▶ 0:26:38Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time pursuant to committee rule 2, House rule 11, clause 2. The chairman may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
▶ 0:26:58Growthman to lead us in the pledge Aliance 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.
▶ 0:27:24to notice I call up HR 1958, the Reporting Fraudsters Act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill
▶ 0:27:36Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Mcccleintoch, for an opening statement.
▶ 0:27:46Uh, Mr. Chairman, for four years, the immigration subcommittee has sounded the alarm about the cost of the Democrats open border policies on our schools, our hospitals, homeless shelters, food banks, law enforcement, drug and human trafficking, uh, and the effect on suppressing American wages.
▶ 0:28:04But what we're now discovering is that many within these populations immediately set out to rob our country of literally billions of dollars paid by American taxpayers to help needy Americans. Worse still, evidence is now emerging from whistleblowers that this was done while Democratic officials and sanctuary jurisdictions deliberately turned a blind eye to this industrialcale lararseny in exchange for political support.
▶ 0:28:32We've already heard from TSA agents who watched helplessly as Somali immigrants brazenly shipped millions of dollars out of this country in their carry-on luggage while alarms to the Biden administration were simply ignored. We've heard audio recordings of these criminals discussing with Minnesota's Democratic Attorney General how they had each other's backs.
▶ 0:28:57We've heard whistleblowers tell us of their warnings to Minnesota's governor resulting in retaliation against them. Reports the terrorist groups like al-Shabaab in Somalia received a cut of these funds are particularly disturbing. One estimate is that uh the Minnesota scandal accounts for some $9 billion of stolen funds.
▶ 0:29:19And as investigators begin turning over rocks in other Democratic sanctuary jurisdictions like California and New York, this may prove just the tip of an iceberg of corruption. But there's more. Although this fraud may well end up implicating thousands of illegal aliens allowed into our country and then protected from prosecution by the Democrats, Social Security fraud implicates literally millions. And I'll address this issue in the ANS that I'll present shortly.
▶ 0:29:50Yet our ability to remove such fraudsters is hamstrung by the court sometimes for decades. In one case from 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an alien was not removable from the United States for having committed an aggravated felony despite the alien's fraud conviction for a $169,000 food stamp scheme.
▶ 0:30:15In another case, an alien was placed in removal proceedings in 2005, where he remained until at least 2013 when his case finally made its way to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to determine whether his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in identification documents made him removal from the United States. Another fraudster spent two years challenging his removal proceedings even though he admitted that he had received up to $3 and a half million dollars through food stamp fraud.
▶ 0:30:46Other cases with aliens convicted of wire fraud and food stamp fraud languished for one and a half years and four years respectively before a federal court finally upheld their removal orders. In many other cases, aliens remain eligible to stay in the US indefinitely despite their fraud This bill by our colleague Dave Taylor streamlines this removal process. The bill is simple.
▶ 0:31:10If you admit to or are convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits, you are out of here on the next plane and can never return. I think the vast majority of Americans would ask, especially after all we've learned, who could possibly oppose such a sensible bill? Well, I'll yield back so that we can find out.
▶ 0:31:30Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement.
▶ 0:31:35Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Um, well, it's a another week and another markup of an immigration bill that takes an already deportable crime uh out of the headlines and then makes it a deportable crime again, but this time without requiring any conviction. So, the bill is uh characteristic of what's going on.
▶ 0:31:59It makes the commission of a variety of fraud offenses a deportable offense without requiring an actual conviction of fraud. But conviction of a fraud offense is already a deportable offense. It's considered a crime involving moral turpitude and a specifically enumerated aggravated felony. The conviction of either of which subjects an immigration an immigrant to deportation. In the past, we've heard our colleagues claim these bills are necessary to resolve ambiguity. But where's the ambiguity?
▶ 0:32:27Section 101843 of the INA lists fraud as an aggravated felony and therefore a deportable offense. Even more starkly, we've got long-standing Supreme Court precedent from over 70 years that makes it clear that fraud is a crime involving moral turpitude and therefore a deportable offense.
▶ 0:32:47In Jordan versus de George, a Supreme Court case decided in 1951, the court held that the phrase crime involving moral torpitude is without exception been construed to embrace fraudulent conduct. The opinion stated that in every deportation case where fraud has been proved, courts have held that the crime in issue involves moral turpitude.
▶ 0:33:08The court even addressed the idea of statutory ambiguity, declaring, "Congress sufficiently forewarned respondent that the statutory consequence of twice conspiring to defraud the US is going to be deportation." So the law is settled and it's clear. Um the initial version of this bill in fact even required a conviction. It's the amendment in the nature of a substitute that the majority will offer which strips that requirement away.
▶ 0:33:36And probably this is simply uh to create some novelty in the legislation to justify it. Otherwise, it's completely unnecessary. It's redundant. what what's wrong with the state of the current law? It's not impossible to convict people of fraud. People are convicted of fraud all of the time. Even President Trump was convicted of fraud by a jury of his peers of 34 accounts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud.
▶ 0:34:07And even with trial, due process, the presumption of innocence, and jury conviction, Trump does not think it was fair. How can it be fair to dispense with the requirement of due process in a trial, presumption of innocence, and a jury verdict One say, one might say the rejection of the conviction requirement reflects the determination to focus on fighting fraud today.
▶ 0:34:36In fact, due to the Trump administration's single-minded focus on immigration, the FBI directed its agents to depri prioritize white collar crime and devote their time to immigration instead. As a result, the prosecution of white collar crimes, which includes a whole variety of fraud offenses, of course, was down more than 10% last year compared to white collar prosecutions in the last year of the Biden administration.
▶ 0:35:06The bill also makes offenses related to theft or bribery and programs receiving federal funds a deportable offense. Um, again, this is something that was already covered. Um, our committee has been ignoring its oversight duties in the face of open fraud and corruption taking place in this administration.
▶ 0:35:29And it chooses to flex its authority um again over powerless people in the immigration community rather than over the places where real crime is taking place uh within the government. This bill is simply another effort to follow the narrative pushed by the administration of fake focus on fraud that ignores the pervasive fraud taking place before us right away. The bill is unnecessary.
▶ 0:35:59Uh it is redundant um and it does nothing at all to combat the actual fraud that we're suffering from the country. I urge members to oppose the bill and I yield back.
▶ 0:36:09Gentleman yields back without objection. and all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman for Cal from California to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 0:36:19Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 0:36:20Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 0:36:21Amendment in the nature of
▶ 0:36:23objection. The amendment the nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base texts for the purpose of the amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to explain the amendment.
▶ 0:36:30Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this amendment delineates specific federal crimes that make an alien inadmissible to or removable from the United States. Uh this amendment also incorporates my consequences for social security fraud act which the house passed on a bipartisan basis two years ago.
▶ 0:36:49Uh that bill simply says that if you're an alien who admits to or is convicted of social security fraud or identification document fraud, you cannot enter the country and if you're already here uh you should be deported. That's just common sense.
▶ 0:37:04Even the New York Times recently reported that quote, "As many as 1 million illegal aliens are using fraudulent or stolen social security numbers." According to another report, in 2017 alone, there were 1.2 million cases in which illegal aliens use social security numbers that belong to somebody else or were fabricated. That number surely has skyrocketed following four years of the Biden Harris border open borders.
▶ 0:37:32A 2022 investigative report found that because of this fraud, victims quote, may face tax bills for income they didn't earn or depleted benefits and may suffer from poor credit histories or even criminal histories. And that's exactly what happened to Daniel Glover, a Minnesota man whose identity was stolen by a Guatemalan illegal alien with a criminal history and multiple deportations.
▶ 0:37:57Because of the identity theft, Clever lost thousands of dollars through garnished wages and increased taxes and spent years unsuccessfully trying to untangle the mystery of his stolen identity. Now, imagine that the victim is you and the perpetrator is an illegal alien who's allowed to stay in the United States indefinitely as the case inches through endless litigation specifically intended to exhaust the system.
▶ 0:38:22by specifically listing federal crimes that make an alien inadmissible to and removable from the United States. This amendment closes loopholes, removes the yearslong litigation that so often bogs down the removal process and strengthens the immigration system. This amendment also ensures that criminal aliens can be held accountable for defrauding the American people if they admit to doing so.
▶ 0:38:45Finally, the amendment guarantees that the fraudsters described in this bill cannot exploit Americans generosity ever again by receiving any immigration relief in this country. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks
▶ 0:39:02Gentle lady from Washington is
▶ 0:39:04Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 0:39:07Clerk will report audit order reserved by the gentleman from California. Amendment to the amendment in the
▶ 0:39:16sgest the bill be considered as read and the gentle lady from Washington is recognized to explain the amendment.
▶ 0:39:21Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is straight out of the Republican playbook, find a crime in the news, make that crime a deportable offense without requiring a conviction, and then disregard the fact that the people subject to deportation already upon their conviction of the crime.
▶ 0:39:38The bill is inspired by the allegations of fraud in Minnesota that a conservative YouTuber claims to have discovered four years after the Department of Justice under President Biden began investigating these crimes back in 2022. Fraud related crimes are already crimes involving moral turpitude, meaning that legal immigrants, including green card holders convicted of these crimes are already deportable. There really is no need for this bill.
▶ 0:40:08If we're going to talk about Minnesota, let's talk about how Republicans have deployed an estimated 3,000 3,000 Department of Homeland Security agents to Minnesota. Already, immigration agents have arrested or harassed too many motans, including a 20-year-old US citizen who was detained for hours and then left to walk home in the snow.
▶ 0:40:33Horrifically, this surge of federal agents also led to the tragic and preventable shooting of Renee Nicole Good last week. As such, I am introducing a straightforward amendment. After what my colleague said last week about wanting to have a fair, independent investigation into Renee Good's death, I would hope that they would support my amendment, which will do just that.
▶ 0:40:56The amendment would delay the effective date of this legislation until the Henipin County Attorney, the Minnesota Attorney General, and DHS certify that Immigration and Customs Enforcement have fully cooperated with the Minnesota state and county-led investigation into the death of Renee Nicole Good. What do you think?
▶ 0:41:16And just in case anybody has not been watching TV across the country didn't follow what happened last week, Renee Nicole Good, a mother of three, including a six-year-old child, had just dropped off her small child at school and stopped to support her neighbors when she was shot three times at point blank range and killed by an ICE agent who appears to have called her a quote effing
▶ 0:41:46seconds after killing her. Initially, the Trump administration signaled that it would work jointly with local Minnesota law enforcement on an investigation as is customary in these cases. However, the ve very next day, the administration rescended that cooperation agreement and now the Trump administration is actively refusing to share information, video, or even work with the Henipin County Attorney and Minnesota Attorney General, leading them to launch
▶ 0:42:17their own separate If the Trump administration is so confident in the propaganda that they put forward about last week, they should welcome a joint investigation. They should want to work with local officials in Minnesota. But instead, the opposite is happening.
▶ 0:42:38The Trump administration appears to be afraid of what an independent, transparent investigation will bring to light about what actually happened to Renee Nicole Good last week. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, President Trump has not backed away from his statements, claiming falsely that the officer was recovering from his injuries in the hospital, despite video evidence that clearly shows him walking away from the shooting, apparently uninjured.
▶ 0:43:07Secretary Gnome has outrageously claimed without any evidence whatsoever that it was an act of domestic terror. Her words, the vice president has falsely and outrageously stated that ICE agents have quote absolute immunity. Not true.
▶ 0:43:24Given all these lies, there is no world in which we can trust the Trump administration to conduct a fair, transparent, and unbiased investigation into the death of Renee Nicole Good. Not only do they not want to investigate the officer and hold him accountable, if that's what is necessary in this case, they want to conduct a character assassination of Renee Nicole Good. Mr. Mr.
▶ 0:43:53Chairman, we need an independent investigation into what happened in Minneapolis. This is not the first time it's happened. In only the last four months, immigration agents have fired on at least nine people with lots of lies and lots of evidence that debunks their narrative.
▶ 0:44:09Miss Good lived by a conviction, as her wife said, that quote, "Every person, regardless of where you come from or what you look like, deserves compassion and kindness." I hope my colleagues will support this amendment for an independent investigation into Renee Nicole Goods killing. I yield back. Oh, and I have a unanimous consent request.
▶ 0:44:34Gentle is recognized.
▶ 0:44:35I ask [clears throat] unanimous consent that an Axio article titled Feds bashed for shocking lockdown of Minneapolis Ice Shooting Probe be entered into the
▶ 0:44:45Without objection, gentle lady yields back. Does a gentleman gentleman from uh California insist on his point of order? I do, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:44:51Gentleman's uh is is recognized.
▶ 0:44:53As much as I would love to debate the general lady on this point or amendment would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us. It therefore violates House Rule 16 clause 7. I yield back.
▶ 0:45:05Gentleman yields back. Does the gentle lady u the sponsor of the amendment?
▶ 0:45:10Wish to be heard on the point?
▶ 0:45:11Yes, I do.
▶ 0:45:11Gentle is recognized.
▶ 0:45:13Mr. Chairman, the amendment is clearly gerine to the underlying legislation. This legislation under consideration empowers the Department of Homeland Security to remove individuals accused of committing fraud. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the enforcement arm of DHS, has been surged to Minneapolis to investigate fraud. A DHS spokesperson said, quote, Minnesota is ground zero for the war on fraud.
▶ 0:45:39This operation in Minnesota demonstrates that the Trump administration will not stand oddly by as the US immigration system is weaponized by those seeking to defraud the American people. That was a DHS spokesperson. Renee Nicole Good was killed by an ICE agent as a direct result of that operation.
▶ 0:45:57So, if we're going to give DHS additional authority to deport more people for fraud without the due process requiring a conviction, then we should at least ensure that we are cooperating with local law enforcement in the investigation of a death of a US citizen and mother of three stemming from their current fraud related mission. So, this amendment does that. It is directly connected to the underlying legislation. And I'm not sure what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid of.
▶ 0:46:26If they want to vote against the amendment, then certainly go ahead and do that. That's your right. Uh I would hope that that's not the case, but that that certainly is your right. But to dismiss it as non-gerane simply because they don't want to ensure accountability for Renee Nicole Good's death is simply wrong. So many of my colleagues on the other side last week when we were talking about this whole situation called for an independent investigation into the shooting. Well, here's your chance.
▶ 0:46:54Here's your chance to ensure that that happens directly related to the underlying legislation. I ask that we uh have a vote on this amendment.
▶ 0:47:02Uh the gentle lady yields back. The um I have no problem voting against the amendment. This was this was close. We're just trying to follow the rules. Uh and so the gentle woman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purposes test. House rule 16 clause 7 therefore is not germanine and is out of order. Who seeks
▶ 0:47:21I asked for a record of Go ahead. Could we'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair if we might, Mr. Chairman?
▶ 0:47:26Thank you.
▶ 0:47:26The ruling of the chair has been asked for. The gentleman from Wisconsin or excuse me, gentleman from
▶ 0:47:33gentleman from uh California moves to tabled. The clerk will call the
▶ 0:47:38Question is on the motion to table. All those in favor say I.
▶ 0:47:41I. Those opposed? No.
▶ 0:47:44Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it.
▶ 0:47:46Roll call vote. Mr.
▶ 0:47:47Roll call being requested. The clerk will call the role on the tableing motion offered by the gentleman from
▶ 0:47:53Mr. Jordan,
▶ 0:47:54Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa,
▶ 0:47:57Mr. Biggs, Mr. Mcccleintoch,
▶ 0:48:01Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klene, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Mr. Nells votes yes. Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie, Miss Haggamman, Miss Lee.
▶ 0:48:25Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Knot, Mr. Knot votes I. Mr. Harris, Mr. Herder, I
▶ 0:48:37Mr. Her votes I. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil, Mr. Mr. Rascin,
▶ 0:48:46Mr. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler,
▶ 0:48:48Mr. Nler votes no. Miss Laughrim.
▶ 0:48:51Mr. Cohen.
▶ 0:48:53Mr. Cohen votes.
▶ 0:48:55Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipal, Miss Gyipol votes no. Mr. Korea, Mr. Ka votes no. Miss Scandlin, Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Nagus, Miss McBath, Miss Ross, Miss Ballot, Mr. Garcia, Miss Camlager, Dove, Miss Camlager, Dove votes no. Mr.
▶ 0:49:25Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett.
▶ 0:49:30Mr. Bigs, you're not recorded.
▶ 0:49:32Mr. Biggs votes yes.
▶ 0:49:36Mr. Massie, you are not recorded.
▶ 0:49:38Mr. Massie votes yes.
▶ 0:49:54Miss Ross, you're not recorded.
▶ 0:49:56Miss Ross votes no.
▶ 0:50:01Clerk will report.
▶ 0:50:07Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes no. We'd rather Miss Mr. Klein' rather have a yes if
▶ 0:50:15Mr. Klein votes I.
▶ 0:50:18Miss Balot, you're not recorded.
▶ 0:50:20Miss Balot votes no. okay. The clerk will report.
▶ 0:50:29Mr. Chairman, there are 12 eyes and nine
▶ 0:50:32The uh table
▶ 0:50:34the motion of table is adopted.
▶ 0:50:38Who seeks recognition? from
▶ 0:50:40gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
▶ 0:50:42Thank you, Mr. Chair. I realize that these bills are important bills to have and fraud is something shouldn't be committed and especially by you know the people are guests in our country, but they should be convictions and and this is a way to just put people out of the country and and change the voting poll roles in the future. That's what a lot of this is about. But what happened in Minneapolis and pleased that Mr. J Paul brought it up is something this committee needs to concentrate on.
▶ 0:51:11This was an unbelievably un clearly homicide that the administration immediately jumped on to defend the officer, but just not only defending the officer, but blaspheming the lady, Miss Good, whose name was appropriately chosen. She was a good lady. She did nothing wrong.
▶ 0:51:32And it's my understanding from reading the laws and being briefed on by some that the ICE agents have authority only when they have a warrant for somebody's arrest or a reason reasonable cause probable cause that somebody is in the country and illegally in the country because of immigration problems. But they have no law enforcement authority whatsoever unless they've been deputized by the governor.
▶ 0:51:57and they had no right to control try to control traffic because this did not involve an ICE operation that was being deterred in any way. When that officer came up to the car and reached in and grabbed inside and said, "Open up your car door. Get out of your car." He had no right to do it. And people who are clothed in the appearance of law enforcement intimidate people when they have no right to do it. That was a violation of the law. And she had every right not to do it.
▶ 0:52:25And when she drove off, the man in front of her, who shouldn't have been there, that was insane. He was responding to her wife who had said, "Dude, why don't you go get lunch?" He didn't like that. So, he decided to shoot. He had his gun out almost before she started to drive forward. And it was clear she was turning to the right. This was an unjustified homicide in our country that we've all seen. And the administration jumps in and says, "We're going to attack this woman and call her a domestic terrorist. She's a victim who is not with us anymore.
▶ 0:52:55She's dead because a officer of the United States of America killed her and it's been on video and we've all seen it and we've seen our president, our vice president and Kruella gnome go after her as if she was some type of domestic terrorist. They've attacked her before her body's in the ground. This is cruel. It's the picture of our government and not the way our government should be.
▶ 0:53:21It should any law enforcement community that I know of, certainly the Memphis Police Department, if an officer does a shooting, even if it's pretty clear that it's self-defense, they are relieved of duty pending an investigation. This man has not been relieved of anything. He was sent to the hospital by the defense councils that they have their attorney saying, "Cover your CYA." And he went there to CYA. When he was walking away from the scene and going, "Call 911." He was walking like he was in the Olympics.
▶ 0:53:51He had no problem walking. And I'm telling you, for somebody who has problems walking, he was walking straight path, strong path. He was a ver veile man. He had no problem walking. He didn't need to go. And then they all jumped in their car and drove away and left the crime scene. On the front end, they're directing traffic, telling her to get out of the car. He's telling her what to do and get out of the car and whatever they were yelling. And then after she's shot and they see her bleeding there, they drive off. Law enforcement doesn't drive off when somebody has been shot and is possibly dying.
▶ 0:54:21They try to render aid. They That's not America. And we need to investigate it. And we need to see what's going on. And there's no reason why Keith Ellison and the Minnesota Attorney General's office shouldn't be given all of the data that they have to see that his investigation is is the best possible. And there no question in my mind they will not do an investigation that is fair and and and independent. They're trying to defend their people. This is not ICE versus the people of the United States. And that's the way they're looking at it.
▶ 0:54:50The administration looks at ICE is our guys and anybody they shoot is the enemy. The American public is not the enemy. They are not the enemy. And [clears throat] sending more ICE agents into Minneapolis now is the equivalent of what they did when when the man from Afghanistan who was here legally for many many years shot and killed the lady from Oklahoma who was a uh the National Guard and killed her here in Washington DC.
▶ 0:55:18And Trump had to admit, he said, "We there's been no killing, no murders, no h no murders in DC since we've been here." Except there was that one killing. Well, it was a kill one killing because the lady was there because Donald Trump brought her to DC and she was killed by Afghanistan and then they nobody from Afghanistan can come in the country anymore because one person does something wrong. It's not a reason to penalize every person like that. And that's where they're coming from. This is a war against America and against due process and against justice. I yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 0:55:49Gentle lady, I we'll go to Mr. Nat and I think the gentle lady from California was wanting recognition to you and then we'll come to California.
▶ 0:55:56Mr. Chairman, I want to make two separate points.
▶ 0:56:00First, this is a series of bill one in a series of bills that do something that should never be done. It it says that anyone who has committed a fraud offense and a fraud offense is already considered a a crime involving moral turpitude. And an alien who commits a crime involving moral turpitude is deportable under current law. So what does this bill do?
▶ 0:56:23It says he doesn't have to be convicted in order to be That is a fundamental um um disregard for American standards of justice. You shouldn't be penalized without a conviction. You shouldn't be for a crime of which you haven't been committed uh convicted. That's number one. Number two, let's talk about fraud. Let's look at our president.
▶ 0:56:48Republicans can hardly pretend to be the champions of fighting fraud when they're led by the undisputed world champion of perpetrating fraud, Donald Trump. Let's count his frauds. He's convicted felon. He was convicted by a jury of his peers of 34 counts of fraud offenses in 2024, last year, two years ago. In 2024, a New York judge found Trump liable in a civil fraud case for conspiring to manipulate his net worth.
▶ 0:57:15In 2022, a jury found the Trump organization liable for 17 counts of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records, and the organization was behind the maximum penalty of 1.6 million. In 2018, Trump had to shut down his charity after the New York Attorney General brought a lawsuit accusing it of operating quote a shocking pattern of illegality. And a year later, he was required to pay $2 million to eight charities because of his misuse of his charity.
▶ 0:57:42In 2016, he paid $25 million to settle multiple lawsuits alleging fraud by his now defunct Trump University. Mr. Speaker, uh Mr. chairman rather. Donald Trump is lucky he was born in this country or he would have been deported many times for multiple frauds involving moral turpitude. Again, this bill is a series of bills. We all agree that people who are convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude ought to be deportable.
▶ 0:58:13But for but this is one of a series of bills that says you just have to be accused under certain circumstances. You don't have to be convicted. That is fundamentally unamerican. And now let me make my second point. We're doing this while ignoring the major issue before the country right now. ICE is behaving like an occupying Like an occupying army.
▶ 0:58:40They burst into houses without a judicial warrant. They have a warrant signed by ICE, but that's not good. When the owner of the house says, "Show me a warrant." So, we don't need one. They repel down in a helicopter to an apartment building and take everyone out of the building. How do they know that people in the that everyone in the building is an is an undocumented alien?
▶ 0:59:05They arrest American citizens and people are afraid to go around in Minneapolis and in other places if they can't prove citizenship. Who how many people carry their passports with them? If I were stopped and were asked to prove my citizenship, well, I have a card that says I'm a member of Congress. That would do. But if I weren't a member of Congress, I would have no proof of citizenship. A driver's license isn't such proof. And look at the case of Renee Good.
▶ 0:59:34The officer shot her. Shot her One shot from the front and you see the video. two shots from the side and you see the car being turned away from the officer so as not to endanger. Mr. uh um Cohen made the points. I'm not going to repeat them except they had one other point.
▶ 0:59:59Besides the fact that the officer walked away and didn't offer aid, a citizen came up and said, "I'm a doctor. Let me go let me go see her." and they refused to let the doctor go see her. Did you ever see a a police force in this country of any kind say you can't render medical aid to someone who's been shot?
▶ 1:00:25That's why the local authorities ought to have all the evidence to investigate the crime. That's why you can't trust the federal government because Christine Nome and uh JD Vance without any evidence before they had time to have evidence pronounced her a terrorist. We still haven't seen any evidence of that.
▶ 1:00:46So they reached the conclusion before they had the evidence and now they won't let the local authorities have access to the evidence uh to to uh uh investigate it because they have a predetermined outcome. Mr. Chairman, this Mr. Chairman, this is a an unAmerican attack on not only all the people of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but on all of us and everyone who values uh our our own rights as citizens. I yield back.
▶ 1:01:13Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from California is recognized.
▶ 1:01:17Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I I too want to oppose uh this bill. It's uh you know a like we have been saying the current law already allows people to be um deported for fraud um if they are not here legally and creating crimes.
