from the UK Daily Mail.
▶ 0:40:47Democrat congressman trying to impeach President Trump has been accused of abandoning over 100 dogs to starve after his company cruelly tested pharmaceuticals on them. Shri Thanedar was behind a testing lab that shut down in 2010. Months after New Jersey lab closed, local animal rights activists alerted authorities to 118 beagles that had been left behind locked in the facility. At the time, the lab's ex-workers told USA Today they'd been jumping fences at the facility to provide food and water for the dogs.
▶ 0:41:18Insiders claim that even before the dogs were abandoned to starve, they had lived horrific lives in captivity and were subject to toxicology tests. I don't think they've actually had their paws on the grass. When I walked in here, it looked like they were walking on eggshells. They were kind of afraid to walk on the grass. The point is and so, Mr.
▶ 0:41:36Chairman, I I submit for the record um this this article from UK Daily Mail entitled Dem Congressman Shri Thanedar famed for railing against Trump carried out unspeakable acts against 118 No objection. And uh by the way California-based organization Defense of Animals then went back to the same site and saved 55 long-tailed macaque monkeys as well.
▶ 0:42:02The point is you're trying to make a joke out of And the reality is what happened should not have happened. And uh you when you would try to minimize something that's serious, sometimes your humor is not really funny. It's flat.
▶ 0:42:26And uh so if we're going to in invoke names here, then I would invoke the name of your own colleague Shri Thanedar. With that Will the gentleman yield? I'll yield to the gentleman from California. Perhaps the gentleman would consider modifying his suggestion by adding the name of Anthony Fauci who's alleged to have presided over the torture of many more beagles and other harmless creatures all in the name of perverted science. Will the gentleman yield?
▶ 0:42:53I would I would be happy to include that amendment. So my my Mr. Chairman, my I'm making an oral amendment to change the title of the article of the amend of the underlying bill. No objection. Will Will the gentleman yield for a question? No. Okay.
▶ 0:43:13That's totally fine. I'm going to object to that. Okay. So objection raised to the amendment offered to the amendment. Um all those in I'm going to take a roll call on all those in favor all the Who Who seeks recognition? But I I want Have you yielded back? Is Mr. Is the gentleman yielded back?
▶ 0:43:42Yes. All right. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Tennessee seeks recognition. You're what? Gentleman's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am a major animal rights Why can't we animal protection legislator for 40 years. I just I'll have a tie on today with puppy dogs, not because I knew we had this bill, because I like puppy dogs. And Freddy's a great dog. But Mr. Raskin did an excellent job in saying why we don't need this bill. Uh I don't believe my friend Mr.
▶ 0:44:11McClintock responded to Mr. Raskin's argument about this being duplicitous. And I think we have a bill that I'm a sponsor of that I think might have been Jim Jordan's bill that said we should go through and eliminate laws in the in the code that duplicitous and unnecessary. Um Mr. McClintock, you're my friend. I have great respect for you. Can you tell me why Mr. Raskin's argument is not dispositive of this bill? Uh yes, as I stated my opening subject. And by the way, Mr. Cohen, I I return that the compliments.
▶ 0:44:40I have a high degree of respect for you, which you well know and and and I'm proud to say to to to all here. Um and it's very simple. It is correct that it could be interpreted as moral turpitude to have been convicted or to have admitted to such a crime.
▶ 0:44:57The problem is that that then can trigger a lengthy legal process to determine whether or not that constitutes moral And this cuts through all of that red tape and simply says if you kick a 5-year-old beagle uh you're not going to be allowed back in this country. No further legal proceedings are necessary. Now, you do have to either be convicted of that or admit to that.
▶ 0:45:24In this case this this foreign national admitted to it. Uh but if you try to come back in the country uh he could trigger a long legal process to determine whether or not that act constituted moral turpitude. This bill makes that legal process unnecessary and simply says you're not welcome here. Go Thank you, Mr. McClintock. Um Mr. Raskin, you would like to respond.
▶ 0:45:50Thank you, Mr. Cohen. First of all, there is no judicial review of an inadmissibility determination administratively. So it's just false to say that you'd be tied up endlessly in litigation or red tape around that. I mean, I think the facts of this very case, which are the only which is the only case that's been advanced by the majority, completely contradict what we just heard because this all happened within 3 days. So where are the years or months or weeks of litigation and red tape?
▶ 0:46:19Uh he was found guilty and he was removed from the country the next day. He spent 3 days in jail. So he was not you know, out on the street endangering Cricket or any other dogs uh at point. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. I appreciate the I'm probably going to vote for this even though I think Mr. Raskin's discussion is right and it's not necessary because it's not worth our time. Kumbaya.
▶ 0:46:45Let's do something for the puppies and get it if you Truman said if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. Will the gentleman yield for 1 moment?
▶ 0:46:52Sure. To just in a last-ditch effort to dissuade you because you know, at first my my reaction was yours too, which is well, this is completely redundant and duplicative as well as duplicitous as I think you you misspoke and said as well. But um you know, why not just let it go? It's not that big a deal.
▶ 0:47:11The problem is it sets a very bad precedent now um where we're saying we're going to dispense with the necessity of actually trying people for crimes and we're just going to declare them guilty of the crime and then they can be removable or deportable or you know, in the context of citizens subject to other kinds of administrative law sanctions. One would think that the Judiciary Committee of all places in Congress would want to resist that erosion of basic standards. Thanks.
▶ 0:47:40I I will reserve my judgment, but I would I am very much affected as I'm sure Mr. Roy is by his contact with Mr. Chairman. Uh what does the gentleman want to strike last word? I I think we've Well, you're on the amendment. Go ahead. Gentleman's Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to repeat the argument that I made that Mr.
▶ 0:48:02Raskin made that this is a very uh uh terrible precedent to set uh that we can penalize people without actually convicting them in a court of I just want to comment on something I think it was Mr. Biggs said uh when he was talking about cruelty to animals. And of course, cruelty to animals is uh is terrible. but he used the name of Anthony Fauci.
▶ 0:48:29And no one has alleged that Anthony Fauci was cruel to animals. Now, true true, animals were used in in in in in in his medical experiments. As always is the case. You don't want to give a drug a new drug to a person without first testing it on That is part of the scientific method. It is absolutely necessary for safety for human beings.
▶ 0:49:00Mr. Biggs mentioned someone else. I forget who it was who he said was cruel to animals. He may well have been. But when he mentioned Anthony Fauci he was not. He simply used animals in the proper scientific uh method to protect human beings. And I don't think we want to say that drugs should be tested or medical procedures should be tested first on humans without being tested first on animals. I yield back.
▶ 0:49:33Gentleman yields back. The The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
▶ 0:49:38Mr. Chairman, I would just state what we're talking about here is a pretty simple question. If you've got an animal, in this case we're talking about a dog, we're talking about Freddy, in service to our country, and we've got an individual who is here as a guest, port of entry in this question, or it could be now you're talking about in the interior or otherwise, and they kick a They kick this animal.
▶ 0:50:04They harm this We don't believe you should be a guest That's literally all we're saying. I don't think this is that complicated. Don't be an idiot, or we're going to remove you or not admit you. It's that simple. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 0:50:24You know, I didn't get a chance to meet Freddy, but I hope that Freddy is getting some SAG or after credits for participating in this show today. I this I do not support this. Not because I don't support animals.
▶ 0:50:44In fact, I just adopted a dog 2 weeks ago from the shelter, but this really is an attempt to try and legitimize unlawful deportations. And using it the weaponization of Freddy, or you know, using dogs as pawns because they have a soft spot in our hearts.
▶ 0:51:12And I listened to some of the comments, and we have to just say, let's not pretend that this is about protecting law enforcement because it's not. If we were really serious about protecting law enforcement, there would have been a larger outcry from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about pardoning January 6ers who attacked Capitol Police. Last I checked, Capitol Police are members of law enforcement.
▶ 0:51:43There'd be less about even putting a plaque up on the wall honoring those Capitol Police officers who so valiantly protected everybody up in this place.
▶ 0:51:58If we were really about protecting law enforcement, you would have been against cutting government funding to law enforcement that work with community-based organizations in our districts and cities and states across this country who are working to make the streets If it was really about protecting law there would have been a larger outcry about giving settlement money, government money, to folks
▶ 0:52:28who actually attacked Capitol Police officers. If it was really about protecting law enforcement, there would be an outcry about why the DOJ is actually taking AUSAs off cases where they and law enforcement have been working on for years to go after cartels and human traffickers. People kidnapping our children and trafficking them and prostituting them. So, let's keep it real. This is not This is a charade. It's a charade.
▶ 0:52:58I guess we have to get it out of our system, but this is not about protecting law enforcement. And no, Freddy shouldn't have been kicked. No dog shouldn't be kicked. But you know, there should be a larger outcry actually about if don't be a don't be an idiot. Don't kick a dog. How about don't kick your wife? Don't kick a child. Don't molest a child. Don't traffic a child. How about that? No outcry about that? No outcry about that.
▶ 0:53:29So, I don't know if I would like to yield my time, I guess if to to our ranking member. If not, I yield back. Or I can Okay, I yield back. Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from uh Gentleman from Do you have unanimous consent? Yeah, you see
▶ 0:53:45Gentleman from Arizona is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enter into the record without unanimous consent NIH shuts down Beagle Lab after 40 years of taxpayer-funded The director of that was Anthony Fauci. Without objection. Gentleman from California is recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:54:08The Democrats see no distinction between Kristi Noem's uh experience um uh with her dog Cricket with with with the assault of animals that are used by law enforcement. Well, I think they'd have a point if Kristi Noem was a foreign national and she shot a law enforcement dog named Cricket, this would certainly apply to her. But none of those circumstances apply in this case.
▶ 0:54:35We understand that many Democrats see no problem in obstructing law enforcement when they're obstructing laws the Democrats don't like or are committed by guests of our country, whether here legally or illegally. The ranking member reminds us that one can be turned away at a point of entry administratively, and that is correct. But that doesn't apply to foreign nationals who've gotten beyond the port of entry.
▶ 0:55:00This makes all foreign nationals deportable if they have attacked law enforcement uh Um the former ranking member objects that this doesn't require a conviction. Well, actually it requires either a conviction or an admission of the crime. And in fact, that language is identical to the the grounds for inadmissibility for for crimes involving not just moral turpitude, but controlled substance offenses under the Immigration Nationality Act.
▶ 0:55:30Uh even for grounds of removability, convictions are not always required. For example, an alien can be uh removed for overstaying his visa, violating his non-immigrant status or condition of entry, smuggling aliens, committing marriage fraud, being a drug user or drug addict, falsely claiming US citizenship, or engaging in espionage. By requiring at least an admission, this bill conforms to the pattern of other grounds of inadmissibility and removability.
▶ 0:55:59Here, the federal crime has clear elements that are with a criminal provision. And if an alien like Freddy's attacker had admitted to such reprehensible conduct, why can't that alien's own admission be used to show that that alien is inadmissible or deportable? I yield Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 0:56:24Just just briefly So, we're sitting here debating the BAW WOW Act. And just to be clear, you know, I'm a huge supporter of dogs. I have a dog myself. I have an incorrigible Labradoodle named Willie. And I love my dog. But I love my 15-year-old daughter more.
▶ 0:56:51And it is so shocking to me that we have not heard from any of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein in this committee. That we have you know, I'm very happy to meet the dog here. It's actually bringing me some joy seeing the dog here in the committee. We need We need some joy around here.
▶ 0:57:12But again, I want to speak for so many of my who have been so disgusted by the rhetoric that has come out of MAGA talking heads in the last few weeks the trafficking that was done not just by Jeffrey Epstein, but so many well-connected powerful men.
▶ 0:57:39And we have time to debate the BAW WOW Act in here, and yet we have not made any time to hear directly from these women who have never received any bit of And so again, I think I speak for so many of my constituents. We love our dogs. We love our animals. We have a lot of animals in Vermont. It's a rural rural area. But my god, we love our kids more.
▶ 0:58:10And it's just shocking to me that we spend time on this on a bill that is not needed to protect animals that I do believe is a way to legitimize unlawful We can't seem to find time to give these women a voice here in this committee. I yield back. Gentlelady Gentlelady yields to the Thank you, member. Yeah. I'm happy to yield to the the ranking member. Thank you, Ms. Balint.
▶ 0:58:40Just to recap where we are to to move things along. Um The bill would make deportable what is already Uh it would treat as a crime what is already a crime. It takes the superb law enforcement work of uh Freddy and the human beings he's attached to, the police officers. Um uh it celebrates it, and we all celebrate it. They did a great job, and it all worked.
▶ 0:59:10The gentlelady makes an excellent point, which is if we're really in that desperate of search for something to do, why don't we invite the Epstein survivors in here? They're dying to talk to us. They had a They just had a big press conference outside. They want America to hear. They're saying it's time to blow open not just the Epstein case, but all of the cases of sexual abuse of children and young people across America that's been institutionalized in so many places.
▶ 0:59:39I mean, if we're really in that much of a hurt to find something to do, uh let's let's do that uh rather than uh dispense of the conviction requirement. Um our friend tells us that this is tied up endlessly in red tape. Uh it takes forever. This guy was held for 3 days and was out of the country. It worked great. The police did a great job. Freddy did a great job. The law is working.
▶ 1:00:09So, this strikes me as you know, completely unnecessary and somewhat transparent attempt uh to just pile on to a situation that's already working. There's nothing that uh advances our freedom in doing that. There's nothing conservative about doing that. Um if it ain't broke, uh don't fix it.
▶ 1:00:32And this is trying to fix something that's working just fine as the only case that's been identified vividly demonstrates uh with the the presence of Freddy. So, thank you for yielding to the gentle lady and I yield back.
▶ 1:00:45Ms. Balint, would you yield? I will yield. I just had a thought that the Senate's kind of in not in the best of lights these days for getting trying to give a half million dollars or more to eight senators. Maybe they'll give a half million dollars or more to each of the victims of the crimes that they're covering up. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 1:01:07The gentle lady from Wyoming is I voted for that. I voted for the Laken Riley Act. Laken Riley Hey, the time belongs to the gentle lady from Wyoming. Time belongs to the gentle lady from Wyoming.
▶ 1:01:48I I would just take few seconds to note that in response to one of the comments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about wanting to focus on the uh abuse of spouses or abuse of women, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were all up in arms about the removal and deportation of Abrego Garcia earlier this year. And Abrego Garcia beat his wife.
▶ 1:02:12I yield back to the gentle lady from Thank thank you for yielding. I I hesitated to get into this thing with regard to Epstein, but I want to introduce for you see uh an article entitled Joe Scarborough asked Dem Rep point blank why his party didn't call for Epstein file release sooner. I object. Yeah, and and so for 4 years it was myself and a handful of Republicans that were asking that the Epstein records be released.
▶ 1:02:43For 4 years we were asking for those. But the Biden administration sat on their hands and did nothing, which is why Joe Scarborough asked it, "Well, why didn't you ask? You had control. You had all three levers. You sat on your butts and didn't say Now, I've met with of Epstein.
▶ 1:03:13And they've come in and we've had them heard their Not in this committee necessarily, but I've heard them. In committee. I just I just want to remind you that maybe when you're crabbing and fussing and complaining and carrying on, maybe you ought to look in the mirror a little bit. I yield back.
▶ 1:03:39I'd also like to note that it was uh the Democrat delegate from the Virgin Islands that was not only Jeffrey Epstein's mouthpiece during congressional hearings, but was his fixer. So, if you want to raise questions about Jeffrey Epstein and who has things to hide, the Democrats as my colleague from Arizona just stated, perhaps you should look in the mirror. It is one of yours. It is one of yours.
▶ 1:04:10It is the Democrats that were the fixers and the attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein. So, I guess that I it's very difficult for me to take you seriously as you attempt to turn this into yet another attack and another way to get Donald Trump. This isn't about Donald Trump.
▶ 1:04:30This is about the Democrats who were aligned with Jeffrey Epstein at the very time that they knew that he was a convicted felon as a pedophile as a as as a pedophile. So, I don't believe your hysteria.
▶ 1:04:47I don't trust the way that you try to turn everything into screaming about Jeffrey Epstein because it is extremely obvious that all you're attempting to do is deflect from your failures and try to cover up the fact that it was the Democrats that enabled enabled [clears throat] him.
▶ 1:05:04gentle lady from Wyoming yield? I will. Yes. Yeah, in this last minute and I wonder if the gentle lady could correct uh could confirm whether what I'm about to say is correct, that it was in fact President Trump's administration in 2019 that federally indicted Epstein in July of 2019, that it was in fact the Trump administration, the first term, that was going after Maxwell and set the stage for her indictment, that it was in fact the Trump administration along with the Oversight Committee led by Republicans that have released tens of thousands of pages of
▶ 1:05:34documents this year via the appropriate path of subpoena and in making sure that more information is public. And then in fact, as the gentle lady from Wyoming noted, in a hearing that I was sitting in right next door in Oversight where I was questioning Michael Cohen literally while I personally was questioning Michael we had a Democratic member of that committee that was texting in real time with already convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Is that correct? I yield back. You are absolutely correct.
▶ 1:06:03I've watched the video. With that, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The question The The question occurs We can get We can get that in a second. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, if I remember who offered that amendment. Um all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, uh the no's have it.
▶ 1:06:30Question now occurs on uh Move to strike last word. Okay. Well, let me do a UC and then we'll come to you. Then Ranking Member. Uh the gentleman from Arizona is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is another article. Biden administration failed to probe more than 7,300 reports of migrant child I object. I got to wish everyone.
▶ 1:06:57You want to go Gentle lady from Washington is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report. Point of order preserved by the gentleman from Arizona. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 1:07:15The amendment will be considered as read. The gentle lady is recognized to explain her amendment. Well, Mr. Chairman, I sure did miss you and your Good to see you as well. leadership. I had forgotten what what critical things we were taking up in this committee.
▶ 1:07:29you know, we've entered election season because despite being gone for 7 weeks, I think it is now, the majority is once again trying to distract us from the fact that grocery prices and utility prices across the country are rising, from the fact that this administration has been protecting pedophiles, building gilded ballrooms, sending tens of billions of dollars to bail out Argentina, while refusing to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits for 22 million Americans.
▶ 1:07:58And the most often used tool in the Republican playbook is, surprise, blame immigrants. Blame an immigrant. Find a crime, blame an immigrant, make people deportable and inadmissible without requiring a conviction, deny them basic due process, and then just replay that. Rinse and repeat over and over again. But this is a new one even for us moving into the arena of harming animals. And I feel like we're all putting forward our animal cred.
▶ 1:08:27So, I'll I wish I had a picture of my beautiful 14-year-old Labradoodle, Otis, because he's he is for me part of our family like tens of millions of Americans. And I have been somebody who's championed animal welfare. So, I take violence against animals seriously. But so do our immigration laws. That's what happens right now.
▶ 1:08:50The crime that's referenced in this bill requires someone to quote "willfully and maliciously harm a dog or a horse." This is almost certainly already a crime involving moral turpitude, which can and did in this case render someone deportable or inadmissible from the In 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals made clear that the crime of animal fighting is a crime involving moral turpitude.
▶ 1:09:19And that is because there is a clear intent to harm the animal. So, the issue is already well covered under our immigration laws. and this bill is not necessary. Now, unnecessary bills alone are not a reason to vote no, but this bill goes further than that. Under current law, a person does not need to be convicted of a crime to be inadmissible. However, under most circumstances, you do need a conviction to be deportable.
▶ 1:09:48And when we talk about all the red tape, it seems to me like that's being used as an excuse to just get rid of due process. It takes too long, therefore we're not going to have due process. But once again, this bill, as has been done with so many other bills that we've we've been voting on in this committee, Republicans don't require someone to be convicted of the crime to be deportable from the country.
▶ 1:10:11That means that a green card holder who has lived here for a generation or more could be deported from the country without even being convicted of a crime. The bill was written in response to this incident where a 70-year-old man kicked a poor Customs and Border Protection agriculture detector dog at at Dulles Airport. The incident was horrible.
▶ 1:10:32The dog was just doing his job, but that man has been pointed out over and over again in this committee, was tried and convicted in federal court in a very short period of time, removed from the country. And so my amendment is at minimum what needs to be done is change the deportability section to require a conviction. That's what this amendment does, to require a conviction in order for the person to be removed from the country.
▶ 1:11:01It has never been more important for people to have their day in court. Just look at what is happening across the country as federal immigration authorities, led by Gregory Bovino, the head of CBP, inflict terror on American communities. We've seen residential communities tear gassed without a care for the very young children who have been affected. We've seen a daycare teacher with work authorization arrested at a school inflicting irreversible damage on all the kids that she cares for.
▶ 1:11:32We've seen US citizens brutalized by ICE and Border Patrol. The right to being innocent until proven guilty should be something that every single one of us in this committee can agree to and a bedrock principle of fairness, due process, and the rule of law. But unfortunately, apparently when it comes to immigrants and the people who love and support them, this administration and this committee doesn't seem to care about fairness, about due process, about the rule of law.
▶ 1:11:58Because under the Trump administration, federal agents have falsely accused Venezuelan soccer players, bakers, makeup artists of being Tren de Aragua members. They've attempted to deport someone for writing an op-ed, arrested US citizens, falsely injured peaceful protesters, including pastors and people of faith. So, we need to get back to the basics and protect the fundamental due process rights of everyone as the Constitution requires. Hope I can count on my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back. Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:12:29The gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I think of that word hypocrisy and my good friend Mr. Biggs and a few others have brought it up, so let's just go through this step by step. We have to bring the Epstein case into everything. That's okay. It is a big deal. What happened to those children, those young people, was god-awful.
▶ 1:12:55The part I don't understand and nobody can explain to me is that my good friends on the other side keep acting as if they are the protectors of children or the protectors of these children, but the reality is that in year one of Biden's administration, they didn't do anything. Okay. But in year two, they didn't do anything. And in year three, they didn't do anything. And in year four, they didn't do anything.
▶ 1:13:21So, if this was such a big paramount issue, if this is something that they cared about so much, that bothered them so much, that hurt them so much, that attacked their moral sensibilities so why didn't they do anything when they had the ability and had control of it It begs that question. I think we know what the answer is. So, I would ask that they stop it.