▶ 1:01:37But the fact that this uh would not require a conviction means that you all are that uh due process is immaterial. And I thought that due process was a fundamental right, you know, uh, under the constitution. I find once again this is a way for, uh, this body to pivot and talk about something else other than what is going on.
▶ 1:02:07And if we're going to talk about fraud, uh, then let's talk about it. I mean, we have an administration uh that's, you know, probably rendering the biggest fraud when it comes to economic policy and civil liberties that this country has ever seen. We are talking about defrauding the American people with people who are stealing money.
▶ 1:02:29Well, it's hard to go after folks who are stealing money when you are not actually funding the agencies and the departments and the staff people working in those departments to go after folks.
▶ 1:02:44You know, it's hard to go after IRS fraudsters, for example, when you've deformed the agency so much because you don't want the rich to have to pay their So, if we're going to talk about fraud, let's talk about, you know, the fact that this president ran on a platform of making America affordable again. He said costs are going down, record highs in the stock market.
▶ 1:03:07But when I'm at the grocery store talking to folks, what I'm hearing is that this administration has reduced your minimum wage so that you can't earn as much. that he's cut wages for farm workers. In addition to pillaging agricultural communities so that folks are even too afraid to work to pick the fruits and vegetables that we all want to purchase and eat at our tables, making costs go up.
▶ 1:03:36He's denied two million inhome health care workers minimum wage and overtime pay. He tried to shut down JobCore, young people trying to get some training so that they can get a job. And then let's not talk about these trade policies and these tariffs that have made costs go up because the tariffs and the taxes are being exacted onto us.
▶ 1:04:01Let's not talk about the close to trillion dollar cuts to your health care, your Medicare, and your Medicaid to pay for the permanent tax cuts for the super rich. I mean, that's fraud. We haven't conducted any kind of discussions or oversight about that. I mean, do you want to talk about fraud?
▶ 1:04:21How much are the taxpayers paying for us to invade Venezuela and then steal their oil and then have all these discussions about selling the oil and who's going to get the money? And people are saying, who's going to get the money? Then you hear in the news that I don't know, the president's going to put together some offshore account. We don't even know. But we won't ever know if Republicans don't hold hearings.
▶ 1:04:49actually talking about the fraud that the American people see every day on their television. This I mean, can we get a little transparency on that kind of fraud? People want to know how much money are you taking from me and what are you doing with that Because as we talked about last week, what happened in Minnesota is serious. You want to talk about fraud?
▶ 1:05:20Why is the FBI not cooperating with local law enforcement in Minneapolis? I mean, what is the FBI doing? Where is the DOJ on this? You want to talk about fraud? It's fraudulent to say some crazy talking point, if you don't comply, you will die. I was like scouring the police cars in all of the cities that I've lived in.
▶ 1:05:50I've never seen that motto on the side of a police car. Mine said it protect and serve. Keeping the community safe, not if you don't comply, you will die. So if we if we want to talk about fraud, please let's talk about it because people the American people have tons of questions about how their civil liberties are being defrauded and how their economic rights are being defrauded at the hands of this administration without any oversight
▶ 1:06:20coming out of any of these committees. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
▶ 1:06:24Gentle lady yields back. Uh the gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
▶ 1:06:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to pick up on some of the concerns that my colleagues have been um expressing concerning the independence and the thoroughess of any investigation into what happened in Minneapolis.
▶ 1:06:42I mean, we've already seen these concerns and and my colleague had an amendment about why it is so important that we have state and local authorities um participating in the investigation both for their on the ground expertise and to provide some legitimacy to the investigation that the FBI is undertaking.
▶ 1:07:02when the f when the department of justice and when the um white house so quickly jumped in without any investigation and tried to um characterize what happened a characterization you know that this was some kind of violent incident by Ms. Good which was very quickly rebutted by every video by bystander testimony. It just doesn't hold up. So, it is really important that any investigation is legitimate and is perceived to be so.
▶ 1:07:32So, um I I would have wholeheartedly supported the amendment to include um the local law enforcement authorities, but I think we also need to make sure that we're not overlooking the fact that the that an agency that historically investigates um officer involved shootings when there's a federal officer involved is the department uh the office of civil rights in the US Department of Justice. And that office has been sidelined here. They've always been involved in these.
▶ 1:08:01They have uh long-standing expertise. We are learning that um several attorneys from that office volunteered to undertake that investigation knowing that it was going to be a hot button investigation and they were told to stand down. I mean, this smacks so much of a cover up and certainly further undermines any kind of trust in the process being led by the FBI. I mean, this is an agency that has gone into similar situations.
▶ 1:08:31um and issued unpopular opinions at times because they followed the facts. They didn't rush to judgment. Um they didn't try to whitewash um either an officer um who had engaged in excessive use of force or someone who had maybe ended up in a situation where where they were killed or injured when there was justification for the officers.
▶ 1:08:56So I'm really really concerned about the fact that the office of civil rights the people who protect all of our civil rights who would protect and vindicate Renee good civil rights and those of other peaceful protesters people who are standing up for essential American values that they have been pushed out of this and we've got reporting now that um those attorneys that more attorneys are resigning from the Department of Justice because they um believe that they're being sidelined that the Department of Justice ICE is
▶ 1:09:26completely v uh sideststepping what it's supposed to do. It's not meeting its duty in this very important moment. And I think it's the job of this committee to step up and to conduct those kind of investigations and and that's what we should be doing.
▶ 1:09:46So, I would ask unanimous consent to uh introduce an article from the Guardian dated this morning at 9:48 entitled DOJ attorneys resign over decision not to investigate agent in Minneapolis ICE
▶ 1:10:05Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 1:10:06Gentle yields back.
▶ 1:10:10I don't know who was first here, but we'll go we'll go with the ladies first and we'll go with Mr. Johnson. Gentle lady from Vermont's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Pennsylvania. Um, I'm very concerned about the extent to which the Office of Civil Rights at the DOJ has been sidelined and underfunded and Americans do not like what they are seeing on their TV screens. They do not like it.
▶ 1:10:39Yuggov poll that came out in the last 48 hours showing a majority of Americans disapprove of the way that ICE is conducting itself and they do not want this to continue. They feel like it is an attack on their civil rights and rightly so.
▶ 1:10:58I also want to talk about the fact that it's very difficult to sit here and take seriously any efforts regarding going after fraud um from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when one of the first things that President Trump did when he was uh sworn in is he went after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that is
▶ 1:11:28independent and its goal is to protect US consumers. That's literally its mission. And at the beginning of his second term, Trump appointed an acting director who directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop any regulatory activity and and moved to fire 90% of the AY's staff.
▶ 1:11:55the staff that was standing up for Americans who had been victims of fraud and had returned $21 billion dollar back to consumers who had been ripped off. And so we have an independent agency that was doing the work of protecting Americans from fraud.
▶ 1:12:21And this president decided to go after pretty much the one agency that was going to bat for all of us, preventing people from ripping us off from credit card companies, ripping us off from financial institutions and banks. So I don't know.
▶ 1:12:43Will the gentle lady yield?
▶ 1:12:45I certainly will. I yield to the ranking member. It's such an excellent point you're making that they targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was all about combating fraud against American consumers. But you could add to that that they sacked 17 inspector generals in all of the federal agencies whose precise job it is to far it out waste, fraud, and abuse.
▶ 1:13:07I I'm so glad uh Mr. Ranking member that you brought that up. That's exactly right. When you sideline the people, the inspector's general whose job it is to do oversight, to far it out fraud, and you prevent them from doing their jobs, how can we sit here and say that we're actually doing something to fight fraud? It just it makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't pass the straight face test.
▶ 1:13:34And it it's difficult for us, you know, day in and day out. I feel like we come in here and we have to exist in some kind of upside down land and and people want us to forget the stuff that happened just a year ago from this administration who came in gang busters preventing us from doing the things to protect our constituents from fraud. And then we sit here and we are asked to forget all of that.
▶ 1:14:01And I want to just be on the record today that what happened to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a It was an agency that was sticking up for all of us and it has now been hollowed out. And I don't know how you can sit here and say that you're fighting fraud when that is what has Mr. Ranking member, do you need more
▶ 1:14:27Well, I appreciate that. I mean what we've seen from the beginning of the administration a dismantling of the infrastructure that is designed to combat foreign corruption fraud. They took down the foreign corrupt practices act and said that they wouldn't enforce that uh any further. There's been a dismantling of the governmental infrastructure against fraud and corruption.
▶ 1:14:51So now essentially they want to take all of these crimes whose prosecution and whose uh investigation they've neutered in the government and then suddenly revive attention to it simply through uh the immigrants and the immigration system and I think it's a pathetic way for them to pro proceed and I appreciate your yielding to me
▶ 1:15:16and I yield back.
▶ 1:15:17Gentle yields back. Uh, gentle lady from Wyoming is recognized. Gentleman,
▶ 1:15:21I'm actually stunned that anyone would use the CFPB as an as the paragon of virtue. The CFPB is one of the most corrupt federal agencies ever created in the history of the United States violates the Constitution and how it was framed. Uh, it was intentionally created so that there was no congressional oversight. It was created in such a way that Congress did not have the power of the purse over the CFPB.
▶ 1:15:52The Supreme Court has found both of those two aspects of the CFPB to be unconstitutional in the sense that it was not Congress that provided the funding for CFPB, but actually they would they basically identified their own budget receiving money from the Federal Reserve. uh making it impossible for the president to remove the head of the CFPB in violation of the constitution and article two of the United States Constitution.
▶ 1:16:20I've never seen an agency that worked harder to violate the due process rights of those businesses and entities that were the disfavored entities for uh related to the CFPB. I watched as individuals were forced to disclose attorney client privilege in violation of the law. I watched as they targeted again disfavored industries uh simply because they didn't like them yet never were able to prove any kind of criminal conduct for those entities.
▶ 1:16:49The CFPB is exactly contrary to our very form and structure of government. I cannot imagine that anyone would hold it up as the uh as protecting us from fraudulent companies when it itself engaged in fraudulent activities. The targeting of individuals across this country by CFPB has been an absolute tragedy. And I cannot believe anyone would claim that that is an example of of of a problem.
▶ 1:17:18What the president did in terms of addressing the CFPB was exactly what needed to be done. Thank you. And I yield back.
▶ 1:17:26Gentlemen yields back. The uh gentleman from uh Georgia is recognized.
▶ 1:17:30Uh thank you uh uh Mr. Chairman and uh are you I uh rights to speak to strike the last word.
▶ 1:17:39Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 1:17:40Thank you. Um you know this administration got elected based on fraud. It promised that uh they were going to uh deliver the Epstein files. They did not do so. They promised that uh they would uh cut the cost of groceries uh on day one. They have not done so. They promised to [snorts] keep us out of uh endless wars. Uh they have not done so. They've accelerated that.
▶ 1:18:11And uh so this is a administration based on fraud led by a fraudster. A gentleman who was convicted of fraud uh multiple counts. A gentleman whose was convicted of fraud, multiple counts.
▶ 1:18:30uh a gentleman who was charged and convicted of uh falsifying business records relating to uh the Stormmy Daniels uh hush money payoff. I know we've forgotten about all of that. It happened so long ago. But this is a administration based on fraud. And once you and uh as you start that's how you finish also.
▶ 1:18:57That is the reason how uh in the space of one year after being elected into office uh this president has increased his net worth by $3 billion. There's some fraud going on uh in America and it's not uh uh limited uh only to uh uh immigrants in this country.
▶ 1:19:24And so what what we have after the watchd dogs have been removed, I mean the the the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau uh stripped of its ability to recover any more money from corporations that duped Americans like it had since 2011.
▶ 1:19:45I mean $3.6 $6 billion dollar recovered by the CFPB uh to remedy fraud that victimized uh working people in this country. 7.7 million people in this country received uh part of that $3.6 billion recovered by CFPB. It has been a very effective uh on behalf of the American people.
▶ 1:20:14But one of the first things they did when they got in there is to uh is to kill the CFPB. Same way uh as was pointed out earlier that they uh systematically, intentionally, deliberately uh got rid of all of the uh inspectors general uh for agencies throughout the federal government. Why?
▶ 1:20:39so that folks could make that $3 billion within the the first year. And if they made3 what others have made is just astronomical. Uh so it's like the fox guarding the hen house and um and there's no eggs in the hen house because of fraud. But it is a serious crime. We need to hold people accountable, including those at the top.
▶ 1:21:09And um we don't need to use fraud as a pretext to surge thousands of uh untrained, uh ICE goons into the streets of Minnesota to continue what they did last week, which which was to kill an innocent uh person.
▶ 1:21:36It's impossible uh to discuss immigration without uh relating it back to Renee Good, 37year-old mother, poet. Last words she uttered was, "I'm not mad at you." And boom, less than 10 seconds later, she shot three times in the head, while another ICE agent, I don't know if it was the one that shot her or not, that called her a a derogatory
▶ 1:22:06name after her car had already uh hit another car after they fired into the car and killed that woman. Um, just uh we can't let that go. You should not let it go. We should be considering legislation that reigns in these outofc control ICE officers. We should be dealing with legislation to hold them accountable uh for their excesses. And with that, I will yield
▶ 1:22:37Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
▶ 1:22:40Oh, Mr. Chairman, I was just going to I'll associate my uh comments associate myself with the comments from the gentle lady from Wyoming on the CFPB. I think as the only member of financial services committee as well as judiciary um I think I was able to question director Chopra on numerous occasions uh became a rogue agency not funded by Congress funded by a line item in the Fed's
▶ 1:23:10budget and all they did was attack the insurance industry in America the banking industry in America and the credit unions of America That was the function was to somehow raise revenue by continually finding finding some of these agencies. So with that, I'll yield
▶ 1:23:29Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 1:23:35Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just wanted to remind folks that Renee Nicole Goods was an American citizen who was shot dead. Kind of reminds me of the 1960s in Kent But I want to take a few moments to address my colleague from California as he talked about social security fraud. Uh I think he mentioned a million instances of fraud reported by the New York Times.
▶ 1:24:05I would say that that's probably in under count. Most undocumented workers, the vast majority come to this country to work. They're going to find a social security number to work under and they will be hired by somebody who knows that's a false social security number because they need workers.
▶ 1:24:26And at the end of a few years of working, rest assured that those workers working with a false social security number will never reap the benefits that they will have paid into a social security system. And on the contrary, there's a lot of studies that show that those payments by these undocumented workers into the social security system are part of the reason the social security system stays viable to this day.
▶ 1:24:55But I also want to remind folks the underlying issue here, which is employees, workers that are needed in this country. Wisconsin, 90% of the dairy workers are Meat processing plants throughout the country, the vast majority undocumented working with fake social security California, my colleague from California, myself, we're Californians.
▶ 1:25:25California has the largest manufacturing sector in the United States. We have the largest agricultural industry in the USA. California, the largest high-tech, largest biotech, largest venture capital sectors in the US. Guess who a lot of those workers? The vast majority are they're undocumented.
▶ 1:25:49And of course, for all of you that love to pick on California, we send the federal government about $90 billion more in federal revenue than federal benefits that we get back. We're a net donor to the federal government. Things that we forget about when we go after California. Actually, our state, despite everything, fourth largest economy in the world, we're doing pretty well. We could do better, but we're doing well.
▶ 1:26:21You want to stop the fake ID, fake social security numbers, go mandatory everify. Go after the employer. You want to stop the issue of fake social security numbers. You want to stop undocumented workers, go after the employers, the small businesses in this country that are the backbone of this economy. Let's face it, folks. This country needs the workers.
▶ 1:26:48I can't understand why you keep vilifying these workers. Give them a legal way to work. Give them a real social security number. And I can tell you what's going to happen. The issue of fake IDs, the issue of incorrect social security numbers is probably going to disappear pretty quickly.
▶ 1:27:08So I ask my colleagues, you pick issues in our economy, in our but let's focus on the solution. We've talked about these problems for decades. It's time to do something. And this is not what we need to do. Go after the employers. Go after this backbone of this economy. I would say that's not the right thing to do in either. Thank you,
▶ 1:27:37the gentleman. Yo. Yes, I'll
▶ 1:27:38for a question. But one farmer said to me that you get an ICE raid bust at a farm. Now you've driven all the undocumenteds off of that farm and neighboring farms. There's not enough workers to do the work. So the farmers have to pay double or, you know, certainly time and a half, but double or triple to get them to work through the weekends and so on.
▶ 1:28:04and th those prices get passed on to consumers at the grocery store because there aren't enough workers to do the work anymore. Is that your sense of what's going on
▶ 1:28:15Uh yes, Mr. Ranking member and I would say further that if you look at the price of groceries today, the price of meat going through the roof. Why? because you have a supply is getting choked off whether the processing plant or otherwise. This is a challenge. We got to do the right thing from an economic
▶ 1:28:41Thank you.
▶ 1:28:42Gentleman yields back. I'll now recognize myself. Uh sometimes the frustration here comes from the very comments of your colleagues, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate that. uh you have a lot of opinions related to this administration. I wish you had spoken more as to the fundamentals of this bill.
▶ 1:29:04This bill attempts to rein in at expedite the removal of people who commit fraud such as the massive amount of fraud costing 10 billion in counting in Minnesota. quite frankly mentioning uh various states. My colleague uh from Orange County just mentioned uh California multiple times.
▶ 1:29:29If it's 10 billion in Minnesota, it's 20, 30, 40 billion in California. You can bet on it. So the idea that we would be able to
▶ 1:29:42Gentlemen, yield.
▶ 1:29:42I will in a minute. uh deal with people who commit fraud is certainly the the item that we have here. Do we really need to to hunt down Al Capone and prove that he's tax evading after decades of knowing that he was the leader of organized crime in order to deport deport him or arrest him?
▶ 1:30:02In this case, the alternative for many of these fraudsters would be expedited removal rather than a extended period of time of hospitality in one of our prisons. But I do want to move on to what uh my colleague from California said and then I'll give him time to respond. He talked about the shortage of farm labor. I'll tell you about the shortage of farm labor.
▶ 1:30:27I have a agricultural district stretching from the Mexican border just east of San Diego for more than a 100 miles east and 100 miles north. Massive amounts of agriculture. And during the four years of the Biden administration when 10 million people came into this country illegally or were put on parole and calling it legally, did our farmers suddenly have an excess of labor? No. The fact is Mr. Koreah is right.
▶ 1:30:57Yes, we need to have an effective working agricultural labor program, including guest worker, but we don't have it now. We haven't had it. And for 20 plus years, I have asked along with some of my colleagues, including a former member of this committee, uh, Howard Burman, to come up with an organized way to do it. flooding the market with illegals or deporting illegals.
▶ 1:31:24Neither one changes the basic premise of agriculture, which is they're not getting uh a guest worker program that works for them. And people in fact go to the farm, but then they go elsewhere. So the idea that if we deport five or six or 10 million people out of the 20 million plus that are here illegally that somehow it's going to be devastating to agriculture simply isn't true.
▶ 1:31:49Agriculture had that problem 25 years ago when I came here as a freshman and George W. Bush tried mightily to
▶ 1:31:58and I would reach out and I'll yield time to my colleague and say, "Do you want to get serious about an effective guest pro program that replaces H2 that actually does something where you get the labor on time, verifiable? If you do, let's work on that. But let's not blame deporting people who have committed crimes uh for a shortage of labor." And I would yield to my friend from Orange County.
▶ 1:32:22Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. It sounds like me actually begin to agree on some facts
▶ 1:32:28well we agree on a lot of the needs of
▶ 1:32:30We just have to get our leadership with
▶ 1:32:32and I will work with you. Remember a lot of those farmers farm workers I should say have been in this country 20 30 years still waiting to see an adjustment of status. We passed a farm worker modernization bill few years ago. Didn't make it out of the Senate. So, we somehow know what this economy needs. We know that those workers are desperate to work legally in this country, but we can't get there.
▶ 1:33:00And those employers, those people that grow our food, those small manufacturers, those high-tech workers that rely on those foreign immigrants to work in their high-tech firms, they're all asking for help. We're not giving it to them. Well, in reclaiming my time, I will join with you on that, I would suggest that we dust off the uh egg jobs program from Howard Burman and use it as a starting point.
▶ 1:33:27U and if you want to go beyond uh uh egg and work with uh our rank our senior ranking member on the committee, I'm sure that she would be happy to join uh a California group that would include What we have today, as I yield back, is something dealing with people who are committing crimes and fraud. And hopefully we will get back to that. And with that, I yield back and recognize the gentle lady from California.
▶ 1:33:55Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I I oppose uh this measure because uh people who commit uh crimes are already removable. this without the need for uh prosecution would simply say you can go to any field in the 18th congressional district and round everybody up and do expedited removal because a majority of the farm workers uh in the United
▶ 1:34:25States including my district are undocumented and a majority of those undocumented workers have been here more than 10 years. Um, so we've already got a crisis in uh the A world. Uh, there have been news accounts in uh, central California about farms that are unable uh, to have their crops harvested.
▶ 1:34:50There the the crops are rotting in the fields because people are afraid to come out and pick the crops because of the uh, enforcement activity that's already going on. This bill would make that crisis even more uh acute. Now, uh we had a bill, we have a bipartisan bill, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act that has passed the House of Representatives twice with bipartisan support.
▶ 1:35:19Not only does it streamline the H2A program, um it was supported by hundreds of agricultural uh employers and was also worked on uh by the United Farm Workers Union. Both groups endorse the measure. Uh it expands the H2A program.
▶ 1:35:40Not only does it streamline it, but it allows certain industries that have been excluded, for example, the dairy industry uh to utilize the program. And it also uh provides for uh transition to legal status for the undocumented workers.
▶ 1:35:57First to a certified agricultural worker status and then at the option of the uh immigrant to apply for legal residence after a period of time as an egg worker or they can stay as an egg worker. That is something that we should take up again and pass.
▶ 1:36:17And as I mentioned, I think at our last hearing, um our late colleague Doug Lamalfa was one of the individuals who worked very hard uh on the bill uh and brought a farmer's perspective uh so that we could have a measure that would really work. So I I would like to to mention that that bill uh has been reintroduced in this Congress. Uh we're hoping that the Senate can get organized and move it forward and it would solve a lot of problems.
▶ 1:36:46This bill, however, would aggravate an already very serious uh problem. And I just would like to mention uh while we're talking about this bill, what we're not talking about is the need uh to have oversight on the activities that ICE officers are engaging in in uh communities across the United States. I think we all saw the video of the killing of the uh mother in uh Minnesota.
▶ 1:37:16It was so uh upsetting to see that. But I'm also seeing now videos of ICE agents going doortodoor um and breaking into homes without warrants. I mean, a a measure of how serious you are about the Constitution is to imagine if these were your constituents that this was happening to.
▶ 1:37:45If if the federal government were going after gun owners doortodoor and breaking down their doors, would you be concerned about the Fourth Amendment? I think you would be. So, I think it's past time uh for this uh committee to have aggressive oversight over the aggressive and I'd say in many cases unconstitutional and unlawful actions that are being taken in the name of us uh through these rather untrained ICE agents.
▶ 1:38:14And I'll just say when I went home over the weekend, a friend of mine who is a police officer told me that no one in his department would have done what that officer did relative to shooting uh that that uh woman.
▶ 1:38:29Uh and he was ashamed uh not of himself but of the uh the disfavor that those officers untrained as they are are bringing to otherwise you know very well-trained respected uh police officers who we count on to keep us safe and who operate within the law and within the constitution. So uh I think we would be well advised to spend some time on that. And with that, Mr.
▶ 1:38:58Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:38:59I think the gentle lady and as we consider a hearing like that, I'm sure it would include the question of whether or not local police should have been on the scene rather than deliberately thwarting ICE and not doing their job. They if they had been there, it could have been different. With that, we recognize the gentleman from Alabama.
▶ 1:39:17Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield to my friend from Wyoming, Miss Hagman.
▶ 1:39:21Thank you. Um, I just want to read the summary of this bill. This bill creates a ground of inadmissibility and a ground of removability or deportability for aliens who admit to or are convicted of certain fraud offenses or the unlawful receipt of a federal, state, or local public benefit. The bill also makes the described aliens ineligible for immigration relief in the United States. I cannot imagine why anybody in their right mind would oppose that bill.
▶ 1:39:49I cannot imagine why anyone would think that it was appropriate to allow people who commit fraud to stay in this country. I cannot imagine how this could even be controversial that if you are in this country and you commit fraud that you are not immediately deportable. I also want to note that it is ille it is legal to own guns in the United States of America. It is illegal to commit fraud. That's the difference between the two. I also want to challenge my colleagues on the other side.
▶ 1:40:17If you actually cared about the a industry, if you actually cared about our farmers and ranchers, you would work with us every day to try to lift the incredible regulatory burdens that you have imposed on that industry. Between the Biden administration, the Obama administration, the effort by the Democrats in Congress to absolutely destroy our a industry has been legion.
▶ 1:40:43the effort to impose taxes against our cattle producers, the efforts to force deaf uh destroying our our diesel industry. I mean, every single move that I have seen the Democrats take in the last 25 years has been contrary to the best interests of our farmers and ranchers. And yet they're going to sit here today and lament the fact that we are saying if you come into this country and you commit fraud, we're kicking you out. That is what they're going to focus on is the impact on the a industry.
▶ 1:41:12That is just an effort to completely deflect attention from what we're really trying to do here, which is get rid of fraudsters. What we have seen in Minnesota, what we see in California,
▶ 1:41:23gentleoman yield.
▶ 1:41:24No, I will not.
▶ 1:41:26What we have seen in California, what we see in Minnesota, what we have seen from these various fraud stores, what they have, what they are doing to our country. I was just meeting meeting with an Indian tribe trying to find a way to resolve a longstanding water dispute that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And we have numerous of those situations in this country where we need to resolve longstanding water disputes and reserved water rights. And you know what? We don't have the money.
▶ 1:41:54the country doesn't have the money to resolve those matters and address those needs on those reservations because you have people in Minnesota and California and others who are here who have defrauded our government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.
▶ 1:42:11How could it be anything but common sense to require or to force somebody who commits fraud in our country, steals from our taxpayers, steals from our farmers and ranchers, steals from our farmers and ranchers, steals from our far our a industry, steals from other people? Why in the world would you want to keep them in this country? Why in the world would it not be automatic to deport them and get rid of them? With that, I yield back.
▶ 1:42:37Would the gentleman further yield?
▶ 1:42:39Yes. I I'd like to ask the gentle lady a question. We were both here during the previous administration when we we had 10 million more workers. Uh did we see inflation go down?
▶ 1:42:50No, it went up.
▶ 1:42:52Did we see an availability of farm workers leading to lower cost?
▶ 1:42:55Absolutely not. So is there anything that that has this idea that removal of fraudcommitting individuals in an expedited way somehow would be adverse versus bringing in fraudsters from around the world in an unchecked
▶ 1:43:13Well, I just have one comment. One of the primary areas of fraud in Minnesota relates to the so-called learning centers or daycare centers. Yet 80% of the Somali population in Minnesota is on welfare. Why do they have all of these daycare centers? Why are they not taking care of their own children if they are on welfare? If they are not working, that gives you an idea of the relationship between employment and fraud. They have nothing to do with each
▶ 1:43:42I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:43:43The gentleman yields back. Recognize the gentle lady from Washington.
▶ 1:43:48Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:43:48To strike the last word.
▶ 1:43:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, well, there's a lot here. There is a lot here and I will have an amendment later about the underlying problem with this bill. The gentle lady on the other side is asking, wouldn't you want to do this? Well, yeah, there is something in the constitution called due process. It's in the fifth amendment of the constitution. It applies to everybody, citizens and non-citizens. And this bill doesn't even require conviction.
▶ 1:44:19So, yeah, we're going to talk about all the reasons why the bill doesn't make sense, but the other thing about this is that fraud, so-called fraud, is being used to unleash a federalized military force on the United States of America and its citizens and residents. That's what's happening. And that's what's happening in Minnesota.
▶ 1:44:442,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents in the state of supposedly under this all this fraud and these terrible people that are doing terrible things. Minnesota has one of the smallest populations of undocumented immigrants. By the way, it's only 100,000 people. And most of the people that are in Minnesota are US citizens. 60% born in the United States.
▶ 1:45:13green card holders, people who are here, because the United States of America is supposed to be a nation of immigrants. And what is happening right now in Minnesota is stunning to me. And I wish that Chairman Jordan were here in the room because we have worked very closely on issues of civil liberties, privacy, protections.
▶ 1:45:37And I'll remind you of another amendment of the constitution that applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. And that is the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment says that you can't go battering your way into somebody's house without a warrant from a judge. That is about privacy protections for every single person in the United States of America.
▶ 1:46:06And so I want to play a video right now of what we just saw in Thank you.
▶ 1:46:41Yes, you are. to show us this stupid ass thing. This is what they gave me.
▶ 1:47:07You can end the video and I will tell you that it is horrific. I would encourage everybody to watch the whole thing. What they gave her was a warrant from ICE, which is extremely different. That allows you to pick somebody up on the street in a public place. It does not allow you to bash somebody's door in.
▶ 1:47:37And every single one of you on the other do not be silent on this. We have worked together on privacy issues. We have protected in a bipartisan way sometimes against our own leaderships on those issues. This is the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and the judiciary committee should be looking at this.
▶ 1:48:01Do you want to give absolute impunity to these ICE agents, these border patrol agents to use fraud, to use anything that they say to go after your constituents to bash in the doors of your constituents without a Does anybody on that side want to stand up and defend that?
▶ 1:48:29Does anybody want to stand up and defend going against the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States? Because that is what you saw. You can look at that video. You can look at that paper that was presented to that woman the general lady
▶ 1:48:47and that and that paper was not You have your time. You can claim it now. That
▶ 1:48:52that paper was not a warrant.
▶ 1:48:55The general lady's anyone to back the door has expired
▶ 1:49:00and that is why I hope that this lady will take this anyone else seek recognition serious way I yield back
▶ 1:49:08okay I see no one else seeking recognition do you have an amendment as I understand
▶ 1:49:14oh I'm sorry the gentleman from California is recognized next to strike the last
▶ 1:49:19Mr. Chairman, first I'd remind my colleague that there is a very wellestablished legal process to asssure that our laws are not being abused and that is being uh taken uh uh seriously uh by um by all of the advocacy groups uh for for these uh illegal immigrants. But I want to address a more fundamental question. In an article last July, Axios published an article entitled, "There needs to be blood.
▶ 1:49:50Democrats voters tell them to get shot in Trump resistance push." Well, that blood lust has been turned against ICE officers enforcing the law over the past year. A member of this house even doxed an ICE agent to a violent mob in Carperia, California, who then set upon him with rocks and sent him to the hospital.
▶ 1:50:12Uh, an assassination team of leftists launched a coordinated attack on an ICE facility, wounding an ICE agent and ironically killing an illegal migrant in their custody. Violent attacks on ICE agents have increased more than,300% in the last year. There have been a increase in vehicular assaults against ICE officers.
▶ 1:50:36Doxing of ICE agents for the purpose of harassing them and their families has become a common practice among the left. I've spoken to many of them. They don't want to wear masks. They have to to protect themselves and their families. And now we have the tragic death of Nicole Good, a leftist activist in Minneapolis. Now, the Democrats tell us not to believe our own eyes, but that takes a special kind of gullibility when so many video images exist.
▶ 1:51:02And what they clearly show is an ICE vehicle attempting to leave a near riot condition dominated by an increasingly violent mob. A left-wing activist pulls her car in front of the ICE vehicle, blocking its path. Uniformed ICE agents then issue a lawful order for her to exit her car. Instead of complying with this order, she shifts into reverse, tearing the agent's hand from the door, and then throws it into drive and hits the gas as the car is aimed directly at another officer.
▶ 1:51:32grazing him as he fires into the vehicle. Now, her apologists on the left say she was simply fleeing arrest. She didn't deserve to be shot. But that's not why she was shot. She was shot because an ICE officer had a split second to assess the lethal threat of a 2,000 lb vehicle a few feet away and accelerating toward him.
▶ 1:51:52As we watch these violent attacks on ICE officers and the performance of their duties, we have to ask ourselves what gives people like Nicole Good and the others in these violent mobs the idea that it's perfectly okay to attack ICE officers, obstruct the enforcement of federal laws, and place themselves in danger when they do so. Where did they get these ideas? Perhaps it's exactly the kind of rhetoric we've just heard from our Democratic colleagues. One just called our ICE officers goons.
▶ 1:52:22Another just called them an occupying force. Well, what are we to make of that? An occupying force. Well, it's entirely legitimate to take up arms against an occupying force. But that's exactly the opposite of what ICE actually is. ICE is not an occupying force. Rather, it is faithfully enforcing the laws as Congress has written them. But the Democrats have repeatedly suggested, including in this room today, that they're an occupying force.
▶ 1:52:50In the words of the former Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, how many Democrats in this House have called ICE murderers, Gestapo, Nazi, Stormtroopers? I've lost count. Most people see these statements as ravings of demagogues, and indeed they are. But there's a lunatic fringe in our society that hangs on their every word and acts on those words.
▶ 1:53:13Nicole Good lost her life listening to such dril, taking it seriously, and then acting on it by actively obstructing federal law enforcement by blocking their path, refusing lawful orders, and ultimately accelerating her car toward other officers standing nearby. What her intentions were are is irrelevant. What the officer saw and reacted to is quite clear. So, for the sake of your own supporters, I appeal to my Democratic colleagues to weigh their words more carefully.
▶ 1:53:42Consider [snorts] the impact they're having on a gullible and unstable fringe in their base. And I'll repeat to them what I said the other day. Abraham Lincoln's words to the Democrats of his day. There is no grievance that is a fit object for redress by mob law. I again remind my Democratic colleagues that ICE is faithfully enforcing the laws that this Congress wrote. If um you don't like them, you sit in the very institution with the power to change them.
▶ 1:54:10All you have to do is make your case to the American people that our borders should again be open to millions of migrants and we should change our laws to accommodate this. But in a nation that exists by the rule of law, you cannot ignore those laws or vilify, attack, and even assault the very officials who are enforcing them. It's stunning that members of the House Judiciary Committee need to be reminded of this. I yield
▶ 1:54:34Well said. The gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:54:37I think the gentle lady from North Carolina was next in the queue.
▶ 1:54:40Um, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, I just was reflecting a little bit on the fifth anniversary of January 6th and how history is being rewritten by this administration.
▶ 1:54:53Um, I'm very proud that my senior senator, a Republican, has insisted on having the January 6 plaque um, displayed because even though we may not agree on politics all the time, we certainly agree on the truth. Um, and with that, I yield uh the balance of my time to the gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Scanland.
▶ 1:55:17Thank you. I appreciate that. And I couldn't disagree more with the gentleman from California's characterization of the events that happened in in Minnesota last week, but and continue. Um, but it does point to the fact that uh when we disagree about whether ICE is faithfully uh enforcing or executing the laws of the United States as opposed to executing Americans, um it's all the more important that this committee
▶ 1:55:48engage in oversight and hearings so that we can clarify the facts, particularly when there's been this rush to judgment and everybody's engaging in confirmation bias. So, um I just disagree with so much that that was just said, but again, if we were having a full and fair investigation, then we might be in a very different place.
▶ 1:56:09Look, um the reason I sought to um be recognized when our colleague from Wyoming was speaking was she repeatedly said that why would anyone oppose deportation of people who are committing fraud in the United States? that I I think it's really important that we clarify that no one is opposing deportation of people who commit fraud, assuming they're actually convicted of committing fraud. That's already the law. Nobody's opposing that.
▶ 1:56:39What she critically left out and what many of our colleagues have left out of their characterization here is the word Just because someone accuses you of a crime that is a deportable offense doesn't mean that you committed it.
▶ 1:56:54And in the atmosphere that we're currently in where we're seeing false accusations being made on a daily basis, I think it's even more important that we're standing up for the fifth amendment and for due process to make sure that people are not being railroaded and unjustly accused and deported and imprisoned. And
▶ 1:57:15the gentle lady of of issues. No, I'm going to yield back to um Ms. I'm sorry.
▶ 1:57:21Yes. To uh Miss Jaipole. Um I I yield. Are you can yield to her? She can have the rest of my time and you can
▶ 1:57:30you have to do it as the owner of the time. You have to
▶ 1:57:33Yes, it's [laughter] fine.
▶ 1:57:34Um thank you. I I just wanted to very quickly say because Chairman Jordan is is back in the chair that we have um worked very closely together on privacy issues with FISA. Um we've taken on our own leaderships on both sides. And I would just ask you, Mr.
▶ 1:57:49chairman to look at that video of ICE agents and border patrol battering down the door of a resident in Minneapolis without a warrant because as you well know the Fourth Amendment protects us from search and seizure, illegal search and seizure. And this is an issue I think that we should be able to have the same privacy coalition take on despite what the president is saying about these things.
▶ 1:58:16There are certain places where our values as members of the judiciary committee and you've been very strong on this on privacy have to come first despite whatever rhetoric is going on. And I'll tell you they they can do that in Minnesota. They can do it in Ohio. They can do it in Washington. They can do it in any one of the states. And you might like who they're doing it to today. You may not like who they're doing it to tomorrow. And we have stuck together in making sure that we don't allow it to happen to just some people.
▶ 1:58:45Even in FISA, we've done that. And I think we need to do that in this case. And so I would ask you to work with me to make sure we take on the fourth amendment at this point um in a very serious way given what we just saw. And I yield back to the gentle lady from North Carolina.
▶ 1:59:01I yield back.
▶ 1:59:02Gentle yields back and appreciate the comments from the gentle lady from Washington. And I will take a look at that video. I apologize. I had a 10 meeting I had had to go to the
▶ 1:59:12I just have an inquiry of the chair.
▶ 1:59:13Yep. I this is the second time that Miss Jipal's played a video. She played one last week, I think. I have no idea where these videos come from. I have no idea if they're verified. We have no background on them. And you well, you solicited a response directly from the majority. And again, I it looks like any other episode of Cops. I I I have no idea where this stuff is coming from or what the basis is of it. And I just was run was running if the committee could at least check these out ahead of time.
▶ 1:59:42Fair enough. delete the profanity, too.
▶ 1:59:45Yeah. Well said. Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized and then then we'll go to the gentleman from Missouri.
▶ 1:59:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentle lady from Wyoming.
▶ 1:59:53Yes. Thank you. I I'd like to read the bill itself and it states that uh there's been allegations that you don't even have to have a conviction for these deportation orders. It specifically states that you do. It says right in the bill. I mean, you can read it yourself if anybody's interested in going to the actual language of what we're debating. defrauding the United States government or the unlawful receipt of public benefits.
▶ 2:00:16Any alien who has been convicted of or who admits having committed or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a variety of different types of fraud. That's subsection AJ. And then you look at BG, deportability, uh defrauding the United States government or the unlawful receipt of public benefits.
▶ 2:00:38any alien who has been convicted of or who admits having committed or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of certain uh types of fraud. So I don't understand how in the world you're saying that we don't have to have a conviction or an admission of guilt. I also want to describe just some of the fraud that we're talking
▶ 2:00:58engage in a colloquy or not time belongs to the gentle lady from Wyoming.
▶ 2:01:02Okay. Will you yield and you asked a
▶ 2:01:03No, I have a few other time belongs to
▶ 2:01:06That's right. Time blows, gentlemen.
▶ 2:01:07Um, in May 2025, a Cuban national was sentenced to prison for his role in a scheme to defraud Medicare of more than 3.2 million through a sham durable medical equipment company. In February 2025, federal law enforcement officers arrested five illegal aliens who allegedly used information from skimmed electronic benefit transfer cards to clone counterfeit cards and steal funds that had been dispersed to low-income individuals by the state of California.
▶ 2:01:34In 2019, the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi announced the prosecution of 119 illegal aliens for crimes, including misusing social security numbers of American citizens. In June 2025, an ICE ICE work site enforcement operation in Nebraska uncovered approximately 70 illegal aliens who were using stolen social security numbers and identities to unlawfully obtain wages, health benefits, and employment authorization, which affected more than 100 victims.
▶ 2:02:04Medicare, SNAP, and Social Security. All programs that millions of Americans rely on for assistance are being defrauded, leaving citizens unable to obtain necessary benefits while also contributing to runaway spending. Waste, fraud, and abuse within these programs symbolize nothing more than the blatant theft from the American people. If someone engages in this kind of fraud and they are con convicted or they admit uh they they admit that they committed these acts, they should be defrauded. That's all the bill does.
▶ 2:02:33All of the discussion about ICE is just a red herring and an attempt to deflect attention from what the majority is attempting to do, which is to protect the American citizen. That's who we're trying to protect. With that, I yield back to Mr. Tiffany.
▶ 2:02:48Um, yeah, Mr. Chairman, um, it is about time that this happened. Uh, so as someone who is right adjacent to the Twin Cities, uh, my district is just 15 miles away. Um, I've seen these stories for a long time and um, this has been going on um, for years and I would urge people to check out a blog called Powerline Powerline blog. They have been writing about this for years. This is not something that's new.
▶ 2:03:15And what is new in the last year we had a president who took this seriously who said that this fraud cannot continue and we cannot continue to have these people with long wrap sheets that are just running around the Twin Cities of Minnesota.
▶ 2:03:34And by the way, it matters because just 15 miles away, sometimes they cross the border and we've seen a police officer killed by someone from Minnesota um after a high-speed chase. So, we see these type of things and it spills out around the rest of the country. But this is not new. This has been going on for a long time.
▶ 2:03:58And I would urge all of you that turned your um averted your eyes to what has been going on in Minneapolis and Minnesota generally, I would urge you to go back and look at what has just been a a trail of fraud that has been going on for far longer than just the last year. I yield back.
▶ 2:04:20Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
▶ 2:04:25Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues from Wisconsin and Wyoming for returning to the actual subject matter of this markup. Um, my Democrat colleagues seem to want to focus on vilifying an ICE agent, an ICE agent who was seriously injured just a year ago by an illegal alien driving a vehicle, vilifying that ICE officer who
▶ 2:04:56defended himself by being assaulted by a lethal weapon, a moving vehicle accelerating toward him. But one of my uh colleagues earlier said that that this uh you know this is just uh this this this bill is just uh because of the fraud uh in Minnesota. While the fraud in Minnesota is not unique and it's not a one-time occurrence, it is unique in its size and scope.
▶ 2:05:24What what one prosecutor called industrial level fraud over nine billion dollars. But there are other examples. In May of 2025, a Cuban national was sentenced to prison for his role in defrauding Medicare of more than $3.2 million in a sham durable medical equipment scheme.
▶ 2:05:43Uh in February 2025, federal officers arrested five illegal aliens who were were uh using cloned EBT cards to steal funds that were that had been dispersed to low-income individuals in California. And of course, illegal aliens all the time commit fraud in entering and remaining in this uh country with illegal documents and others. It has become clear that the Biden administration created a system ridden with corruption.
▶ 2:06:12This eroded public trust and hammered American taxpayers and it needs to be fixed. That's why I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this bill. This is common sense legislation that will ensure that illegal aliens who defraud the United States taxpayer of benefits are held accountable through deportation and Blue state mismanagement should not force taxpayers in states like mine to foot the bill.
▶ 2:06:40This abuse must must stop and this legislation is a critical step forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 2:06:46Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from Washington is recognized for I think she has an amendment.
▶ 2:06:51I do. Do I have an amendment at the
▶ 2:06:52Cler report.
▶ 2:06:56Point of order reserved by the gentleman from California.
▶ 2:07:04Amendment and the amendment to the amendment. Without
▶ 2:07:07objection, the amendment will be considered as read. The gentle lady from Washington is recognized to explain the
▶ 2:07:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would simply require a conviction before a green card holder is deported. Once again, my colleagues across the aisle are looking for a new way to connect immigrants and crime. This time, making people deportable and inadmissible for crimes against uh I think this is. Okay. Yeah. Um deportable in admissible uh without a conviction.
▶ 2:07:43This amendment would add due process back in and would require a conviction prior to deportation, which is in line with most other criminal deport deportability grounds currently on the books. It appears that the bill was drafted in response to Republicans obsession with a fraud investigation related in Minnesota. Let's remember that investigation actually started under the Biden administration in 2022. Over 90 people have been charged. At least 59 have been convicted.
▶ 2:08:12And the controversy actually exploded in late December when right-wing YouTuber Nick Shirley posted a video visiting childcare centers in Minnesota harassing workers and claiming he uncovered evidence of fraud. As CBS News analysis found that all of the daycare centers in Mr. Shirley's video had been visited by state regulators within the past 6 months.
▶ 2:08:33The Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families Office of the Inspector General, conducted on-site compliance checks at nine of the 10 childcare sites targeted in the video, and reported that all were operating as expected. The 10th had closed in 2022. The type of conduct that this bill is seeking to penalize is already a crime involving moral turpitude which can re render somebody deportable or inadmissible from the country. In Jordan v.
▶ 2:09:00de George the Supreme Court case decided in 1951 the court held that quote the phrase crime involving moral turpitude has without exception been construed to embrace fraudulent conduct. The opinion stated unequivocally that in every deportation case where fraud has been proved, federal courts have held that the crime and issue involved moral turpitude.
▶ 2:09:22The court even addressed the idea of statutory ambiguity, declaring that Congress sufficiently forewarned respondent that the statutory consequence of twice conspiring to defraud the United States is But for a green card holder to be deported for a crime involving moral turpitude, you do need to be convicted. You do need to have due process and you actually need to be convicted of the crime.
▶ 2:09:48Under [snorts] this bill, it is just very important to recognize that there is no conviction needed. And this has been the playbook of Republicans from the start of this Congress is to take something that there's already consequences that exist. You can already deport people who are convicted for these various things. But then to say we no longer need a conviction. We're just going to deport people, put them into expedited removal without any conviction.
▶ 2:10:18That means without real due process. And I think that is extremely dangerous. It is a way to criminalize immigrants in a much broader way and essentially strip people of the right to due process. And remember that these folks are green card holders.
▶ 2:10:36And uh I think it is absolutely critical that we preserve the ability to ensure that somebody is convicted before they are put into expedited removal and deportation proceedings. Um, a non-citizen uh doesn't need to be convicted of a crime to be found inadmissible under current law. A non-citizen [snorts] must be convicted to be found deportable in most circumstances.
▶ 2:11:04This bill would render a non-citizen deportable without a conviction. They would not even need to be charged for a crime. And so, as a result, a green card holder who has lived in the country for decades could be deported from the country without even being convicted or even charged with a crime. Um and so this I think is a very important requirement that we should have to ensure that there is a conviction before we deport people.
▶ 2:11:30Will the gentle lady
▶ 2:11:31I would
▶ 2:11:32well thank you so much for this clarifying amendment which I think now actually speaks for both sides of the aisle as I understood the comments of the the gentle lady from Wyoming. She was saying she thought that the legislation does require a conviction. So she so she was reading the two different possibilities as being in the conjunctive rather than the disjunctive. And what you're saying is read them in the conjunctive. You need you need to have a conviction.
▶ 2:12:02If there are other things that you want to throw in, fine, but there's got to be at the very least a criminal conviction, which is completely consistent with the standard standards of American law.
▶ 2:12:12That's exactly right. And so I think I hope that we would get full support for this amendment. Uh the gentle yields back. Uh the gentleman uh withdraws his point of order and is recognized. Gentle from California to speak on the amendment.
▶ 2:12:24Thank you. First of all, as I understood, the gentle lady from Wyoming, she said that the bill requires a conviction or an admission of guilt, which is exactly what the bill says. Um it uh contrary to the the Democrats talking points um not every ground of inadmissibility and removability in the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a conviction.
▶ 2:12:51In fact, the the language here is identical to the grounds of inadmissibility for crimes involving moral turpitude and controlled uh substance abuse under the INA. Miss Jaipal's amendment does one thing. This bill says if you admit to fraud, you're deportable. The amendment removes this provision. The amendment says even if the alien admits to the fraud, they can remain here indefinitely.
▶ 2:13:21Now, that's absurd. That the current law is so ambiguous that even conviction is not sufficient for deportation or inadmisibility. I cited a number of cases in my opening uh in one case where an individual who committed an aggravated felony was allowed to stay in this country despite a conviction in a $169,000 food stamp scheme. In another case, New England was placed in removal proceedings in 2005.
▶ 2:13:52He remained there until 2013 when his case finally made its way to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to determine whether his conviction for conspiracy to traffic and identification documents made him removable from the United States. Another fraudster spent two years challenging his removal proceedings even though he had admitted that he'd received up to $3.5 million through food stamp fraud. Well, the gentleman,
▶ 2:14:18these are the people that the Democrats want to protect and to have remain in the United States. These are the people they allowed in by the millions during the four years of the open borders policy of the Biden administration. Will the gentleman yield?
▶ 2:14:34I think that this makes very clear the Democrat's position on this issue and I thank them for clarifying it for the American people and no uh and yet be happy to yield to the gentleman.
▶ 2:14:44Mr. Mr. Clank, I think I think what you're what you're kind of beating around the bushes here is that my friends on the left, they want absolutely no restriction on admission and full restriction on removal. And there's a lot of talk about we must have a conviction before we can even discuss removal. But I would remind the gentlemen, what do sanctuary policies, what do left-leaning policies preclude? They don't charge people. They don't prosecute people. They don't investigate folks.
▶ 2:15:13And so I would just raise just for your consideration and the the consideration of of the committee, uh, if you do not have aggressive law enforcement, if you do not investigate the criminal activity that is so obvious in these immigrant communities, not all, but the obvious criminal wrongdoing, uh, you will never get a conviction. If you never get a conviction, according to the other side, you cannot remove. And to the gentleman's point, millions and millions and millions of folks came into this country over the last four years.
▶ 2:15:40And the amount of crime that has come because of that, it cannot be overstated. And if we are going to be required to investigate, prosecute, and convict every illegal immigrant, we will be here for centuries. For centuries. And that's the game that they're trying to play here. And I respect the uh the gentleman's summation of it.
▶ 2:15:57I appreciate that. In reclaiming my time, I point out that we have a colleague from Minnesota uh who said yesterday that we should not be investigating any of these crimes uh in in Minnesota. That seems to be the position of the radical left of the Democratic party, which seems to be taking over that party every day. But to the gentleman's point, I would say that this bill is actually very very restrictive.