▶ 1:13:42There are good people on both sides of the aisle that are extremely concerned about I for one was a sponsor I'm a sponsor of the bill to release the information from jump start. Many others as well. But don't take that moral righteous path that you are above it and you are fighting for them cuz you weren't there for years, not for days, not for weeks, not for months, for years nothing happened. Secondly, animal abuse is never a good thing.
▶ 1:14:13And as somebody who at the state legislature, in the state senate, in the state assembly for years that I was there, written a lot of laws dealing with it. You can tell what an individual is about very often by the way they treat children, the way that they treat their elderly, and the way they treat animals, defenseless animals. And quite frankly, when an illegal person hurts an animal, yes, they should be deported.
▶ 1:14:41Now, some folks are maintaining that is already the case, that it's not cleared, it's ambiguous, and even Ms. Jayapal, who is very knowledgeable, said, "Well, almost certainly it's covered already." Well, almost certainly isn't good enough for me. Almost certainly doesn't mean certainly. It doesn't mean definitely. It doesn't mean that it absolutely is covered. So, we just want to make sure if you're here illegally, and particularly if you're a bad person and a criminal to boot, you already should be deported.
▶ 1:15:11But if you hurt an animal beside all that, we have enough problems, quite frankly, with our own people that were born in the United States of America who are animal abusers. We don't need to illegally import them from other countries. Almost certainly isn't good enough. Let's make sure. What harm does it do, for God's sake? And then finally, it was said that we're always blaming illegal immigrants. No, we're not. We love immigrants. I'm going to go through this again.
▶ 1:15:39Immigrants, we all most of us were or families were or families throughout history have always brought people here. That's a good thing. It refreshes and renews America and makes us stronger. But we don't need illegal immigrants, particularly those people who are lawbreakers, even worse. They they don't belong in America.
▶ 1:16:02Again, we have enough of our own problems and issues in America that we don't have to bring in all the issues and problems from around the world. So, I know as many times as they keep saying we're blaming immigrants, I'm going to keep saying no, we're not. We're blaming people who are that are on the terror watch list or people who have committed crimes or people who are moving drugs or people who are part of cartels or people who are part of gangs. Yeah, we're against them. We don't want them in America.
▶ 1:16:32Be mad at us. We'll stand for that any day of the week because it's the right thing to do. And with that, Mr. I'm going to call you Mr. Speaker. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:16:42Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Maryland is recognized, ranking member. And thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. I want to try to respond to my friend from New Jersey both about his meditations on the Epstein uh case and also about the gentlelady from Washington's amendment. It seems like uh some of the comments of my colleagues over on this side have struck a nerve because a lot of a lot of your colleagues, Mr. Chairman, are acting very defensive about the whole Epstein thing.
▶ 1:17:11And rather than talking about the survivors, the victims, this billion-dollar global child sex trafficking ring, they want to talk about Democrats. So, uh for indulge me for a moment while I try to respond to my uh friend from New Jersey again because I think we went through this before we went on our seven- or eight-week Speaker Johnson-ordered vacation, uh paid vacation. Um, and I did even provide him the documents supporting what I was saying, but
▶ 1:17:42he the the Mr. Van Drew is asking what Democrats did, saying, "Well, our hands are not clean either. We want to simply pose as protectors of children. We're not really interested in stopping child sex abuse. We just want to strike the pose of that." Well, that's a fairly serious charge.
▶ 1:17:59One of the things that I offered to to my friend from New Jersey before we left was all of the materials relating to a hearing that I called as the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on the Oversight Committee, along with Chairman Cummings, in July of 2019 about Alex Acosta, who was the US Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, who later became Donald Trump's Secretary of Labor. And we sent him a letter.
▶ 1:18:26This hearing will examine your actions as US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in authorizing a non-prosecution agreement for Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the finding by a federal court that you violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by keeping this non-prosecution agreement secret from the many victims of Mr. Epstein's crimes. Your testimony is critical, and so on. We had an entire hearing on this.
▶ 1:18:52So, to the charge that somehow we weren't interested, we weren't doing anything, I say false. It has been debunked, and Mr. Van Drew, if you'd like, I can give you the exact same documents I gave you before, if you'd like. Now, uh let me say this let me say this about the Biden administration. I'll yield to you as soon as I have a moment, Mr. Van Drew.
▶ 1:19:11Um you know, it wasn't until Donald Trump that we associated what the Department of Justice did with the president who was in office, we considered the Department of Justice an independent law enforcement branch, and yet nonetheless, we see imputed to Joe Biden what is the reality under Donald Trump, which is he makes all the calls there. I mean, he literally tells them, "Oh, I want you to go out and investigate Bill Clinton now or Larry Summers now.
▶ 1:19:40Just investigate the Democrats." And they do it, and our colleagues who are on the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives don't say a word about it. That's astounding to me. But in any event, okay, you want to view it your way, let's view it your way. What happened under the Biden Justice Department, under President Biden? In they prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell.
▶ 1:20:06They successfully prosecuted her, and she was convicted and in the courtroom of Judge Alison Nathan of the Southern District of New York, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison for engaging in human trafficking, child sex trafficking, solicitation, procurement across state lines, and so on. That was under the Biden Justice Department. So, to the to Mr. Van Drew's claim President Biden didn't do anything, if you want to attribute what happened at DOJ under him to him, he certainly did do something.
▶ 1:20:36They convicted Ghislaine Maxwell. Then she engaged in a whole appeals process. The gentleman will remember in 2022, the Department of Justice fought that for an entire year and and continued to fight it even while they continued investigation. Well, then what did what did your guy do?
▶ 1:20:55He got into office, and they summoned all the prosecutors, all the investigative files, and they killed the Despite the fact that that this is a more than a billion-dollar international child sex trafficking conspiracy, they killed the investigation. Nothing to see here. You guys were here when Kash Patel showed up, and he said, "Oh, well, there was nobody else implicated." Nobody else implicated with more than a thousand victims, hundreds and hundreds of victims.
▶ 1:21:24These people going there, exploiting and abusing these girls and these young women for banks filing suspicious activity reports after the after the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Afterwards, they decided to file these and they were more than a billion dollars. Yes, I'll yield to my friend. just a quick quick point of clarification. Do you know when the Maxwell case was indicted? Was that Biden or Trump? It was under Trump. Again, I view I'd like to view the Department of Justice as an independent law enforcement entity.
▶ 1:21:54So, yes, that was pointed out before. He was in Time needs to be mad one more question. Time of the gentleman has expired. I can yield to you for a question that you can yield then to Mr. Raskin. So, I'll recognize the gentleman from Gentleman's time has expired. He yields back. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. Mr. Raskin, I'm going to ask you a question. Just in terms of this whole mantra, one of the concerns that I've vocalized to you is the need to protect truly innocent people in this disclosure in this effort. And I welcome your acumen and your insights.
▶ 1:22:21Is is it possible to have a a mechanism where people who are truly bystanders, the little men, the little women in New York, in Florida, wherever, to prevent them from being released and forever tarnished in this effort? And I I welcome the insights you have. No, and and I I thank you for the seriousness of your question and also for your great experience as a real prosecutor. Um as I understand the Oversight Committee's subpoena and what the chair has worked out with Mr.
▶ 1:22:50Garcia, that that names of victims will be redacted. So, clearly they've got the power to do that. There are other names that have already come forward. Lawrence Summers or Bill Clinton, presumably they can take care of themselves. Mr. Summers has already said he's deeply ashamed, and he ought to be deeply ashamed of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. These are the kinds of things that should have come out a long time ago.
▶ 1:23:15But I'm with you, you know, you you are somebody who should be involved because of your many years as a prosecutor in seeing to it that people are truly innocent whose names just show The best criminals are the hardest to catch, and they embed themselves with innocent people to make it hard to catch. And in this investigation over the number of years, I'm worried about the waiter, the waitress, the bellman, the the cab driver, the chauffeur, whoever it may be.
▶ 1:23:43And if we just willy-nilly release all the files, those are the people that I'm I'm most concerned about. Larry Summers can defend himself. Uh but it's the people who are 20, 25, 30 that don't have the resources of a Larry Summers that I'm worried about.
▶ 1:23:54And I hear you. I I believe the Massie bill includes such protections. I'll find the language for you in there. Well, there is there is one concerning piece there that says social embarrassment is not a reason to withhold the information. And I get the spirit behind that language, but in my opinion, it's way too broad because if there is someone who's innocent, they would not only be embarrassed, they'd be forever tarnished, and I believe that would be a reason to withhold those names. And again, I would love to talk about a mechanism to do that at some
▶ 1:24:21I'm happy to look at the language with you to see that it with with Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield? Yes, I will yield to Mr. Raskin. Yeah, I just want to echo the sentiments and the gentleman from North Carolina have been having this conversation over time about our wish and desire to be able to amend language or be able to tweak it in order to ensure that that safeguard is in place because I too have the same concern that it could be overbroad um in terms of what it might mean for an innocent individual.
▶ 1:24:46Um and you know, and I would just note that and I mean this respectfully cuz I think that was a good back and forth and agreement that the the ranking member used an example out of the Oversight Committee in terms of redactions. I agree. I do think that there was a lot of uh you know, good faith effort you know, there to do that um the appropriate way. But we're talking about here Congress is now statutorily we're coming out we're saying do X, right?
▶ 1:25:10We're going inserting ourselves into the prosecutorial function for all of the politics aside, our general agreement that we want the maximum transparency, but then that raises questions, right? We're not sticking ourselves into the prosecutorial function for every case. There are tens of thousands of case cases right now for the Department of Justice in every United States Attorney's Office. We're doing it for this one because of the egregious crimes and because of the political nature of it.
▶ 1:25:36But that raises questions of Congress saying, "Hey, release X." And then what happens? What happens with grand jury secrecy? What happens with victims that might be the innocent bystanders that the gentleman from North Carolina raises.
▶ 1:25:49So, I would hope that in our conversations we would knowing that this likely going to be voted off the floor this afternoon that we're having those conversations and directing hopefully the Senate to at least address those concerns in a thoughtful and hopefully bipartisan way because I would hope we all agree we would not want that to occur for the truly innocent individual that might be affected by it. I yield back to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Raskin, do you want to say something? I don't I don't even remember whose time it is. the gentleman from North Carolina's.
▶ 1:26:20No, again, just to say, look, the the reason that the the victims are in town is because there's been such a massive cover-up for so long that they want to see that the government is going to come clean and that we're on their side. The point you raise is a significant point about the rule of law, and we should figure out a way to embody it in there if the existing protections in the in the legislative language are not sufficient.
▶ 1:26:48Thank you. I yield to Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, gentleman from North Carolina. Real quickly, I understand the ranking member's point, but you know, being concerned about a plea deal and Alex Acosta is far from revealing the thousands of pages, the thousands of people that may have may not been involved, and I don't mean the innocent ones. None of that was done. Let's not conflate those two issues.
▶ 1:27:12You had one subcommittee hearing and one issue that was relatively minor compared to what this whole huge issue is and is about. I yield back to the gentleman from I yield back. The gentleman yields Gentlelady from I think Pennsylvania was first, then we'll go to the gentlelady from Texas. We don't have someone on our side. Gentlelady is recognized. Thank you. I mean, talk about conflating the issues. There is an outstanding subpoena from the Oversight Committee which has not been complied with the White House.
▶ 1:27:42We don't have to have a vote. The White House could release the Epstein files today if it chose to instead of engaging in a White House cover-up. But I think Mr. Raskin you had some further remarks, so I'll yield to you. Thank you for yielding, Ms. Scanlon. just to complete that chronology, then I do want to say something about the gentlelady from Washington's amendment.
▶ 1:28:04when the Trump administration entered this year, they collected all of the files, all of the information, and all of the existing investigations, and they killed them. They said it's over. And so, when the president said the other day, "Well, I want the Department of Justice to reopen the investigation into certain Democrats and to Clinton and Summers and so on." Of course, he was countermanding his own order which said there was nothing to see there, but now he's saying, "Oh, there's something to see there, but I'm going
▶ 1:28:35to apply this utterly unconstitutional partisan lens to it and say, I just want an investigation of the Democrats." Which by the way is something he shouldn't necessarily wish for because he was a Democrat during that period shamefully for that decade-long period when he was best friends with Jeffrey Epstein, and a lot of this was taking place. In any event, let's go to the gentlelady's amendment which makes all the sense in the world.
▶ 1:29:01All she's saying is if we're going to pass Freddy's bill, pass Freddy's bill, but let's restore the criminal conviction requirement. I asked my staff to pull for me if they if they would, and of course, they got it immediately. All of the offenses that require conviction before deportation from the country. Okay, I don't even know if I've got a time to go through all of them.
▶ 1:29:27It's basically, you know, A to Z, attempt to commit an aggravated felony, alien smuggling, bribery of a witness, burglary, child pornography, commercial bribery, conspiracy to commit an aggravated felony, counterfeiting, crime of violence, destructive devices, drug offenses, failure to appear, and so on and so forth. Okay, so you asked the question, "Well, what's the big deal?" Yeah, we know it's redundant. They already got uh they already got Freddy's kicker, and he was deported and spent 3 days in jail. We already took care of that.
▶ 1:29:56He had to pay his fine. But, what's the big deal? We want to have, you know, a piece of legislation in Freddy's name. Um the problem is is that are you going to pull the rug out from beneath dozens of these criminal offenses where a conviction is required? Do we really want to start letting unelected government bureaucrats, people in the executive branch, just just describe somebody as a kicker or a terrorist or a drug smuggler?
▶ 1:30:25We're going to be dealing with a lot of legislation like that. This is the Judiciary Committee. We are the people who should be focused on due process. Right? Everybody has a right to due process. For some people, due process isn't even enough. I mean, you think about um President Trump who has dozens of criminal felonies to his name now after he was arrested, well, not arrested, but charged, indicted, prosecuted, convicted. He had the presumption of innocence. He had unanimous grand jury requirement.
▶ 1:30:55He had the right to cross-examine witnesses. He had the full panoply of due process protections. And still, he says he wasn't treated fairly. How about somebody who you're going to dispense with all of the due process requirements, and somebody's just going to say they're guilty? Or we think you admitted it because the way you responded to our question. I mean, come on. Let's not think so short-term and in such a partisan way. Let's think about the rules of the game that we want going forward. So, I'm definitely voting no.
▶ 1:31:24I hope all of our colleagues who are interested in due process will not get us on this slippery slope, and I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for for yielding, and I yield back to you. Ms. Scanlon, I yield back to you. Thank you, and I would yield back.
▶ 1:31:37The gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized. Then we'll come to Uh thank you. Mr. Chairman, that's the whole point of the bill. If if they deny the charge, that's a whole other matter. If they deny the charge, then this bill wouldn't apply. It only applies to the individual who's already admitted to the offense. Uh I you know, the the gentlewoman, I think correctly, uh states the the the the effect of this bill.
▶ 1:32:07A green card holder who's been here for can be deported under this bill if they've admitted to assaulting a law enforcement animal. That's the whole point. Without this law, that same green card holder, again, a guest in this could remain in the United States indefinitely while litigating whether or not that act constituted an act of moral What the gentlewoman proposes is that even if the alien has admitted
▶ 1:32:37or even boasted of kicking a law enforcement animal, they can remain here indefinitely while arguing whether or not that constitutes a crime of moral turpitude uh for them to be removed from the country. The gentlewoman says, "Well, don't worry. This will almost certainly be held grounds for removal It's that qualifier, almost, that's the problem. Kicking a beagle shouldn't almost certainly be removable.
▶ 1:33:04It should be certainly removable if that beagle is acting in a law enforcement capacity. Yes, in this case, Freddy's attacker was stopped at a port of entry. He was quickly ejected. But, here's the problem.
▶ 1:33:17If he then crosses the border illegally, takes up illegal residency, applies for asylum, he cannot be deported until a potentially lengthy and expensive court process to determine whether or not that act that he's already admitted to meets the legal standard of moral turpitude. And that's what this bill fixes. If you've already admitted to this act, and you're a guest in our country to begin with, well, you can't come back, and if you do, you can't stay. Yield back. Well said.
▶ 1:33:47The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized. Thank you so much. I just love that we care so much more about dogs' lives than we do actual lives, but I'mma continue on. Um I want to make sure that I enter this UC, which is one of the reasons that we are a bit skeptical of any immigration, {quote} {unquote}, enforcement laws that y'all are trying to pass. This UC is from The Guardian.
▶ 1:34:11It says, "Immigrants with no criminal record now largest group in ICE You know, I listened to Mr. Van Drew
▶ 1:34:20Without objection. who thank you so much. I listened to Mr. Van Drew, who I I do respect, and he went on and on and on about how this is about the bad guys. And I will be honest with you and tell you that when it came down to the election, there were a lot of people who really believed that the Republicans and the president were all about getting the bad guys out.
▶ 1:34:42People truly believed your words, but your actions are not matching up because I've got the receipts showing that they are not matching up. And so, call us a little um paranoid in believing that the hypocrisy may continue to come from across the aisle. Speaking of hypocrisy, I do want to point out since we talking about Jeffrey Epstein cuz we couldn't talk about Epstein before. If y'all recall, we were gone for about 2 months cuz we couldn't talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
▶ 1:35:13And now everybody wants to act as if they want to have like a real honest conversation about the victims and the survivors and everybody else. Where was this conversation a long time ago? And I know that y'all love to go back and say that Joe Biden didn't do it, you know, Joe Biden is blamed for everything. Joe Biden didn't do anything, and it was Joe Biden's fault, and why wouldn't Joe Biden Joe Biden didn't campaign on it. I just want to be clear. If y'all can run me the tape, then run me the tape. But, you know, when you campaign and you go out and you make a promise, then we evaluate whether or not you actually meet your promises.
▶ 1:35:43So, listen, this was rope that y'all decided to hang yourselves with because the president campaigned on the Epstein files while we were campaigning on things such as affordability. We were campaigning on the things that now people are complaining about, right? Because of the tariffs and the fact that you guys won't say anything until the president, "Hey, sir, sir, tariffs or taxes? We as Republicans, we usually don't like taxes, and guess what? That's going to make everything unaffordable.
▶ 1:36:10So, now he's going to be our big savior, and he is going to reduce the price of foods cuz he is the guy that actually increased the price of foods. So, listen, if you can have this honest conversation about Epstein now, let's just go ahead with this lame-duck president and be honest about everything that the American people care about. They care about affordability.
▶ 1:36:31They care about the fact that literally people are starving in this country because we have 42 million people, and I don't remind I don't remember any one of you during that almost 2-month break deciding to go on Fox News or any other news outlet and say, "You know what?
▶ 1:36:50It is wrong to have 42 million people that are relying on $6 a day to eat, and we have the money because somehow our president was able to find under the couch cushion, the one that JD wouldn't sitting on, under the couch cushion, he was able to find 42 or no, 40. How much did he find to send to Argentina? 40. There we go. 40 bi- 40 billion to send to Argentina. But, those emergency funds, he couldn't he couldn't find them emergency funds so that Americans could eat.
▶ 1:37:19So, listen, if y'all are going to be honest and talk about Epstein right now, let's be honest about everything that is causing y'all to lose real bad. Did y'all see the election results on November 4th? It didn't go very well. So, let's just start having honest conversations so that hopefully some of y'all in some of these tight seats, maybe y'all can get reelected, and we can just work together. Ms. Crockett, Who what? Both of y'all want
▶ 1:37:45Y'all want some actually I I'll go to Texas first. Make it fast, Lance.
▶ 1:37:49I want to just thank you for admitting that all of our problems are Joe Biden's fault. It's nice to hear you say that. I also remind everyone we're still on the original bill about the dogs, and I'd like for us to stay on topic because, you know, Ms. Crockett, you may be all bark and no bite, but we're not going to roll over, and Ms. Jayapal, Ms. Jayapal thinks that we're going to lie down while Mr. Moskowitz goes and fetches amendments, but I hope that she'll put this amendment down because that dog won't hunt. Now, yield back.
▶ 1:38:18Will the gentlewoman yield yield for a I was going to talk about
▶ 1:38:21quite something. That's quite something. Listen, I you know, let's be clear that the only reason people want to have the Epstein conversation today is because 2 days ago your boss, the guy in the White House, without whom you don't do told you that he was going to lose on this vote, and so all of a sudden he released you all to vote for it and talk about it. Give me a break. Like, let's be real. I have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record, uh Mr.
▶ 1:38:50Chairman, "Homeland Security Missions Falter and Focus on Deportations." Under President Trump, an agency intended to keep Americans safe has diverted resources from combating child abuse, trafficking, and terrorism. Without
▶ 1:39:03That's what we should be focusing on. Without objection.
▶ 1:39:05Not this. Without objection. I don't I don't know if those were dad dad jokes or dog jokes. I don't know. It was like here. think this It's kind of kind of both. I think they were downloaded from the internet or something. It was It was It was a good attempt. Okay, it was a good attempt. Which side are we on this side? Any
▶ 1:39:22The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from All those in favor say I. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Ranking member requested a recorded recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Jordan. No. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. McClintock. Mr. McClintock votes no. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie.
▶ 1:39:53Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline votes no. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Van Drew votes no. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly votes no. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Grothman.
▶ 1:40:25Mr. Knot. Mr. Knot votes no. Mr. Harris. Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt votes no. Mr. Smith. Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill votes no. Mr. Baumgardner. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes I. Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen votes I. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lieu.
▶ 1:40:55Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes I. Mr. Mr. Correa votes I. Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon votes I. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross votes I. Ms. Balint. Ms. Balint votes I. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes I. Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes I. Mr. Mr. Moskowitz votes I. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett. Ms. Crockett votes I.
▶ 1:41:28Mr. Nehls votes no. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Hageman votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 I's and 17 no's. Amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 1:41:57This will be followed immediately by vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the I's have it. The question is on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the I's have it and the bill is ordered reported favorably to the house. Members will Could I have a recorded vote, please, You're supposed to say that before I read that whole paragraph. The clerk is will call the roll. Mr. Jordan. Yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr.
▶ 1:42:29Mr. Issa. Yes. Mr. Issa votes yes. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. McClintock. Mr. McClintock votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline votes I. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Moore. Mr.
▶ 1:42:59Moore votes I. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly votes I. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Hageman votes I. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee votes I. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt votes I. Mr. Fry. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Knot. Mr. Knot votes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt votes I. Mr. Smith. Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill votes yes. Mr. Baumgardner. Mr. Raskin.