▶ 2:16:23It simply says uh there will be deportability or an inadmissibility if an individual is convicted or at least admits to that crime. That's all the bill does. And what this amendment does is say no, it doesn't matter if if if if they confess to the crime, we're still not going to remove them until years and years of court proceedings. If those court proceedings take place in in these sanctuary jurisdictions where the gentleman is spot on in his concerns, I yield back.
▶ 2:16:50Gentleman yields back. the
▶ 2:16:55the ranking member seeks is recognized for five minutes
▶ 2:16:57and thank you Mr. Chairman move to strict the last word.
▶ 2:17:01First of all um what um the the prior speaker and others are attributing to the Democrats actually was the proposal of the Republican congressman who introduced this originally uh Mr. Jordan's colleague from Ohio Mr. Taylor and he was the one who introduced legislation saying any alien who has been convicted of um a crime shall be uh deported.
▶ 2:17:31So there's nothing there's nothing remotely uh radical about that proposition. uh what is a dilution of the constitutional standard is rather adding in this language about admitting to actions that could constitute an offense. Right?
▶ 2:17:51I mean take go to the uh the ICE agent in Minnesota who presumably must admit to the fact that he shot uh Miss Good three times in in the head. Well, that could be murder. Would we just declare him guilty of murder without actually having a trial and looking at all potential defenses, without looking at what the burden of proof uh actually requires to be shown there?
▶ 2:18:17So, um, it strikes me that they're trying to, uh, sneak into this language something which is really at odds with the way we have traditionally done this, which is by requiring uh, an an actual conviction. And that is not some kind of radical democrat plan. Uh, that has been the standard juristprudence within this field.
▶ 2:18:44And I believe that that was the way that uh Mr. Taylor uh originally introduces legislation and it's only in the ANS that the new language has been introduced. And I'm happy to yield to the gentle lady from Washington.
▶ 2:18:58I thank the ranking member. That's exactly the point I was going to raise. I'm looking at the original text of the bill introduced by by Mr. Taylor in March of 2025. And in that, the original author, a Republican, not a radical left-wing Democrat, whatever you want to call us, not any one of us, but he, your Republican colleague, introduced the exact language that my amendment would take us back to.
▶ 2:19:24So, please be careful when you accuse us of of being radical because actually there are a lot of Republicans across this country who share the view that you should have a conviction before you're deported. And I think that this um you know that the idea I just remind you again just like the issue I raised about the Fourth Amendment battering down the door. You might like who it's being done to today.
▶ 2:19:48wait until it's done to some green card holder in your district and you have to explain to your constituents why you are consistently voting to take away a conviction. So, um I I would just say that I would look at the original bill. All my amendment does is return it to that standard. Uh and I yield back to the ranking member.
▶ 2:20:10Well, thank you very much to the the gentle lady. And in fact, uh, Congressman Taylor's original language in HR1 1958 closely tracks, um, the distinction that is operated within this field of law, which is when it deals with inadmissibility, there is that disjunctive operation.
▶ 2:20:32Uh, so any alien who's been convicted of, who admits having committed or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of an offense, etc. But that's in the first part relating to inadmissibility. Then you get to deportability and that's where uh the gentleman says any alien who's been convicted of an offense that involves defrauding the government or the unlawful receipt of a federal public benefit uh and so on.
▶ 2:20:59So like that is that's a common sense uh interpretation that is protective of a basic due process concept here. Um, and I, you know, I I don't I think it's kind of beneath the debate to try to attribute this to radical ideological polar divisions when it's the Republican congressman who actually introduced the legislation, who built the precise principle of
▶ 2:21:29the gentle lady's amendment into the legislation. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:21:34Gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Washington. All those in favor say I.
▶ 2:21:42Those opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. At the vote is not agreed to. Roll call being requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 2:21:50Mr. Jordan,
▶ 2:21:51Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa,
▶ 2:21:55Mr. Biggs,
▶ 2:21:57Mr. Mcccleintoch,
▶ 2:21:58Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany,
▶ 2:22:01Mr. Tiffany votes no. Mr. Massie,
▶ 2:22:03Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Mr. decline. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie, Miss Hegman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr.
▶ 2:22:32Not, Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander, Mr. Mr. Her votes no. Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gil Mr. Gil votes no. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Raskin.
▶ 2:22:48Mr. Raskin votes.
▶ 2:22:50Mr. Raskin votes yes. Mr. Nadler.
▶ 2:22:53Mr. Nler votes yes. Miss Lofrren. Missrren votes yes. Mr. Cohen.
▶ 2:22:58Mr. Cohen votes yes. Mr. Johnson
▶ 2:23:01Mr. Johnson votes yes. Mr. Swallow. Mr. Lou. Miss Gyipol.
▶ 2:23:08Miss Jipal votes yes. Mr. Korea
▶ 2:23:11Mr. Korea votes yes. Miss Scandan.
▶ 2:23:14Miss Scanland votes yes. Mr. Negus. Miss Mcbath. Miss Ross.
▶ 2:23:21Miss Ross votes yes. Miss Balant. Miss Balent votes yes. Mr. Garcia. Miss Camlager Dove.
▶ 2:23:29Miss Camager Dove votes yes. Mr. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett,
▶ 2:23:39Miss Haggman, you are not recorded. Miss Hegman votes no. Mr. Klein votes no.
▶ 2:23:47Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. G Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:24:16Chairman, there are 11 eyes and 14
▶ 2:24:19Uh, the amendment is not agreed to. Question occurs on the bill.
▶ 2:24:26Amendment nature of a substitute. Actually, let me get to
▶ 2:24:34question on the adoption of the amendment nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed,
▶ 2:24:43And pin. The chairs. The eyes have it. The amendment. The nature of a substitute is uh adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no.
▶ 2:24:54The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favor. Roll call being requested. The clerk will call the role on bill.
▶ 2:24:59Mr. Jordan.
▶ 2:25:00Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie.
▶ 2:25:13Mr. Massie votes I. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie, Miss Hagman, Miss Hagamman votes I. Miss Mr. Hunt, Mr. Mr. Fry.
▶ 2:25:38Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman
▶ 2:25:40Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Knot.
▶ 2:25:43Mr. Knott votes I. Mr. Harris.
▶ 2:25:45Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander.
▶ 2:25:48Mr. Her votes I. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Raskin.
▶ 2:25:57Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler.
▶ 2:26:01Mr. Nadler votes no. Missrren votes no. Mr. Cohen.
▶ 2:26:06Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallow. Mr. Lou. Miss Dipol.
▶ 2:26:20Mr. Dipal votes no. Mr. Ka.
▶ 2:26:23Mr. Ka votes no. Miss Scandan. Mr. Nagus. Miss McBath.
▶ 2:26:32Miss Ross.
▶ 2:26:34Miss Ross votes no. Miss Balant. Miss Balot votes no. Mr. Garcia, Miss Camlagger Dove. Miss Cam Logger Dove,
▶ 2:26:49Miss Camager Dove votes no. Mr. Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett,
▶ 2:26:57Mr. Isa, you're not recorded. Mr. Isa votes yes.
▶ 2:27:01Mr. Gail votes yes. Mr. Moore votes yes. Miss Gan, you are not recorded.
▶ 2:27:12Miss Gallen votes no.
▶ 2:27:26Clerk report.
▶ 2:27:28Mr. Chairman, there are 15 eyes and 11
▶ 2:27:30The eyes have it. The bill is order to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. The nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical changes in uh technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 6978, the preserving integrity and immigration benefits act for purposes of markup and move the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the
▶ 2:27:59Objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Mcccleintoch, for an opening statement.
▶ 2:28:07Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In recent weeks, our nation's watched in horror as several high-profile fraud scandals have come to light. Billions of dollars uh directed to helping those in need and funding hard funded by hardworking American taxpayers have instead been stolen by illicit fraudsters. In some cases, these schemes have involved foreign nationals or even communities with a large number of naturalized citizens.
▶ 2:28:34This has understandably raised questions about whether the same kinds of fraudulent criminal activity being perpetrated against our nation's generous welfare system are also being perpetrated against our nation's immigration benefit system.
▶ 2:28:47Indeed, in response to the massive amounts of fraudulent activity, the Trump administration has taken immediate action, pausing the adjudication of all pending immigration benefits for foreign nationals who hail from countries the administration has identified as being at a higher risk of likelihood that their nationals would pose a national security or public safety risk to the United States.
▶ 2:29:10Among the reasons a country might be identified as high- risk are woeful inadequacies in screening, vetting, and the provision of information, such as criminal records that are widely unreliable and inaccessible, and widespread corruption combined with poor recordkeeping resulting in any non-citizen being able to obtain uh any civil document from that country, particularly if that person's willing to pay a fee or engage an individual who specializes in assisting such fraud.
▶ 2:29:39What they're already uncovering is shocking. In September, the Trump administration surged resources to review immigration applications in Minneapolis. This investigation uncovered evidence of fraud, non-compliance, or public safety or national security concerns in 44% of the cases interviewed.
▶ 2:29:58The cases included marriage fraud and forged In addition to pausing the adjudication of pending immigration benefits requests, the Trump administration has ordered a re-review of all benefits issued from such high-risisk countries since Joe Biden's Democrats opened our borders on January 20th of 2021. Such a requirement essential to restoring the public's trust in our immigration system.
▶ 2:30:23This review will ensure a wide range of immigration benefits from employment authorization documents to asylum applications and various visa petitions or even naturalization applications were not fraudulently obtained in the applicable standards were appropriately applied during adjudication. Mr. Finstead's legislation, the Preserving Integrity and Immigration Benefits Act, is simple and will codify this review process.
▶ 2:30:49Further, HR6978 will ensure that both Congress and the public will be informed about what the administration uncovers. I can't possibly imagine why anyone would oppose this legislation. Uh, and again, I'm afraid we're about to find out. With that, I yield back.
▶ 2:31:06Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 2:31:07We're opening statements, but I I'll get to you first. Uh, first u
▶ 2:31:11Thank you.
▶ 2:31:12when we get to U member five minutes. Um, the chair now recognizes the ranking member for an opening statement.
▶ 2:31:17Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Um, on my way here this morning, I got a a call from a constituent who uh was supposed to have her long awaited citizenship interview and she showed up at it and the officer told her it had been descheduled with no explanation of why it had been descheduled. That descheduling process has been the basis actually for then uh later attacking people's presence in the country.
▶ 2:31:48um as uh they're no longer on the schedule that they thought they were on. Well, this bill tells us just how much some people hate immigration in all of its forms, including legal immigration. I thought that was something that we could agree on. You know, it's always been my position we should make it much harder for people to get into America illegally and much easier to get into America legally.
▶ 2:32:15Um, but this is an attack uh on immigration in all of its guises, including legal immigration. The bill purports to authorize a review of all immigration benefits, rights, and privileges approved during the last 5 years for individuals from countries that President Trump has unilaterally decided to place on his latest discriminatory travel ban policy, which includes the case of every green card holder who was issued a green card and every
▶ 2:32:45person who was actually granted citizenship. So the creates administratively, legislatively and then administratively a second class of US citizenship who of US citizens whose citizenship is called into question for completely political and ideological reasons. So you want to know why we oppose it?
▶ 2:33:10We oppose it because under the equal protection clause and the due process clause, we don't round up certain citizens considered second class and then subject them to administrative scrutiny that others don't have to go through. In fact, a lot of our constitution is organized around the principle of settled expectations, which this legislation is designed to disrupt and to combat.
▶ 2:33:40Think about the bill of attainer clause um which says that Congress can't just designate certain persons somehow uh as outside of the law. Think about the exposto clause which is we don't go back and turn something into a crime after it's already happened. Think of the um uh think of the the rule of naturalization itself.
▶ 2:34:07Congress has the power under article 1 section 8 clause 4 to establish a uniform rule of naturalization not one that is turned on and turned off according to the politically correct nature of the group that ended up getting citizenship or ended up getting a green card.
▶ 2:34:26And yet the whole purpose here is to designate uh an inferior group of people separate and unequal whose immigration benefits are actually not their immigration benefits necessarily whose citizenship is not their citizenship necessarily but must be subject to constant administrative probing and second-guessing. So we are going to oppose this Mr. Chairman and I'm happy to yield back to you.
▶ 2:34:53Gentleman yields back. Gentleman yields back. The uh gentleman from Tennessee is
▶ 2:34:58We need to get on the ANS.
▶ 2:34:58Oh, that's right. We got to do the ANS. Uh the gentleman from California is recognized. All of Let me back up. Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognize the gentleman from California to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 2:35:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 2:35:13Work report.
▶ 2:35:14Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 2:35:16Without objection, the amendment nature substitute be considered as read shall be considered base tax for purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to explain the amendment. Well, hold your breath. This amendment strikes a period and does not change the substance of the underlying bill. I yield back.
▶ 2:35:31Okay. The gentleman yields back now. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
▶ 2:35:34Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would the gentleman from California please yield?
▶ 2:35:39Can you I believe the gentleman holds the time.
▶ 2:35:42Yield. Are you going to ask him for a
▶ 2:35:44I want to ask you a question. Yield for a question.
▶ 2:35:46Yeah. Who are the countries that would be included here? Which are the countries? Well, I don't have the list right in front of me, but as I said, the criteria are very clear. Th those that uh uh have been uh wolffully inadequate in uh vetting uh the backgrounds of the individuals or that are substant are are uh okay, here we go. Uh Angola, Afghanistan, Antigua, Barbados, uh Benin, Bkina, Faso, Burma, Burundi, I could go on.
▶ 2:36:15There are uh uh but but there are 36 but but but again these these are the countries that the administration has determined have not provided information necessary for uh uh vetting the people that have come from those countries. We have no background information on them.
▶ 2:36:33As as a witness before the immigration uh subcommittee told us, they're being vetted against a blank sheet of paper or worse than that, fraudulent information that they can easily obtain in these countries because of the corrupt nature of the government.
▶ 2:36:46Let me ask you this. I don't know much about these countries in Africa, but their immigration and what's going on with all that. But Afghanistan is a place where most of the immigrants were people who helped us, worked at the embassy, worked as as translators, and took a a major effort to get them in this country, but they helped us. They were our friends, and they're subject to serious reprisals for having done that. They've been let in. And I understand they were totally vetted, and the only Afghanistan, I thought they weren't on this list, but they are.
▶ 2:37:12The president said they could put him on a list of some sort because one guy from Afghanistan came and shot the the poor National Guards person and killed her and wounded the other person. That shouldn't punish everybody from
▶ 2:37:24By by the way, I agree with you and I think the administration would agree with you and and you're quite right that many of the uh people brought over from Afghanistan we did have records on because of their uh uh interactions with our forces. Unfortunately, this administration also allow the the Biden administration also allowed in many many that were completely unvetted and and and that's the fundamental problem.
▶ 2:37:51We're simply going back and reviewing these as carefully as possible of that's what the administration is doing by executive order. This simply codifies the the process. Would you be amanable to amending Afghanistan out because of the circumstances of they're helping us so many of them?
▶ 2:38:10Uh no, I would not. And the reason is first it's not my bill. And secondly, uh I I I support including Afghanistan in this list for the precise reasons that I just outlined. Uh there were many admitted from Afghanistan for which there was no vetting. uh and uh we have to go back and closely examine the backgrounds of those who were allowed into this country.
▶ 2:38:37Gentlemen, yield.
▶ 2:38:37Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 2:38:38With the gentleman yield,
▶ 2:38:39Miss Lofrren was first. Mr. Raskin,
▶ 2:38:40I I'll just say I mean I'm thinking about the Iranianameans of Northern California who are a group of patriots who are uh helping us uh fight the oppression within Iran. And you know, I have met so many wonderful people who have married people born in Iran, but they lived in France. I mean, you you're allocated based on your country of birth, not where you've lived.
▶ 2:39:08And this would direct uh a a revision of the spouses of Americans um who married somebody from Iran, who came over from France. And I think it's unwarranted.
▶ 2:39:22Um, you know, this is a group of people that I'm I'm so respectful of and their advocacy for freedom uh and nonseular democratic society in Iran and to target them I think is not something I want to do and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
▶ 2:39:40Thank you. Before I yield to Mr. Rascin, you know, I think this would include our colleague Miss Representative Omar and there's no reason to go back and look at her and deport her and this this administration could do it. They are so vindictive. What they've done with the Fed chairman to investigate him for something is crazy. This is the weaponization of the entire government against folks, you know, and he says he likes the Danes enough to where you can do it the easy way or the hard way. Mr.
▶ 2:40:07Yeah. Um, thank you, Mr. Cohen. I wanted to echo um, Miss Lafrren's point that there are lots of communities, including uh, Iranian-Americans who are just being vilified and targeted for no reason. here. Uh the gentleman says that this is because there were people who were not vetted. Well then focus on the people who have not been vetted from all over the world.
▶ 2:40:28If they if they actually suspended the vetting process and didn't follow the law, I wouldn't want those people getting in from anywhere from any country in the world. Uh that's what we should be focused on. We shouldn't be designating people uh simply by virtue of national origin. I yield back and thank you for yielding.
▶ 2:40:48Mr. Sure. M m chairman
▶ 2:40:50gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 2:40:52I have a UC request.
▶ 2:40:53Gentleman can state his request.
▶ 2:40:54Yes. Uh I'd like to submit for the record this article. Afghan visa fraud cases service in Pakistan and US.
▶ 2:41:01Without objection be entering the
▶ 2:41:05Gentle from Washington is recognized.
▶ 2:41:07Thank you Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word.
▶ 2:41:09Gentle is [clears throat]
▶ 2:41:11Mr. Chairman. Um I want to echo some of the points that my colleagues have made. At first glance, this bill seems to require US USCIS to conduct a review of all approved immigration benefit requests for individuals from countries that are covered by any uh travel ban that that Donald Trump puts in place to ensure that these cases were properly adjudicated. But I just think we should be honest about what the bill actually does.
▶ 2:41:40It singles out lawful immigrants from countries that have been targeted by this random discriminatory travel ban and it places their legal status back under suspicion. These are individuals who did everything right. We talk in this committee all the time about people following the law. These are the people who applied for lawful immigration status. They submitted extensive documentation.
▶ 2:42:08They passed background checks, security screenings, interviews. They waited for many, many years for a decision. And now after USCIS has appro has reviewed their cases and approved them, this bill tells them that that approval is still not enough. It is an attack on our legal immigration system.
▶ 2:42:32And we know that because Donald Trump and the administration is currently doing exactly what this bill purports to do under the guise of quote national security and quote revetting. This administration has paused all immigration benefit requests for hundreds of thousands of people. And it's reviewing the approved cases of hundreds of thousands of others simply based on their country of origin. That includes people who were already approved for citizenship.
▶ 2:43:01And I am notifications of people around the country who went through what Mr. Raskin's constituent went through where they have gone through an extensive process, been approved for citizenship, get to their citizenship ceremony, and are pulled out of the line. And I think I've spoken about this before. I I believe I'm uh one of two naturalized citizens on this committee.
▶ 2:43:30I believe Mr. Garcia is as well. Um it is it took me 17 years to get my citizenship. I went through a lot and I'm you know I can advocate for myself as you all will attest. Um, and yet it was still extremely difficult and there was a lot of processing. And I still remember that day when I got there to take my oath of citizenship.
▶ 2:43:53And you know, it it was such an incredible honor, privilege, opportunity to be admitted after 17 years to be a United States citizen and to take that oath and to know I had gone through tests that most Americans would fail. If if you gave that naturalization test to the majority of Americans, they would not pass it. I promise you that. Um, but we studied, right?
▶ 2:44:16I studied those questions really hard because I really wanted to pass and I wanted to be somebody who was worthy of the citizenship being conferred on me. And by the way, when you take that oath, there are very few countries in the world where you can have dual citizenship. There are some, but for most of us, certainly from India is not one of those countries. And so, you have to renounce all allegiance to any other country when you take the oath. And um we do that.
▶ 2:44:43We do that willingly because we know that when we come to the United States of America, it is an honor. It is a privilege. It is a process. And now to be at the end of the finish line in that process to literally have the relief of knowing that you can never be torn from the country that you've built your life in or that you've raised your kids in or that you've conducted your employment in.
▶ 2:45:09um to have a secondass set of citizens is such an insult and I actually think it's going to backfire on us because you will have a whole bunch of people starting to question why would I renounce my citizenship to any other my allegiance to any other country. Um who does who do if somebody can come in and just say all of a sudden and by the way the Trump administration is doing this as well.
▶ 2:45:34They are actively asking for a certain number of citizenship applications to be revoked every month. There's like a target that they've given to USCIS folks to go back and look at US um and who have been naturalized and go back through their applications. And I think that is just so dangerous for all of us.
▶ 2:46:00And I think it's also this bill is a huge waste of agency time and resources. I had a lot of other things to say, but I see that my time has expired. It's a very emotional moment for many of us who are US citizens who have been naturalized, who have lived in this country for a long time to see the distinctions that are being made between those of us who are naturalized and have been so incredibly patriotic, whether you like our opinions or not.
▶ 2:46:28um and a part of this country to see the the ways in which uh you know certain elements [clears throat] of the don't seem to apply certain aspects of our citizenship that we are so proud of don't seem to apply. So I would just ask that we uh recognize what this bill is doing and uh oppose it. I yield back.
▶ 2:46:53Gentle yields back. Gentle lady speaks and the building rumbles.
▶ 2:46:58Uh, Mr. Raskin, seek recognition or
▶ 2:47:01I I seek recognition and I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 2:47:06Clerk will report reserved by the gentleman from
▶ 2:47:20Amendment to the amendment in the
▶ 2:47:22Objection the be considered as read. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to explain the amendment. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I've got a very compelling and very gerine amendment. Um, it's it's one sentence.
▶ 2:47:35It says, "This section shall not take effect until the date on which Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christine Gnome testifies before the committee on the judiciary of the US House of Um, we know it is germaine because the bill itself has a provision saying that the director of USCIS, USCIS must provide an in-person briefing to the judiciary committee of the House and of the Senate.
▶ 2:48:04And so this uh could not be more closely paired with that. Um, if the USCIS uh director's got to come in to testify, also uh his boss should have to come in and testify as well, Secretary Gnome. And we need this to happen, Mr. Chairman. I don't need to um detain people for that long to prove uh that Secretary Gnome has shown complete disregard for congressional oversight over the last year.
▶ 2:48:33She has yet to come before this committee. She left a homeland uh oversight house hearing after two hours because she claimed she needed to go to a FEMA review council meeting which had been cancelled and still hasn't been rescheduled. Um the responsiveness of uh DHS to our oversight requests has been abysmal.
▶ 2:48:58When we do get responses, which is rare, they are full of um uh lies and halftruths. One just one example I've sent her multiple letters with ranking member Gyipal inquiring about the number of US citizens that ISIS detained across the country and I got interested in this because one of my constituents was detained for five days by ICE.
▶ 2:49:26We didn't get a release until Christmas day. A US citizen was That's what woke me up to this issue. It turned out Miss Gyipol has been on this for a while. So, we wrote a letter inquiring how many US citizens are being detained by ICE.
▶ 2:49:47There's a now rogue police agency which is going after US citizens as well as legal residents and undocumented people. Well, uh, we get an answer which says simply we do not detain US citizens, which we know is false. I can tell you from my own district that's false. I have constituents who are US citizens who've been held by ICE.
▶ 2:50:17Um, we need Secretary Gnome to come in to testify before the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. She needs to be held Remember, Article One branch, Congress, we are the lawmaking branch of government. We've got the power over naturalization and immigration. That's us. The role of the president is simply to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
▶ 2:50:47They execute the laws which we pass. The oversight function is integral to our ability to pass the laws that the American people need and then to continually review and update those laws to make sure that we are paying proper attention to changes and it should be noted, uh, my staff gave me an article, uh, demonstrating that Secretary Gnome's disdain
▶ 2:51:17for congressional oversight is not limited to our side of the aisle alone. There's an article in notice, which said that Republican staff and members are complaining that to get Secretary Nmer or staff on the phone is impossible. The article noted that GOP lawmakers are frustrated with Gnome's consistent lack of communication and new rules that are delaying critical FEMA funds.
▶ 2:51:43One Republican member uh who went on record but wished to remain anonymous stated, "You would think a former member of Congress would have more effing respect for the institution she used to serve in." So, I hope this is something we can do on a bipartisan basis today. There are a number of things I'm hoping we can do on a bipartisan basis. We need the Secretary of Homeland Security to come in and testify.
▶ 2:52:08This is perfectly relevant and germanine because we're asking the USCIS director to come in testify and I uh tender it to your judgment, Mr. Chairman. I hope you can support me on that. Thank you.
▶ 2:52:20Gentleman yields back. U just for the committee, we are working to get Miss uh Secretary Gnome in front of the committee. Uh I think I announced we announced last hearing that we have the attorney general coming on February 11th and we are working to get Secretary Nel in front of the committee as as as soon as possible as well. So we will we will work on that. Um the gentleman withdraws his point of order against the amendment. The question uh uh the question occurs on the someone want to speak on the amendment. Gentle lady from Vermont is recognized.
▶ 2:52:48Move to strike the last word.