▶ 1:43:30Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lieu. Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa. Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon votes no. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath.
▶ 1:44:00Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross votes no. Ms. Balint. Ms. Balint votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes no. Mr. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett. Ms. Crockett votes no. Mr. Nehls votes yes.
▶ 1:44:35Mr. Chairman, there are 13 I's and 17 Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 I's and 12 no's. The I's have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have 2 days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in 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 HR 6048, the NDO Fairness Act, for purposes of markup. Move the committee report it favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill. HR 6048.
▶ 1:45:04Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. for an opening statement. Uh thank you, Chairman.
▶ 1:45:15I'm proud to partner with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Congressman Nadler, once again, in introducing the NDO Fairness Act. This bill makes much-needed changes to the way law enforcement obtains the uses non-disclosure in the use of non-disclosure orders, also known as secrecy orders. The evolution of cloud computing has significantly changed the way we retain and store personal information.
▶ 1:45:43Before cloud computing, the Fourth Amendment required law enforcement to execute a search warrant and subpoena the items they wish to view. The officer executing the search would leave behind a copy of the warrant and an inventory of the property seized. Congress altered this process in 20 in 2001, excuse me, with passage of the US Patriot Act, allowing law enforcement execute an unannounced search, provided that no property was seized.
▶ 1:46:11This process, known as the sneak-and-peek, required the same probable cause standard as a Fourth Amendment search, but required the party affected by the search to not to be notified within 30 days rather than immediately after the search. However, if law enforcement wishes to search emails, files, and other data stored on the cloud, the officer never has to be has to give notice to the individual.
▶ 1:46:38Instead, they serve the subpoena to the cloud computing company along with a non-disclosure order, or NDO, prohibiting the company from notifying the individual of the search. All, I might add, without prior review by the courts. This has led to an abuse of secrecy orders, whereby companies like Microsoft, Facebook, and Google receive thousands of boilerplate secrecy orders per year that are unsupported by any legal or factual basis.
▶ 1:47:09And you don't have to look much further than what we just saw with the recent revelations by this committee that former special counsel Jack Smith sought and obtained non-disclosure orders to prevent phone carriers from notifying members of Congress that their phone records had been searched.
▶ 1:47:28More than a year, members of Congress were unable to be notified that their information was searched, all because the federal judge accepted the government's boilerplate secrecy order suggesting disclosure would seriously jeopardize an ongoing investigation. Regardless of your politics, this should alarm every sitting member of Congress. The NDO Fairness Act will make needed changes to the secrecy order process by eliminating the boilerplate orders used by law enforcement.
▶ 1:47:56Rather than a blind assertion that the disclosure would seriously jeopardize the investigation, the court must certify that disclosing the search is likely to result in the destruction of evidence or endanger the life of an NDO Fairness Act would also impose a limit on the length of the secrecy order, something that does not currently exist in statute.
▶ 1:48:20Our bill ends indefinite secrecy orders and imposes a 90-day limit with an extension available if, and only if, the need for secrecy is justified beyond facts and approval by a judge. This brings the NDO approval process in line with sneak-and-peek searches. Finally, our bill allows the individual subject to search to request a copy of the information that was disclosed.
▶ 1:48:47These changes, I believe, will be more closely aligned with searches of the virtual data and with searches of physical offices, while protecting user privacy in the process. In closing, I'll just remind my colleagues that this bill it did pass the house nearly unanimously in the uh previous two Congresses. So, I would urge for the swift passage of this bill, and I would yield back.
▶ 1:49:17Thanks, Zach. Chair, did you yield your time back? The Chair now recognizes the ranking member for a statement. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to salute Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Nadler for their uh unswerving uh devotion to this bill, uh whose passage is more timely than ever. Uh this committee is, of course, at its strongest, Mr. Chairman, when uh we work together across the aisle to safeguard American civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy. And I'm pleased that that's exactly what's happening with this bill, the NDO Fairness Act today.
▶ 1:49:47Under the Stored Communications Act, the government can ask a grand jury for a subpoena to search the information that Americans store with third-party providers, including email, private messages, work documents, and phone records. This authority relates to non-content information, metadata. Essentially, the kind of information that you find on your phone bill, and not the actual substance or content of a communication.
▶ 1:50:13Unlike with with searches pursuant to a warrant, where the government has an obligation to provide notice to the person whose property is being searched, the Stored Communications Act allows prosecutors to seek a non-disclosure order from a federal judge preventing the service provider from ever telling you that your email account or your phone records were actually searched. There are good reasons why prosecutors might need or want such an order.
▶ 1:50:37In some cases, immediate notice might put an undercover agent in danger or risk the destruction of evidence or compromise an ongoing investigation. But 40 years after passage of this act, the government's use of non-disclosure orders has expanded far beyond these emergency cases. Under current law, the request has become little more than a perfunctory box-checking exercise. The statute allows the government to maintain these NDOs indefinitely.
▶ 1:51:04Under current DOJ policy, which at least attempts to curb the practice by placing some limit on the duration, you're still unlikely to receive notice of the government's search of your records from your phone company or email provider for 3 years after it started. Better rules are needed. By limiting non-disclosure orders to 90 days with the possibility of renewal, the NDO Fairness Act ends forever NDOs where non-disclosure orders have no end date.
▶ 1:51:29By requiring prosecutors to explain the actual rationale for the request, we end rubber-stamp NDOs in which applications are submitted with boilerplate language and no evidence demonstrating any real need is ever adduced. And by ensuring that judges apply a strict scrutiny standard, we limit non-disclosure orders to those where secrecy is actually necessary. In this way, the NDO Fairness Act will protect all Americans who keep an increasingly large percentage of our information online.
▶ 1:51:59And we should know if the government is rifling our records, as the chairman has repeatedly said. Although the NDO Fairness Act has been a good idea for a long time when these gentlemen brought it forward, um we are obviously moving this bill today in response to the million-dollar bonanza jackpot provision for lucky uh that uh appeared in the funding legislation passed last week.
▶ 1:52:23Um all of this uh goes back to 2022 when Attorney General Garland appointed Jack Smith special counsel to investigate uh President Trump's campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a campaign that culminated in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
▶ 1:52:41In the days before the attack, while the mob was still rampaging in the Capitol, President Trump and uh some of his associates placed a series of phone calls to members of Congress to convince them to stop the proceedings and not to certify the election, even as the insurrectionists were violently tearing through the building and driving us out of our chambers.
▶ 1:53:03As part of his investigation, Special Counsel Smith asked a grand jury to subpoena the phone companies for the records associated with eight GOP senators and one Republican representative known to have been in contact with the White House during this period. The subpoenas sought call records, the kind of information you find on your phone bill, with calls made calls made and calls received. He also asked the judge to issue a non-disclosure order for the subpoenas.
▶ 1:53:29He did so only after getting permission from the Public Integrity Section, um and in full compliance with the law and DOJ policy. In other words, they were treated exactly like every other American is treated in similar circumstances. Um well, uh it turns out that uh the senators learned from the volume one of the Smith report that their records had been subpoenaed, and they didn't like it.
▶ 1:53:58So, rather than trying to change the law, adopting this legislation or improving uh civil liberties and everybody's privacy, they instead wrote themselves a little sweetheart provision to give themselves the right to get a $500,000 payoff for the original grand jury subpoena and another $500,000 for the uh non-disclosure order. And that's just for one piece of technology, like a say campaign phone, that's a million bucks. And then for a personal phone, that's another million bucks.
▶ 1:54:28And so on. Um now, I can understand the objection to having the Department of Justice rifling through your phone records or your email Um and I can understand the objection uh to the NDOs that subject to these reports to secrecy. but it's something we should deal with for all Americans and not cut a special deal just for senators. It doesn't even apply to members of the House or governors or mayors, but we're not engaged in special pleading.
▶ 1:54:56We want to legislate in the interest of all Americans, and so I applaud the efforts of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to actually do this uh in this legislation, and I I thank them for their leadership. I look forward to voting yes, and I hope it is a a unanimous endorsement by the committee. Yield back to you, Mr. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Oh, I'm sorry, that's that. Um without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record.
▶ 1:55:25We have to do the amendment nature of substitute. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to offer that amendment nature of substitute.
▶ 1:55:30Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk. This is amendment that simply adds the year to the title. It in no way alters the integrity or the purpose of the bill. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 1:55:40objection, the amendment nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of amendment. Now, who seeks The gentleman from New York. Yeah. Uh I move to strike the last word.
▶ 1:55:51Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. The NDO Fairness Act is a simple, straightforward, and bipartisan bill that addresses a narrow problem. By establishing essential guardrails for when the government seeks to access someone's electronic communications without that person's knowledge, this legislation would insert balance into a system that for too long has been a free-for-all for government prosecutors.
▶ 1:56:13Under current law, after the government obtains a court's permission under the Stored Communications Act to search the contents of a person's electronic prosecutors must then compel the email service provider to produce the relevant To avoid having the service provider turn around and tell its customers about the search, the government can also ask the court to grant a non- grant a non-disclosure order or NDO, colloquially referred to as a secrecy or gag order.
▶ 1:56:44When the order is provided the provide When the order is granted, the provider, be it Apple, Google, Microsoft, or a similar company, is unable to inform anyone of the search, even a company attorney in the case of corporate There is no limit no time limit to these There is no standard to meet. Today, all the government needs to do is cite one of five potential adverse effects without showing that it is necessary.
▶ 1:57:12And the court must grant and the court may grant the request. In the absence of basic rules of the road, prosecutors frequently take advantage of the rubber-stamp approval process to acquire NDOs in cases not contemplated by the underlying statute.
▶ 1:57:28This includes cases where there is clearly no need for secrecy, such as where a physical search has already occurred, cases where the search is being done on a victim's communications, and cases where the gag order is placed on an institution not suspected of In all the situations I just described, prosecutors have no cognizable reason under the law to acquire an NDO. Yet they frequently do it anyway.
▶ 1:57:55These delays don't simply inconvenience the subject of a search, and the negative impacts are not limited to the theoretical or ideological. NDOs are being used to win cases. Rather than providing Americans with meaningful notice that their private electronic records are being accessed in a criminal investigation, the Department of Justice has too often hidden behind its ability to ask third-party providers directly.
▶ 1:58:21This denies American citizens, companies, institutions their basic day in court, and instead allows the Department to gather its evidence entirely in secret. To be clear, this has been a problem across both Democratic and Republican
▶ 1:58:38This is not a new phenomenon, and addressing it does not require half-million-dollar payments to a few of the affected senators. It requires a change in the law. This legislation would do exactly that. The NDO Fairness Act would ensure that gag order requests are only granted in cases where there is no less restrictive alternative, and where the court finds that the the will likely result in endangering the safety of an individual, flight from prosecution, destructive of destruction of evidence,
▶ 1:59:09intimidation of witnesses, or otherwise jeopardize an investigation. It would also place strict time limits on how long an NDO may be in effect. Finally, by setting a strict scrutiny standard requiring written decisions based on specific and articulable facts, and establishing standards standing for providers, the NDO Fairness Act would cut down on the number of rubber stamp NDOs.
▶ 1:59:36With advancements in technology and the related surge in electronic federal prosecutors have increasingly relied on the Stored Communications Act and the archaic protections built into that law to search emails. There are many people who follow this issue closely who are concerned about government abuse of the Stored Communications Act more broadly. I am one of them.
▶ 2:00:00But those are bigger fights for another What we are doing here is instituting a narrow, elegant solution to a simple The NDO Fairness Act will insert process and deliberation into gag order requests, and make it more likely that Americans whose electronic communications are searched can assert their rights in court. I was proud to join Mr. Fitzgerald in sponsoring this bill, and I thank the chairman for bringing it before the committee.
▶ 2:00:28We have passed this legislation previously on a broad bipartisan basis, and I urge my colleagues to do so again today. I yield back the balance of my time. Uh the gentleman yields back. Before recognizing uh gentleman from Wisconsin for a uh technical amendment, I would just add maybe maybe two things, two thoughts. One, I'm I'm I agree with the ranking member. I think probably every member of this committee that we need to get rid of the payment that was inserted into the continuing resolution.
▶ 2:00:55Um the other thing I would point out is the ranking member talked about I think he said eight members of the United States Senate who were had their records their phone records uh seized by uh Mr. Smith uh and or the government and or Mr. Smith when Arctic Frost became part of the special counsel's investigation. My guess is it's a lot more. My guess is it's a lot more cuz when we depose one of Jack Smith's top deputies, Mr. Windham, uh he actually told us when we asked him the question Well, actually say it this way.
▶ 2:01:21When we asked him the question, "How many other members of Congress did you guys get the phone records on?" He took the Fifth Amendment to that. My guess is it's a much bigger number, not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of Americans who were also caught up in Mr. Smith's investigation. Finally, to this bill. This is a good bill. I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman from New York. It is a good bill that raises the threshold for when these orders, these gag orders, these non-disclosure orders are actually put in place, and maybe most importantly, in the in the ranking member mentioned this, it limits the time.
▶ 2:01:5290 days. What we've seen here is years and years of the the the individual, the American citizen who has his records taken by the government, years they go without knowing that the carrier had in fact given that to the government. And the reason the carrier didn't give it to the government is cuz the government asked him and the judge said, "You can't do it." So, this is limiting that time significantly. We think that's a good thing, and of course it has exceptions for uh children who are exploited in those kind of cases. So, this is a good piece of legislation.
▶ 2:02:21It's great to see the committee come together on that. Be happy to yield to the the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and uh and thank you for pointing out that it may have even gone beyond those eight. Uh one of the many problems with uh the the million-dollar rider over on the Senate side was I think there was uh a Republican member of the House, I think Mr. Kelly from Pennsylvania, who himself was subjected to the exact same treatment, and they didn't even include him in the bill uh because he was a a member of the House.
▶ 2:02:49So, I uh I'm happy to represent him in an equal protection lawsuit if they don't repeal this uh legislation, but I I hope they will. And I I just want to point out along those lines that this was not the first time it happened, that it had happened under the prior administration with a number of Democratic uh members of the House who also had their pen records, their phone records uh surveilled uh by the government. And I know that happened to our colleague Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
▶ 2:03:13And that's the point. This is a separation of powers issue. This is This is our ability to do our jobs as legislators in the legislative branch of the government. So, again, uh great work here, and I would urge the adoption of the and passage of the bill. But first we got to do a technical amendment. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, there's another amendment at the desk. Clerk report. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR
▶ 2:03:37Without objection, the amendment will be considered read. The gentleman is uh recognized to
▶ 2:03:41Mr. Chairman, this amendment just simply corrects what is an an error in the bill by rephrasing the language in section two, subparagraph B1. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman, I just want to let people take a look at the this just so everyone's comfortable. Who's Who's Uh Mr. Goldman uh the gentleman from New York is recognized. I move to [clears throat] strike the last word.
▶ 2:04:07The gentleman is recognized. Uh I just want to respond to um what you were saying about what you were discussing in terms of the uh phone records, and I think it's really important for the American public to understand what we are talking about. Uh we are not talking about the substance of any communications.
▶ 2:04:31We are not talking about the um subscriber information of anyone that those lawmakers were talking to. you are conducting a criminal and you have identified wrongdoing, it is very important to corroborate the story.
▶ 2:05:00One important way of doing that to figure out when people were in communication. Because you may have witnesses saying, "Oh, this person called that person." And you need to figure out whether that is accurate or not, so that you are verifying the information you have. This was not surveillance. This was not real-time wiretapping.
▶ 2:05:28This was not a search warrant for any This was part of an broad investigation into a large conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Now, I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle uh take issue with that and think that that was uh somehow bogus.
▶ 2:05:52But if you read the 40-plus-page indictment, you will see the exhaustive evidence that the special counsel uncovered about a massive, widespread, multi-pronged effort led by the President of the United States to overturn the election. That is what the grand jury ultimately ratified and voted for.
▶ 2:06:18And I am confident that if Donald Trump did not win this election, and he were charged he went to trial, he would be convicted by a jury of 12. We'll never know because he's President of the United States, so the case was But this is not some rogue effort by the Department of Justice to surveil senators or members of the House.
▶ 2:06:45And what I would suggest is if people don't want their the a log of the that they have made to be subpoenaed by the Department of Justice, don't engage in crimes. Then you will not have your information taken. But there's nothing here that is done in any way that is outside the scope of any criminal investigation.
▶ 2:07:15And if we are now going to say that the Department of Justice cannot investigate any of us, then we are free to engage in as much public corruption as we want because now they can't get our phone records. They can't see if we are actually communicating with someone who's giving us like say $50,000 of cash in a bag. I think we should that should conduct should be investigated.
▶ 2:07:43And I think if I do that, that conduct should be investigated as to me. And so, the notion that this was some grand conspiracy to surveil uh senators and and members of the House when it was part of a large investigation that was indicted and charged is preposterous. So, stop over exaggerating what happened. This was not surveillance.
▶ 2:08:11This was not some dragnet that's trying to wrap in the members of Congress and senators. This is corroborating evidence to what witnesses said. That is part of any federal investigation.
▶ 2:08:26And if you are going to prevent that from lawmakers, you are preventing the Department of Justice from doing its job if we had a traditional Department of Justice that was nonpartisan, and that was simply trying to follow the facts and the evidence, that is exactly what you would do is to get these phone records.
▶ 2:08:49Mr. Chairman, you yield? Yes, I yield to
▶ 2:08:50Well, I I want to thank you for that important illumination and clarification here. Um this is uh a critical law enforcement tool and what this legislation does, and I'll let the authors expound if they'd like, is to strike the right balance so it's not being abused.
▶ 2:09:08But your point about January 6th, of course, is absolutely right, which is there were hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of crimes committed that day from violently assaulting law enforcement officers to trespass into the Capitol to seditious conspiracy, which many people were convicted of. Um, and so it made sense for there to be an investigation and all this legislation does is to say we need reforms to it from before that time and after that time as well. The gentleman is back.
▶ 2:09:38The gentleman from New York yields. I would I would I'll recognize the gentleman from Arizona and maybe he'll yield some time when he's when he's finished. Yeah, I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the the sponsor of the bill. Yes. Does this does this bill in any ways prevent law enforcement from from looking at members of Congress and their phone records? No, I I think um that was kind of the idea and I think Congressman Nadler referred to it earlier.
▶ 2:10:07We're just trying to reset the process here. Uh, we're certainly not trying to carve out members of Congress. And I understand that the circumstances, you know, that the J6 stuff is unique as we just, you know, alluded to what we saw with uh this this current situation where the senators obviously that their records were were reviewed. But no, we're not trying to carve anything out here. I think we're just trying to reset the process.
▶ 2:10:37Thank thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield to you. Yeah, that I mean the executive branch can't go to the legislative branch and say we want all their phone records. It it's Wait a second. We're going to talk about dozens of people I think when this is all done. We want all their phone records and oh, by the way, carriers, you can't tell them that they have it and have that information for years and the person the subject doesn't know it. And all this bill says is you can do what Mr. Goldman just described, but you got to tell them after 90 days. You can't go years without telling them.
▶ 2:11:07That's the that's the outrageous part. So, we're saying 90 days and if it's some kind of investigation somewhere where there's an exception, that's in the bill, too. That's what this does. That's why it's a good piece of legislation. I do think it's timely in light of what's happened, what we've learned, and frankly, what the Senate did. But that's what it does and that's an important check. Important check and that's why that's why I wish this bill would have passed a long time ago, but uh here we are. Let's let's let's pass it.
▶ 2:11:33gentleman yield? It's Mr. Yeah, thank you. So, so I I would like it even in a shorter period of time before before you have to go back and renew, but but I'll I'll live with the 90, but but I mean this this applies to everybody. There's no carve out for for members of
▶ 2:11:49All Americans. Right, Mr. Chairman? Exactly right. All Americans and maybe maybe you shouldn't have judges just automatically signing these, particularly when you're thinking about members of Congress. That's another issue I think we have to think about, but that's the concern. Thank you. I I would I'm going to support this bill.
▶ 2:12:06I would I would have preferred that that you have to come back more often um uh to to get your get your authorization, your reauthorization, and that you provide the information sooner in a more timely fashion to to the American citizen. I mean we just had a lengthy deal about discussion about that included due process um and it just seems to me you're invading and it looking at my my phone records.
▶ 2:12:36I sure like to know about it as soon as I I possibly could hear about it that you're looking at it. So, that's that's the only reason I would say that I wish this would have come back sooner instead of 90 days, but uh with that, Mr. Chairman. Will the gentleman yield? Yeah, I'll yield to you. Thank you. Um, I understand we've actually been uh passing Mr. Fitzgerald's bill Mr. Nadler's bill. It's repeatedly rebuffed in the Senate on the grounds that um it impinges too much on the law enforcement function.
▶ 2:13:04So, we're we're in this great ironic situation where as a matter of policy, we've been advancing a far more civil libertarian, privacy protective position. The [snorts] the GOP-controlled majority has rejected it repeatedly and yet when it came to bounce on them, then they decided they wanted the million-dollar payout. And I understand that the 90 days cuz I agree with the gentleman from Arizona, the the 90 days was uh that was negotiated up by the Senate.
▶ 2:13:33We came in originally with a 30-day Yeah. uh proposition. Back to you, Mr. Chairman. Well
▶ 2:13:39Will the gentleman yield? I find myself in strong agreement with the ranking member today.
▶ 2:13:42will you yield for your last statement? He's already yielded to Mr. the chairman. I just got to agree with the ranking member here today since we're so bipartisan on this bill. The entity that rejected led to this good legislation that we passed is the very entity that said, oh, but when it happens to us, pay me. So, that is the concern. That's why I think this is so timely, so appropriate. Let's pass this. We're going to try to encourage Leader Scalise to put this on the floor ASAP. And we will pass it, uh which I think is all good. Now, I'll yield to the gentleman and he can yield to me. I'll yield to you, Mr. Goldman.
▶ 2:14:12But but when there's 15 seconds left, I'm taking my time back, so go ahead. You got it. All I want to say uh is um I support this bill. I think it's a good balance. I was not trying to uh draw a distinction or in any opposition to this bill. Uh, I do think that we need to consider law enforcement functions and the need for secrecy in a a law enforcement investigation, but this strikes a good balance and it still allows for that, so I I support it. I yield back. Okay. Well, okay.