▶ 2:52:49J is recognized. I just want to uh lend my voice to the concerns that the ranking member has. Why is it that ICE is detaining Americans? And we have um a number of articles that I introduced into the record um last week about this We have journalists who have documented over 170 Americans who have been detained by ICE.
▶ 2:53:19And yet we continually gaslit by this administration, lied to by Secretary Gnome saying to us point blank that Americans have not been detained when we know that is patently false because we have the records, we have the receipts, we have the names. And I want to remind everybody that immigration and customs enforcement is about immigration.
▶ 2:53:48They should patently not be arresting and detaining Americans. Full stop. And Americans across this country are waking up to the fact that more and more we see rogue movements from ICE agents.
▶ 2:54:11I am thinking of um a a very disturbing incident that happened in the Minneapolis area in the last 48 hours where a 17-year-old American citizen was snatched up while he was at a Target working at a Target. 17-year-old American citizen hauled off. He's he's crying.
▶ 2:54:40He's saying to the officers, "I'm an American citizen. [clears throat] I can prove it." They haul him off. And then perhaps at some point they realize that they've made a mistake. They literally dump him on the ground, not where he was working, but down the road in front of a Walmart. And you can all look at this.
▶ 2:55:09It's all over the And they literally slam him to the ground in front of a Walmart, not even where he was taken up and they drive away. A 17-year-old American citizen. And I was just talking to my colleague, Miss Ross. She said they had a similar incident in her home county.
▶ 2:55:35ICE is arresting and detaining Americans and our government is lying about it and we have the responsibility as members of this committee to demand answers from our government. It is our right and our duty to stand up for our constituents.
▶ 2:55:57And it is deeply disturbing to me that we have Now, incidents of Americans doors being ramroded without any warrant. This should terrify all of us. This is chilling. I don't care where you are on the political spectrum.
▶ 2:56:22And in fact, Americans, as I said, are waking up because in that yuggov poll that I just talked about in terms of how people are feeling about ICE, 14% of Republicans said that they thought that Agent Roths should be arrested.
▶ 2:56:4014% of Republicans, people are waking up to the fact that this ICE I don't even know what to call him at this point.
▶ 2:56:54Well, would the gentle lady yield?
▶ 2:56:56I will yield.
▶ 2:56:57You know, somebody else who would be very upset about this situation is Thomas Jefferson. If you read the Declaration of Independence, a lot of the specific items in his bill of wrongs against King George, right, sound like they could have been written about this administration and ICE, right? So the king has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people.
▶ 2:57:21He's kept amongst us in times of peace standing armies without the consent of our legislators, quartered large bodies of armed troops amongst us. He's obstructed the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither. Um and so on. I mean, this is extraordinary what's taking place with a rogue agency attacking the rights of US citizens.
▶ 2:57:49That's right. And I would say again, we need answers and this committee, regardless of party, should be demanding answers from our government as to why ICE is detaining Americans. I yield
▶ 2:58:01Gentle yields back. The the gentleman from uh Georgia's recognized. It's an unfortunate truth that one of the reasons or a big reason for uh Americans being accosted, stopped and jailed uh by ICE is the fact that uh they are uh generally dark-kinned people or people of color.
▶ 2:58:26Uh, and this legislation, by the way, sets up or continues what the Supreme Court has put into place, a secondass citizenship tier, a cast system where people who are not from uh European uh are not affected by this act, but people from non-European nations are affected by this uh legislation.
▶ 2:58:56People who are Caucasian are not affected. Caucasian immigrants are not affected by this legislation, but non Caucasian uh immigrants are.
▶ 2:59:11It's a it's a secondass system that's being set up, but the Supreme Court has given license to it uh in its decision which allows for ICE to stop Hispanic looking people and other people who uh uh look like immigrants. You can stop them uh just because of how you think they look.
▶ 2:59:36And uh it's called a Kavanaaugh stop uh because Brett Kavanaaugh, Justice Brett Kavanaaugh read wrote the decision. So we have people uh across the nation being stopped uh in accordance with Kavanaaugh stops and it's all legal.
▶ 2:59:56And so you've you've got looking Americans who are subject to having no Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. And you have uh uh Caucasian uh citizens not uh affected by that [clears throat] uh adverse ruling. And so we're setting up a secondass system here in this country. Oh yeah, this second class system has always been there.
▶ 3:00:26It's just being reinforced uh with the advent of the Trump administration and people like uh Steven Miller and uh Steve Bannon calling the shots and uh Elon Musk. Also, let's not forget about uh the Hy Hitler saluting uh uh Doge uh guy who cut uh jobs mostly affecting uh black women in this country or disproportionately impacting black women in this country.
▶ 3:00:55But this is a racial bill that I oppose. I I support the amendment uh ironically. Um, and with that, I I'll yield back.
▶ 3:01:09Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from Wyoming is recognized.
▶ 3:01:11I just want to describe some of the people uh that they're referring to as being so-called targeted by ICE. During Operation Metro Surge in Min Minnesota, ICE has arrested more than 400 illegal aliens, including pedophiles, rapists, and violent thugs. These vicious criminal illegal aliens were allowed to roam Minnesota streets thanks to its sanctuary policies.
▶ 3:01:35Here, a 47year-old criminal illegal alien from Burma who has been convicted of thirdderee criminal sexual conduct using force or co coercion has had a final order of removal since February 27th, 2014. A 59year-old criminal illegal alien from Laos who was convicted of two counts of rape in Ohio. He was sentenced to seven years in prison. He has had a final order of removal since December 17th, 2009.
▶ 3:02:03A 52-year-old criminal illegal alien from Laos who has been convicted of fourthderee criminal sexual conduct using force or co coercion. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and he has had a final order of removal since March 2004. What I refer to when I say a final order of removal, it means all of them have already had the due process that they're entitled to to be removed from our country. These are all illegal aliens who were in Minnesota committing these crimes.
▶ 3:02:31I'm shocked that the my colleagues on the other side don't care about that. A 43-year-old criminal illegal alien from Somalia convicted of robbery, a final order of removal since May 17th, 2011. A 42-year-old criminal illegal alien from Laos who was convicted of firstdegree criminal sexual conduct with a child under 13 years old. He has had a final order of removal since October 31st, 2006.
▶ 3:02:59Again, all of these folks have had all of the due process that they are entitled to to be moved out of our country. a 50-year-old criminal illegal alien from Laos who is convicted of firstdegree great bodily harm and sentenced to 14 years and seven months thirdderee sexual conduct uh sexual intercourse with a child and sentenced to 210 days in California. What does that say for California?
▶ 3:03:26Uh and has had a final order of removal since October 31, 2000. 49-year-old criminal alien from Mexico who has been arrested for soliciting children through electronic communication to engage in sexual conduct and convicted of hiring or agreeing to hire a child under 16 for prostitution.
▶ 3:03:46Um, a 63-year-old criminal illegal alien from Laos who was convicted of thirdderee criminal sexual conduct and seconddegree assault with a dangerous weapon has had a final order of removal since May 23rd, 2001.
▶ 3:04:00a 26-year-old criminal illegal alien from Ecuador who was convicted of robbery in Ohio, driving while intoxicated, assaulting a police officer, obstructing the legal process, and disarming a police officer, a 51-year-old criminal alien from Mexico who was convicted of thirdderee assault with intent to cause physical injury. Um, he has had a final order of removal since February 3rd, 2010. These are not people that I want to defend.
▶ 3:04:30These are people that we need to have out of our country. They do not belong. They do not belong here and it is necessary for them to be removed. These are just some of the folks that have been arrested in this operation in Minnesota because the Democrats, the governor, and the mayor of Minneapolis have refused to protect the citizens of Minnesota against these kinds of people. These truly are the worst of the worst of the worst of the worst.
▶ 3:04:59And if the leadership in Minnesota and these other sanctuary states actually cooperated with the Trump administration, you would not see the kinds of activities that they have been having to undertake in order to protect the citizens of the United States of America. I again cannot believe that we are debating uh whether these people should be removed from our country. This is not a race issue. It is not a racial issue. I don't care what color you are.
▶ 3:05:26If you are committing rape on a child, you should be removed. Whether you are from Norway or Germany or Mexico or Honduras, it doesn't matter to me what you look like. What matters to me is your conduct. And if you are going to engage in illegal conduct in the United States of America as an illegal alien, we are going to find you. This administration is going to find you. And we are going to remove you.
▶ 3:05:50We are no longer going to allow our citizens to be placed at risk because there are communities like you see in Minnesota and Colorado and other sanctuary states that allow this kind of mayhem to to happen. With that, I yield
▶ 3:06:04Gently yields back. The chair now recognizes uh
▶ 3:06:13I think uh has the gentle lady spoken on this one or
▶ 3:06:16then you're a recognized. I know I've spoken on a number of these, but I have not spoken on this one yet. Um, so I uh rise in support of the ranking members amendment to have uh Christine Gnome um here before us. And it seems pretty simple to me. I have a lot of questions I'd like to ask her. Um by the way, Christine Gnome said something the other day that I agree with. Uh she was on
▶ 3:06:42Oh, yeah.
▶ 3:06:42And she said, "We can't trust our government anymore." And the CNN interviewer, Dana Bash, said to her, "You are the government." And Christine Gnome said, "Yes, that's what I'm saying." On this particular point,
▶ 3:07:00I agree with her because they are telling lies to us every single day. And we can't trust the government when it's represented by people like Christy Gnome. So, we should have her come. She hasn't responded to any of the letters that we've sent. That's not a surprise. But I think it is important that she come and testify before us. I also wanted to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article that literally just came out in the New York Times.
▶ 3:07:30It's called Three Prosecutors Quit after push to investigate ICE shooting victim's widow
▶ 3:07:35without objection.
▶ 3:07:37And I'm going to read from this um article because I think this is very important. Remember the leading federal prosecutor on the fraud case in Minnesota was appointed by Donald Trump. Um he is a career prosecutor. Um and he was appointed acting US attorney by Trump in May of 2024. this he has now resigned.
▶ 3:08:05Three Minnesota federal I'm reading from the article. Three Minnesota federal prosecutors resigned over [snorts] the Justice Department's push to investigate the widow of a woman killed by an ICE agent and its reluctance to investigate the shooter, according to people with knowledge of the decision. And the article goes on to say, "Mr.
▶ 3:08:24Thompson's resignation came after senior Justice Department officials pressed for a criminal investigation into the actions of the widow of Renee Nicole Good, the Minneapolis woman killed by an ICE agent last Wednesday. Mr. Thompson, 47, a career prosecutor, objected to that approach, as well as to the Justice Department's refusal to include state officials in investigating whether the shooting itself was lawful.
▶ 3:08:53Two other senior career prosecutors, Harry Jacobs and Melinda Williams, also resigned on Tuesday. Mr. Jacobs had been Mr. Thompson's deputy overseeing the fraud investigation which began in 2022. Um, and then it goes on to say that these fraud cases, I'll read exactly what the article says, the fraud cases were the chief reason the Trump administration launched an immigration crackdown in the state.
▶ 3:09:21This goes back to the amendment that was ruled out of order in the last bill, which really I think should have been ruled in order. It went straight to the question of this so-called fraud investigation and how it's being linked to the surge in immigration enforcement by ICE and Border Patrol.
▶ 3:09:42And I think it is very important for us to recognize that what is happening with the Department of Justice and with the Department of Homeland Security is even pushing out senior prosecutors. I mean, this prosecutor, this federal prosecutor, Mr. Jacobs, uh, sorry, Mr.
▶ 3:10:03Thompson, um, was the one who was overseeing this sprawling fraud um and he cannot abide by how the so-called fraud investigation is being used to justify things that he cannot justify as a federal prosecutor appointed by Donald Trump to that position. And so I know we have very capable prosecutors and including Mr. Not on the other side, former prosecutors.
▶ 3:10:31And I would just say, please look at what is happening because when you not only have an ICE agent who shoots a woman three times, we all have video that's very very clear, but let's say, you know, we all let's stipulate to the fact that we all believe there should be an independent investigation of what happened.
▶ 3:10:52Um, and you have the Justice Department not only saying they're not going to prosecute that ICE official, they're not going to conduct an investigation, they're not going to share the results of whatever they're doing with the state law enforcement investigations. But then you also have them trying to essentially criminalize and assassinate the widow of the woman who was shot. And you have these senior prosecutors on the Republican side resigning because of that conduct.
▶ 3:11:21I hope that people who have been prosecutors on the other side will look at this and start to speak out. It's extremely dangerous. I yield back.
▶ 3:11:29Gentle lady yields back. The uh gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. Mr. Vandrew.
▶ 3:11:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I wanted to say that I actually agree with one thing on the other side and I think it's going to happen. Christine Gnome should come and we should hear from her and I believe that she will. There's nothing to indicate that she won't. You know, I've sat here for years now, as I guess a good number of us have. And I I'm always perplexed, honestly, by the other side.
▶ 3:12:06Always concerned with the criminal, never the ini the victim. always concerned with the individuals who have been convicted or indicted in another country or in this country, but never the people who've been the recipients of the pain. Always concerned with the perpetrator of criminal activity on the other side, but not the unfortunate recipient of the activity.
▶ 3:12:31always concerned with the drug dealer and not the family whose family has been affected so much when somebody is addicted and poisoned and their life is ruined. Concerned with the murderer but not the loss of life. Concerned with the rapist they are but not the child or the woman who has been defiled.
▶ 3:12:52I would even get it if you repeatedly brought up both the the one side of this all the horrible god awful things that have been done and I wish to associate myself with the remarks that Miss Hagaman made but they don't talk about even the other side at all. They don't matter. They don't care all the horrible things that happened. They just don't say a word. The silence is deafening
▶ 3:13:19when it comes to that.
▶ 3:13:20Mr. Chair, point of order. Gentle lady consider point of order.
▶ 3:13:26Do we not have a rule here in the judiciary committee about um you know impuging members of this committee saying using words like never and always. You just said that we always stand up for the rapist.
▶ 3:13:41The gentle lady has not stated a point of order. The gentleman the time belongs to the gentleman from New Jersey. The gentleman is recognized.
▶ 3:13:49So we're back to what I said. If you were concerned with both even and said, "Well, we have to make sure that we have the rule of law and that those who've committed crimes are treated fairly." You know, I'm open to that. I understand that. I'll listen to that. But I just don't hear the other point. And if we want to listen to the tapes and look at the videos and let it's all the one, I don't get it. We don't talk about those who were hurt and their lives destroyed.
▶ 3:14:19So, I I would say that if we want to have this conversation, I I I sincerely would recommend that maybe we think about those folks a little bit. We've had them here. We've listened to them here. They've testified here. People who've lost their husbands, their wives, their daughters, their sons, people who've been raping, raped, who've been beaten, children. We didn't have them testify. We just heard stories about them. For God's sake, there's a reasoning this is all happening.
▶ 3:14:49There's a reason that the changes have occurred because people don't want this happening to them. They have a right as Americans not to fear this. So, of course, we're going to do something about it. And in the process, if something happened that the other side feels was inappropriate or illegal, yeah, we can discuss that. But for God's sake, to hear only the one point of view to me, and I really mean this chair, Mr. chairman. I don't understand it. It is weird and perverse and bizarre.
▶ 3:15:19I don't get it because there's millions of Americans. Yes, you may point out there's some Americans that were going too far. Okay, I'll listen to that. I'll digest that. But man, there's a lot of Americans that were really scared, really worried, really upset, and feared for their families at so many levels. It's hard to live life today with all the challenges there are out there, especially for young people on the defenseless and the silence is deafening.
▶ 3:15:48So, I just wanted to leave that thought here. Maybe we think about the people who've been so badly hurt by these some of the awful horrible and if you want the lists of people who have been deported or have been imprisoned and what they did and who they hurt and how many lives they destroyed that's certainly producable.
▶ 3:16:11Will the gentleman do that? We can
▶ 3:16:13the gentleman yield.
▶ 3:16:14I will yield for the 48 seconds I have.
▶ 3:16:17Thank you. When will the gentleman support putting up the plaque in commemoration of the sacrifice of the Capitol Hill police officers who defended us on January 6? When will uh uh the gentleman support uh bringing that back out?
▶ 3:16:35Reclaim my time. Reclaim my time. Uh first of all, I don't know that that's germanine to what we're doing. I will I will answer it anyhow. Guess what? I do support it. I would I I wouldn't have a problem with the plaque going up. It is a decision by the speaker and this is what he's decided and I support the speaker, but I don't have a problem with putting the plaque up. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 3:16:58Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from California.
▶ 3:17:02Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to speak just a little bit and then I'm going to yield to my ranking member. But uh when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were talking about all the pedophiles and the violent thugs and the rapists, um uh it does sound exactly like some of the January 6ers who were pardoned uh by this president.
▶ 3:17:25Uh because in fact, some of those very exact folks went out and committed these additional crimes after they were pardoned. uh soliciting from minors, abusing little children, raping women, assaulting officers, in fact, even after they were pardoned.
▶ 3:17:48Um I don't think anyone on my side of the aisle wants to get into a debate about if the rule of law, we all believe in upholding the rule of law. And I have to tell you, people of all ages, of all ethnic descriptions, of all status, commit crimes every day.
▶ 3:18:10And the KO Institute actually has a report that talks about the tens of thousands of folks who are here illegally who are committing crimes and are incarcerated versus the tens of millions of US citizens, nativeborn Americans, who are committing crimes and are incarcerated. So, it's not the undocumented folks who are taking up all the space in the prisons.
▶ 3:18:34It's US But I support this amendment because Christine Gnome should show up. She should show up with all of her receipts because if she's unafraid of showing up, she should have all of her receipts. Cuz we have questions. You should have questions. Why are ICE agents busting down doors without proper warrants, without probable cause?
▶ 3:18:57Why are they rolling up on schools with like little kids, okay, during lunchtime, rolling up into hospitals, into social service centers, and into child care centers looking for whom? And who are they? Why are they still masked? No other law enforcement agency has masked individuals working for them. Why do they need 500 extra billion like what else are they going to do with this money?
▶ 3:19:27That's why we have questions because when they're rolling up into your city, they are also impacting local law enforcement. Their violent tactics are impacting local law enforcement on top of injuring citizens and locals with tear gas and weapons. And these folks are infringing upon your fourth amendment rights, your fifth amendment rights, the 10th amendment rights.
▶ 3:19:53They have thrown the Constitution into the fireplace and this is the exact committee where we should be asking her these questions and if she thinks it's okay to do it, she can come with her receipts. So, I would like to yield the rest of my time to the ranking member if he would like it.
▶ 3:20:08I I thank the gentle lady very much. Um I I was truly astonished by the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey who said that he is always um uh shocked that the Democrats stand up for criminals, for the convicts, for the drug dealers, for the rapists, and not for the victims. Uh he finds it weird, he finds it perverse, he finds it bizarre, which strikes me as a case of nothing less than moral dyslexia.
▶ 3:20:40and I would charge him with exactly what he's charging us with. Let's begin with January 6th. I know the gentleman doesn't like to talk about January 6th, but charity and compassion for victims starts at home, Mr. Vandrew, just like the defense of the rule of law starts at home right here. So, we had thousands of crimes committed against our police officers and Donald Trump pardoned 1,600 of them.
▶ 3:21:09people who smash police officers in the face with baseball bats, with hockey sticks, with Confederate battle flags, with Donald Trump flags, Confederate battle flags. The gentleman doesn't utter a word about that. Content to have them give $5 million to the family of Ashley Babbot, even though two different government investigations said the police had acted responsibly and reasonably under the circumstances. But he's got no problem with giving $5 million to them.
▶ 3:21:37Has he proposed a penny for the families of the officers, including the ones who've been driven out of police work because they're permanently disabled and disfigured by what that riotist mob did? This goes way beyond January 6th. I'm going to submit for the record a list of all the clemency grants by President Donald Trump. Here are the drug dealers you're looking for. Here are the murderers you're looking for. Here are the rapists you're looking for. Look at the people who got pardoned.
▶ 3:22:04And I'm going to submit our report one year later later assessing the public safety implications of President Trump's mass pardon of 1600 riers. Um it's not just the people who committed violence on that day.
▶ 3:22:16Without objection,
▶ 3:22:1733 pardon insurrectionists have since been um charged with, convicted of, or arrested for these offenses. I'll leave you with this thought, Mr. Van Drew, so you can take this back and consider your double standards.
▶ 3:22:29Gentleman's time.
▶ 3:22:31Child sexual assault.
▶ 3:22:32Time is expired.
▶ 3:22:33Okay. Well,
▶ 3:22:35okay. Well, maybe somebody else will give me the chance to complete it. Mr.
▶ 3:22:38Mr. Chairman,
▶ 3:22:40gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 3:22:42Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:22:42Excuse me. Excuse me. Gentleman from Texas, then I'll come the gentleman from Arizona. I apologize. Gentleman from Texas is in line.
▶ 3:22:48Well, my apologies to the gentleman from Arizona. Um, what we're talking about here is an amendment to a bill, the purpose of which is to preserve the Integrity and Immigration Benefits Act. Yep.
▶ 3:23:04Um the bill is to require USCIS to review all approved immigration benefit requests that were approved from January 20th 21 to present to make sure that foreign individuals who enter the United States from terrorone or high-risisk countries make sure our national security is being protected is top priority. We can debate the policies of how we handle American citizens and how long they should be in jail and what they should be in jail for. I'm I'm for that.
▶ 3:23:33I'm for prosecuting bad guys. I'm for putting them in jail. Um and I've had debates here about policies taken here on both sides of the aisle under the second chance, first step, all these things.
▶ 3:23:49I am decidedly for making sure that bad guys who are carrying out particularly violent crimes, but crimes in general are put behind bars and are not released prematurely so that they engage in additional criminal behavior and The point here is that the individuals we're talking about that ICE is removing from the United States are individuals who are here in the United States because somebody
▶ 3:24:19decided they should be And these are people who are illegally present or present by virtue of what I believe was an abuse of the law under asylum and parole under the previous administration to put individuals into our country that needn't be here. That's the point. So, [snorts] when we're talking about going down the list of people that ICE have arrested, the gentle lady from Wyoming has done it. Other members has done it. I could go through the list I've got right in front of me.
▶ 3:24:49Austin, Texas, kidnapping and rape. An individual from Afghanistan. Somebody from Mexico, aggravated assault on a family house member impeding bath and circulation. An individual from Honduras aggravated assault causing significant bodily injury. These are all in Texas, right around where I live. Indecent assault, guy from Mexico, in Harris County, in Houston. Sexual assault of a child, a guy in Harris County, which is Houston.
▶ 3:25:19Abandoning or endangering a child. Bernett, Texas, right up the road from where I live. Indecency with a child by exposure. Fort Ben County, Texas, near Aggravated assault. Assault and dug uh To the extent we care about race, which I do not, I got a I just searched the database for people from Ukraine, making maybe a wild assumption some of them might be just some white dudes.
▶ 3:25:45Sure enough, I got a whole page of incredibly bad crimes here in terms of child abuse, drugs, assault, sexual exploitation of a minor. These are very bad people who are walking among us in the streets of the United States. And the question is why? President Trump didn't release these people into the streets of America.
▶ 3:26:14I didn't vote to release these people onto the streets of America. It wasn't it wasn't the people that are running this administration that have released these people onto the streets of America. It was very decidedly the Biden administration, Morcus and others that released the people into the streets of America andor have supported policies that have allowed these dangerous individuals to exploit our immigration laws to be on the streets of the United States. And ICE is engaging in their job to remove them.
▶ 3:26:46In what universe do we not say we fully support ICE removing them? have hearings about conduct, review conduct as we should in oversight. But the idea that we're talking about 33 individuals, the ranking member raised about those individuals, all but four of them were for events that occurred prior to January 6. So only four were things that have occurred since.
▶ 3:27:13Now, do I support ensuring that if they're violating the law for whatever charges the gentleman read off, due process, etc.? Yes, charge them with crimes, put them in jail. The point here is we have tens of thousands of people from around the world who are either illegally present or are only present by virtue of the abuse of our immigration laws very specifically by the previous that are on our streets endangering Americans.
▶ 3:27:42And Americans have died as a result, been raped as a result, and harmed as a result. And ICE should remove them. I yield back. gentleman yields back. It's the gentle from
▶ 3:27:52Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I um I think we can all stipulate that all of us are opposed to crime and to victimizing innocent people. Uh but I do think it's ironic that uh the the president of the United States has pardoned people who have um been involved in those same things. And I think um I gentle from California had a quick question she wanted to pose. I yield to her for that
▶ 3:28:20Yes, thank you. Um, listening to my colleagues talk about Americans who were
▶ 3:28:25Uh, it made me think about the family of officer Siknik was here for January 6. And I just was wondering because I know the ranking member was talking about this list of folks that were pardoned uh, these January 6ers. And I wanted to know if Republicans had met with the family of the slain officer. If if Republicans had listened, had consoled all of the things that we are being accused of not doing. That was my
▶ 3:28:53Yeah. Uh reclaiming my time, I would like to yield to the ranking member for I think he had a few other points he wanted to make.
▶ 3:29:00Well, I appreciate that very much, Miss Lorren. First of all, let me address the point made by the the gentleman from Texas. Um please don't misunderstand my point. I thought it was outrageous that President Trump pardoned the 1600 insurrectionists and riers in the first place. I don't think they should be pardoned after having violently assaulted our police officers.
▶ 3:29:23The indisha for a pardon are contrition, remorse, reform, rehabilitation, ready to be reassimilated to society. Most of these people are completely uncontrite and unreorseful. The one remorseful uh insurrectionist I saw was Pamela Hempill who rejected Donald Trump's pardon. And she's a a grandma in her 70s who came here and said, "I reject your filthy pardon because I did this because I listen to you.
▶ 3:29:53I listen to your lies, your big lie. I went into the capital and I violated the law and I should be punished for that." She's the one person who really deserves a pardon because she thought about what she had done. But it's the others who are celebrating their pardons and they want money, too. The Proud Boys are asking for what? $150 million from the government. They They've filed a little administrative reparations claim so they can have a sweetheart deal like Donald Trump himself wants. Now, come on.
▶ 3:30:24Let's get real about this situation. I'm not just talking about what happened on that day. Yes, there are dozens of crimes that have been committed since January 6, as the gentleman says.
▶ 3:30:37And if we had uh some of the um uh political operatives on our side that you had, you'd be seeing a Willie Horton ad every single night about those people out there who Donald Trump pardoned who were involved in child sex abuse materials and sexual assault and home invasions and terrorizing FBI agents. Is there anybody willing to speak up for those pardons of those people who are already back at it again? I hope not.
▶ 3:31:06And this this former Democrat Republican from New Jersey wants to lecture us about how we don't care about the victims and we were with the police officers on January 6th and with their families. We don't pretend they don't exist.
▶ 3:31:25We don't pretend that their lives haven't been fundamentally altered and and changed by what happened because it's politically inconvenient for us. We got to get over this idea that there are somehow politically worthy victims and politically unworthy victims either of general crimes or crimes by the state, by the police. And there's some people who they don't look at the what the criminal event was.
▶ 3:31:54They look at who the victim is or who the perpetrator was. And that's wrong. We got to be standing up for people across the board against crime in America and against crime by government officers, including ICE agents. The gentle lady read a a list of uh bad actors in Minnesota who uh if they are undocumented should be out of the country.
▶ 3:32:23Everybody agrees to that. That doesn't mean that we have to remain silent when an ICE agent shoots a 37year-old mother, US citizen in the face three times when she provided no threat to him.
▶ 3:32:38And I would hope that my colleagues who can stand up for uh a rioter, an insurrectionist who charges into the Capitol and charges into the House of Representatives against a police officer even though two investigations completely exonerate him would at least be able to uh understand why America is so upset about the killing of Ms. Good in Minneapolis.
▶ 3:33:05I I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentle yields back.
▶ 3:33:08Strike the last word.
▶ 3:33:09Gentleman from New York's recognized.
▶ 3:33:10Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I echo my colleagues comments about January 6 and of course the uh absurd hypocrisy uh from my Republican colleagues. But I I want to address some of the arguments that my friend from Texas made and that we hear so often from uh our colleagues on the other side.
▶ 3:33:32this notion that what this administration's immigration drag net is um focuses on quote unquote the worst of the worst, the rapists, the murderers, the sex abusers, the the most awful uh crimes uh among the ones that are charged here.
▶ 3:33:59The problem is that based on this administration's own of immigrants who are detained have criminal histories with serious felonies. 5% have no criminal history whatsoever.
▶ 3:34:27So if you were to tell us that the president of the United States is following through on his promise to target the worst of the worst to the convicted felons and to deport them, you will have no objection from this side. We would be out there supporting this administration right alongside with you. But that is not what is happening.
▶ 3:34:57And that's why so many Americans are angry. That is why for the first time ever, polling shows that the majority of Americans want to abolish ICE. What we are seeing around this country is not targeting the worst of the worst. It's not deporting the worst of the worst.
▶ 3:35:22It is going after people, many of whom are lawfully here. You may not like the asylum process. I get it. I don't like it either. It takes way too long. It needs to be reformed. But you and the administration does not just get to decide that the asylum process doesn't need to be followed.
▶ 3:35:48And perhaps the reason why this amendment is so important is because when the Secretary of Homeland Security came before the Homeland Security Committee, she admitted she admitted that it is illegal to deport someone with an ongoing asylum case, which is happening all over this
▶ 3:36:20I don't hear any of you standing up for the rule of law and saying, "You know what? Hold on. Our asylum process is broken. We should reform it. We should legislate. We should actually address the fact that asylum takes seven years to get through. I agree with you. It was your dear president who submarined a bipartisan bill in the Senate that would have done that.
▶ 3:36:53we'll move on. You can't just say I don't like it. I don't like the law. I'm just going to do whatever I want. And in the process of doing whatever I want, I am going to use excessive violence. the kind of violence we don't see from any criminal law enforcement agencies around this country. Nothing like it.
▶ 3:37:19Nothing like Because it is excessive force. And I don't understand why it is so for my Republican colleagues to stand up for the humanity of any person who is a citizen or not. But since you only care about citizens, let's focus on the citizens.
▶ 3:37:45saw people who are being beaten on the streets by untrained officers, given $50,000 bonuses to go work for ICE who don't know proper protocol and are killing people in our streets. That's not American. I don't care what the law is. That's not American. And you can stand up to this administration just like we can. and I yield back.
▶ 3:38:14Gentleman yields back.
▶ 3:38:19Question is on the gentleman from uh California is recognized to speak on the
▶ 3:38:29Mr. Chairman, I I agree with the ranking member that said earlier that the president's responsibility is to faithfully execute the laws that Congress has passed. Absolutely right. But the Democrats are doing everything they can to obstruct the president from enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act, which specifically requires any person who illegally enters our country shall be detained. That's the exact wording of the law. Shall be detained.
▶ 3:38:58This is a clear provision of law that Biden simply refused to faithfully execute or even to casually observe as the Democrats here cheered him on. Again, I remind them if they don't like the law, they should make their case to change the law. Just level with the people. Just admit you don't care who's admitted into our country or what it costs people's families or affects their safety.
▶ 3:39:23We are seeing a fairly dramatic reduction in crime in those jurisdictions where ICE enforcement is being surged precisely because ICE is targeting people who either have criminal convictions, criminal charges, or final removal orders issued by a court that they're simply ignoring. The gentleman from New York tells us only 30% of those targeted by ICE have criminal convictions.
▶ 3:39:44What he left out is another 40% of criminal charges pending against them and almost all of the rest have final orders of deportation issued by a judge that they're simply ignoring.
▶ 3:39:56And with regard to pending asylum claims, the law again is very clear. Someone who has illegally entered our country who makes an asylum claim shall be detained until their case is decided. Now, they can leave that detention at any time for any country that will accept them. But an asylum claim does not give them the right to illegally enter our country and then roam freely while the claim is considered.
▶ 3:40:21That has only occurred because the Democrats ignored the law and refused their constitutional responsibility to see that it's faithfully executed. Now, normally ICE would take custody of these criminals as they're being held by law enforcement, but sanctuary jurisdictions instead release them back into our community. So then ICE has to come and arrest them.
▶ 3:40:42uh uh and uh if there are other illegals in their pres presidents well they shall be detained as well because again that is precisely what the law requires shall be detained again if you don't like it then make the case to change it I sympathize with any American citizens who are detained until their nationality can be confirmed I I sympathize with any American who is detained by law enforcement while they're under suspicion for any crime system isn't perfect sometimes innocent people are placed under suspicion But the alternative
▶ 3:41:13is not to enforce any of our laws. And that seems to be the position of the Democrats with respect to our immigration laws. My my colleague from California says, "Well, we all support the enforcement of the law." Well, prove it by telling the violent mobs that listen to you not to obstruct the enforcement of our immigration laws, not to harass and assault law enforcement officers, and not to threaten them or their families or interfere with their duty to enforce the But this bill
▶ 3:41:43in involves those admitted to our country as refugees by the Biden administration without thorough vetting, often without any vetting at all. So to my colleague from Georgia, he's precisely wrong. Race has nothing to do with the review. It has everything to do with the fact that there are certain countries that are hostile to ours that have deeply ingrained cultures of corruption, active terrorist networks, and are entirely unreliable in any information they do provide.
▶ 3:42:11These are countries that have demonstrated a high degree of unreliability or inaccessibility of records that make vetting all but impossible. Many, many people were admitted with little or no information on their backgrounds or intentions coming from countries with active terrorist cells. We had many hearings involving USCIS where we received testimony that the Biden administration ignored vetting requirements and what was described as a a get to yes policy.
▶ 3:42:40When you had hundreds of thousands of poorly vetted or unvetted migrants admitted and massed, it seems only prudent to go back and review their backgrounds because this review was not done when they were originally admitted. This is already being done by the administration because that is their duty to protect the American people, something the Democrats have consistently seemed uninterested in or even opposed to doing. I yield back.
▶ 3:43:04Gentleman yields back. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor say I.
▶ 3:43:11Those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair. The nos have it.
▶ 3:43:14Can we have a recorded vote, please?
▶ 3:43:15Record a vote being requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 3:43:18Mr. Jordan,
▶ 3:43:19Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa,
▶ 3:43:22Mr. Biggs.
▶ 3:43:24Mr. Mcccleintoch.
▶ 3:43:25Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany.
▶ 3:43:29Mr. Massie?
▶ 3:43:30Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy,
▶ 3:43:32Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Mr.
▶ 3:43:39Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Vandrew,
▶ 3:43:42Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:43:48Mr. Kylie votes no. Miss Haggamman. Miss Hagamman.
▶ 3:43:54Miss Haggman votes no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Growthman.
▶ 3:44:03Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. Kn.
▶ 3:44:05Mr. Knott votes no. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander Mr. Ander votes no. Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gil [snorts] Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Raskin.
▶ 3:44:19Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler. Miss Lofgram.
▶ 3:44:24Miss Laughrim votes I. Mr. Cohen.
▶ 3:44:27Mr. Cohen votes I. Mr. Johnson.
▶ 3:44:30Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swallwell.
▶ 3:44:33Mr. Lou. M. Shyipal. Miss Dryal votes I. Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin. Miss Scanland votes I. Mr. Nagus. Miss Mcbath. Miss Ross.
▶ 3:44:49Miss Ross votes yes. Miss Balant. Miss Balent votes yes. Mr. Garcia.
▶ 3:44:54Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camlagger Dove.
▶ 3:44:57Miss Camlager Dove votes I. Mr. Mr. Goldman.
▶ 3:45:01Mr. Goldman votes I. Miss Crockett. Mr. Bombgardner Mr. Bombgardner votes no. Mr. Gail Mr. Gail votes no
▶ 3:45:35cl report. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 eyes and 18 nos.
▶ 3:45:38Uh, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment the nature of substitute. This will be followed me by vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no.
▶ 3:45:56Independent chairs the eyes have it. The amendment nature substitute is adopted. The question is on favor reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no.
▶ 3:46:04No. pin the chair the eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house.
▶ 3:46:10Can we have a recorded vote, please?
▶ 3:46:11Yes, you can. The clerk will call the
▶ 3:46:14Mr. Jordan,
▶ 3:46:15Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa,
▶ 3:46:18Mr. Biggs,
▶ 3:46:20Mr. McClentok.
▶ 3:46:21Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie,
▶ 3:46:27Mr. Massie votes I. Mr. Roy.
▶ 3:46:29Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein votes I. Mr.
▶ 3:46:38Mr. Vandrew.
▶ 3:46:40Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kylie. Mr. Kylie votes I. Miss Hagman.
▶ 3:46:50Miss Hagman votes I. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Growthman. Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Not Mr. Not votes I. Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander, Mr. Ander votes I. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil, yes.
▶ 3:47:11Mr. Gil votes yes. Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Rascin,
▶ 3:47:16Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Miss Laughrim. Miss Lofram votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:47:24Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson,
▶ 3:47:26Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallow. Mr. Lou. Miss Dryal, Miss Dryal votes no. Mr. Korea, Miss Scandan, Miss Scanland votes no. Mr. Negus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes no. Miss Balant, Miss Balant votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:47:49Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove.
▶ 3:47:52Miss Cam Loger Dove votes no. Mr. Mr. Goldman,
▶ 3:47:57Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett, Gentleman from Mr.
▶ 3:48:06Mr. Bombgardner.
▶ 3:48:07Mr. Bombgardner bids. Yes.
▶ 3:48:09Gentleman from Texas.
▶ 3:48:11Mr. Gooden votes I.
▶ 3:48:13Anyone else wish to be recorded? Clerk report. Mr. determined. There are 18 eyes and 11
▶ 3:48:31The eyes have in the bill's order to be reported favored to the house. Members will have two days 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. The committee will stand in recess. We have two votes on the floor, previous question and rule, and then we will come back and resume the markup as soon as uh our work on the floor is completed. That we stand in recess.
▶ 4:34:11Committee will come to order. Pursuit to notice, I call up HR 2853, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act. For purpose of a markup, move the committee reported favor to the House. The clerk report the bill.
▶ 4:34:24Hr 28.
▶ 4:34:24Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Knot, for an opening
▶ 4:34:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege to introduce for consideration HR2853, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, organized retail crimes or OC directly cost the United States nearly $130 billion annually, and this is direct costs. The indirect are obviously much higher.
▶ 4:34:55These crimes target everything from bars of soap to entire vans, trucks, train cars, shipping containers, and beyond for for illegal theft and resale around the world. What may look like an isolated criminal act is far too often one spoke in a very welloiled wheel. These criminals are members of larger networks, many of which include the more well-known criminal activities such as drug trafficking, gang crime, violent crime, and of course, fraud.
▶ 4:35:25Typically, once the underlying theft has occurred, the stolen goods invariably are disassembled or distributed into the broader black market, often crossing state lines and even leaving the country. Again, whether we are referring to skill saws or automobiles, everything that is for sale, transported, or imported into the United States is in play for this set of crimes. The effects of these crimes are as farreaching as they are deep.
▶ 4:35:53Whether North Carolina, California, Montana, Arizona, New York, or any other state, organized retail crime has and will continue to affect all citizens. We have all seen everyday products in some parts of the country locked up behind shelves at neighborhood stores. Major retailers and small businesses alike are closing their doors in high crime areas because the cost of this type of crime is simply too steep.
▶ 4:36:22We've seen instances of mobs storming in an organized fashion into storefronts and raiding their merchandise. On the wholesale level, entire shipping containers are often seized before the perpetrators are even aware what the items are that they have stolen.
▶ 4:36:39Lesser known but just as concerning are instances of semi-truck drivers being attacked while they are delivering shipments or in an instance close to home, a Home Depot employee who was in North Carolina was murdered over something as simple as three pressure washers. These crimes of course affect the cost of goods, public safety, employee safety, facility safety, and even national security.
▶ 4:37:06This legislation provides a needed federal framework that is currently absent for a set of crimes that have become inherently a national problem. Of course, localized theft, shoplifting, and property crime should remain at the local level.
▶ 4:37:22However, if a broader interstate or international component is realized upon investigation, law enforcement needs the necessary tools to investigate, dismantle, prosecute, and remove the involved criminal parties. To date, those tools do not exist and this bill is a is a profound step forward towards meeting that need. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 4:37:51Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognize ranking member Mr. Rask for an opening statement.
▶ 4:37:54Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm very pleased to support this bipartisan legislation and to um uh to salute my colleague, Mr. Not from North Carolina for his leadership and his stewardship of the legislation. HR2853, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, will bridge a significant enforcement gap.
▶ 4:38:15Organized retail theft schemes are often too complex for state to undertake and bring down themselves and uh yet too modest often for federal prosecutors to engage and pursue.
▶ 4:38:29In recent years, retailers have sounded the alarm about this crisis, expressing urgent concern that organized retail crime has become a significant threat both to public safety and to the retail economy, threatening the viability of businesses like cargo brokers, shippers, big box stores, and online marketplaces, as well as the basic physical safety of the people who work at these businesses. Although there's no clear definition of organized retail crime, we know what the basic problem is.
▶ 4:38:58criminal enterprises which operate in a coordinated manner to commit large-scale theft of merchandise for resale or to defraud retailers and convert the proceeds into cash or crypto. It has become increasingly clear that these kinds of operations are coordinated enabled by the most up-to-date technology and communication tools and very hard to stop.
▶ 4:39:21As we learned during the crime subcommittee's hearing last year, we are describing a multi-billion dollar criminal industry that grows, evolves, and adapts almost daily to the latest technological trends, security improvements, and modified business practices. And while state and local law enforcement are first line of defense against organized real retail crime, they've got limited resources and cannot always investigate crimes which cross state lines and even international borders.
▶ 4:39:51HR2853 is necessary to address sophisticated operations that range from large-scale physical theft of shipping containers to complex computer hacking schemes that trick dispatchers into diverting whole truckloads full of goods away from their purchasers. Other forms of organized retail crime directly target consumers, such as those involving the purchase of gift cards.
▶ 4:40:15These schemes can also bear the hallmarks of organized crime with advanced planning, division of labor and the use of sophisticated means to steal people's money in new and diabolically crafty ways. Organized retail crime is centralized, organized, and sophisticated. Combating it calls for a coordinated law enforcement response. With the bill's creation of the organized retail and supply chain crime coordination center, we will no longer be flying blind.
▶ 4:40:44The center will be tasked with collecting the data we need to understand the scope [clears throat] of the problem and to formulate more targeted solutions as data is gathered and shared across agencies, retailers, and supply chains by leveraging the strengths of local, state, and federal law enforcement. The center will foster the development of a coordinated response to address large-scale organized retail crime that crosses state lines and global [clears throat] borders.
▶ 4:41:16The questions been raised about where we place the center and whether it's more appropriate to place it under DOJ rather than Homeland Security. While I'm voting for the bill today because it addresses this serious problem, we should take a hard look at why the bill is not being placed at DOJ before it goes to the floor. But I hope we can work together both to make Corka even stronger and to pass other laws to address issues with asset forfeite law, which I know the chairman is also concerned about.
▶ 4:41:45In particular, I want to work together to move a bill I co-sponsor with my friend from Wisconsin, Representative Wahlberg, the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act. At base, it would reform civil asset forfeite laws to raise the level of proof necessary for the government to seize property, protect small business owners, and increase transparency through the whole process. The committee reported the Fair Act to the floor unanimously last Congress, and I hope we can do it again.
▶ 4:42:14On balance, this legislation bridges an important and significant enforcement gap that's made it very hard to dismantle organized retail crime syndicates. A new fusion center will be a significant step in moving us in the right direction. I support 2853 and yield back. Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina to offer an amendment in the nature of
▶ 4:42:40Mr. Chairman, before you do, I forgot to enter into the record a statement in support of the bill from Representative Lofrren who is unable to be here.
▶ 4:42:46Without objection. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized to explain his
▶ 4:42:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I do have an amendment at the desk and this amendment removes the language concerning the
▶ 4:42:55Hang on a second. The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 4:42:57Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 4:42:59On objection, the amendment in the nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of amendment. Chair now recognized gentleman to explain the
▶ 4:43:06Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment removes language concerning the facilities of interstate and foreign commerce and statutes related to the transportation of stolen goods and the sale or receipt of the stolen goods. This amendment upholds the principles of federalism without changing the import the important underlying substance of the bill. And before I yield back, I too like Mr. Rascin have a letter for the record from retailers and truckers I'd like to submit. And with that, I yield
▶ 4:43:30Gentleman yields back. The gentle gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to associate myself with the comments of both uh Mr. Not and Mr. Rascin. I'm a co-sponsor of this bill. I've worked with Representative Joyce on it. I want to thank Representative Joyce for working on this bill over more than one session.
▶ 4:43:55This is a very important thing because if we can't get to the root of coordination that's crossing state lines then it just looks like we're having small retail crime situations that really are a part of a bigger broader concern. So this is an important bill. I think we should move it. I hope it hope it gets to the floor and through the
▶ 4:44:18Thanks so much and I yield back.
▶ 4:44:19Thank you. Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from California, Mr. Cotti is
▶ 4:44:23Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also like to
▶ 4:44:25Hang on. Hang on. I got I got another California. Then I'm going to come to
▶ 4:44:29I'd be happy to yield to my friend from California, Kylie. That's news to me. Go
▶ 4:44:33You're for it, right?
▶ 4:44:35See, this is a bipartisan bill. And maybe uh miss maybe my friend from across the aisle but from my state will to some extent echo my comments as to the experience we've had uh in California uh which was one of a number of states that decided to conduct an experiment with decriminalized stealing. Uh and shockingly what you got was a lot more stealing.
▶ 4:44:57Uh in California for some time you have scenes where uh people just walk into department stores, load up their cart with uh apparel totaling less than $950, and they don't even try to hide that they're walking out uh without paying. It was just par for the course. And we've had this culminate in these uh just uh you know, incredible smash and grabs where hammer wielding thieves go in and just wreck havoc on jewelry stores uh and other places. So thankfully things are changing in California because the people of our state uh passed an initiative to make crime illegal again.
▶ 4:45:28Uh and you actually have dash cam footage now uh where thieves are riding uh in a police car and don't understand what's going on, why they're being arrested for something that used to carry no consequences in our state and then they're informed that there's a new law and they're very upset about this. So we've seen that uh you know having consequences for associated with retail theft theft actually makes a difference.
▶ 4:45:50So, I supported this bill even before we had Prop 36 in California uh because I wanted to use whatever jurisdiction we have under federal law to compensate uh for the shortcomings in our state. But it's also true uh that there are some forms of theft where there is uh direct federal jurisdiction and we need to have uh appropriate penalties under federal law. So, this bill does few very important things.
▶ 4:46:11uh it increases the the threshold and allow or allows for the aggregation of the value of stolen stolen property uh throughout a 12-month period at a level of $5,000 for charging purposes. Uh it also expands the definition of monetary instrument to include things like gift cards that are increasingly used by or organized retail crime uh rings and it also sets up a center to combat organized retail and supply chain crime.
▶ 4:46:35This will go a long way uh towards assisting every state in the country, towards assisting those citizens that live in states that don't have appropriate uh criminal penalties, as well as cracking down on things like cargo theft, which has become a 7 billion uh problem for the trucking industry alone. So, I'm glad to see the bipartisan support for this, including from my colleague from California, and uh hope that it gets a vote on the floor uh very soon. I yield back.
▶ 4:46:58Gentleman yields back. The other gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 4:47:00Thank you. Just like to add to Mr. Kylie's comments that uh smash and grab. This is not just about uh Home Depot. It's also about the small mom and pop supermarket in the corner that would have people walking in grabbing products and not paying for them out the door over and over again. We did pass Prop 68. 68% of the voters of California pass Prop 68.
▶ 4:47:24In my hometown of Santa Ana, 71% of the voters approved Prop 36, what essentially makes a lot of these crimes a felony. So, I also stand in support of this measure because this is a big issue. It's a serious issue. Let's make sure that people on Main Street can survive without being victimized over and over again. Thank you, Mr. Kylie, and I again support this measure. Thank
▶ 4:47:48Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 4:47:52Move strike the last word.
▶ 4:47:53Gentleman's recognized. Thank you so much. I also support this piece of legislation. I thank the bill sponsor for working with me and several others on on we think making better language for the bill and and uh we look forward to the the bill's positive impacts. So, uh just just just give you some idea.
▶ 4:48:15Of course, we talk about interstate uh movement of these stolen goods, but but if you live in a border state like this hotbed of Californians that we have on this committee and and myself as well, you know that we see this this moving across southern the southern side of our border as well. And so this is import going to be important to um to deal with these issues.
▶ 4:48:42Um, just a few years ago, CVS Far uh reported that in two minutes the average professional thief targeting CVS steals $2,000 worth of goods in in uh a two-minute period. Uh Target was growing by 50% a year from 400 million to $600 million in missing inventory through theft and shrinkage.
▶ 4:49:09um and that was directly impairing their uh their profitability. National Retail Federation said they saw a 26% increase a few years ago uh in these types of thefts. And we also see Mexican drug cartels uh behind the surge in retail uh theft. They're organized and they bring uh bring the theft back across the border.
▶ 4:49:34And then uh earlier this year in Arizona, two men stole over $140,000 in merchandise from uh different Walmart stores across several Arizona counties. This is it's a rampant problem. It's it's multi-billions uh of dollars.
▶ 4:49:53And now the testimony that we had in our in our hearing sub on the subcommittee hearing on this just recently uh the truckers talked about how the softwares uh for their logistics are being hacked and sometimes trucks are being directed to phony drop sites where they drop a load a container load of material of goods and inventory and then they leave not even realizing that they had delivered to the wrong location because the destination had been hacked.
▶ 4:50:23into their uh software that uh for their truck. So, this is a timely bill. Uh I'm glad we're doing it and uh I so I support the bill and will yield back. Mr. Chairman, gentle
▶ 4:50:36gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from Florida is recognized.
▶ 4:50:40Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to share my support for HR2853, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, which I am a proud co-sponsor of. I thank my good friend from Ohio, Congressman Joyce, for his leadership in championing this meaningful legislation, as well as Chairman Jordan, for including it in today's markup, and my colleague, Congressman Not, for his advocacy here today.
▶ 4:51:04While much of the country has watched organized mobs, storm stores, and crime rings boldly target major retailers due to soft on crime policies, Florida chose a different path to not only address these crimes, but to deter them. Last year, Florida increased penalties for organized retail theft and made certain repeat offenders eligible for up to 30 years in prison.