▶ 2:14:42I'll let you go even longer, Mr. Goldman. There you go. It's cuz I was agreeing with you. And You are correct, sir. Yeah, yeah, Mr. Chairman, yield back to you. The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the technical amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. The amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on the uh amendment the amended 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.
▶ 2:15:12Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. Uh, in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. Oh, no, we got it The question now is on favorably reporting the bill. Favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the bill is to be reported favorably. The eyes have the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have 2 days to submit views.
▶ 2:15:35Without objection, the bill is reported as a single amendment in 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 57 Expedited Removal of Criminal Aliens Act for purpose of markup uh and move the committee report it favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill. HR 5713 to authorize the expedited removal of aliens who are
▶ 2:16:05Without objection, the bill is considered as read and open for amendment. Point of chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Goodlatte, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for putting together this hearing today. I want to set the stage uh for this bill as we get started. Um, imagine a a trend de aragua gang member arrives at the southwest border illegally near the height of the Democrat Biden-Harris border crisis in 2023.
▶ 2:16:32He's traveled a long way, but of course, he's got taxpayer-funded NGOs who've who've provided him assistance throughout his entire journey. He's one of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens encountered at the US southwest border that month and more than 2 million that year alone.
▶ 2:16:51Because border patrol is overwhelmed, he's released into the interior of the country with a notice to appear in immigration court to remain in the country and get a work permit, he'll fire file a bare-bones application for asylum that everybody knows is frivolous and stands no chance of success. taxpayer-funded NGO in the US told him to do that and he files his immigra- his application anyways.
▶ 2:17:18Because the immigration court backlog is nearly 4 million cases, it'll be years before his flimsy case is heard by an immigration judge. In the meantime, he'll move to New York or Chicago or San Francisco, be given taxpayer-funded benefits, be arrested for one crime or another, be coddled by sanctuary city leaders, and defended by Democrats who say America's long-standing immigration laws are simply too mean.
▶ 2:17:45Yet he'll remain in the immigration court backlog for years filing continuance after continuance and motion after motion to delay his eventual removal from the United States. Years later, an immigration judge inevitably denies his frivolous asylum claim. The illegal alien gang member will appeal appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, uh which will then take months, if not years, to reach a decision on his case.
▶ 2:18:12Once the Board of Immigration Appeals affirms the immigration judge's obvious decision, the illegal alien gang member will again appeal, this time to a federal court of appeals, which will take even more months, if not years, to deny his appeal. That's the process for one hypothetical illegal alien gang member allowed into the United States. It's not uh abnormal by any means uh due to the open borders Democrat administration years ago.
▶ 2:18:39Thousands of federal man-hours at the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and in the federal courts uh have been expended on this case alone, including countless taxpayer dollars. All of this to deny a frivolous claim by an illegal alien gang member to ensure he's deported from the United States. Today we'll consider a bill to help end this insane nonsense. The Expedited Removal of Criminal Aliens Act is straightforward.
▶ 2:19:09It says if you're a criminal alien in the United States, you cannot game our asylum system and you cannot take advantage of the American people's generosity and remain in the country for years waiting for an immigration court hearing. If you're a foreign national who is convicted of certain crimes, you're ineligible for immigration benefits and relief. You must be detained and you must be deported quickly. For decades, current immigration laws authorized a more efficient process to quickly remove certain dangerous criminal aliens from the country.
▶ 2:19:39Under existing law, aggravated felon aliens can be removed from the United States without going through traditional immigration court removal proceedings. Current law also makes aliens convicted of aggravated felonies ineligible for immigration relief such as asylum and presumes they are deportable from the United States. This process is known as administrative removal or expedited removal.
▶ 2:20:05Every federal court of appeals to consider the constitutionality of these expedited procedures have held that the current statute comports with due process. This bill expands the categories of criminal aliens that may be placed in removal proceedings when they are in criminal custody and authorizes DHS to place additional criminal aliens in expedited removal proceedings.
▶ 2:20:27The bill allows DHS to fast-track the deportation of aliens who are not lawful permanent residents and one are members of a criminal gang, transnational criminal organization, or foreign terrorist organi- organization, or two have been convicted of dangerous Democrats, I'm sure, are going to hyperventilate about this bill, but before they do, let's listen to the categories of criminal convictions to which this bill applies.
▶ 2:20:56Any felony, any against a member of a vulnerable group, any assault of a law enforcement officer, any sexual offense, any crime of domestic violence, any stalking offense, any crime against children including sex trafficking of a minor or sexual abuse of a minor, any activity relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors or any violation of a protective A vulnerable a vulnerable vulnerable,
▶ 2:21:27excuse me, group in this context includes a younger a child younger than 16, a pregnant woman, an individual with a severe physical or mental disability, and senior citizens over the age of 65. I think Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that the American people agree with. In fact, a poll from just a few weeks ago showed that 78% of Americans support deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes.
▶ 2:21:56That includes nearly 70% of Democrats. And those numbers are a breathless 11 or or after a breathless 11-month full court press by Democrats and their far-left media allies to demonize the men and women carrying out federal immigration enforcement every single It isn't working. In fact, a clear majority, 56% of Americans agree with deporting all immigrants who are in the country illegally.
▶ 2:22:23Even 36% of Democrats believe that all illegal aliens should be deported. It's no surprise. Let's consider what Democrats did to this country for 4 years. Historic highs of border encounters with Border Patrol overrun and the Southwest border completely abandoned. At least 8 million illegal aliens allowed to enter the United States including 2 million gotaways who evaded apprehension entirely.
▶ 2:22:51Hundreds of aliens on the terrorist watch list encountered at the Southwest with at least 99 potential terrorists released into the country and we believe that number is probably significantly That also led to an immigration court backlog that exploded to its highest And the Democrat Party sat by and enabled the the border crisis every single step of the way doing nothing to stop it. In fact, doing everything they could to encourage it.
▶ 2:23:21When Democrats controlled and enjoyed unified control of the government with the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, they went out of their way to leave our border open. They did nothing to secure the border, nothing to keep Americans safer, and nothing to enact what they constantly drone about which is con- comprehensive immigration reform. So, what have they done?
▶ 2:23:45Last Congress, the House passed a bill to secure the border and protect Every House Democrat voted against it. Last Congress, the House passed a bill to kick out foreign nationals who steal Americans' identities and can and commit Social Security fraud. 155 Democrats voted against it. Just this Congress, the House passed a bill to kick drunk driving illegal aliens out of the country. 160 House Democrats voted against it.
▶ 2:24:12Just 2 months ago, we passed a bill to increase prison sentences for illegal aliens convicted of felonies. 197 House Democrats voted against it. In January, we passed the Laken Riley Act named in honor of the Georgian nursing student brutally murdered by an illegal alien. 156 House Democrats voted against it. In this committee in September, we voted out a bill named after Kayla who was killed by an illegal alien. Every committee Democrat voted against it.
▶ 2:24:42At that committee markup, Representative Crockett, our friend, referred to Kayla Hamilton as {quote} a random dead person {end quote}. Democrats even shut down the federal government just recently to restore taxpayer-funded health care benefits to illegal aliens. This is the Democrats' legacy on immigration, voting against common sense, rejecting reforms, demonizing the victims of their policies. And that's exactly what the American people resoundingly rejected last November.
▶ 2:25:12Foreign terrorists released into American communities, gang members unleashed onto American streets, illegal aliens crowded into American schools and hospitals, foreign nationals signed up for voter rolls, illegal alien benefits bankrolled by hardworking American taxpayers. That is their legacy.
▶ 2:25:31And at the end of it all, American communities are abandoned, American people victimized, mothers raped, daughters assaulted, sisters murdered, American cities overwhelmed, public services overrun, American generosity overburdened, and taxpayer budgets And the American people said simply, "We're over it." They gave Congress and and the president a mandate to secure the border and fix a flawed immigration system that all too often benefits illegal aliens at the literal
▶ 2:26:01expense of American citizens. This bill is a step forward in fulfilling that mandate. Let's chart a new path forward. The Expedited Removal of Criminal Aliens Act moves us closer to that goal and I urge my colleagues to support it. Now, I yield back. Uh the gentleman yields back. The uh ranking member is now recognized for an opening statement. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You know, the two most beautiful words in the Constitution, maybe in the English language, are due process.
▶ 2:26:31Uh it's due process that protects our rights and our freedoms from the arbitrary power of government officers who might be completely convinced of the righteousness of what they're doing, but they might not care about your rights. They may not care about your freedoms and they might be wrong about the facts. One of my colleagues said when we got into this debate last time to me, "Well, wait, you're not saying you support due process for guilty people, are you?" And that's the whole point.
▶ 2:26:59We don't know if they're guilty until there's been due process. So, yes, we've got to have due process for everyone. That's what the Constitution talks about in our first colloquy about uh the first bill this morning. Uh Mr. Chairman, we heard members saying that due process was just too prolonged and protracted when we were talking about a case where a guy kicked a dog, spent 3 days in jail, and then was deported from the country.
▶ 2:27:29And yet again, well, we hear from the distinguished gentleman from Texas that due process just takes too long. It just goes on for too long. Look, this bill is a frontal strike on due process. When you think of the government officials who are going to be wielding this lawless power, don't think of the leaders that you love and know the most. The ones who are inviting you to dinner.
▶ 2:27:51Think of the ones you loathe and fear the most because those are the ones you will be in power saying empowering also to designate people at whim as terrorists and as drug traffickers. This bill is extraordinary.
▶ 2:28:09It would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally declare any of the following people a terrorist or a gang member even if they've never been convicted of anything, even if they're not being prosecuted for anything right now, and then deport them. Anybody traveling on a tourist visa. Anyone working here legally on an H-1B uh work visa or an agricultural visa or a summer work visa.
▶ 2:28:37Anyone studying at an American university at the undergraduate level or the graduate level can just be designated a terrorist or a drug trafficker without any legal or administrative process at all.
▶ 2:28:54The summary designation of people lawfully present here as terrorists or gang members and their removal from the country would take place without any necessary evidentiary proof or any standard at all.
▶ 2:29:09This bill destroys due It's in plain violation of even the Roberts Court's holding that under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, persons in America are guaranteed some form of due process before being removed.
▶ 2:29:26Yet time and again, we've seen this administration want to designate hundreds of people, thousands of people, en masse as gang members and terrorists without any concrete, individualized, or relevant evidence to back it up. And these wild accusations have led to devastating consequences.
▶ 2:29:46Take the case of Herse Rios Barrios, a 36-year-old professional soccer player and coach who was an asylum seeker from Venezuela awaiting his asylum hearing. Unbeknownst to his family, he was swept up and flown out of the country to that famous torture prison in El Salvador as part of the government's dragnet campaign against Trend Agua. He had no criminal record. He had no criminal charges.
▶ 2:30:14But he was sent to the mercy of a brutal dictator in El Salvador simply because he's got a tattoo on his right arm which was mistakenly associated with Trend Trend Agua. In fact, the tattoo is of a soccer ball topped with the crown which signifies the soccer club Real Madrid. He had no legal process. He had no judge. He had no jury. He had no right to counsel.
▶ 2:30:41He had no opportunity to present evidence or to hear the charges against him. He had no opportunity to cross-examine. He had no due process. Look at one other case, Andre Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist and barber who fled Venezuela's brutal Maduro regime which was persecuting him for being anti-gay and for speaking up for free free speech in Venezuela. He'd passed his credible fear interview in our asylum process.
▶ 2:31:11His asylum claim was pending when he was swept up in the government's campaign because of his benign tattoos of two crowns, one symbolizing his beloved father, one symbolizing his beloved mother. And that became the basis for his removal with a unilateral administrative power to declare somebody somehow at odds with the government. Romero missed his asylum hearing because he was at the torture prison in Salvador.
▶ 2:31:3960 Minutes reviewed his media posts going back for more than a decade and could not find a shred of evidence linking him to a gang activity. And yet he was described as a gang member. To this day, the government has never brought forward any evidence. He's had no constitutional due process And our friend from Texas wants to make this the law.
▶ 2:32:05He wants to make this official that the government can declare anybody a gangbanger or a terrorist without any legal process at all and kick them out of the country. Come on. This is the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives. How can we be pushing this? And by the way, if you don't care about soccer players and gay barbers from from Venezuela, how about this?
▶ 2:32:31Are you okay with the Secretary of Homeland Security having a unilateral right to deem far-right white South Africaner groups like the Boeremag whose leader tried to assassinate Nelson Mandela designated terrorists and gangsters and then simply removed from the country? Is that a power you want to vest unilaterally in a government official?
▶ 2:32:53Do you want future administrations to have the right to describe visitors from right-wing groups and parties in Europe like Alternative für Deutschland in Germany or Rassemblement National Français as terrorists and gangsters? This bill is an extremely blunt instrument. It could be used to conduct mass deportations and to strip people here of their rights to due process under the Constitution as even this Supreme Court has found they have.
▶ 2:33:23I hope everybody will join me in my opposition and yield back to this bill. And yield back to the to you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. The gentleman from Texas is recognized to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk, will you report? Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 2:33:46the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas to explain the amendment. This amendment Excuse me, this amendment amends the relevant statutory sections to which this bill applies including the mandatory detention statute, expedited removal statute, and withholding of removal statute.
▶ 2:34:07The amendment also defines criminal gang, applies the bill's provisions to members of transnational criminal organizations, adds a severability clause, and makes applicable aliens ineligible for all immigration benefits and relief. The amendment makes technical and conforming changes throughout the existing statute. I yield The gentleman uh gentleman yields back. Um Who seeks recognition? Got to Miss Jayapal.
▶ 2:34:37Even though it was a tie on the hands in the air, I'm going I'll go with the lady. She's just keeping me from our CPC meeting, but
▶ 2:34:44And me, too. Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I rise in strong opposition to this bill and I think the ranking member laid out the severity of the situation very, very clearly. Um this bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security nearly limitless discretion to label any non-citizen as a terrorist or gang member and subject non-green card holders to a lightning-fast removal process proceeding
▶ 2:35:14before not an impartial judge, but before a DHS official. And I was just looking at my phone and saw a story of these mass deportations, rapid deportations that are happening. And a story of somebody in New York, a woman who was illegally deported and they left her 2-year-old child behind. And this was because she was deported in 4 days. All of the process was essentially waived. That is what this administration is doing.
▶ 2:35:43They have falsely falsely accused countless innocent people of being gang members and terrorists. And they are using that label as an excuse to ship them off to torture chambers and even killing them. I'm just disgusted that the majority has looked at this abysmal record and decided that what the administration needs is not less power and more oversight, but actually more power to continue to do this.
▶ 2:36:11We should be conducting oversight on the Trump administration's abuse of authority and attempts to take over cities across the country in the name of immigration enforcement. Now last month in Chicago, I led 18 of my colleagues to conduct the largest act of congressional immigration oversight since Trump took office. And what we heard in Chicago was absolutely devastating.
▶ 2:36:38People of all statuses who were terrorized by Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and rogue immigration officials across Chicagoland. And the day after our shadow hearing, Bovino actually deployed tear gas in a residential neighborhood as children were gathering for a Halloween parade.
▶ 2:37:02In the words of a federal judge, quote, "These kids, their sense of safety was shattered and it's going to take a long time for that to come back." End quote. That same weekend, Border Patrol agents dragged a 67-year-old US citizen from his car breaking six of his ribs while children in Halloween costumes were watching in horror. And you know what his crime was?
▶ 2:37:32Turning down a street to get home. He never resisted. In another incident, Bovino, the head of CBP, admitted to lying about whether a rock hit him before he deployed tear gas. We also heard from an active-duty service member risking his life for his country. His father, he flew back to this country because his father was kidnapped. By the time he got back here, his father had been deported.
▶ 2:38:01This is a guy who's serving our country. And he said, "How is it possible that I'm giving my life for this country and they're deporting my father who did absolutely nothing wrong?" Another 19-year-old US citizen forced to take on her mother's business and care for her younger sibling following her mother's detainment.
▶ 2:38:20And folks may remember the militarized raid on an apartment building in the dead of the night that resulted in US citizens, many of them African-Americans, dragged out of bed, children some naked, zip-tied, and detained for hours. And the Trump administration was claiming that this building was, quote, "filled with Trend Agua gang members" and said that they captured two confirmed gang members. Stephen Miller claimed that it was quote one of the most successful law enforcement operations we've seen in the country.
▶ 2:38:50And yet a month and a half later, prosecutors have not filed a single criminal charge against anyone who was arrested, nor have they revealed any evidence that showed that anyone actually belonged to a gang.
▶ 2:39:06In fact, many of those that were arrested in the raid were granted voluntary departure and that would not have happened if they were a serious For any federal agents who are watching this, remember that you swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. This conduct that we're seeing does not hold up with that oath and we are going to hold you accountable.
▶ 2:39:36Everyone that is involved in this absolute travesty of and violation of justice and I want to thank Representatives Chuy Garcia and Delia Ramirez who helped me put this on, as well as Representatives Mary Gay Scanlon, Becca Balint, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, and Jasmine Crockett for coming to Chicago along with many other colleagues. This is not normal. And we should be standing up to actually uphold the laws of this country. I urge Republican colleagues to join us and vote no on this.
▶ 2:40:06Mr. Chairman, I also seek a unanimous consent
▶ 2:40:09Gentleman Gentleman may may make your request. to enter into the record the following articles from ABC, Chicago's children are getting caught in the chaos of immigration crackdowns.
▶ 2:40:18Without objection. From the Washington Post, suburban Chicago dad headed to store with toddlers says they were pepper sprayed by federal agents. Without objection. From the Chicago Sun-Times, feds deployed tear gas on the far southeast side even after cops told them they had no gas masks. Without objection. From the Guardian, Chicago daycare worker freed from judge rules ICE arrest unlawful. Without objection.
▶ 2:40:41From the Independent, US citizen 67 has ribs broken by border patrol agents after being dragged out of car while driving home into street they'd blocked off. Without objection. From ProPublica, ProPublica, I lost everything. Venezuelans were rounded up in a dramatic midnight raid but never charged with a crime. Without objection. From the Chicago Tribune, US citizens racially profiled by immigration agents in Chicago quote, I felt like a piece of trash. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield Gentlelady yields back.
▶ 2:41:10Gentleman from Excuse [clears throat] me, from Texas is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd I'd like to remind the committee that administrative removal is already on the books right now. All this law does is simply expand the categories under which an illegal alien can be deportable via administrative removal.
▶ 2:41:31In fact, administrative removal was used 13,000 times by President Obama, over 12,000 times under President Biden. Were those deportations a violation of due process? Will the gentleman yield? And if No, no, I will not. And if we want to talk about due process as my colleagues would like to, where was the due process for Rachel Morin who was slaughtered by an illegal alien?
▶ 2:42:01Where was the due process for Kayla Hamilton who was slaughtered by an illegal alien? What about Laken Riley or Jocelyn Nungaray? Where was the due process for them? Where was the outrage when the last administration ushered into our communities Trinitario gang members, MS-13 cartel members, and terrorists from around the world?
▶ 2:42:27I think that the American people can see that Democrats reserve their tears for illegal aliens who break our laws and victimize our communities, but if we want to talk about due process, let's talk about due process. Federal courts of appeals have routinely upheld this law's administrative removal um procedures as they have existed for the last 30 years.
▶ 2:42:51In fact, every federal court of appeals to consider the constitutionality of the expedited removal procedures under section 238 of the Immigration and Nationality Act has held that the statute comports with due process. Nearly three decades ago, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that quote, clearly the expedited statutory deportation scheme comports with the minimum requirements of due process pronounced by the Supreme Court.
▶ 2:43:19The Fifth Circuit outlined the due process requirements quote, that it that an alien be provided notice of the charges against him, a hearing before an executive or administrative tribunal, and a fair opportunity to be heard, end quote. All of which this statute satisfies and did satisfy.
▶ 2:43:38As recently as this past July, the Fifth Circuit reiterated that holding as as have the US Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, 10th, and 11th Democrats' fear-mongering contradicts the law, contravenes the text of the bill, and undermines efforts to ensure that dangerous illegal aliens can be quickly removed from the United States. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman from New York is recognized. Thank you.
▶ 2:44:07I move to strike the last I'm recognized. Thank you. You're recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. The um I appreciate the some of what my uh colleague from Texas um discussed in his long soliloquy to begin the introduction of this bill. And I agree very wholeheartedly that our asylum system is broken.
▶ 2:44:34And I agree very much that it takes far, far too long to adjudicate asylum that was actually corrected in the Senate's bipartisan immigration uh that Senator Lankford and Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema had agreed upon uh at the very beginning of 2024.
▶ 2:45:03Donald Trump intervened to submarine that bill because he didn't want Joe Biden to get a win. So now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to complain about [snorts] the asylum system and continue to introduce these expedited removal statutes and bills to account for the fact that asylum processes can take 7, 8 years.
▶ 2:45:33That bill put it at 6 months. 6 months. And so yet here we are with another bill for expedited removal without any due And it almost feels like this is two completely separate bills mixed into And I think I know why.
▶ 2:45:57Because there are three categories of uh aliens as it says here who are subject to expedited removal. First is a member of a criminal gang or a criminal organization as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not a judge, not an independent adjudicator, a the Secretary of Homeland Security.
▶ 2:46:21The second is a member of an organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to uh and or has provided material support to such an organization. Again, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The third is someone who's been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor against a vulnerable group. Well, that is totally different. A of course requires due process.
▶ 2:46:51So I know where this is going. We on the Democratic side are going to oppose this because we've already seen This is not hypothetical. We've seen the type of people that the Secretary of Homeland Sorry, the type of evidence that the Secretary of Homeland Security uses to determine someone to be the member a member of a gang.
▶ 2:47:13Kilmar Abrego Garcia, as we all was whisked away to Secot in El Salvador where we now have prisoners who said that they were because he was allegedly a gang member because of tattoos that he had. That I guess is how we determine whether someone is a gang member.
▶ 2:47:39And so what we're going to hear is obviously this is preposterous to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to make these determinations with full discretion, without any review, without any independent arbiter to determine whether the evidence meets that. That I mean, this is fundamental due process.
▶ 2:48:00I know my Republican could would not possibly Alejandro Mayorkas from making these decisions. There's no possible way. But what we're going to now hear is, oh, the Democrats are against deporting convicted felons against children. That's going to be your talking point.
▶ 2:48:27Just like your talking point is still that the shutdown was about providing healthcare to illegal aliens when that's been debunked over and over and over again. So, if you want to work on our immigration system, you want to fix our asylum system so that we don't have 80% of applicants be denied, but they've been here for 7 years creating a tremendous pull, I am with you.
▶ 2:48:54Let's do But, don't bring expedited removal someone that the Secretary of Homeland Security alleges and determines on her own is a a member of a terrorist organization. Those people should be deported, but they should have due process, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:49:21The chair will recognize will take the time, but I will yield to the gentleman from Texas. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish Democrats had been as worried about gangs over the last administration as they are about a gang definition in this because if Democrat policies Tren de Aragua has an established presence from coast to coast in our country, nearly every single day we hear stories about the terror wrought by these heinous criminals.
▶ 2:49:52In August, ICE arrested a Tren de Aragua member with an active warrant in Bogota where he was sentenced to 7 years for trafficking and possessing illegal firearms. He had been caught and released at the border during the Biden-Harris administration. In May, ICE arrested multiple Tren de Aragua members who were involved in a mass shooting at a Chicago house party last December. And these arrests are not limited to Tren de Aragua members.
▶ 2:50:20Earlier this year, ICE arrested a gang member from El Salvador with US convictions for sexual indecency with a child, failure to register as a sex offender, illegal reentry, and illegal entry. ICE also arrested an MS-13 gang member with a homicide conviction and a Sureños 13 gang member with six convictions for drug possession, three convictions for resisting arrest, two convictions for domestic violence, and two convictions for assault.
▶ 2:50:51These are the crimes that are the obvious result of Democrats' open border policies. So, today it's no surprise that they'd rather attempt to poke holes in a clear definition rather than own up to their past mistake. The definition of criminal gang here straightforward. It clearly delineates the requirements to be considered a gang, and it closely tracks another gang definition already in statute, the definition of a criminal street gang in US Code 5 uh 18 US Code 521.
▶ 2:51:21Federal immigration officials shouldn't have to wait for an illegal alien gang member to harm, kill, rape, or terrorize an American citizen before expediting the removal of that dangerous foreign national. This is a common sense provision that creates safer streets for every American and closes a gaping loophole in current law. But, if we want to talk about how these determinations are often being made, we hear uh rhetoric about gang tattoos.
▶ 2:51:52Let's look at this gang tattoo here, 666 on the forehead of an illegal alien, Antonio Israel Lazo Quintanilla. I simply do not want an illegal alien with 666 tattooed on his forehead in my country, and I don't think that most Americans would disagree with me there. As we've talked about earlier, this law does comport with due process.
▶ 2:52:21There are uh opportunities for illegal aliens to appeal decisions uh deportation decisions, but if Democrats would like to explain why this illegal alien with 666 tattooed on his forehead should be given free rein in the interior of our country, they are welcome to. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized. I yield back in my time. Gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 2:52:52One day we'll reconcile, Mr. Chairman, the richness of an Ivy League investment banker neppo congressman telling us that we need to get rid of the people who pick our food, wash our cars, build our homes, enrich our communities. We'll get to that.
▶ 2:53:16today this legislation is about making it easier ICE to remove of our friends and neighbors. And I guess the question I have is is it really that hard for you right Is there anything that's getting in your way from just lawlessly going into our communities and detaining American terrorizing women as
▶ 2:53:47masked bandits who are not identified run through the streets, chase people through fields, go into car washes, go to Home Depot parking lots? Like, are you having a difficult time just ripping people away from their and you think you need more abilities to do it? Also, quite interesting that you're asking for more legal authorities because you don't even follow the laws that are on the books right now.
▶ 2:54:15what are we doing here, I guess, is my first question. the American people are telling you get the hell out of our homes, our streets, and our lives. And I want to play a video, Mr. Chairman, that illustrates that.
▶ 2:54:49And the spray hit Foraza on the side of his head. They do not have a warrant. They forcefully open the door.
▶ 2:55:35The American people were promised that the most violent individuals would be removed, and instead we've been given this. You even deported a child US citizen fighting cancer. You deported Miguel Lopez, my constituent, who's been in the country for almost 30 years, worked at a local winery, sent his kids to the high school in my hometown.
▶ 2:56:03And he showed up to his immigration proceeding following the law, and he was picked up by ICE and sent to Mexico. And every Sunday his wife, Rosa, and their family look at an empty chair where Miguel used to sit for 30 years with his family. What did we get out of that? Who's better off because Miguel, who was following the law, is not in our community?
▶ 2:56:31But, earlier this month, the American people from Virginia to New Jersey to Pennsylvania, all the way out to California, sent a That a reckoning is on its way. That accountability is coming. And this lawlessness that's gone a lot's going to change. The masks are going to come off. Officers will identify themselves.
▶ 2:57:04And Kristi Noem and Tom Homan, you should familiar familiarize yourself with the four corners of this room. Kristi Noem and Tom Homan, get to know that witness chair. You're going to be parked in it for a long time. You're going to have a lot of questions under oath with the subpoena power.
▶ 2:57:30And I hope what you're doing is clean and can withstand the scrutiny that everyone on this side of the aisle is going to bring. You think we won't do it. You think you're invincible. You're wrong. Accountability is coming. You've got about a year, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The committee will stand we'll come to you when we come back. We're going to stand in recess because we have a bill on the floor that Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:58:00Raskin and I have to manage, and so we will be recessed until after that debate, after the vote series, I believe. Then we will be back, and we plan on plowing through as much of this agenda as we possibly can today. So, with that, the committee stands in
▶ 6:04:13Committee will Committee will come to order. Pending business is the amendment in nature substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. Who seeks recognition? Question occurs on the amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by the Texas. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed to the legislation? No. Looks like the eyes have it.
▶ 6:04:42In the opinion In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of the substitute is adopted. Roll call being requested. Oh, that's right. That's right. All The question now is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of the I'll get there. The opinion of [laughter] the chair The eyes have it. The question is on favorably reporting the bill uh as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no.
▶ 6:05:10The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Now they want a roll call vote, which is in order. So, the clerk will call the roll and we will start working on members. Getting Mr. Jordan. Yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. McClintock.
▶ 6:05:29Okay, guys, I'll do it. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Cline. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee. Mr. Hunt.
▶ 6:05:59Mr. Fry. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Grothman votes yes. Mr. Knot. Mr. Knot votes yes. Mr. Harris. Mr. Onder. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes I. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Gohmert votes yes. Mr. Baumgartner.
▶ 6:06:19Mr. Raskin. Mr. Nadler. Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lieu. Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa. Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. Ross. Ms.
▶ 6:06:49Ross votes no. Ms. Balint. Ms. Balint votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager Dove. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Fry, you're not recorded. Mr. Fry votes yes. Mr. Golden votes yes.
▶ 6:08:25While we're waiting, I see we've been joined by one of our former colleagues, Mr. Perlmutter from the great state of Colorado. Glad to have you. Mr. Johnson, you're not recorded. Mr. Johnson votes no.
▶ 6:09:01Ms. McClain Tok votes aye. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Nehls votes yes. Troy Nehls.
▶ 6:09:53Gentlewoman from California. Mr. Correa votes no.
▶ 6:10:36Gentleman from Missouri. Mr. Ander. Mr. Ander votes yes. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania. Ms. Scanlon, you're not recorded. Ms. Scanlon votes nay.
▶ 6:11:17Mr. Issa, you're not recorded. Mr. Issa votes yes.
▶ 6:15:45Mr. Harris, you're not recorded. Mr. Harris votes yes.
▶ 6:20:10Mr. Hunt. Yes. Mr. Hunt votes yes. Mr. Baumgardner. Mr. Baumgardner votes Mr. Chairman, there are 17 ayes and seven nays.
▶ 6:20:44Excuse me, the ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have 2 days to views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Um, pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 4711, the REMOVE Act, for purposes of markup. I move that the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. H.R. 4711.
▶ 6:21:07Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls, for an opening statement. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we are living in a new era of American history, a golden age under President Donald J. Trump. There is peace in the Middle East, American businesses are thriving, the economy is roaring, law and order has been restored, the border is secure, and immigration laws are being enforced. God bless Donald J. Trump.
▶ 6:21:38Our allies respect us, our enemies fear us, criminals and terror- and terrorists and other bad actors recognize that they have no safe haven here, especially the bad hombres on the drug boats in the Caribbean.
▶ 6:21:53People around the world know that they can no longer exploit our laws, cross the border illegally, take advantage of the American people, and be rewarded with long-term residence in the United This is all a far cry from the absolute anarchy unleashed on the American people by the last administration. 2021, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris rolled out the red carpet for the entire world, opened our borders, watched terrorists, criminals coming in, terrorists, gang members, everybody coming into the United States.
▶ 6:22:24Come on, we're open. We predicted the results even here in this committee. The Democrats were silent, or even worse, they were cheerleading the systematic destruction of our borders. When the Republican called out these obvious insane policies, Democrats accused us of racism and xenophobia. They said we were fearmongering. When we proposed legislation to fix the problem, every single Democrat voted no. They voted no. The consequences were expected.
▶ 6:22:52Crime and destruction and chaos reigned supreme. After 4 years of Democrats' open borders, the American people were fed up. In a historic election 1 year ago, the American people spoke loud and clear. They elected Donald J. Trump and Republicans in the House and in the Senate on a mandate to make the immigration system work for America first. In 11 months, President Trump fully secured the border and actually began to enforce the immigration laws. Think about that.
▶ 6:23:22Enforcing our nation's immigration laws. There's a lot of work still needs to be done. Millions of illegal aliens remain in the United States. So, consider this. 3 months before the Joe Biden took office in 2021, the immigration court case backlog was 1.5 million cases. 1.5 million. After 4 years of border chaos and complete that backlog backlog exploded to 4.2 million cases, nearly tripling in just one presidential term.
▶ 6:23:51That backlog is a direct consequence of the Biden-Harris border crisis. As the border crisis raged, the immigration courts received 1.2 million new cases in fiscal years '23 and nearly 1.8 million new cases in fiscal year '24, compared to 1.9 million new cases received from fiscal years 2015 through 2020 combined. The backlog is a key part of the Democrats' open borders plan to ensure that illegal aliens can remain in the United States indefinitely.
▶ 6:24:21That's what they want. Practically speaking, what does that backlog mean? It means that an illegal alien remains in the United States for years as they await a hearing before an immigration Of the asylum cases that were adjudicated in fiscal year '23, only 14% resulted in an asylum grant, and only 12% of asylum claims granted in fiscal years 2024. So, 12 and 14%. The other 87% coming over, do they have no claim? They're just coming over.
▶ 6:24:50They're coming over and they want to stay here. They have no claim. Despite this, doom cases languish in immigration courts for years, which incentivizes aliens to file frivolous applications as they know they can remain in the United States for years and years to come. Who wouldn't take advantage of that stupidity? Well, millions have, and the American people are paying the cost. Just ask the families who have died at the hands of illegal criminal aliens, including those that are driving commercial trucks on our highways. Makes no sense.
▶ 6:25:20According to Democrats, if a foreign national stays in the United States illegally long enough, they suddenly become too sympathetic to deport. We're already hearing this rhetoric about aliens who came into this country during the last 4 years. They've lived and worked here for years, Democrats say. Well, of course they have, because Joe Biden let them all in and then didn't deport anyone for years. To my Democrat colleagues, let me make this very clear.
▶ 6:25:45An alien living illegally in this country for years doesn't mean that alien gets to stay here forever. It just means they should have been deported sooner. Should have been deported sooner. That's what this bill The REMOVE Act states that if you're here illegally, you must be placed in removal proceedings as expeditiously as possible. If you commit a crime that makes you more deportable, you must be placed in removal proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
▶ 6:26:12And once those proceedings begin, they must be completed within 15 days, 1 5 15. No more hanging out in the United States, committing crimes, and taking advantage of public benefits for years while your fake asylum case is pending. No more gaming the system. You're an illegal alien. Your case is heard quickly, and if you don't have a basis to remain in the United States, you're deported, plain and simple. And that's what this bill does, and it's only common sense.
▶ 6:26:39Before Democrats falsely claim this goal is too lofty and too unrealistic, let me remind them about one of the Republican signature achievements from just a few months ago. Through President Trump's one big beautiful bill, the nation's immigration courts are now flush. They're flush with cash. They are funding to hire immigration judges who can hear cases more quickly. The one big beautiful bill also included new statutory fees for asylum applications and other commonly filed applications and appeals.
▶ 6:27:07Some of that revenue is directed back to the immigration courts. For maybe the first time in history of this country's immigration courts, resources are not the problem. This bill puts those resources to good use, America first use. Meanwhile, President Trump already has revived the court the failed courts after Joe Biden's destruction.
▶ 6:27:27President Trump's immigration court leadership finally empowered immigration judges to dispose of frivolous applications in which the facts clearly do not establish eligibility to remain in the United States. And we know that under Democrats' dream of open borders and limitless immigration, that immigration court proceedings aren't over until the alien wins. Imagine that. We got to do it and ends when the alien wins.
▶ 6:27:51We're here to promote a different dream, one that prioritizes aliens with valid claims to remain in the United States and the American people. The Trump administration is already doing everything it can to ensure bad ombres are removed from the United America's streets. The bill gives the president yet another tool to deport illegal aliens quickly by speeding up the legal process. The REMOVE Act injects common sense into the immigration system, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back, sir. Gentlewoman yields back.
▶ 6:28:21The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Vermont, the ranking member, for her opening statement. Thank you, Chairman Jordan. I'll be reading the remarks for our ranking member who is still on the floor. The REMOVE Act is yet another Republican bill aimed at stripping away due process for immigrants. The bill arbitrarily requires that all immigration court proceedings last no longer than 15 days.
▶ 6:28:45This is a fundamentally unserious idea, completely divorced from the reality of our immigration courts. It would result in an immigration court system that lacks due process protections and prioritizes speed over fairness and justice.
▶ 6:29:02Given the current state of the immigration court system, it is not humanly possible to properly and fairly adjudicate removal proceedings in 15 Immigration judges are already dealing with crushing caseloads, forcing them to adjudicate cases on a speeded-up sped-up timeline will only result in mistakes and incorrect decisions and will deprive individuals of their fundamental rights to due process.
▶ 6:29:31Immigration courts have long suffered from inadequate resources and significant case backlogs, but these problems have only worsened in recent years. Since 2015, the immigration court backlog has more than quadrupled in size and now sits at approximately 3.8 million cases. The Trump administration is also firing many experienced immigration judges and is seeking to replace them with temporary and inexperienced immigration judges.
▶ 6:30:01At least 139 immigration judges and court personnel have reportedly been fired, transferred, or have taken buyouts since January 2025. As of July 2025, there were only 685 full-time immigration judges.
▶ 6:30:18Although, as my colleague from Texas the one big beautiful act, you said it it meant that we are flush with cash in the immigration court system, it does provide funds for hiring immigration judges, but it caps the total of immigration judges at 800, which is far short of the number that is needed.
▶ 6:30:41Experts estimate that it would take 1,300 immigration judges to work through the backlog over the course of a Moreover, immigration law is considered by many to be the most complex areas of federal law, second only to the US tax code. Individuals in removal proceedings may have a valid legal basis to remain in the United States, but no way to properly articulate this to an immigration judge without the assistance of counsel.
▶ 6:31:12In fact, according to a University of Pennsylvania Law Review study, only 5% of immigrants who won relief from deportation in the time period of the study did so without the help of an attorney. Imposing a 15-day requirement on the completion of removal proceedings is akin to denying people their day in court, which violates our bedrock principles of fairness and due process.
▶ 6:31:37It leaves non-citizens with little time to find a lawyer and leaves lawyers with no time to competently prepare a case. Today, it takes an average of 4 years for non-citizens to receive an asylum hearing, and final decisions can take much longer due to appeals. Now, those averages are way too long. We need to find a way to speed up the process while ensuring that it is fair and equitable.
▶ 6:32:03We must be able to determine who's eligible under law to stay in the United States and remove those who are ineligible much quickly much more quickly. But this bill, which provides no resources, no plan, and no process, is not actually a solution to the problem that we have. And I do not doubt or question the intent of Mr. Nehls in bringing forward this legislation. I think we share the goal of deciding these cases more quickly.
▶ 6:32:30But forcing immigration judges to decide complicated and consequential cases in a matter of days is not the answer. Rather, Congress should reform our immigration system and appropriate the resources necessary for cases to resolve fairly, efficiently, and in a timely manner. We also need to find a way to make immigration judges more independent.
▶ 6:32:55For far too long, immigration judges have been subjected to an ever-constantly changing set of policy priorities from both sides of the aisle and have not given enough protection from losing their jobs. Given the life-and-death decisions the judges have to make every day, we need to ensure they have the adequate independence to do their jobs. I hope my colleagues will work with us to address some of the areas where this bill falls short. However, at the end of the day, I think we need to start over with this one.
▶ 6:33:24I urge my colleagues to oppose this short-sighted bill, and I yield back.
▶ 6:33:29Gentlewoman yields 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
▶ 6:33:39The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 6:33:40Amendment in the nature
▶ 6:33:41Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas to explain the amendment. This amendment makes technical changes to the bill and ensures aliens are placed in removal proceedings as expeditiously as possible. I yield. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks Gentlewoman from Washington is Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Uh the clerk will report. Point of order reserved by the gentleman from Arizona.
▶ 6:34:15Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR The amendment will be considered as read. Um the gentlewoman from Washington is recognized to explain her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be clear about something. Our immigration court backlog today stands at 3.8 million cases. It takes someone the better part of a decade to finally have their day in immigration court.
▶ 6:34:35And this bill, without investing any resources in changing that system to rid the backlog first, just overloads an already overloaded system with a ridiculous 15-day timeline.
▶ 6:34:50That's why my amendment would require the Executive Office of Immigration Review to have the necessary number of immigration judges and support staff in place to actually adjudicate all these immigration hearings before putting this absurd 15-day timeline in place to at least try to ensure that this bill is implemented in a slightly more responsible way. We all know that the current backlog and wait times are way too long and unfair to the people who have legitimate asylum claims or other claims for relief.
▶ 6:35:21We all understand and agree that it doesn't make sense for people without a legitimate claim to be in the United States for years, and that is something that we would work collectively on with the other side. It's also why, when we were in the majority, Democrats tried to move legislation that would actually make the real structural reforms that our immigration courts needed to work. We advanced legislation that would make our immigration courts completely independent to take politics out of the system.
▶ 6:35:48We worked to ensure that children have counsel so that they can navigate immigration court proceedings. No one wants to see children as young as three or four years old trying to defend themselves alone in any court.
▶ 6:36:02We fully funded the legal orientation program in detention, which actually makes our courts operate more efficiently by helping people better articulate their claims or even realize that they don't have a viable claim for We need fair and orderly and timely adjudications of immigration court cases. Those are the kinds of reforms that we need to actually make the immigration courts function. But this bill does absolutely none of those things.
▶ 6:36:32Instead, it just places an arbitrary, unworkable timeline on all court cases. It is a completely unfunded mandate, dedicating no actual resources to its implementation. Immigration judges face daunting case loads. Over 100 judges have been fired or pushed out by the Trump administration, despite historic case backlogs.
▶ 6:36:57And we now have roughly 685 immigration judges, which is not nearly enough to handle current case loads. It simply would not be possible for the existing number of immigration judges to handle adjudicating adjudicating the case cases in the backlog within 15 days from start to finish, let alone the new cases that are being added. So, for this bill to be feasible, we need more judges.
▶ 6:37:22And in a cruel and harsh irony, that would likely require the Attorney General to waive certain provisions from the Republicans big bad betrayal bill, which did cap the number of immigration judges at 800 starting on November 1st, But even that number, 800, would be woefully insufficient to carry out the requirements of this bill. None of this is the kind of thoughtful approach that we need. This is really the opposite.
▶ 6:37:52Even putting aside the unfunded mandate and the complete inability to implement this bill, it is the opposite of ensuring access to justice and due It's actually just bad policy. Remember that because immigration proceedings are civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings, there is no right to counsel in immigration proceedings. So, just imagine that you are given a charging document that places you into removal proceedings.
▶ 6:38:20Under this bill, if you want to hire an attorney or find a pro bono attorney, you need to find one in a matter of hours. You need to figure out what form of relief you're going to apply for. You need to prepare for trial in one of the most complex areas of law in the United States, and you need to be prepared with testimony and witnesses before a seasoned ICE attorney.
▶ 6:38:44Under this bill, trials must commence {quote} as expeditiously as possible once the notice to appear is filed within the immigration court, and then you've got 15 days from the beginning of proceedings until the end. So, to put this in perspective, the form to apply for asylum alone is 12 pages long.
▶ 6:39:05Asylum applications, which consist of affidavits, country conditions reports, expert testimony, primary source documents, and more often and more are often hundreds of pages long and can take months to compile. That's not to mention the trust that attorneys have to develop with clients to understand their relief claims. Imagine being a survivor of torture or sexual assault and having to relive all of that trauma with a total stranger in under 15 days.
▶ 6:39:33I sincerely hope my colleagues will consider accepting this amendment. It won't completely fix the bill, but it will go a long way to ensure that it's done in a somewhat more responsible way. I yield back. Gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the gentlelady's amendment. She mentioned
▶ 6:39:51Regarding your point of order, I think you had a I'm sure. Regarding your point of order and and
▶ 6:39:55Yeah, I withdraw the point of order. I'm Move [clears throat] to move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you so much. I oppose the amendment. She raised the the spectre of a 3-year-old going in to testify. Well, here's the way it works. If you went to the Biden administration, they would they would give you over to ORR. You would be placed with an unvetted never to be seen again.
▶ 6:40:22Over 400,000, according to the Office of Inspector General, 58,000 of them the under the age of 12. They never made it to their court dates for that little child. Why? Because they've probably been So, while we're justifiably concerned about what happened in the Epstein case, I find it intriguing that the Democrats never bothered to raise this this particular issue.
▶ 6:40:49It was always the And that's when you actually had the ORR director come in to our subcommittee and admit she had no idea where more than 300,000 of those children were. She admitted that. But what happens now, which was what was supposed to happen then, is a guardian ad litem gets appointed to represent the and manage the child's interest. That's what happens.