▶ 4:51:28It's time to bring Florida's approach to the federal government so that we can protect consumers, keep prices low for hardworking Americans, and stop organized retail crime, especially as some states inadequately enforce the law. According to the National Retail Federation, retail lararseny incidents increased by 93% from 2019 to 2023, including a nearly 90% increase in actual dollar losses.
▶ 4:51:55Retail stores in 2023 lost over 121 billion to retail theft, which is a stark contrast to the numbers from as recently as 2017. Organized retail theft causes massive financial losses to businesses each year, and those costs are ultimately passed on to the American consumer through higher prices.
▶ 4:52:16By enhancing law enforcement coordination and strengthening prosecal authority, Florida is prioritizing safe communities where businesses and families can thrive. The Combating Organized Retail Crime Act would establish an organized retail and supply chain crime coordination center within Homeland Security Investigations at the Department of Homeland Security.
▶ 4:52:40This coordination center would increase collaboration between federal, state, and local law enforcement along with retail crime associations to help disrupt these criminal operations. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this good bill. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I yield back.
▶ 4:52:57Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from Florida is recognized.
▶ 4:53:00Uh Mr. Chairman, thank you. I uh associate my comments with my colleague from uh Florida. Um organized retail crime has become increasingly sophisticated involving multi-state criminal networks that target retail stores, warehouses, supply chains. Um and right now, these criminal organizations coordinate across jurisdictions. They move stolen goods through complex logistics networks. They sell them online.
▶ 4:53:23They've been faster than law enforcement uh agencies and they've been able to share information uh and it's happening in communities like mine in South Florida although our state has uh been very tough on on how to deal with it. This bill would strengthen collaboration among federal, state, and local law enforcement and establish a centralized coordination center within the Department of Homeland Security. Let's be clear what this bill does and does not do. This legislation is not about everyday shoplifting.
▶ 4:53:48We're talking about networks that steal at scale, sometimes entire truckloads of goods, and resell them through sophisticated channels before law enforcement agencies even realize they're connected. The bill focuses federal resources where they belong and organized large-scale criminal activity. Uh, organized retail crime is not victimless. When the theft brings coordinate across state lines and supply chains, it drives up prices for families at the register, and it puts retail and delivery workers in harm.
▶ 4:54:15improving coordination to help protect employees, consumers, and supply chains, and make law enforcement more effective. It's why 2853 uh resolution has strong bipartisan uh support reflecting the broad uh recognition of the problem, the need for meaningful action. And and let me just say to, you know, the public who goes to the store now in many areas around the country and can't get deodorant or toothpaste or mouthwash while without having to push a button and wait for an attendant to come.
▶ 4:54:45These things are locked up behind glass. They're locked up behind plastic. It it is some of the most frustrating shopping experiences. And what happens is it hurts retail because you know what happens? Those people decide to buy online instead. uh they decide to go buy online, whether it's on Amazon or maybe even buying from that retailer online, which then hurts the workers in these retail stores. Um you go into whole stores and there's just, you know, aisle after aisle that's now locked up.
▶ 4:55:16Um and you know, you got to wait for someone to buy one item. Uh and and some of these items are not high high ticket items. They're not expensive. They're just some of the most targeted, most stolen items. And so it's a it's a $5 it's an $8 item. Um and I I watch consumers in the store just get completely frustrated. We can solve this, right?
▶ 4:55:36We can work with retailers to get this stuff out from behind, you know, these, you know, containment systems, uh if we help them with large-scale theft. Uh and I think that's what this bill will do, Mr. Chairman. It is a good piece of bipartisan uh legislation. So let's do that. Let's help out Americans so that, you know, they're able to buy simple items without an attendant having to get a key uh to sell them deodorant. Thank you.
▶ 4:56:04Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from George is recognized.
▶ 4:56:09Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I truly urge my colleagues to support HR 2835, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, bipartisan legislation that I am so proud to be a co-sponsor of. For years, the shadow economy has been growing in our cities and online. One that places consumers and our employers in danger, finances, criminal networks, and also costs billions of dollars and losses.
▶ 4:56:36This is not a shop shoplifting by a person in need. This is a highly sophisticated criminal enterprise. This is not just a problem for retailers or for shipping companies. This is a threat to our public safety, our economy, and it's a threat to the rule of law. To understand the importance of this legislation, we must first understand what we are facing. Organized retail crime involves professional crews who systematically steal massive quantities of merchandise.
▶ 4:57:08Everything from everyday essentials to luxury goods, not for personal use, but for resale. They exploit the anonymity of online marketplaces and the lack of coordinated law enforcement tools to operate with near impunity. This isn't petty theft, and you've heard that just said by my colleagues beforehand.
▶ 4:57:30It's a brazen largecale business model run by criminals who often have ties to transnational organizations involved in far worse crimes. The impact is staggering and flows far beyond a retailer's bottom line. Losses by retailers and shipping companies and increased costs from added security are felt at each and every cash register.
▶ 4:57:56Consumers end up paying higher prices, businesses lose sales, and less tax revenues flow to our communities. Walk into any store in any city and you'll probably see, as we've mentioned before, locked cabinets and empty shelves. That's just some of the obvious effects of organized retail crime. Retailers are reporting that their employees are being threatened, assaulted, and traumatized.
▶ 4:58:25while shoppers witness acts of apparent lawlessness as they shop for everyday household items or pop into their neighborhood pharmacy just to pick up their needed prescriptions. I often hear, "Why hasn't this been What can we do to stop this?" And as we've tried to respond to this problem, we have learned there is a critical gap that these criminal networks slip right through every single time.
▶ 4:58:53This legislation would fill this gap in several ways. First, the bill would create a dedicated organized retail and supply chain crime coordination center, ensuring federal, state, and local law enforcement are working together from the same playbook, sharing their intelligence and targeting these networks all the way up to the top, from the boosters to the fences to the organizers.
▶ 4:59:19Second, it would strengthen the tools prosecutors need to go after those individuals who routinely are stealing these goods and merchandise. Those who knowingly are trafficked uh in stolen goods and those at the top of these criminal organizations plan, direct, and profit the most from these crimes. Third, it would give courts the power to order convicted perpetrators to hand over all of the money that they've earned from their crimes as they should.
▶ 4:59:50We have a clear bipartisan solution before us. Thank God. This bill is necessary to protect our communities, to protect hardworking employees, to provide support to legitimate businesses, and to send a clear message that these criminals will no longer be allowed to slip through the cracks. I truly urge my colleagues to support HR 2853 and I yield back.
▶ 5:00:15Gentle lady yields back. The question is on the adoption of the amendment in nature of a substitute. This will be
▶ 5:00:22Gentleman from Georgia is recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this uh legislation, but I tell you, I share the concerns of uh uh uh of some who uh don't want to see a new agency set up to address this issue within the confines of the Department of Homeland Security.
▶ 5:00:46I share those uh because DHS is over ICE and ICE is out violating wholesale the rights of uh the people of this country.
▶ 5:01:00uh and so um but uh nonetheless I think Homeland uh is the uh agency which under proper leadership uh has the the greatest opportunity to address uh this issue which does affect our homeland security because it's international in scope.
▶ 5:01:23Um, and what comforts me about the legislation, it has a 7-year um, uh, sunset to it. So, we'll have to um, reauthorize we will have to reauthorize it at that time. And um every year the Department of Homeland Security has to issue a report to Congress on its um on its activities within this uh uh legislation as authorized by this legislation.
▶ 5:01:53So I think the safeguards are in place. I'm I'm sorry that the leadership is not in place, but the safeguards are in place and um and that's why I am supporting this legislation which addresses a harm that gets to the consumer in terms of causing uh prices to to be increased with all of the theft that is going on and the use of the internet uh to facilitate
▶ 5:02:24facilitate the sale of uh these illicit it uh goods or these illotten goods and the profits then going into uh organizations that are polycriminal. Uh they're not just theft organizations or organizations criminal organizations uh that uh deal in uh theft, but they deal in other uh uh areas of crime.
▶ 5:02:51And so um I'm happy to support the legislation. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back the question on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The questions on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I.
▶ 5:03:13Those opposed, no. The eyes have it and the bill is order to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice I call which one are we call Laurel and then Daryl. Okay.
▶ 5:03:38Pursuant to notice I call up HR6998 the Renewed Hope Act for purpose of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill.
▶ 5:03:47HR69. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Florida, Miss Lee, for an opening statement.
▶ 5:03:55Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill we are here today to discuss is the Renewed Hope Act. I am very pleased this legislation is being considered in today's committee markup. Mr. Chairman, the exploitation of children through child sex abuse material or CSAM unfortunately remains a serious issue both within the United States and abroad.
▶ 5:04:17Law enforcement agencies currently have nearly 50,000 images and videos connected to child sex abuse cases in which the victims have not yet been identified. Homeland Security Investigations, HSI, the leading agency combating child exploitation, are on the front lines of stopping this evil.
▶ 5:04:39Identifying children depicted in SESAM is a crucial step to stop their ongoing victimization and to bring justice to the offenders who are producing it. Thankfully, through joint efforts between federal, state, international, and non-governmental partners, the effort to identify and rescue children has begun. In 2023, HSI Cyber Crime Center executed Operation Renewed Hope.
▶ 5:05:09Operation Renewed Hope ran from July 17, 2023 through August 4th, 2023 and was a concerted effort by HSI and other law enforcement agencies to investigate online child exploitation and abuse.
▶ 5:05:24The operation led to the identification of 316 victims and the rescue of 14 victims with new victims continuing to be identified well after conclusion of the In 2025, HSI completed Operation Renewed Hope 3, which ran from February 24th to March 7th. Renewed Hope 3 led to the identification of 36 victims and created over 380 investigative leads related to additional victims.
▶ 5:05:55We appreciate the work being done to identify victims from government entities such as HSI and nonprofits such as Neckmech and the Timbo Foundation. These groups are leading the charge to identify and rescue children and we thank you. This is a huge step forward, but Congress has an opportunity to ensure that this important work continues to get done and that we continue to identify and rescue victims of child abuse.
▶ 5:06:25The Renewed Hope Act will result in more perpetrators being brought to justice by allowing HSI to hire, train, and assign additional computer forensics and criminal analysts to the child exploitation investigations unit and field offices to support victim identification and rescue efforts.
▶ 5:06:45This experience, focus, and expertise dramatically increases our ability to successfully investigate these cases and to rescue victims. I'd like to thank my friend and co-lead from the great state of Florida, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, for her continued commitment to this legislation. I'd also like to thank Chairman Biggs for prioritizing this issue in the crime subcommittee through multiple hearings as well as robust support for the Renewed Hope Act.
▶ 5:07:15Let us work together to unite against this evil and make the world a safer place for children everywhere. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back.
▶ 5:07:27Gentle lady yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement.
▶ 5:07:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I'm delighted to support this bipartisan America is seeing an explosion of child sex [clears throat] abuse material uh available and distributed online. Gruesome photos and videos depicting depraved acts against children are now increasingly available through virtually every inter internetbased technology there is, including social networking platforms, peer-to-peer file sharing sites, gaming sites, and mobile apps.
▶ 5:07:59The sickening demand for new, more egregious images and videos drives the market, resulting in the continued abuse and exploitation of children. Since the sexual violence depicted in these images and videos is most often a record of the victimization and suffering of an actual child, it's imperative that law enforcement make the identification of victims of child sex abuse material a priority.
▶ 5:08:22To that end, Congress must provide the resources and funding necessary to those agencies and groups charged with identifying, locating, and rescuing children at risk. The bill before us today, the Renewed Hope Act, would do just that. The bipartisan Renew to Hope Act, would act as a force multiplier in the fight to identify and locate victims depicted in child sex abuse material.
▶ 5:08:49It would require the hiring and training of muchneeded specialized victim identification personnel at the Department of Homeland Security, expanding the department's ability to identify and rescue victims of child sex exploitation and abuse. It's crucial that these new personnel perform the duties that are clearly articulated in the bill.
▶ 5:09:09So, I thank Congresswoman Lee and her co-lead, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, for working to strengthen the bill by ensuring that these personnel remain dedicated to the specific purpose outlined in the legislation and are not reassigned to another mission such as immigration. Further, I understand that the congresswoman will introduce an additional amendment to further protect these critical positions. With these [clears throat] necessary I'm pleased to support the bill.
▶ 5:09:40We owe it to the victims of these atrocious crimes to ensure law enforcement is well resource to investigate, identify, and locate victims and hold perpetrators accountable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 5:09:53Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Florida to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 5:10:00Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 5:10:02Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 5:10:03Amendment in the nature. Without objection, the amendment 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 gentle lady from Florida to explain the amendment.
▶ 5:10:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply makes a small change to the short title that does nothing to alter the substance of the bill. I yield back.
▶ 5:10:20Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 5:10:22Gentle lady from Georgia is recognized.
▶ 5:10:25Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, thank you, Chairman Jordan, and thank you to the co-sponsors of this important bipartisan legislation, Congresswoman Lee and also Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz. Images and videos of children being subjected to sexual abuse continue to spread at an alarming rate. We hear about the problem of child pornography, but often in ways that are focused on the perpetrator rather than being focused on the victim.
▶ 5:10:49Behind every image or video of a child engaged in explicit activity, there is a child and a story about how the child came to be subjected to such abuse. And there are many questions that must be answered. Who is the child? Where are they now? Are they still being abused? And most importantly, how do we end the abuse? Bring this child to safety and hold their abuser accountable.
▶ 5:11:18These challenging questions are offered often answered by investigators, computer forensic anal analysts and law enforcement officers across state, local and federal agencies. And there has been an increasing recognition that we can solve more of these mysteries, identify and locate more victims, and end more abuse if these agencies and experts do more of this work together.
▶ 5:11:42In 2023, Department of Homeland Security's Child Exploitation Unit brought together dozens of analysts and officers to launch Operation Renewed Hope. This operation combined experts from Homeland Security Investigations, the Cyber Crime Center, FBI, DOJ, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Virginia State Police, and 14 foreign law enforcement agencies, all to work together to identify the victims in images of child sex
▶ 5:12:13abuse so that they could be brought to safety. Operation Renewed Hope was repeated and expanded in 2024 and in 2025. Across these three years, Operation Renewed Hope led to the identification of over 450 victims, many of whom were then able to be found or confirmed safe by law enforcement.
▶ 5:12:37The Renewed Hope Act builds on this work by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to hire and train 200 investigators, computer forensics, and criminal analysts to the Child Exploitation Investigations Unit and HSI field offices dedicated to child exploitation and victim identification. It would also require the secretary to establish procedures to allow for better coordination of child sex sexual exploitation investigations.
▶ 5:13:07It would improve the skills of investigators and analysts by authorizing a victim identification training program that will help federal, state, local, military, and foreign law enforcement, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and civil service organizations that work to prevent child sexual exploitation. making sure that all of these partners can use new technologies to break open cases.
▶ 5:13:30And the bill would also establish privacy protections for victims to make sure their personal information is only shared for the limited purposes of investigating child exploitation or providing services and traumainformed care to victims. Importantly, Congresswoman Wa Wasserman Schultz and Congresswoman Lee have worked together to ensure that the positions created by this bill cannot be redirected away from this important work.
▶ 5:13:59And I understand that there will be a further amendment to ensure that is the case. An unknowable number of victims are still being abused and exploited. With this bill, we can enhance the expertise and manpower to uncover the children behind these images. We can hold the perpetrators of this abuse accountable. And most importantly, we can end the abuse and make sure these victims are safe, healthy, and whole again.
▶ 5:14:28Together, we can help victims escape, rebuild, and heal. I want to thank my colleagues, Congresswoman Lee and Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, and for everyone on both sides of the aisle uh for your work on this legislation, for supporting this legislation. and I am proud to support it myself. I urge all of my colleagues to do so to really stand in supporting and helping to find these victims and bring them home to safety. And I yield.
▶ 5:14:56Gentle lady yields. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 5:15:00Strike the last word.
▶ 5:15:00Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 5:15:01Thank you. I support this uh this bill and I appreciate uh Representative Lee and her leadership on this bill as well as Representative Wasserman Schultz. And I submit for the record a document called HSI combat combats child exploitation home and abroad
▶ 5:15:19without objection.
▶ 5:15:20Thank you. So, so what is HSI for those who don't know? That's that is homeland security investigations and it is a subcomponent of ICE and uh 60% of CESAM cases in the US are channeled through HSI and near here in Fairfax is the uh their compound uh C3 the the child uh cyber crime center.
▶ 5:15:47We've taken um our subcommittee out there before and invite you to go with us again sometime. If you want to go, let us know because it is amazing what they're doing there, the work that they're doing and uh we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. HSI works to protect children from predators engaged in the production, distribution, and possession of CESAM. And as I said, they handle more than 60% of all the CESAM cases in the US.
▶ 5:16:16And in fiscal year 2024, HSI initiated 6,929 child exploitation investigations, made 4,959 child exploitation related arrests, and identified and assisted over 1,700 victims of child exploitation. This bill will help them, and it will help our local and state law enforcement as well. This is an important bill.
▶ 5:16:41I am grateful for those who work so hard to bring this to us and I support it and encourage everyone to vote for it and I yield back Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:16:50Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Florida is recognized for an amendment.
▶ 5:16:54Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 5:16:55Clerk report.
▶ 5:16:58Amendment to the amendment.
▶ 5:17:00The amendment will be considered as read and the gentle lady from Florida is recognized to explain the amendment. This amendment simply assures funding goes directly to HSI to fund these specific critical positions for identifying victims of child abuse and exploitation. I urge support for my amendment and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 5:17:24Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Florida. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. And the chair, the eyes have it. The amendment is adopted.
▶ 5:18:37amended 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.
▶ 5:18:42Those opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment the nature of substitute is adopted. The questions on favor will be reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? No. The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will report as a single amendment. The nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
▶ 5:21:55to notice, I call up HR715, the prosecuting or excuse me, the protecting third party litigation funding form uh from abuse act for purpose of markup and move the committee reported favor to the house. The clerk will report the bill
▶ 5:22:07Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Isa for an opening
▶ 5:22:18Mr. Chairman, I will have an amendment. However, uh as an introduction to the bill, we've made virtually all the amendments that were possible in the previous from the previous version of the bill. We've reached out to every group on the left and the right and satisfied everyone we could satisfy. It is clear you cannot satisfy everyone because of a problem that exists within the court system. In some courts, Mr.
▶ 5:22:47Chairman, a judge will routinely ask for the source and information for third-party funders of litigation because clearly the third party funer has at least some likely influence on whether or not the product can be settled.
▶ 5:23:04and and in most cases, particularly cases that involve intellectual property, they need to be known if you're going to write a protective order that covers whether or not they should be excluded. Having said that, currently it's inconsistent. In Delaware, uh where one judge began doing it routinely, he simply doesn't get the cases anymore.
▶ 5:23:31In others where they do it periodically, they will probably be avoided. Those who never ask are the favorites of trolling organizations and plaintiffs lawyers who are using third-party funding that for some reason they are unwilling to divulge their source. Having said that, there were legitimate concerns brought up in this legislation early and we have addressed those.
▶ 5:23:56The first and foremost, the amendment, not mine, but that was offered that made the most sense was that in all cases, the judge will start with an inc camera review, thus determining whether or not the defendant has a reasonable need to know it, but at the same time letting the judge know whether or not there's a need for this to affect protective order and other You
▶ 5:24:27might ask, what is the problem with this bill then? If we've met at all. The problem is there's dark money. And when I say dark money, I mean sources that people are ashamed to say where they're getting it from. We have put in protections so that people who simply contribute money to a cause are not discoverable. We've put in additionally that you are not discoverable if in fact you do not share in the profits.
▶ 5:24:53Meaning that if an organization or group simply backs the cost of the bill, including the return of their original investment, they still are exempt from this. The only way to actually to be be discoverable and potentially that information turned over to the defendant is if in fact you are effectively the plaintiff, meaning you share in the profits and likely share in the ability to settle or not settle.
▶ 5:25:23That means that when there's a request for a uh a mediation conference, there's an expectation that the person coming has the right to make a settlement and not in fact simply to arrive and go back to an unknown source for those settlements.
▶ 5:25:40Today we will undoubtedly hear a number of uh amendments coming from a number of I have been informed that those amendments seek to gut the bill and I will be opposing likely all of them. None of them have been presented in advance which is not in the spirit of of finding a solution. I will address in closing one item that has been brought to my attention. I was a small inventor, a small inventor for more than 20 years.
▶ 5:26:11I have 37 patents. I know full well how expensive it is to take on the big guys including Chrysler Corporation and others. Having said that, third-party uh funding can be essential to do a three four five million case even if in fact you expect to be successful. It may not be something you can bet the farm on if you don't already own the farm.
▶ 5:26:38For that reason, we have made every effort to make sure that there is nothing that would diminish or reduce the ability to get third-party funding unless that third-party funding comes from George Soros who in an unamerican way wants to stop something or the Chinese communist who want to slow our technology or for example Huawei that repeatedly seeks to have trolls who will in fact try to
▶ 5:27:08stop 5G and other developing technologies by endless litigation uh slowing down or in some cases even stopping development. All of this is the reason this bill is before us today. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to proceeding forward. I yield
▶ 5:27:24Gentlemen yields back with that. Uh the chair now recognizes um the gentle lady from Vermont for an opening statement.
▶ 5:27:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Third-party litigation funding or TPLF is exactly what it sounds like. 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. It's rep it represents a practical solution to the problem that many Americans face when they need to go to court to obtain justice.
▶ 5:27:55Litigation is often prohibitively expensive and third-party litigation funding helps ensure that no person is denied their day in court because of financial barriers. Third party litigation funding levels the playing field for ordinary Americans who face powerful corporations which is exactly why major business interests are now working to discredit it. These corporate interests want you to believe that TLPF agreements are nefarious.
▶ 5:28:24They suggest that third-party funding is somehow giving ordinary people an unfair advantage against these large and powerful corporations. They have proposed this bill that they say brings transparency to the system. Less than two months ago, we were scheduled to consider a bill just like this very proposal, one that promised to bring again quote transparency to litigation.
▶ 5:28:48But groups representing the people and organizations who rely on TPLLF, Republicans and Democrats alike told us how the bill might end this form of litigation altogether. And the bill was pulled from markup. For a moment, it appeared that this bad idea was finally behind us. Yet today, we're presented with largely the same text under a different name. Some of our colleagues across the aisle say this is a negotiated text.
▶ 5:29:17Well, I know the ranking member certainly was not asked for his opinion, and if he'd been asked, he would have said that the minuscule change that they're touting as a grand compromise was already necessary to comply with the Constitution. That's right. In 1960, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed in Bates v.
▶ 5:29:36Little Rock that requiring the NAACP to disclose its contributors unjustly interfered with the members freedom of association which is protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment from invasion by the states. So this new text suggests that member and donor lists of TPLF funders don't have to be disclosed in some situations is simply a restatement of governing law.
▶ 5:30:03And any agreement where the members and donors have a financial interest in the outcome, which happens frequently with TPLF, would still require full disclosure under this bill. All of the risk is still there. And for all practical purposes, this bill remains unchanged. Whether we call it protecting TPLF or encouraging transparency, Americans can see the truth.
▶ 5:30:28All today's bill does is advance powerful corporations ability to escape responsibility for the harm that they cause communities. The fact is that this bill is not about fairness. Opponents of third party litigation funding haven't suddenly seen the light and want to protect TPLF. And this bill is certainly not about transparency. If it were, my colleagues would at least acknowledge that both state and federal judges already have the power to demand this information from litigants.
▶ 5:30:59If more transparency is necessary in any of these cases, courts are free to demand it. Instead, these bills are about stacking the deck in favor of big business business so corporations that break the law can drag out cases and dodge accountability. By forcing plaintiffs to reveal their backers, these bills will let the deeppocketed defendant stall, intimidate, and drive up costs until the plaintiff is forced to give up.
▶ 5:31:26And increasing the disclosures needed to file a claim in court makes third party funding more cumbersome and expensive. And it is an attack on the litigation victories that third party litigation funding has enabled. For example, the famous 1993 lawsuit brought by Aaron Brachovich against Pacific Gas and Electric Company for dumping a carcinogen into the water supply of Hinckley, California, which was partially funded by an outside provider.
▶ 5:31:53The women and small law firms who sued Fizer to prove their drug caused a breast cancer epidemic could not have done so without TPLF. Victims of the opioid crisis were able to sue the Sacklers to bring justice to the over individuals who died during the epidemic thanks to TPLF. These are just a few examples of people who never could have gotten their day in court without outside funding.
▶ 5:32:19Everyday Americans cannot afford basic health insurance or groceries or housing. Yet, my colleagues across the aisle suggest that if they're harmed by a major manufacturer or corporation, they should just pay for it themselves. The bill stacks the deck in favor of corporate interests and against the people. And I intend to vote no.
▶ 5:32:40And I also want to bring up the the point that opposition to the abusive transparency measures in this bill is actually in fact bipartisan. When some Senate Republicans tried to all but end TPLF in the big ugly bill earlier this year, other Republicans stood on principle to say that ending it was wrong.