▶ 6:41:15when you start talking about children, you better at least know what happens And so, in to support that, Mr. Chairman, I'll this article called DHS Inspector General 448,000 unaccompanied kids transferred under Biden. No objection. Thank you. Now, what else? What else has has to happen here?
▶ 6:41:39Under the Biden administration, those of us who live along the border and spent many many days and nights on the border talking to people coming in from over 165 different nations, from San Diego to McAllen, these individuals had no idea why they were coming other than they were told they could come in and receive a basically
▶ 6:42:09life a new life in America. That's what it was happening. And the women were being trafficked, and the children were being trafficked. And if you'd never seen rape trees, then you didn't get down to the border. You probably shouldn't be talking about this. It's real easy to talk about this from off the border. It's not real easy to talk about it when you've been to the border and spend a lot of time on the border.
▶ 6:42:41And these folks, many of them coming in, literally millions and millions, which is why you have a backlog that went from about a million to 4 million. That's your backlog. And the reason that that's happened is because the previous administration let the world in and told them.
▶ 6:43:05That's why if you went over to you'd see in the square right there in the Zocalo, you're going to see people Let Us In Joe Biden t-shirts. That's that's what happened. And these folks should be removed. You actually have more than a million probably about a million and a half now, who actually have removal orders.
▶ 6:43:35But we've lost them. We've lost them. The Biden administration had like 1.2 million, and they didn't remove them. Because they said, "Well, you know, whether you have a removal order or not, we're not going to remove you." In fact, the Secretary of DHS at the time said, "Just because you have a removal order, if you don't have some other serious we're not going to remove you." That vitiates the rule of law
▶ 6:44:06and undermines our sovereignty and the very notion of a of a nation-state. That's that's what happened under Joe Biden. I view what Mr. Neals is trying to do here as simply trying to move this thing and acknowledge that you have a major and these folks who have come here illegally, and that is the term of art, they are illegal aliens, should be removed and
▶ 6:44:36should get their process as swiftly as possible, and then they can go back to their home country. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to oppose this amendment. Yield back. Gentleman yields back. Question occurs on the amendment Gentlelady from California is Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am Lord have mercy, what a day. So, um I do support the amendment.
▶ 6:45:07And I'm going to yield some time to my colleague from Washington uh state, but first I I just have to say we're talking about I think girls on the border and being and I guess I represent a border state, Um and we have a corridor in my district called the Figueroa corridor, where teenage girls, as young as 11, are being trafficked
▶ 6:45:38on the streets all kinds of inappropriate and sometimes not hardly wearing anything at all, and they're being trafficked by these pimps to pedophiles, who are knowingly having sex with 11-year-olds and 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds, and sometimes
▶ 6:46:08they're girls, and sometimes they're boys. And most of them are from the foster care system. And I'm going to tell you something We have AUSAs. We have DAs that have been trying to work on getting rid of these traffickers. Trying to help these young girls and young boys.
▶ 6:46:40Trying to get rid of the prostitution and the trafficking happening on the corridor. But you know what's happened? Department of Homeland Security and Kristi Noem have called off these AUSAs and these DAs from working on these cases because they don't care about these girls.
▶ 6:47:07They want these people gooned up running into churches running into kindergartens snatching parents and kids and detaining them unlawfully to deport them because somebody is looking for a TV show of terror.
▶ 6:47:25So, I don't need nobody today talking to me about how we need to be trying to help some victims when you have when you have prosecutors who've been working on these cases for years calling our office saying, "Can you do something because the case I've been working on and I'm about to get these bad guys, I've been called off of because Homeland Security needs another TV show coming out of MacArthur Park.
▶ 6:47:54So, give me a break. And with that, I will yield the rest of my time to Congresswoman Jayapal. Thank you to the gentlewoman from California and with respect to my colleague from Arizona, maybe you've never been in a court where they have minor children who are there. Well, I don't understand how you could say it's not happening because I was I was in the courtroom at the hearing. I sat through the entire docket. It's called a kids docket.
▶ 6:48:24And what's happening there is these kids who are two and three years old are hugging teddy bears and putting their head on the side of the of the of the pews um the benches just trying to understand what's going on and a judge is reading them their rights and saying, "You have the right to be represented. I want to make sure you understand you have the to question the government. You have the right blah blah blah." A kid?
▶ 6:48:56Three, four years old is going to do that? That's not due process. That's a farce. And to to my colleague from uh California's point this article, this is an investigation by the New York Times. The Department dated November 16th, 2025.
▶ 6:49:14The Department of Homeland Security has diverted thousands of federal agents from their normal duties to focus on arresting undocumented immigrants undermining a wide range of law enforcement operations in response to mounting pressure from President Trump.
▶ 6:49:28Home Homeland Security agents investigating sexual crimes against children have been redeployed to the immigrant crackdown for weeks at a time hampering their pursuit of crime of child predators and federal efforts to combat human smuggling and sex trafficking have languished with investigators reassigned to help staff deportation effort.
▶ 6:49:49And it goes on to say that Homeland Security investigators worked approximately 33% fewer hours on child exploitation cases from February through April compared to their average in prior years. So, please don't tell us that we don't care about kids who are sexually exploited or trafficked. That is ridiculous. And this bill makes no sense because it's saying you got to go you got to overload the system when there aren't any judges to take care of it.
▶ 6:50:18There's no resources invested and it makes absolutely no sense.
▶ 6:50:23time has expired. I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no. No. The no's appear to have it. Vote,
▶ 6:50:42A roll call is requested. The uh clerk will call the roll. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. McClintock.
▶ 6:50:52No. Mr. McClintock votes no. Mr. Mr. Tiffany votes no. Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Cline. Mr. Gooden.
▶ 6:51:07Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Nehls votes no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kelly. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Grothman votes no. Mr. Nunn. Mr. Nunn votes no. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgardner.
▶ 6:51:39Mr. Raskin. I. Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler. Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Kildee. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lieu. Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes I. Mr. Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon votes I. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. McBath votes I. Ms.
▶ 6:52:09Ross. Ms. Ross votes I. Ms. Balint. Ms. Balint votes I. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes I. Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes I. Mr. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett. Mr. Van Drew, you're not recorded. Mr. Van Drew votes no. Mr. Correa votes I.
▶ 6:53:58Mr. Fry, you're not recorded. Mr. Fry votes no. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are nine I's and 10 no's.
▶ 6:54:26The vote being in nine in the affirmative and 10 in the negative, the amendment is not adopted. Is there further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing 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. Those opposed Those in favor say I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 6:54:56In the opinion of the chair, the I's have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as
▶ 6:55:03Can we have a roll call vote on the Oh, that was a yes. Question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no. The I's have it. The bill is ordered reported favorably to the House. And now, Mr. Raskin. Recorded vote, please. A recorded vote has been requested. Secretary, call the roll. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. McClintock. I. Mr. McClintock votes I. Mr. Tiffany.
▶ 6:55:34Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Cline. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes yes. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Nehls votes yes. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kelly. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Grothman.
▶ 6:56:05Mr. Grothman votes I. Mr. Nunn. Mr. Nunn votes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes I. Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgardner. Mr. Raskin. No. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Kildee. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lieu.
▶ 6:56:35Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa. Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon votes no. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. McBath votes no. Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross votes no. Ms. Balint. Ms. Balint votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes no. Mr. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett.
▶ 6:57:06Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany votes aye. Mr. Lander. You're not recorded. Mr. Lander votes aye.
▶ 6:57:53Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Biggs, you're not recorded. Mr. Biggs votes yes. Mr. Fitzgerald votes yes.
▶ 6:58:29The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and nine noes. The vote being 14 in the affirmative and nine in the negative, the bill is adopted and ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have 2 days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
▶ 6:58:52Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. HR 2189 to modernize federal firearms laws to Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, for an opening Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:59:20The Gun Control Act, GCA, of 1968 was enacted to assist law enforcement in their fight against violent crime. Along with imposing stricter licensing and regulation of the firearms industry, the GCA also established a new definition of a firearm, which, according to the bill, includes, {quote} any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
▶ 6:59:51While that definition has been suitable to the firearms industry for the last 57 years, modern advancement in less-than-lethal technologies, such as uh have created a need for Congress to take a second look at the definition to ensure the GCA as written does not stifle innovation.
▶ 7:00:11It is also important in promoting transparency during law enforcement For example, if a less-than-lethal weapon, such as a taser, uses an explosive propellant to fire its projectile, which, in the case of a taser, is its barbs, it would be classified as a firearm, despite its low probability of serious injury or death.
▶ 7:00:35And because that weapon is considered a firearm, if used during a law enforcement encounter, that use may be considered deadly force in 43 states across this country. This includes my own state of Wisconsin, which includes in its definition of deadly force the discharge of a firearm.
▶ 7:00:54It is a unintended consequence of a law passed long before advancements in less-than-lethal technologies that has led to fewer law enforcement agencies adopting more innovative tools due to their same classifications and restrictions as other firearms. Law enforcement agencies agree, and so do I, and so I would ask that the following letters of support be included in the record. Without objection.
▶ 7:01:22First, a letter of support from the International Union of Police Associations dated March 14th, 2025. A letter of support from the Hispanic American Police Command Officers dated April 18th, 2025. A letter of support from the Major County Sheriffs Association dated April 30th, 2025.
▶ 7:01:46A letter of support from the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, or Noble as it's called, dated May 23rd, 2025. And a letter of support from the National Fraternal Order of Police dated May 30th, 2025.
▶ 7:02:00These letters all agree that this change not only encourages more innovation within the less-than-lethal weapon space, but also promotes de-escalation during law enforcement In closing, I'd like to acknowledge that last Congress, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle took issue with certain aspects of the bill, including what they described as an overbroad exemption under the Gun Control Act.
▶ 7:02:29To those colleagues, I have taken your concerns seriously, and this bill has been revised to ensure the term less-than-lethal projectile device does not unintentionally carve out devices that could somehow be converted to handguns, rifles, or other firearms.
▶ 7:02:51The revised language in HR 2189 would no longer allow devices to be exempt under the CGA if the device is intended to expel or could be readily converted to accept or discharge firearm ammunition.
▶ 7:03:08This is in addition to the previous requirement that the device not exceed a velocity of 500 feet per second, and that it not be designed or intended to be used in a manner likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. I believe uh this tighter language will address any concerns of firearms being, {quote} unquote, deregulated through this conversion to a less lethal device.
▶ 7:03:37I uh urge and hope that you can support this bill as revised, and I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement.
▶ 7:03:49Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Unfortunately, I have to oppose my friend's legislation, which I still think would create a dangerous loophole in the Gun Control Act by exempting so-called less-than-lethal devices from laws requiring firearms to be traceable, detectable by security equipment, and not available to prohibited purchasers like felons.
▶ 7:04:12This new loophole would allow felons and other dangerous people to more easily access weapons without a background track check that are untraceable and undetectable. This legislation does real damage by rewiring the definition of firearm throughout the entire criminal code to exclude certain, {quote} less-than-lethal weapons, which may not be lethal, but are still highly dangerous, such as taser guns, which have been identified as a contributing factor in more than 500
▶ 7:04:42deaths in the United States. Because the definition of what constitutes a firearm is central to our federal firearm legal architecture, altering that definition is a dangerous and complicated endeavor and will have consequences that perhaps are not intended by the bill's proponents.
▶ 7:04:59The bill defines a new category of weapon, these so-called less-than-lethal projectile devices, and exempts them, which are currently classified as firearms, from all regulation under federal firearms laws, such as the Gun Control Act.
▶ 7:05:13And these weapons, contrary to what the title of the bill might invite us to believe, would be exempted from federal firearms laws, regardless of who uses, purchases, possesses, or manufactures them, creating an entirely new loophole in our nation's gun safety laws.
▶ 7:05:30For example, if enacted, this bill would allow persons who are not legally allowed to possess firearms, like domestic abusers and convicted felons, to legally purchase these dangerous weapons that are still designed to incapacitate and overpower their targets. The loophole created would not only allow domestic abusers um and convicted felons, for example, to buy these weapons, but allow them to buy them without any background check at all.
▶ 7:05:57It would exempt them from the requirement that they serial number and are traceable so that law enforcement can identify their owners when they're used in violent crimes. It would also exempt them from laws requiring firearms to be detectable by metal detectors and the X-ray machines used at airports.
▶ 7:06:15If HR 2189 were to become law, nothing would stop a convicted felon from purchasing a taser designed to avoid detection and carrying that weapon past security, onto a plane, into a school, or indeed into this building. This bill would make all of us a little bit less safe.
▶ 7:06:33Supporters of the bill argue that it's needed to update the Gun Control Act of 1968 to reflect modern technology and ensure that law enforcement can use these less than lethal weapons, but law enforcement agencies are already exempt from many provisions of the Gun Control Act, and law enforcement officers have long used so-called less than lethal weapons in the line of duty.
▶ 7:06:54Supporters also argued the change is needed because the classification of these weapons as firearms may result in the use of the weapon being considered deadly force even though the device is designed to be less than lethal. But federal courts have distinguished between deadly force and intermediate force in cases involving law enforcement uses of less than lethal weapons, and states are more than capable of modifying their laws to account for these technologies if they believe that they should do so.
▶ 7:07:22There is no indication that state or federal law is up step with the design and use of these weapons, much less that such a mismatch has prevented law enforcement agencies from adopting them. Organizations working to end gun violence, including Giffords, Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Community Justice Action Fund, all strongly oppose this legislation, but it's my understanding that these groups have offered to work with the proponents of HR 2189 to try to craft narrower language to advance the legitimate stated purposes
▶ 7:07:52of the bill. If the purpose of the legislation is really to help law enforcement agencies access less than lethal weapons, then we can help you achieve that goal in a way that mitigates the dangerous consequences of the bill as currently drafted. The gun safety groups proposed alternative language that would define so-called less than lethal devices and exempt them from being classified as a firearm under federal law when they are used by a law enforcement officer acting in their official capacity.
▶ 7:08:20Although none of these gun violence prevention groups favor changing the federal definition of firearm, they're willing to compromise to ensure that law enforcement officers are not somehow prevented from using these devices while also mitigating the potentially dangerous consequences of this bill. So, we really should keep working on this in good faith, but as it stands, I do not believe we can risk creating a new dangerous loophole in our firearms laws, and I yield back the balance. Gentleman yields back without objection. All other opening statements will be included in the record.
▶ 7:08:50The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Uh Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a
▶ 7:09:04Without objection, the amendment in the nature of substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to explain the amendment. Yeah, this amendment simply removes the year 2025 from the title of the bill. Uh it no it in no way uh changes or alters uh the purpose [clears throat] of the bill. And I would hope that you would support the amendment. Is there any discussion on the amendment in the nature of a Gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 7:09:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized under the 5-minute rule. Thank you. Uh first of all, I I thank uh my colleague, Mr. Fitzgerald, for leading this bill. I just want to make a couple of important points. First of all, TASERs save lives. The goals of using a TASER is to reduce reduce fatal encounters.
▶ 7:09:58The bill will also improve community by reducing injuries in the community when we have encounters. Clear classification standards and better recorded use of force events is also part of this legislation.
▶ 7:10:16Give you an example. When public safety officers pull a TASER out of their holster, automatically a body camera will be triggered. It's not an officer, it's an an officer, an individual out in the community discharging a TASER, that TASER will automatically modify the cloud of the time, date, and place of discharge.
▶ 7:10:46You don't have that technology right This bill will also enable other public safety groups to have the access to TASERs. How? By clarifying current law that essentially has resulted in vague classifications of firearms. The vagueness has resulted into issues of liability.
▶ 7:11:15Many police departments today don't use TASERs, such as the Dallas Police Department, because of liability And many groups right now are prohibited from having firearms and therefore cannot use TASER 10. Some of these examples are tribal governments, correction officers, and emergency room security officers.
▶ 7:11:44we have the benefit, we have to all the benefits of the new technology behind us while maintaining strong guardrails to that we're moving ahead when it comes to public safety.
▶ 7:12:00This bill tightens definitions, clarifies conversion limits, and enhances Department of Justice along with a five five-part test to make sure that these TASER 10s qualify. This bill, as Mr. Fitzgerald said, is stronger than last year's because we listened to both law enforcement and reform advocates.
▶ 7:12:31Minute ago, my colleague was talking about Let me be clear. This legislation does not This legislation does not supersede any local state laws.
▶ 7:12:49this legislation does not prohibit individuals already barred from possessing firearms or ammunitions under 18 U.S.C. subsection 922G from having the ability to have these weapons.
▶ 7:13:11In other words, anybody who's barred right now, a felon, from having these weapons continues to be barred from having these weapons at their disposal. Chairman, I also want to recognize at this point members of our community who have come here in support of this legislation. Might you ask them please raise your hands, please?
▶ 7:13:40I spoke to these individuals before the and all of them have personal stories about TASERs and how than lethal force could have had different outcomes when it came to their personal stories. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for being part of this legislative process. Mr. Chairman, with that, again, [clears throat] I repeat my strong support for this legislation.
▶ 7:14:10Thank you very much.
▶ 7:14:11Gentleman yields back for further discussion. Mr. Nails. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Correa, well said, all of it. Everything you said, you are on target today, and I appreciate I'm an old law dog myself, old sheriff. What you said today was right on target. Thank you, ladies, for being here. Thank you. Also like to thank my good friend, Mr. Fitzgerald, for introducing HR 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act of 2025.
▶ 7:14:37This bill will establish a new less lethal category in law to prevent new TASERs, models, and other less lethal devices from being improperly classified as firearms. It's less than lethal, folks. The new statute will provide police officers better tools in their day-to-day operation and provides congressional direction to the Department of Treasury and Department of Justice on a clear multi-pronged process for classifying less lethal devices.
▶ 7:15:04Importantly, this legislation clearly outlines that only less lethal devices qualify and screens out any devices not intended to be less lethal in support of the law enforcement mission with that five-part test as Mr.
▶ 7:15:19Correa spoke As a former law enforcement official, I understand firsthand the crucial role that non-lethal devices play in protecting both law enforcement officers and civilians by providing officers with the alternatives with alternatives to deadly force when confronting physical threats. By allowing officers to subdue suspects without resorting to lethal measures, these devices help minimize the risk to humans to all parties involved.
▶ 7:15:46Officers need resources they need to perform their duties safely and effectively. Investing in new technologies, such as non-lethal devices, is essential to achieving better outcomes and enhancing public safety. This legislation, folks, it will save lives, positively impact communities, law enforcement, prisons, and health care facilities seeking more less lethal capability. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 7:16:16Chair recognizes Mr. Reschenthaler for unanimous consent Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um this one is an article published by ABC entitled an estimated 500 people have died from police use of tasers nationwide between 2010-2021. Without objection. A second, um, is a letter from Brady Community Justice Action Fund, Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords, uh, opposing HR 2189. Without objection.
▶ 7:16:43And finally, uh, a letter from Catholics for Family Peace, Jewish Women International, Illinois Accountability Initiative, Just Solutions, Legal Momentum, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline, uh, explaining that HR 2189 would undermine laws designed to keep weapons out of the hands of domestic abusers. Without objection. Mr. Chairman, is there further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Um, Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 7:17:06Chair, and I'm truly very, very grateful to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for trying to collaborate to come to some consensus in trying to save lives and keep our community safe. And to those, um, ladies and gentlemen that are here today, I'm really sorry that you have to be here. Thank you for being here to support this piece of legislation, but I'm sorry that you have to be here.
▶ 7:17:32I too have lost a loved one to gun violence, and so I take what we're seeing here and doing here very, very seriously. But law enforcement officers serve as frontline support for every community, protecting, assisting, and ensuring public safety. That is why we must give them the tools to do that job effectively and safely.
▶ 7:17:56It simply does not make sense that we are considering a bill today that in its true form would put officers in great Under current law, departments can already purchase a wide range of tools, including traditional firearms and so-called less-than-lethal weapons. And officers are trained to use tactics that prioritizes alternatives to deadly force.
▶ 7:18:23We must continue providing those resources and support that strengthens officers and community safety, not undermine them. This legislation was deemed dangerous nearly 3 years ago by the Department of Justice after review from prosecutors in the Criminal Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and firearms experts at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives.
▶ 7:18:53All agreed that this bill would endanger officers and communities by, and I'm quoting, "weakening their efforts to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous persons." End quote. The so-called Innovate to De-escalate Act would, in reality, escalate the number of dangerous individuals who would be given a green light to legally purchase and possess hazardous weapons despite clear evidence that they should be
▶ 7:19:24excluded. As the ATF warned, and I'm quoting again, "These weapons could be used against law enforcement, security personnel, or the public, creating an increased risk of harm to public safety. They also would not be traceable if they were used in a crime." We rely on law enforcement officers every single day. They put their own safety and well-being on the line for us.
▶ 7:19:54Why then are we considering a bill that would expose them to even greater danger? It suggests that those voting for this bill are prioritizing increased profits for companies, including one that openly told investigators this legislation would, and I'm quoting again, "open new markets" over the safety of the people who protect them. This bill has been deeply problematic for years, yet this committee continues to push for its passage.
▶ 7:20:25When the very agencies that work directly with law enforcement and prosecute criminals warned that this legislation needs significant work, we should take the reasonable and re- responsible steps of listening to them and working and massaging the bill until it's at a place and juncture where it makes sense and there's safety for everyone involved.
▶ 7:20:50We should strengthen this bill so that it actually protects our officers and our communities and the people that live in these communities, and it truly serves as a tool for de-escalation. Gun violence prevention groups worked in good faith to find a way to address the supposed need for this bill. They worked on this. They've all collaborated while ensuring it does not subject law enforcement or people in the public to unnecessary risks.
▶ 7:21:22As a mother who lost her own son to gun violence, I understand. I understand exactly how you feel and where you are. But we have to make sure that we're putting forth legislation that really makes sure that's protecting people in our community and protecting law enforcement as well. So, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
▶ 7:21:49And to call the sponsors of this bill to commit to improving the legislation. I will work with you to improve it so that we don't jeopardize the safety of our communities with this bill in the present form. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. I request unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter from Sandy Hook Promise in opposition to HR 2189. Without objection. And the gentle- gentle lady's time has expired. Is there further discussion? Mr. Biggs.
▶ 7:22:20Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I support the underlying bill and I appreciate what Mr. Correa said. Spot on today, You never thought you'd hear that from me, did you?
▶ 7:22:33I did not.
▶ 7:22:35I'm in total agreement with you, but let's let's consider this, um, the bill does not change any state-level restrictions. It just doesn't. So, state across the political spectrum, you got California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, they already less-lethal devices. They restrict by convicted felons and certain violent offenders and establish criminal penalties for misuse. For example, in Florida, using a taser against a police officer or during felony is a serious criminal offense.
▶ 7:23:05This is a an uh an instrument that actually saves Every year, there are more than 1,000 people who are shot and killed by police officers. More than 1,000. That does not include those who are shot and wounded by that lethal force. But when you use a less-lethal force, everyone is safer. Everyone will be safer.
▶ 7:23:36this bill is uh spo- is supported by 90 uh bipartisan co-sponsors, so we've we've from 35 different states. The Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executive, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and Peace Officers Research Association of California all support this bill.
▶ 7:24:00The African American Mayors Association, the Next Generation Alumni Leadership Council, Prince Jones Jr. Foundation, Coalition of Moms Against Police Brutality all support this bill. This is a bill that will save lives. And, um, I couldn't I can't say it any better than what, uh, Mr. Correa said.
▶ 7:24:23And so, I'm not going to belabor the point other than ask that these documents I have, uh, Law Enforcement Innovate to De-escalate Act and Consumer and Law Enforcement Challenges if they can be admitted to the record. Without objection. And I would urge everyone on this committee to actually, if you want to save lives, this is a bill you should be supporting. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. Johnson. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 7:24:52I rise in opposition to this legislation. It opens the floodgates for what's called non-lethal weapons to, [snorts] to be sold on the streets of America, uh, with promiscuity. Everyone would be able to purchase one. Um, and these non-lethal weapons are very serious in terms of the impact that they have on a, uh, on a human being.
▶ 7:25:23When you fire a project- not a projectile, but a, uh, dart or whatever they call it, uh, into a person, then you immobilize that person. And you're able to do to that person whatever you want to do to them while they are under your spell, under the, uh, uh, influence of that, uh, electrical And so, that means that if that person against whom this is used
▶ 7:25:54is armed with a traditional firearm, is that person if if I see you coming at me with a, uh, with an advanced taser, am I able to defend myself with lethal force, to prevent you from immobilizing me and then doing whatever you want with me.
▶ 7:26:18Um so, you know, it's going to make us less safe for these weapons to be in the hands of everybody. And let's face it, law enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies are are not barred uh having these uh new style tasers. I mean, they can buy them. I mean, you you got thousands sold to law enforcement agencies.
▶ 7:26:46Tens of thousands of these are in the hands of law enforcement. To actually uh want to change the gun control act to make it easier for law enforcement to purchase these weapons. That's not the That's not uh what this legislation will This legislation will open the floodgates so that these non-lethal uh can be sold to everybody.
▶ 7:27:17Anybody would be able to get it. A child molester, a convicted uh aggravated uh sexual predator, anybody, a felon. Uh any felon would be able to purchase these uh this weapon. Uh anybody would have it and it would have no serial numbers on it. It's untraceable. Um this is a step in the wrong direction.
▶ 7:27:45We should be trying to make the streets more safe than less safe. You know, I support all law enforcement uh these tasers, these newly developed We need to make them broadly accessible. If if finance is a problem, then maybe the federal government should help local law enforcement agencies to procure these weapons.
▶ 7:28:15It's in the public interest because I'd rather see a trained law enforcement officer using the taser instead of resorting to his his traditional firearm, which is Uh I certainly want them to have the option of less deadly force. Um but again, that's not what this legislation does.
▶ 7:28:37This legislation creates a loophole in the firearms act so that these non-lethal weapons can be sold to anybody uh and uh and they would be untraceable and uh they would fall into the hands of Um anybody who uh wanted one could get one. And so, this We don't need to go down this route. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation and with that I yield back.
▶ 7:29:07Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes Mr. Correa for unanimous consent request. Thank you, Chairman. Unanimous consent to um submit for the record a letter of support from uh our colleague Bennie Thompson. No Mr. Chairman, I'll strike [clears throat] the last word. Go ahead. Further discussion, Mr. Fitzgerald. I just want to uh talk about a couple of the comments that were made.
▶ 7:29:33because they If I'm understanding some of my colleagues, the arguments These arguments that we've heard before, it's kind of the the argument that the unknown is the scary part of this. But in reality, consumer tasers represent just a small fraction of all tasers that are available. Uh less than 1%.
▶ 7:29:52And even if you assume that somehow there'd be this consumer demand, there is an increase in the amount of states that have been watching this and have been enacting bills at both the state and local level uh that govern the use of uh less lethal Um many states already have age requirements for purchasing the devices as well.
▶ 7:30:19California, I think Florida was brought up, Pennsylvania, my own state, Wisconsin. They already restrict possession and and uh use by convicted felons and violent offenders. So, that's uh situation that I I just don't see that emerging at all. Um and they also have established Many states have established uh criminal penalties for misuse. Uh so, you know, I I still think that at the end of the day it's about law enforcement.
▶ 7:30:47Uh it's about a new that is available now. And and if we uh are going to make this move, then I think certainly uh you can have added debate and discussion about it. But But at the end of the day, uh this is a bill that ultimately will save lives and and uh even if you're completely in favor of some type of gun control, uh this is an alternative that I think makes sense.
▶ 7:31:16And we we should pass it in the uh in the Judiciary Committee today. Does the gentleman yield? I do. Mr. Fitzgerald, I just want to state for the viewers that there's a very strong element of the crowd that is is nodding in agreement with what you're saying. And I'm curious, do you know any of their stories or why they're supportive of this measure?
▶ 7:31:34They Actually, in the entire time that we've been working on the bill, I mean, some of the the greatest supporters of this legislation are those that have been directly affected by uh some type of gun violence situation in their own life. And I've met with many of them over over the last couple of years. And the stories are often similar and that is, you know, if if somehow there was an uh to what uh what was available to law enforcement, there may have been a different outcome.
▶ 7:32:04And it's always hard to kind of project on that. But I think that's that is something that's a common thread amongst everybody. It's just noteworthy and I'll address Mr. Correa as well that uh for the time of day to have this amount of support on agreement with what you all are saying is is is noteworthy and it's not being conveyed to the cameras. But I did want to note it for the record and I yield back.
▶ 7:32:25Gentleman yields back. Sir, further Mr. Garcia. Thank you, [clears throat] uh Chairman. Um and to the sponsor uh of the bill and uh the advocates uh who are present here today had a chance to meet with you uh outside and have a conversation.
▶ 7:32:47Uh I truly understand uh your motivation and uh individuals, loved ones who you have lost uh due to the use of deadly force uh by police officers. And I know that what you're looking for is a better alternative. And some of the arguments that have been uh advanced uh seem to make common sense.
▶ 7:33:14But uh I believe that the advancements and the promise in the technology are still not convincing enough for me, someone who wants to see a breakthrough in the number of cases where lethal force is used by police departments and where in places like Chicago results in astronomical amounts of money being paid out
▶ 7:33:45uh to the families of victims who have been killed or severely injured uh by police officers. So, I share that because the motivation of the advocates is very noble. You've seen, you have felt, and you're aware [snorts] of dynamics in your communities. And you believe that this is an alternative.
▶ 7:34:12Uh but I think some of the uh arguments and the evidence that's been submitted uh thus far uh gives us good reason for additional pause. I think that you may be on to something. I think that the uh technology uh is advancing uh and and uh evolving. But I'm not at that point where I can be supportive.
▶ 7:34:39I tell you this in all sincerity as someone who has led efforts in my community prior to coming uh to Congress in the area of violence prevention and uh intervention. So, I truly care about public safety and community safety as well.
▶ 7:34:58And I know that it takes a lot to come to a place like Washington, to come to this committee hearing, uh to wait for hours for an opportunity for a cause, an issue uh to be heard. And I'm truly grateful that you are here today because you are making us analyze, you are making us take stock, and you are uh raising our awareness on perhaps something that we need to be acting uh in the future. But at this moment, I am not yet convinced.
▶ 7:35:28I appreciate the sponsor. I appreciate that there uh is some level of bipartisan support. Uh but at the same time, uh I had to chime in after listening careful to all the arguments that have been uh advanced.
▶ 7:35:43Yes, sir. Thank you. I just want [clears throat] to remind that tasers today save lives. This technology improves the distance that a taser can be used. These guests that are here today have their personal stories of where a could have resulted in a different outcome.
▶ 7:36:13Their loved ones possibly still be with us. And they're here because they know this technology works. There's safeguards built into this Five-part test plus approval from the DOJ. Felons cannot buy these This technology will save lives.
▶ 7:36:38And I ask my colleagues that are in opposition to take a few Go look at the technology. Go test this for yourselves. And make sure you understand what is really before us today.
▶ 7:36:54It's about minimizing, eliminating those ugly situations that happen between those in our communities that are challenged, that have mental issues, that have other challenges, and an officer possibly that comes to the scene, and he's got to make a choice. Lethal or non-lethal.
▶ 7:37:19This technology gives them another tool to go non-lethal. Remember that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield. All right, gentlemen's time has expired. Is there further discussion? Seeing 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, no. No. The opinion of the chair, the eyes have it.
▶ 7:37:47The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no. The eyes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
▶ 7:38:01Ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. Recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. I. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr.
▶ 7:38:12I. Mr. McClintock votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline votes I. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew. Yes. Mr. Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Nehls votes yes. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly votes I. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry.
▶ 7:38:42Mr. Grothman. Mr. Grothman votes I. Mr. Mr. Nunn votes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Amodei. I. Mr. Amodei votes I. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes I. Mr. Gill. Mr. Bob Goodlatte. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. No. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swalwell.
▶ 7:39:13Mr. Lieu. Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa. I. Mr. Correa votes I. Ms. Ms. Scanlon votes no. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross votes no. Ms. Balint. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett. Mr.
▶ 7:39:43Jordan. Yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Fry. Yes. Mr. Fry votes yes.
▶ 7:40:30How is Mr. Nadler recorded? Mr. Nadler is not recorded. No. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove is not recorded. Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes no. Mr. Gill, you're not recorded. Mr. Gill votes yes. Okay. Clerk will report. Mr.
▶ 7:40:58Chairman, there are 18 eyes and eight no's. The vote being 18 in the affirmative and eight in the negative, the eyes have it. The motion is carried. The bill is ordered reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments, and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Without objection, the committee will stand in recess pending call of the chair.
▶ 7:44:31lation Act of 2025 for purpose of a and move the committee reported favorably to the house. Uh well, no, I've I've got the wrong Yeah, that's right. Clerk report the bill. 26 Let me check if I got the right one. HR 2675 a bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28
▶ 7:44:51Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to introduce HR 2675, the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act. This bipartisan legislation addresses a serious threat to the integrity of our judicial system by foreign actors who engage in lawfare against US individuals and businesses for nefarious purposes.
▶ 7:45:15Due to to the lack of reliable disclosure requirements today, foreign states with adversarial interests can secretly fund lawfare against US individuals and businesses to harass or intimidate because neither the courts nor many of the parties may be aware of their involvement. These cases also represent opportunities for foreign interests to misappropriate proprietary information and technology. For example, a foreign adversarial government may seek to benefit its national champion by providing funding to a patent assertion entity to engage in a litigation campaign against a key US competitor.
▶ 7:45:45If that US company is unaware of the involvement of the foreign government, it will not know that the lawsuit is intended to benefit its foreign competitor. It will not know that the plaintiff's lawyers are secretly being paid by that foreign government, and it will not know that it has to seek extra protections from the court to ensure that its confidential technical information does not fall into the hands of its competitor during discovery. If the court is similarly unaware of the foreign government's involvement, it will not know to scrutinize the plaintiff's discovery requests or to issue extra protections in its protective order.
▶ 7:46:15The secret involvement of foreign states in our legal system puts our citizens and companies at risk, clocks our courts with improper lawsuits, and exacerbates the disparity between the fair treatment in US courts and the unfair treatment of our companies and citizens in litigation abroad. This legislation would curb these practices. It would require at the outset of litigation the disclosure of any foreign person, state, or sovereign wealth fund other than an actual party to the suit that is providing monetary support.
▶ 7:46:41This disclosure requirement applies to all such arrangements, including those that are contingent upon prevailing in court and regardless of whether the recovery is a damages or fee award through a judgment or settlement. The bill contains related provisions requiring party certification and production of documents pertaining to the disclosure, and it makes the failure to disclose subject to litigation sanctions.
▶ 7:47:00Most importantly, HR 2675 prohibits third-party litigation funding arrangements in which a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund is a source of the Finally, HR 2675 requires the Department of Justice to report to Congress on the identities and sources of funding in federal cases where foreign-funded cases are litigated, the total estimate of foreign money in federal litigation, and the types of cases that are funded by foreign sources. These robust provisions will help put an end to foreign abuse and lawfare.
▶ 7:47:30Please join me in supporting this bill to build to protect American citizens and our private sector. Yield back.
▶ 7:47:35Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement. Chairman, thank you very much. You know, when I first saw this, when I could hardly believe my eyes because I'd just been reading an article about Donald Trump's $400 million airplane that he received as a gift from the Qatari government.
▶ 7:47:53And of course, this committee knows about the tens of millions of dollars that he's received in unconstitutional foreign emoluments, which violate Article 1, Section 9 from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Egypt. We've released reports on all of this stuff.
▶ 7:48:09So, this bill is now targeting, if I understand it right, um financing, third-party financing of litigation that either directly or indirectly, whatever that means, uh comes from any foreign source at all. And these are entities that actually have a right themselves to go to court in America. So, it's a hard exactly to uh why there should be a ban on there being involved in other litigation. Don't we just leave that up to the market?
▶ 7:48:39I mean, certainly that's Donald Trump's solution, and he's violating the Constitution directly. I think I picked up the newspaper yesterday, his family is now going into business with the Saudis again uh for billions of dollars in terms of some uh development in Saudi Arabia. Anyway, look, today's two bills instituting so-called transparency measures into third-party litigation funding are obviously nothing more than giveaways to big corporations that don't want to be held accountable when their actions violate the law and harm people.
▶ 7:49:10Third-party litigation funding is perfectly lawful, it's perfectly normal, and it's perfectly consistent with the rules of professional conduct and And if anybody uses it in a way that violates the law or those rules of ethics, they can just take it to court. Today, there's really no problem. Third parties invest in litigation, by the way, uh for uh liberal groups, mis- centrist groups, and right-wing groups.
▶ 7:49:39I'm going to distribute a letter to all my friends from the Tea Party Patriots when we get to the next bill, where we've got some of the most distinguished conservative and MAGA lawyers in the country opposing uh the Litigation Transparency Act. Um Ken Blackwell, the former treasurer of uh Ohio, is going to be opposing that one. Tim Jones, the former speaker of the Missouri House. Uh Stephanie Smith from Alabama. I think in uh Representative Moore's district.
▶ 7:50:10Uh on and on. These people understand how dangerous this is, right? Um third parties invest in litigation in return for a share of the contingency fee or the damages awarded should the party they've invested in win the case. This is a practical, market-based solution to the problem that the majority of Americans face when they think about going to court to obtain justice against the deep-pocket defendant.
▶ 7:50:36Litigation is extremely expensive, and deep-pocketed corporate defendants will try to spend you into oblivion rather than give you the opportunity to win in court. Third-party litigation funding helps ensure that the little guy, the middle guy, the big guy, left, right, center, is denied their day in court simply because of financial obstacles and barriers. And it works.
▶ 7:51:03People who can afford to get their court heard have been able to overcome major financial obstacles with the help of third-party investment. But because third-party litigation funding helps ordinary citizens take on the big guys, it's become a target for big business groups that would much prefer that people not have the ability to bring lawsuits against them.
▶ 7:51:26These businesses and other corporate interests want you to believe that these agreements are somehow dangerous or nefarious. Uh they suggest that actually third-party funding is somehow giving ordinary people an unfair advantage against large, powerful corporations that can purchase all of the legal help that they want.
▶ 7:51:50So, now um these uh parties have proposed a bill that they would say brings transparency to the system. In reality, today's bills would impose a form of abusive trans- transparency and use it as a tool to dissuade funders from participating in third-party litigation uh funding agreements. Forcing litigants to disclose private investors would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on TPLF usage.
▶ 7:52:17Uh if this is somehow a foreign policy matter, a matter of national security, how come we're not hearing from the State Department? How come we're not hearing from people interested in foreign policy? Um I am delighted that that my colleagues have an interest in what foreign governments are trying to do to influence us here in America, but I can guarantee you it's got nothing to do with foreign sources indirectly affecting parties whose causes of action
▶ 7:52:47must be adjudicated by American judges and juries. It has to do with direct payoffs to the President of the United like the $400 million Qatari uh airplane and the millions and millions of dollars that were spent on rooms never used at the Trump Hotel by the Chinese government and by the Saudis and United Arab Emirates and so on.
▶ 7:53:10So, um I I all I can say is if we want to have a hearing about illegitimate foreign influence in America, let's do it, but this is an extremely uh attenuated Rube Goldberg contraption to try to get at it. Um and uh I'm going to oppose both of these bills today.
▶ 7:53:30I'm really going to encourage my colleagues to check out the letters pouring in not just from liberal public interest groups, but from conservative public interest groups saying, "Do not go down this road." I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 7:53:54Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR Without objection, the reading 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 gentleman from Virginia to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the ranking member for combining his two statements in opposition to the first bill now and the next bill down the line so that we don't have to hear another speech down the line. Uh a lot of what he said doesn't relate to this bill, but let me just get into the details of this amendment in the nature of substitute.
▶ 7:54:21This amendment makes minor changes to clarify the bill's provisions to prevent gamesmanship and also provides additional relief to US individuals or companies who were targeted by foreign actors. As amended, the bill would now prohibit providing or receiving monetary support from a foreign state even in the absence of formal agreement, and clarifying language has been added to the definition of sovereign wealth fund to avoid confusion or gamesmanship. The bill as amended would also require disclosure of the identity of a foreign source of monetary support even absent formal agreement creating contingent rights.
▶ 7:54:48Additionally, this amendment adds a provision that lawsuits in violation of the prohibitions against foreign state funding are to be dismissed, and further provides that a party targeted by such a lawsuit can retroactively obtain relief from the judgment if the violation is only discovered later. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized. Um thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 7:55:12Um I just want to say that I strongly oppose both this bill and HR 1109. I think they're both overbroad. They will have unintended consequences, though part of me thinks that they are intended consequences. Um these bills are not about transparency or national security.
▶ 7:55:34They're about making it harder for workers, consumers, patients, and survivors to hold rich and powerful entities accountable in court. They were written to give corporate defendants a new strategic weapon, insight into the financial resources of the people suing them, so that they can drag out litigation and force families to give up or settle for pennies on the In North Carolina,
▶ 7:56:04when families are poisoned by PFAS in their drinking water, or when a defective product harms a child, or when a worker is injured by corporate negligence, they should not lose their day in court because Congress decided to tip the scales even further toward the These two bills force disclosure of third-party litigation funding to corporate defendants, not just the judge. This is a crucial distinction.
▶ 7:56:35Today, judges already have the authority to review litigation funding arrangements to make sure that they are fair, ethical, and lawful without handing a corporation a roadmap to the plaintiff's financing. The plaintiff doesn't get that roadmap to the corporation's financing. These bills add nothing to judicial oversight. They just hand sensitive information over to a powerful party.
▶ 7:57:01Third-party litigation financing is often the only way that an ordinary worker or consumer can avoid can bring a complex case. Cases involving toxic pollution, defect- defective products, corporate fraud, widespread it routinely requires millions of dollars in upfront costs for experts, discovery, and years of litigation.
▶ 7:57:29And these cases have become even more difficult to bring because the courts have made it more difficult to have class actions and nationwide injunctions, therefore making each and every litigant responsible for their attorney's fees.
▶ 7:57:46In North Carolina, we've seen communities along the Cape Fear River and other rivers forced to fight back against PFAS contamination, rural communities taking on powerful agricultural and industrial polluters. And these families do not have corporate legal budgets. They rely on lawyers who in turn rely on financing to stand toe-to-toe with the defendants.
▶ 7:58:13By choking off litigation financing, these bills would make it harder for families and injured parties to be able to challenge wage theft, unsafe products, nursing home abuse, toxic pollution, and so much more.
▶ 7:58:30And once the large corporate defendant knows the plaintiff's financial runway, they can strategically delay a case, engage in abusive discovery tactics, and drive up the costs.
▶ 7:58:47Even knowing that a plaintiff doesn't have a funding agreement can be weaponized, signal- signaling to a corporate defendant that they can stall until the worker or survivor runs out of And to the this bill's point, the claims about foreign interference in our justice system simply don't bear out.
▶ 7:59:10If we were generally interested in foreign sovereign wealth funds in- influencing US litigation, the logical solution would be to carefully target disclosures to just address national security interests, not forcing a sexual assault advi- uh survivor or a worker with wage theft theft claims to open their financing arrangements to the corporations they're suing.
▶ 7:59:35For all of these reasons, I'm strongly opposed to this bill and the other bill that we're supposed to hear, and urge my colleagues to stand with everyday Americans and not powerful entities seeking to evade justice. Now, I yield The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from uh Arizona is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm intrigued by the conflation of this bill with the ISA bill, which I think are actually very different things.
▶ 8:00:04This this bill is dealing with intervention in American litigation. And um if we don't put something on this, we're going to continue to see a whole a whole host of perverse incentives to come in.
▶ 8:00:21The argument so far has been, well, you have you have this uh defendant who's funded by third party who's going to come out and just um um stall and and drive the plaintiff into bankruptcy. This bill also prevents So, let me give you an example. This isn't hypothet- hypothetical.
▶ 8:00:43This is in Sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy laws- lawsuits in New York, allowing oligar- oligarchs to steer tens of millions of dollars into Western financial institutions when they'd been They used that litigation to get around the sanction. Another instance. These are all reported in Newsweek, by the way.
▶ 8:01:11China-based technology firm Purple Vine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. That would not have been discovered except a a lone judge who was watching over the case, who was had had jurisdiction over the case, requires happens to choose to require litigation financing disclosure in his If that hadn't crossed the desk, the defendants never would have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge, but in actuality a case
▶ 8:01:41of national security importance. That's That's what this bill is designed to protect against. You can go on. Another case that was reported, um getting around FARA filings, an Australian mining billionaire was paying legal bills for coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against Exxon Mobil.
▶ 8:02:06It was only through looking at FARA that anybody found out that it was a third party from a foreign entity inciting litigation in our country. We're not even talking about the potential for frivolous claims that can be funded by um a foreign entity. We're not talking necessarily even about the intellectual property that can be ripped off.
▶ 8:02:35uh I I I think I think this is misplaced. How about Further analysis in the Newsweek ar- this one Newsweek article, and I'm going to submit it, and and there's a whole host of other articles that I will probably submit.
▶ 8:02:48I don't want to weigh this down, but the hidden party industries, which this is called, is growing at a pace of about 17.5 billion dollars in 2025, and by mid-2030s will grow in excess of 67 billion dollars.
▶ 8:03:10And that's because they're pushing lawsuits that you otherwise wouldn't be bringing is being funded by foreign law- foreign entities. So, when you start talking about oh, they're defending and protecting these bad big bad corporations, you're forgetting that there's also a uh an incentive for plaintiffs to do the same.
▶ 8:03:32So, that's Mr. Chairman, I would introduce that Newsweek piece called We Must Protect American Courtrooms from Foreign Interference.
▶ 8:03:38No objection. And also um the US Chamber of Commerce has brought this out as what they're calling it TBLF, particularly with regard to um foreign entities. I would like to submit that. There's his co- Thank you. Will gentleman yield? The point is ultimately this I I get I get your issues with the other bill. I may actually share some of those This bill, I think, is a vastly different bill.
▶ 8:04:08I think it is more narrowly crafted, and I think it is designed better, and it's clearer. Um but if you're going to argue unintended consequences, if this bill doesn't pass, you're going to see a continued growth in third third-party foreign entities in our litigation for a whole host and myriad of reasons, not the least of which is theft of intellectual property, um trying to get around our laws and sanctions, just like the Russian billionaires did in 2024.
▶ 8:04:37And uh with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from uh Maryland is recognized. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Uh and I appreciate the uh the remarks of uh the the preceding uh member. it seems to me that um what happened in the case that you're describing is is exactly what ought to have happened.
▶ 8:05:01That is, if the claim is made that the client of a particular lawyer is no longer or never was controlling the case, and that that is a fake client and a proxy for someone else, then you make a report to the judge. You file a complaint, and you say, "Hey, I don't think this is real litigation. I think it's being controlled by a third party. The third party may be paying for it or not. They might be domestic, they might be foreign, you know, Will gentleman yield? Well, let me just complete thought, and I'll come right to you. And so, therefore, they went to the judge.
▶ 8:05:32They raised the point that there was an absentee third party who was actually controlling the litigation, and the judge had complete power to work it out, to demand disclosure, and so on and so forth. That could have happened with a domestic corporation, it could have happened with another domestic person, it could have happened with a foreign private corporation, foreign state, uh what have you. And we do want to prevent that because of the rules saying that you've got to follow your client's wishes and not that of some other third party.
▶ 8:06:00So, I don't quite see what the problem is there. I mean, is there some general problem because, you know, what what I want to raise is the real problem of money going directly to American public officials, including the President of the United States, directly from foreign states or indirectly from foreign states and their companies and then putting in their pocket.
▶ 8:06:21I don't quite see what the issue is with, say, a foreign state who invests in a business and that business makes loans to people and a loan is taken out by law firm to bring a case based on some cause of action, which a judge is going to consider, which a jury is going to consider, and I'm not quite sure exactly how that contaminates our legal process, but I'm happy to yield. Yeah, thanks thanks for yielding. I I'm not sure that we're reading the what transaction transacted in the Purple Vine case the same way.
▶ 8:06:50That wasn't Chinese companies that necessarily invested in American companies as as a front. What that was is they financed lawsuits against Samsung so they could get intellectual property as discovery. You see, there that that's that's really part of the issue that comes up here. Your concern you didn't you didn't
▶ 8:07:15you if you would just pursue that for a second. Okay, and that violates what law or what rule of ethics or rule of professional conduct? In other words, um if you say all these conservative are writing in and say they get a donation from, you know, some other source that's interested in their winning a case, what what rule professional responsibility does that violate?
▶ 8:07:38Well, what I will tell you is if if uh Chinese if a Chinese uh Communist Party is funding going after US intellectual property through litigation because we have this open system uh this just open system um maybe protection of our national security interest is important. How about you didn't Oh, you're talking about compromising the integrity of the judicial process. In other words, that's just back to a bland abstraction, national security, and I'm not quite sure I see what it is.
▶ 8:08:08I mean, if we want to say the Chinese government, the Russian government, none of these governments can ever sue in American courts, fine. But if we're not saying that, if we're allowing them to sue, what's the problem with them contributing money to somebody else's suit and the judge having the opportunity to force disclosure? You Mr. Chairman. And I'm happy to yield also if you cuz it's an honest question. I appreciate the gentleman's question and courts can't police what they can't see.
▶ 8:08:33And so, what you have are the structure of third-party litigation funding often being made to conceal the true source through layers of intermediaries and they and the judge, the court doesn't recognize, they don't have the information needed to protect the integrity of the proceedings. This would provide that disclosure and provide that information so the judge can make the choice and can make a better decision. Okay, right.
▶ 8:08:57And but this bill forces the disclosure to the corporate defendant, not to the court as in the case we just discussed, right? This bill targets only foreign states and sovereign wealth funds. It doesn't target private investors or domestic It it is designed to target foreign uh third-party litigation funding. So, it's not just to one entity. It's it's to both.
▶ 8:09:29Okay. The gentleman the gentleman would Yeah, please. Let me let me just ask If if you believe that in in the Purple Vine case that that's exactly how it should have happened, how would the judge have known but the judge was extraordinarily vigilant because it was not disclosed.
▶ 8:09:47The judge was looking at things that there's something going on here, finds out, and if and if you're okay with the judge finding out and saying, "Wait, we got a problem here." then why codify that process in law, which is what this bill does? Okay, thanks. I think my time is up. Gentlelady uh the gentlelady from California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 8:10:14It's um you know, interesting cuz you I read these bills with a a layman eye um as I am not one of the many attorneys on this but I am A, I'm going to oppose this for a number of reasons um and I read it and had just so many questions.
▶ 8:10:38Um first like and I appreciate um Congressman Biggs um sharing a couple of instances from this Newsweek article, I I'm I'm I'm still wondering how many times has this happened? How many uh documented instances, especially compared to the number of cases that are filed in our courts? I mean, is it is it disproportionate the instances that this has happened?
▶ 8:11:06And and how often or in what way did the financing impact the And in what way? Because I mean, I think ultimately what we would be interested is the merit of the case and the And my understanding is that attorney-client privilege precludes the sharing of financial information of any nature.
▶ 8:11:31And so, how are we now going to abrogate attorney-client privilege? The other thing I thought is that litigation is private and your litigation strategy is private. What's public is the contested issue and the merit of the case is the issue in question or should be all the time.
▶ 8:11:52My reading of this is that the bill would want to sanction witch hunts to nullify verdicts that were lawfully obtained because of in spite of financing. And this bill also presumes that foreign money has a nefarious influence. But if you're going to be honest, if that is the case, I don't know.
▶ 8:12:19But let's also presume that domestic money can be nefarious at times. This bill, in my opinion, uses national security as a convenient cloak to screw the little guy. And there are so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were talking about protecting the little guy, especially as it relates to the Epstein files. Oh, what about the little people and, you know, having their names exposed.
▶ 8:12:45This is also a way to screw those little people. Folks who are courageous enough to sue big corporations are going to get snuffed out under this bill because the large firms actually have the time and the resources to drag out litigation. And they're going to continue to have the upper hand under this bill.
▶ 8:13:09And the other kind of twisted irony is that many of the large corporations that we now talk about are multinational corporations and they they they are making their money because of foreign investment and foreign money. And this isn't holding them accountable. I think about Tesla. Tesla has a war chest, a war chest of money and they get a ton of foreign investment.
▶ 8:13:31So, they according to this, you could argue have a a legal war chest from foreign financing to help them win their lawsuits against uh plaintiffs against workers, against consumers, or anyone who's going to be bold enough, I guess in this instance now this bill were to pass, um silly enough to try and sue them because they've been wronged.
▶ 8:14:00And then the other question I have is about enforcement. So, are we now going to create a whole subsection under DOJ devoted to investigating foreign financing? I mean, what about the DOJ is supposed to be working on the human trafficking and the cartels and all the bad stuff? And so, now you're going to dedicate a group of people to go into all of these um litigant cases to kind of figure out where people are getting their foreign financing. That doesn't that doesn't make any sense to me.
▶ 8:14:31Um so, I I I you know, so much. And then I have to say I read I was like, "Ooh, how many lawyers are on here?" And quite a few. And the resumes among you all is impressive enough to confirm that you know the hypocrisy of this So, why we continue to let truth get in the way of tribalism, I don't know. But I'm going to have to oppose this bill. And I yield back. Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:15:02Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. Oof, there was a lot I move to strike last word. Gentleman There was a lot said there, but let me just say uh when you're talking about the little guy, the Chinese Communist Party is not looking out for the little guy in The Chinese Communist Party is looking out for the slave wage Uyghurs who are making their products that are competing with the American little guy.
▶ 8:15:28And the American little guy is over here trying his best to make a living and is being undercut by intellectual property theft from Chinese uh agents who are uh these types of litigation. You know, foreign governments are not ordinary market participants. I I This bill does not affect private litigation finance.
▶ 8:15:52The only entities barred from funding these US lawsuits are foreign governments and their financial arms. as as the ranking member said, pose unique national security and influence When a foreign state funds litigation against US companies or individuals, it opens the door to strategic manipulation, geopolitical manipulation, access to sensitive information during discovery, and the courts don't know. When you ask for numbers, it's happening.
▶ 8:16:22It's a multi-billion dollar industry, and the courts don't know it's happening. So, these we're just looking for basic uh basic information for the courts so that they can protect the integrity of the proceedings and the integrity of the American system and the rule of law, uh which should be protecting the little guy that you speak of. So, that's why this bill is being introduced, uh and and I would just want to clear the record on that.
▶ 8:16:47Will the gentleman yield for a question? Well, I'll I'll be Happy to yield after I yield to Mr. Biggs. Thank Thank you, Mr. Mr. Klein. I I I just want to cover again a couple of the quick points of of reported cases cuz I I get I get the question. I think it's a fair question to say, "How big a deal is this?" It's a an estimated $16 billion deal. That's a pretty big deal.
▶ 8:17:12And while when in our colloquy uh the the ranking member and Ben and uh Mr. Klein and I had we talked primarily about the Purple Vine case, but we didn't get ever get back to the 2024 case of the Russian billionaires who created specifically an investment because those Russian billionaires have been sanctioned by the US government. Right?
▶ 8:17:39So, they created a fund so that they could uh back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York which allowed them to actually then money through the bankruptcy proceeding and get that money into Western financial institutions, thus getting around the sanctions that our own government had placed on them.
▶ 8:18:07the fact that we learned about that is almost just serendipity. But, this this bill is basically designed to say, "Look, if you're foreign government or you're foreign government's sovereign wealth fund, you got to disclose. Failure to disclose means you lose." That isn't protecting the little guy. In this instance, you had the Russians going around our law.
▶ 8:18:37And in the blue Purple Vine case, you It wasn't a little guy that would have been protected. It was Samsung was in this litigation. And they're getting their intellectual property ripped off by the Chinese Communist Party.
▶ 8:18:50And in the other one, it wasn't a little It was ExxonMobil who was being attacked by a billionaire who owned mines in Australia who was funding lawsuits because he wanted to change policy within Exxon. That's the That's the point. We're not I get I get I understand it and and and the mentality where you say, "Well, it's the little guys." Cuz I I get that where because we're seeing this right now.
▶ 8:19:20And quite frankly, in personal injury cases, which deals not with this case this bill, but with the next one, in personal injury cases, what you're seeing now is something very different. This is where the where you're actually seeing loans being made by third parties to potential plaintiffs, the injured. Right? That's very different than what this bill is getting at. That's why I think it's it's totally different.
▶ 8:19:42And then when So, when the ranking member is is is bringing up these these uh folks who oppose it, I I happen to be with you on that. I don't like the other bill. Not But, it's not this bill, which is very different. And I'll yield back to you, Mr. Klein. Thank you.
▶ 8:19:57And I'm happy to yield to the ranking
▶ 8:19:58Well, yeah. So, if this were a bill then saying that that people or governments that have been sanctioned by the United States government either are banned and prohibited or it must be disclosed, that makes sense. I That was a I thought the first compelling argument I really heard that they were using litigation as a way to launder their money through the bankruptcy process.
▶ 8:20:19But, I guess what what I'm looking for is what is the danger of I mean, I'm assuming that these are just wealthy You're You're banning the sovereign funds, right? But, you're saying other governments can do it if it's disclosed. Is that right? It that it has to be disclosed if a foreign government is Yeah.
▶ 8:20:38So, so one question about that, how does the judge determine whether there's a national security risk and therefore prevent them from Well, it doesn't have that So, it's not in the bill. That's Okay, so it's not really about national security then. But, then what is it about? If it's not I mean, you're saying even if they were a national security risk, we're going to let that go. Well, what's the issue?
▶ 8:21:00And that's why I come back to the linkage between these two bills because it's just really making it more difficult for people to get money if they're these international funds that have decided investing in American litigation is, you know, through some other entity is a lucrative way to invest. You know, maybe we want to fundamentally change our legal system, but that is our legal system, right? And so, people need money in order to go to court.
▶ 8:21:25And I I'm not quite sure why if the American judges and appeals courts and juries are in control, how it's a threat to our judicial system to allow them to invest in the litigation.
▶ 8:21:39It's one thing if it's a foreign interest. It's another thing if it's a foreign government. And I guess the But, how does it influence
▶ 8:21:46foreign governments um influencing our judicial system with multi-billion dollar lawsuits. Mr. Chairman. Okay. I've run out of time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
▶ 8:22:03Um as I read this bill, though, the prohibition applies only to foreign governments' sovereign funds, but the disclosure applies to private funders as well. And so, that's why to me the effects of these two bills are the same.
▶ 8:22:25And the concerns that we are raising around the second bill applies here, too, because the disclosure requirements are are not just foreign governments and wealth funds. It actually says person here. Name, address, and if applicable, citizenship or the country of incorporation or registration of any foreign person.
▶ 8:22:47So, this is uh you know, this the effects of the two bills are the same, and I think at the end of the day, um it is about the little guys with a lot fewer resources that are facing big powerful corporations, and I think you end up in a situation where the cost barrier alone determines who wins and who never gets heard, and you you end up uh disallowing workers and consumers and victims and survivors and small businesses any kind of a
▶ 8:23:17fighting chance. So, to me, the two bills are the same in their effect. And lawsuits that wouldn't have been possible without third-party litigation funding, and here I'm talking about the second bill, but they include mothers suing a pharmaceutical company for cancerous baby powder, families of victims of school shootings suing a gun manufacturer for marketing AR-15s to teenagers, small inventors suing large companies for stealing their creations, female employees suing an insurance company
▶ 8:23:48for discriminating against them through lower pay and fewer promotions. even though you're making the distinction here, um it seems to me that your bill is not the prohibition is the only part that applies to to state I don't know if you want to I'm happy to yield
▶ 8:24:05gentlelady yield? Thank you. I would just say that the Chinese Communist Party is not going to uh be the entity that is engaging in this in this funding. It is going to be using proxies. It is going to be using, you know, it is When you see Huawei uh engaged in this type of third-party litigation
▶ 8:24:24But, this isn't Huawei. This [clears throat] is No, we're here you're talking about the second bill. This is No, I'm talking about your bill.
▶ 8:24:30Okay, well, yeah.
▶ 8:24:30about your bill on page four.
▶ 8:24:33and individuals. And I mean, the Chinese Communist Party is well Reclaiming my time, but then there's no distinction. You're trying to make a distinction between the state and sovereign wealth funds and private individuals, but you're you're yourself saying that there's no distinction here because you're saying that those foreign governments might fund through private individuals, but then you're collapsing the distinction right there.
▶ 8:24:56So, it's not I mean, I think you know, I think that again, the effects end up being the same, and I think that's why for for those of us who are concerned about these bills, we want to make sure and and I think um my colleague from Arizona mentioned this as well, but you know, I think that we want to make sure that the little guy does have the ability to uh to fight back.
▶ 8:25:19And so, I just you know, I I want to address the myth that third-party litigation funding encourages the filing of frivolous That's the effect of both of these bills, I think. Funders provide money on a contingency basis, meaning that they're not going to recover the loan unless and until the victim's case is resolved in a way that allows the victim to pay back the loan. Um and these funders finance cases because they believe the cases are meritorious and have the light high likelihood of success.
▶ 8:25:50Otherwise, they would lose the money that they lend to the victims. I I I I had this comment for the for the second bill, but I don't know if we're going to get to that bill. So, I'll just say that I also find it somewhat rich that my Republican colleagues ended the government shutdown last week, denied 22 million Americans the ability to stop health insurance costs from going up.
▶ 8:26:10Um, but at the same time gave eight of their Senate Republican colleagues the opportunity to sue the government get millions of dollars in tax taxpayer funded payouts in court for subpoenaing their records as part of the January 6th insurrection investigation. That's something that no other American gets to do and it feels to me like that's just more rigging of our justice system to benefit them, but not you. So, it's fine for them to sue, but not you.
▶ 8:26:40Um, and this with this bill, I think with both these bills, um, there's a real attempt here to stop the little guys from holding corporations accountable. So, I'm I'm a no one both these bills. gentle ladies uh yields back. Um, gentleman from from New York is recognized for uh I think an amendment. An amendment, yes. Gentleman from Maryland is recognized. The amendment is at the desk.
▶ 8:27:10Uh, clerk report. And um, I vote have been reserved. Clerk report. Amendment to the amendment.
▶ 8:27:17the amendment be considered as read. The gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member is recognized to explain the amendment. The amendment compels uh disclosure in the interest of transparency of all the donors uh to the new White House construction project. Uh, the president um has refused to disclose the donors and he's also refused to say that um they will not be either corporations or foreign governments or states or foreign government and foreign state sponsored entities.
▶ 8:27:45And so, this just follows in the train of what we're saying and I if we can add this, I think it will put our side to the test, it will put your side to the test. And so, if you guys can vote for this, it may be a little too much to vote twice against something that would not necessarily be Donald Trump's uh first choice waking up, but that's all about being the Article 1 law making branch.
▶ 8:28:07If we think that the White House should be constructed um either with public money or if we're accepting contributions, the public's got a right to know who's contributing and what they're getting out of that, then this is the amendment for you. And so, uh I submit that to the the wisdom uh of the group and it certainly follows from everything we're saying about not compromising national security and not compromising the integrity of essential public functions.
▶ 8:28:36We will give you our wisdom, but we'll start with the gentleman from Arizona. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? I do, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman uh is recognized to explain their uh the point of order. Uh, I think the gentleman's amendment would introduce material that is beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us. It violates House Rule 16, Clause 7. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Maryland wish to Well, I
▶ 8:29:00Mine as well. Yeah, I I would just say this goes right to the heart of uh the legislation at least as it's been recommended to us, which is that it's all about preventing illegitimate foreign influence and control over American governmental process. And that should apply whether we're talking about the legislative process, the judicial process, or the executive branch. And there's been a lot of rhetoric about national security and protecting our national security.
▶ 8:29:25It's hard to see what could compromise our national security more than foreign state donors to the construction of the American people's White House. So, uh I definitely would uh challenge that and ask for um an adverse ruling there. Uh, uh all well and good, but that doesn't change the fact that the gentleman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purposes test. Therefore, it is not germane and is out of order.
▶ 8:29:51And can we appeal the ruling of the chair and just take a quick vote on I move to table the appeal. There's been an appeal, there's been a move to table. The question is on tabling the appeal from the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. The eyes have it and the question now occurs Can we just have a recorded vote on that one? We can have a recorded vote on that. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Jordan. Yes. Yes.
▶ 8:30:16Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa. I. Mr. Mr. Issa votes I. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. McClintock. Mr. Tiffany. I. Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Cline. I. Mr. Cline votes I. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew. Yes. Mr. Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kelly.
▶ 8:30:47Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Grothman votes I. Mr. Knot. Mr. Knot votes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Aderholt. I. Mr. Aderholt votes I. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes I. Mr. Gill. I. Mr. Gill votes I. Mr. Bomgardner. Mr. Raskin. Uh, no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler.
▶ 8:31:18Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. No. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lieu. Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa. Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon votes no. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross votes no. Ms. Balint. Ms. Balint votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
▶ 8:31:48Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes no. Mr. Mr. Moskowitz votes no. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett. Gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler votes no. Clerk will report. Mr.
▶ 8:32:18Chairman, there are 14 eyes and 10 The um tabling motion uh the eyes have the tabling motion is adopted. Uh the question now 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. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The amendment nature of substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no.
▶ 8:32:48In the chair, the eyes have it. Can we have a recorded vote on this? Yes, we can. The clerk will call the roll uh call the roll on the uh the legislation. Mr. Jordan. Yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. I. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. McClintock. Mr. McClintock votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline votes I. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew.
▶ 8:33:18Yes. Mr. Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Grothman votes I. Mr. Knot. Mr. Knot votes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt votes I. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes I. Mr. Gill. Mr. Bomgardner.
▶ 8:33:49Mr. Raskin. No. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren.
▶ 8:33:56Mr. Kildee. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lieu. Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa. Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon votes no. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross votes no. Ms. Balint. Ms. Balint votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
▶ 8:34:27Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes no. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Moskowitz votes no. Mr. Ms. Crockett. Could I be recorded as an I, please, Mr. Issa? Mr. Issa is I. Mr. Kelly, you're not recorded. Mr. Kelly votes I.
▶ 8:35:04Clerk report. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 eyes and 11 The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have 2 days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating in all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical conforming changes. Uh unfortunately, I have to I have to get to an event.
▶ 8:35:24Um, so the committee will stand in recess will stand in recess until 12:00 uh noon on Thursday. We have subcommittees tomorrow, so we do have a couple of the bills we'd like to get through. Unfortunately, we just have the time this evening. So, we will see you, Thursday at noon. If you're not on the subcommittees tomorrow, we will see you Thursday at noon, and with that, we stand in recess.