▶ 5:33:02And this past June, Laura Loomer posted on X, quote, "Litigation finance is a critical weapon for the little guy, empowering consumers, whistleblowers, and small inventors to take on corporate titans." And last week, Gene Hamilton of American First Legal wrote that he is continuing to oppose the bill. He wrote this on X.
▶ 5:33:25Now, American Legal, American First Legal and I don't agree on much, but we have common ground in the opinion that as he wrote, quote, "The bill only serves the interests of the Chamber of Commerce and not the American people." So again, I plan to vote no. I urge my to vote with me and I yield back.
▶ 5:33:48Gentlely yields back without objection. All other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr.
▶ 5:33:57Chairman, I have an amendment. The text will report the amendment
▶ 5:33:59amendment in the nature of
▶ 5:34:01objection. 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 California to explain the amendment. Chairman, the amendment is not substantive in nature, but simply as a substitute changes the year and title of the bill. It does not change the substance of the base bill.
▶ 5:34:22Gentleman yields back. Um,
▶ 5:34:25gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald's recognized.
▶ 5:34:27Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to support my colleague, Mr. ISIS's bill, the Protecting Third Party Litigation Funding from Abuse Act, and urge its passage. Third party litigation funding or TPLF has grown quietly but explosively over the last decade.
▶ 5:34:45According to a 2022 GAO report, TPLF was estimated to be a 12 billion industry in 2021, although some sources now put it upwards of 18 billion today. Litigation finance offers a high-risk highreward strategy and some in front of this committee have even equated it to basically gambling. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with financing a lawsuit.
▶ 5:35:15I share my colleague sympathy for the small business or for the single investor who forced who's forced to defend themselves against Fortune 500 corporation with deep pockets. In those instances, TPLF helps create a level playing field and this legislation would not stop that.
▶ 5:35:33But when the financing is undisclosed, when it shifts control of litigation from a plaintiff to a silent investor, and when it potentially places decisions about US lawsuits in the hands of foreign entities, including those who with ties to geopolitical rivals, Congress has respond responsibility to responsibility to act on this. Excuse This is precisely what HR715 does. It simply requires transparency.
▶ 5:36:02It requires parties to disclose to the judge who is the financing, who's doing the financing on the lawsuit and what rights those funders have acquired. The reason transparency is essential is because TPLF can undermine the most basic expectation of our legal system that clients are in control of their own cases. This is not a hypothetical scenario. It is an established pattern.
▶ 5:36:26The most famous example was in 2023 when Cisco, the US food distributor, wanted to settle a price fixing lawsuit, but its TPLF fund capital counters sued Cisco because under the terms of the TPLF agreement, Berford had final say in any settlement discussions. In other words, Cisco wanted to settle, but Berford wanted a higher return on investment.
▶ 5:36:52In several instances, funding contracts have given investors veto power over strategic decisions such as which lawyer to hire, whether and when to settle, whether to appeal, or whether to pursue certain claims. [clears throat and cough] And because these arrangements are usually secret, courts are left unable to access conflicts of interest or other ethical issues that arise from these arrangements.
▶ 5:37:19Transparency is not only important for protecting a client's interest, but also critical for protecting national security. We know that foreign adversaries are increasingly sophisticated in using economic and legal tools to influence US institutions.
▶ 5:37:34TPLF offers a direct avenue for foreign actors to inject capital into US litigation and potentially shape legal outcomes affecting strategic industries, intellectual property, or sensitive Consider a scenario where a foreignowned investment firm funds mass litigation targeting an American defense By steering litigation strategy from prolonging discovery to punishing for disclosure of proprietary
▶ 5:38:04information, a foreign actor could gain access to data to sensitive data or weaken a critical supply chain partner. And because TPLF agreements are currently hidden, neither the court nor the government nor the American public would know who was ultimately pulling the strings. Or consider complex intellectual property litigation.
▶ 5:38:26A fund with ties to a foreign competitor could bankroll lawsuits intended to drain resources, pressure firms into an unfavorable settlement or licensing agreement, or force disclosure of trade secrets. And better yet, they could slow or altogether stop the roll out of key technology through an injunction. These are not speculative concerns.
▶ 5:38:50We have already witnessed foreign sovereign wealth funds invest in US patent lawsuits for the purposes of gaining access to US intellectual property. Disclosure will ensure that the courts knows who's involved and can take appropriate steps in response during It ensures that when strategic decisions are made in America courtrooms, they are not secretly influenced by entities whose interests may be adverse to their own.
▶ 5:39:19Some will argue that disclosure imposes a burden, but transparency is not a burden. It's a safeguard. The only parties disadvantaged by disclosure are those who benefit from secrecy. Our courts routinely require disclosure of financial interests, insurance, ownership structures, and conflicts. Extending that practice to litigation funders is simple fairness.
▶ 5:39:46In passing HR715, we reaffirm a basic principle that our civil justice system should be predictable, neutral, and accessible. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill. Our courts, our litigants, and our national security deserve nothing less. Thank you, and I yield back.
▶ 5:40:09Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Washington's recognized.
▶ 5:40:12Mr. Chairman, I move to strike last
▶ 5:40:14Gentle is recognized. When a bill similar to this one was scheduled for markup a few months ago, my colleagues on the other side and I had a very robust back and forth about the consequences of disclosing third party litigation funding. And I expressed my concern then that disclosure would give large corporate defendants a unique and undue advantage in a legal system that's already rigged against ordinary workers, consumers, victims, survivors, and small businesses.
▶ 5:40:44It would do this by arming corporate defendants with knowledge about how much money the victim has to prove and sustain their case. And it would allow the corporation to bury the victim in costs and draw out the case until it becomes financially impossible for the victim to continue pursuing the case. Now, these weren't just democratic concerns.
▶ 5:41:02Conservative groups like America First Legal, co-founded by Steven Miller, the Oversight Project, a spin-off of the Heritage Foundation, also strongly opposed the legislation because disclosure would discourage funders from investing in litigation for fear of negative exposure or harassment, likely in violation of their First Amendment freedom of association. So when I learned that the bill text had changed, I was hopeful that maybe these changes were going to address some of those concerns.
▶ 5:41:32But sadly, the changes have only further tilted the scales of justice in favor of corporations by, for example, making the disclosed information admissible in court and requiring the disclosure much earlier in the litigation. And while the bill now prohibits the disclosure of donor lists, that prohibition exempts all donors who provide third-party litigation funding, an exception that essentially swallows the rule.
▶ 5:42:03So, it shouldn't be surprising that there are conservative groups as well as liberal groups that still oppose this bill. Access to justice is the backbone of any democratic society. And in today's economy, there are just too many people who are priced out of the very system that exists to protect them. Workingclass Americans with very few resources are being harmed by massive giant corporations that are responsible for all kinds of wrongdoing.
▶ 5:42:30These include mothers suing a pharmaceutical company for its 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. And female employees suing an insurance company for discriminating against them through lower pay and fewer promotions. These vulnerable Americans are facing massive corporations.
▶ 5:42:58They're armed with a lot of money, plenty of money, and they're not afraid to use it as a budgeon to make sure that any challenge to their agenda is budgeoned down before it even gets started. Litigation is incredibly expensive, and that cost barrier alone can determine who wins and who never gets heard. Third party litigation funding gives workingclass Americans a fighting chance at holding corporations accountable.
▶ 5:43:26This bill is not just harmful, it's also unnecessary in the sense that under current law, judges already have the power to review litigation, financing agreements, and ensure that those agreements are fair and ethical and compliant with the law.
▶ 5:43:46Judges are already trusted to supervise the relationship between attorneys, clients, and third parties when it comes to attorney fees and class actions and bankruptcy settlements. And there's no reason that they can't continue to be trusted to oversee litigation financing With this bill, you would block ordinary consumers, workers, mom-and- popop shops from holding big corporations accountable for causing cancer, for contributing to mass
▶ 5:44:16shootings, for stealing inventions, for discriminating against their workers. And so I hope that my colleagues on both sides will vote no reflecting the opinion that's coming from both conservative groups and liberal groups in this particular situation. I urge my colleagues to vote no and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. I'm just strike the last word. Gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
▶ 5:44:44You know, a lot of the fights or the debates up here are left versus right, and there are a few of them that aren't left versus right. This is one of those. This is the big guys versus the little guys. And we don't have enough people up here speaking for the little guys, which could include patent holders who've taken a beating legislatively in the courts over the last decade or two decades and are struggling. this is just another effort to keep them from getting their day in court.
▶ 5:45:14Uh this, you know, there's a boogeyman here, which is China or other foreign adversaries. If that were really what this bill went was going to go after, we could narrowly tailor a bill that did that. And in fact, I'll offer an amendment to make this bill into that. But that is not what this bill is. This bill is so overly broad that it will basically deter investments in legitimate claims that that startups and small plaintiffs have.
▶ 5:45:44Um the bill's language is so expansive that it may require disclosure of entire chains of financial interests including venture capitalists, limited partners, pension funds, or even shareholders of public companies. It compels submission of funding agreements to opposing parties without protections for proprietary information like funding amounts, waterfall structures, or investment terms. Information that has no relevance to the legal merits of the case.
▶ 5:46:11But it could help the defendants, the big guys, know how deep your pockets are and how long they're going to have to go to starve you out in the litigation. Even the requirement for inc camera review is problematic. Defendants are not required to disclose indemnification agreements. Yet, plaintiffs must expose sensitive financial backing that could be weaponized through retaliation, harassment, or reputational damage.
▶ 5:46:38Registered investment advisors already subject to full FEC oversight would be swept into disclosure mandates, duplicating regulations without any national security justification. And by admitting that these disclosures are inadmissible and not discoverable, the bill conceds that they serve no evidentiary purpose and are instead designed to chill litigation finance, ultimately benefiting large corporate defendants. You don't have to take my word for it.
▶ 5:47:07Listen to the groups on the outside, some conservative, some liberal, but all trying to rep represent everyday Americans who deserve their day in court. And if this bill passes, it will squaltch their voice by cutting off their funding, by intimidating their Um, and that's what the big guys would love.
▶ 5:47:30So, I'm going to be opposed to this bill and I will offer um amendments and hopefully they will be accepted because they're offered in good faith to do what we're being told the bill does, which is to keep foreign adversaries from infiltrating our our courts and changing the balance of justice in the United States. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized.
▶ 5:47:55Um thank you very much, Mr. chairman and I couldn't agree more with Mr. Massie. Um, in particular, this is going to hurt small patent holders who do not have the ability to finance their inventions, do not have the ability when big corporations come in, come in and try to steal their inventions.
▶ 5:48:19It is going to the definition that we have um by saying any person entitled to any payment or thing of value in the act is over broad it's going to threaten limited partners partnerships e equity investors family offices a wide variety of things and I agree if we have a concern about foreign investment then we can have a very narrow rule that talks about when it's a foreign
▶ 5:48:49investment or a foreign investment that is not an investor in the underlying invention or patent. But the other thing that I want to say about this David versus Goliath situation is that we are seeing even more roadblocks put put in the way of people who want to file litigation against large players. We're seeing limits in how people do class actions.
▶ 5:49:19We're seeing limits in how you can get an injunction and whether it just applies to you or can apply to somebody else. All of these things make it harder and harder for people who don't have means to protect their intellectual property, protect their rights, protect their safety, protect their families.
▶ 5:49:43And so when we do things that make it harder for people to get access to the courts, it must be extremely narrowly tailored and there must be a compelling interest for doing it. What I'm seeing right now is that the compelling interest is the profits of people who might be in litigation and that is not sufficient for me. I will be voting no and I'm glad that people on both sides of the aisle are seeing it the same way and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 5:50:13Gentleman from Texas is
▶ 5:50:16Thank the chairman. Um and I would like to associate myself with the remarks the gentleman from Kentucky. I will also not be uh supporting the legislation as drafted. Um look, you know, there are kind of three ways things go in this world. You get ground out by the market. Um a market which you know I generally support existing, but people can get ground out by government and the market and so forth. But you got to have recourse.
▶ 5:50:37either have some regulatory constraint uh which I'm not overly fond of or you have litigation where you can go exercise your rights to go push back when that system uh creates issues and uh the trial bar has uh often done things that create a bad reputation but as have corporations and as have government and as have bad regulations in this environment here I feel that this is um and I I I will align myself with what my friend from
▶ 5:51:07Kentucky said, uh, you know, lining up with the big guy, uh, versus the little guy as a general proposition. Um, I think this is more, uh, doing the kind of chamber of commerce bidding than it is in trying to create a structure that I think that I think works the way it should. Um, and so from, you know, my standpoint, um, I I am interested in what the my friend from Kentucky might put forward to limit it, uh, to target it.
▶ 5:51:34I understand the uh merits behind wanting to do something here. I get it. Um and I certainly uh believe it was done in in um a good spirit by my colleague who introduced the legislation. But I look, I think this is going to create an environment where we're going to um stifle the ability of people to be able to help finance and fund people who um need to stand up and be able to push back on um the wheels that will grind out the little guy who has no recourse.
▶ 5:52:04And I just think we've been going down the big guy road for far too long. And um and I by that I mean big government and big corporation. uh and frankly where those roads intersect is as is the worst uh intersection. So I'll be happy to look at my friend from KY's amendments. Uh but as it stands I will be opposing the litigate the legislation.
▶ 5:52:25Gentleman yields back. I believe the gentle lady from California and I think the gentleman from Kentucky has an amendment. Uh gentle from California is
▶ 5:52:34Thank you Mr. Chair. I too will be opposing uh this piece of legislation. uh you know the and I would like to associate myself with um some of the remarks that I just heard. Um uh you know as has been stated the little guy the working person is uh getting hemmed up taken advantage of screwed um by big corporations on a daily basis. That's what folks say.
▶ 5:53:06And sometimes the only recourse is to take somebody to court. It's how you get somebody's attention that has a lot of money. And sometimes, oftentimes, it's the only way to get them to do the right thing. And this piece of legislation would essentially take that recourse away from them.
▶ 5:53:28uh to a judge is already part of the law, but forced disclosure to a corporate defendant is really about sharing and exposing your strategy, which only hurts the little guy who oftentimes is trying to find a lawyer that they can afford who will ride with them to try to get them the justice that they I think
▶ 5:53:58it's a shame that it is so expensive to sue, but that's where we are. I also think it's a shame that we're trying to take as many opportunities as possible for the folks who are getting up every single day trying to do the right thing, who get hurt,
▶ 5:54:20to take away tools that they have to hold these big corporations accountable because we know that the big boys have a massive legal team. They have endless amounts of money and they have time. They have time that the average American does not have. And they can have discovery up the wazoo which costs money.
▶ 5:54:50They can run down the clock which costs money.
▶ 5:54:54They can have all these filing fees which add up and cost money. And then the small attorney
▶ 5:55:01who's doing right by their friend and representing them in court against a big corporation, they're like, "Well, we only have you only have two weeks or two months to fight against the person who
▶ 5:55:15the company that maybe killed somebody that maimed you on a work site that maybe helped contribute to you getting cancer. you we only have enough money to fight them for two months and then you might have to settle and get pennies and get nothing and this corporation can continue to do the bad things that they've been doing.
▶ 5:55:40So I don't know why would say let me continue to hem up the average American who's struggling hard, who gets screwed by the big corporation. Let me just hem them up even more. We spent the better part of the morning fighting for those folks. And now I guess in the afternoon we put on a different hat and we all stop fighting for them. I don't understand
▶ 5:56:06And this isn't about foreign entities and like secrets because if that was the case, we would have had a whole bunch of hearings about this administration selling our chips, our national security secrets to China for a 25% commission fee.
▶ 5:56:24That's case. So, let's just call it what it is. Somebody has decided to jump in bed with the big corporations and the folks interested in monopolies who want to wear down working people and screw them even more. And they came up with this legislation. And I think we have an obligation to stand up and say this isn't passing the smell test. Um because ultimately this kind of legislation is how you delay justice.
▶ 5:56:55It's how you deny justice. And I'm I can't stand for that. Uh which is why I will be opposing this bill. I'm curious about the amendment that will be brought forth from the gentleman from Kentucky, but as it stands now, uh I'm opposing this piece of legislation. Thank you, and I yield back.
▶ 5:57:13Thank the gentle lady yields back. I too uh am interested in seeing amendments that have been withheld. Uh at this time I'll ask unanimous consent uh that and I'll summarize six uh groups in support of this legislation including groups like the National Insurance Crime Bureau.
▶ 5:57:32Uh all of which by the way their contributions or their uh ability to uh defend someone is discoverable already and routinely of course is discovered. Additionally, I'd like to place in the record a Bloomberg article entitled Soros backs personal injury lawsuits in market with 20% plus returns. Um, and with that, I'll uh without objection, so ordered and I'll strike the last word myself at this point if you don't mind, Mr. Ranking member.
▶ 5:58:05I think it's important that uh that we make the record complete. Many of the statements so far have said little guy, little guy, little guy. What's amazing is that it's in fact the big guy that's funding this against little guys.
▶ 5:58:24What often happens, and almost every case that I've looked at, including one that we'll have a hearing on tomorrow, third-party funders are going after systematically ownerfounded small companies and extorting from them using their unlimited power. They have little and when they run out of insurance, they have nothing and they settle. They'll run up a $600,000 bill before you know it and they're out of money.
▶ 5:58:52So let's understand under the current rules without a change under this legislation what really happens is plaintiff files a suit the first thing he wants to know is how deep are your pocket pockets what is the insurance he gets that information he finds out from the defendant how deep their p pockets are what the settlement is and then if there's going to be a settlement offered it is in fact uh based on what they can willing to pay but more importantly they know how much they have
▶ 5:59:22to make them spend to run out of money and then ultimately have to make a hard decision to settle. Little companies are routinely rolled up one after another after another by these groups. All we're trying to do is balance it. Additionally, the uh acting ranking member at the time described in straight firms champy a procedure that is not a something that that is in fact not allowed.
▶ 5:59:53And yet she described what this is as you know profit sharing by a third party. These contracts are carefully written in most cases to avoid that accusation so they can claim, well, we're really not co-investors in litigation, but they The fact is all we're asking for is what is being done on occasions to be done with specific safeguards greater than exist in the law today to protect the innocent
▶ 6:00:23donor and so on. One of the pieces of amendment that I'm sure will be offered is one that says, "Well, we're going to exempt it if it's an American citizen." Of course, an American citizen or an American corporation is the first step often leading to a foreign national. Um, and in fact, when we look at my own home district, it's not a small company. We all know the name Qualcomm, but Qualcomm is globally behind Huawei.
▶ 6:00:53Huawei and Huawei has the full backing of the Chinese government. And yes, they have a patent portfolio that couldn't be put in this room. There are so many. They are among the top 10 patenters of this year. So what happens? They're filing lawsuits. Well, that's fine if it says Huawei, but how what happens when in fact they're backing them or through third parties backing them? That is happening every day.
▶ 6:01:22So, yes, I appreciate the fact that some conservative groups want to to have this dark money and use it perhaps. I don't know why, but they might. We have put in the protections and you will hear it and see it in if you read the bill. We have put in the protections to make sure that in fact no innocent third party, no small donor, no one that can be intimidated is in fact subject to public uh display.
▶ 6:01:49Ultimately the greatest protection is one that is in this bill which is not a small difference which is the inc camera review before and often to the exclusion of any further Um, in this case, if we don't trust federal judges to look at something and we want to have a situation in which most of them don't, or if one of them doesn't, they can say, "I didn't know when, in fact, they allow these cases to go in large
▶ 6:02:20numbers through their their court because I will tell you the judges who ask for it are the judges being avoided by these black money users. So I am for the little guy, but let's not ever again be willing to say that the only little guy is the plaintiff. The little guy disproportionately when the trolls are going after is one after another little guy. Yes, it does. We do see the large cases.
▶ 6:02:47I too was in litigation as a small company with Chrysler Corporation. Um, and I've seen what it's like to go up against somebody who can hire a Pillsbury Madison and swamp you uh to where you can't even produce product for weeks. I also know that in fact the little guy can be on both sides. I've been that little guy. And with that, I think the ranking member wanted to strike the last word. Uh, thank you.
▶ 6:03:13But before I do, I would like to introduce a few things for the record by unanimous consent. One is um Jean Hamilton for America first legal uh
▶ 6:03:23without objections post opposing the bill. Uh second is a letter from the investors defense alliance
▶ 6:03:30without objection so ordered.
▶ 6:03:31Third is a letter from the alliance defending freedom strongly opposing the
▶ 6:03:35without objection order.
▶ 6:03:36And finally uh an article from the daily signal judiciary committee debates bill against lawsuit investors.
▶ 6:03:42Without objection they will all be placed in the record.
▶ 6:03:44If I could move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. gentleman is recognized for five.
▶ 6:03:47Thank you kindly and I appreciate your point at the end about about Chrysler. It does impress me that uh we're getting lots of very specific examples of little guys going against large corporations and then we have some kind of hypothetical hearsay suggestions that oh it's actually little guys who are the ones who are being targeted. Look this is the giant corporation bill of the year. Let's not make m any mistake about what's going on here.
▶ 6:04:17And if you want to support it, you can support it. But this is big business's number one bill. Okay. Um and the whole theory is uh they are going to find out exactly for the first time is I can tell in American history through the passage of federal law exactly what are the resources that plaintiffs may have available to them if they're bringing a toxic tort suit or a suit against vaccine makers or a suit
▶ 6:04:47against environmental uh corporate defendants who've polluted neighborhoods or communities. ities. They're going to find out exactly who you've got on your side. They're going to be able to nail that down in advance. Now, what's the justification for this extraordinary uh intervention in the litigation process when judges can already ask for information if it's remotely relevant to the actual proceedings in the case?
▶ 6:05:17The justification is this all has to do with national security and foreign policy. And yet I don't see the State Department here today. I don't see the National Security Council here today. I don't think this information is turned over to the State Department or to the National Security Council. No, it's turned over to guess who? The corporate defendant. If the judge needed it for a valid reason, the judge could already get it.
▶ 6:05:45It's the corporate defendant, the large corporate defendant who wants this information in order to um further stack the deck in terms of the ability of the plaintiffs to get a fair hearing in court.
▶ 6:06:04which is why I'm so glad to hear uh populists from left to right standing up for the little guys from Washington State to California to Georgia to Vermont to North Carolina to Kentucky to Texas. People saying, "Wait a second. Um why in the world would we want to give this huge corporate giveaway to the biggest businesses in America?
▶ 6:06:33It simply makes no sense. Tomorrow we've got a hearing going on, by the way, um about artificial stone slab workers who are dying because the big guys are prioritizing their profits over the safety of the workers. A great example of what's going on.
▶ 6:06:56And all we can think to do to enhance justice in America is to give information about how the plaintiffs are remarkably able to get into court to the corporate defendants um in this case. So I'm going to be voting very strongly against this legislation. I'm curious to hear what narrowing amendments might exist.
▶ 6:07:22taking um on good faith the proposition that this is really all about foreign policy and national security. Look, if we don't want China or Russia or an autocratic regime funding something in America, well then take that on directly and say let's go ahead and ban that, right?
▶ 6:07:42But we don't need uh legislation that is going to uh in a vastly over broad way um intervene on the sides of the big defendants uh in these cases. And I haven't even thought about what it would mean to actually ban um money coming from this or that source.
▶ 6:08:04After all, look, the way that we try to think about what goes on in court is that the court is ruling on the merits of the cause of action. And it doesn't make any difference how you got into court, whether you begged or borrowed uh the money to get into court to do it. The point is is that the judge is going to decide questions of law. The jury is going to decide questions of fact.
▶ 6:08:31And so we're going to have integrity in that process regardless of where uh the money came from. If we want to depart from that principle, let's look for a truly compelling reason to do it. But nothing remotely compelling has been offered at this point. On the contrary, this is a clearly political move by just some of the most powerful forces in the country. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 6:08:56Gentleman yields back. Gentleman uh gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
▶ 6:09:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong uh opposition to this uh legislation. Uh the gentleman from California offered uh for unanimous a letter from the trade group representing insurance companies. Yeah, they support this legislation.
▶ 6:09:21uh along with uh the multinational uh the crypto industry they support this uh legislation uh the data center folks the AI folks who are looking to take your jobs they support this legislation this is a David versus Goliath situation uh a left versus right
▶ 6:09:51is what we normally uh wrestle with here. Uh but I agree with uh Representative Massie. It's not a left versus right thing. It's a big guy versus little guy thing. Um it's the underdog versus the strong It's the bully versus the 90 pound guy at the beach. It's the predator versus the victim. Uh that's what this legislation is.
▶ 6:10:22It should not be titled the protecting third-party litigation funding from abuse act. I'm sure that there is a more dis uh accurate uh title for it such as the uh insurance company relief act.
▶ 6:10:39uh after we gave uh the insurance companies and all of these multinational corporations a a a billion dollar a multi-billion dollar tax cut in the big ugly bill while pulling funding for uh Medicaid and Medicare and Obamacare tax subsidies from uh from uh the bill. Uh you want to give them something else now.
▶ 6:11:07You want to pretty much give them immunity from uh being held liable to regular working people for harms that are done to them by these insurance companies that would take their premiums, but refuse to pay uh for uh the uh claims uh for polluters, for for fraudsters who would take your money under false pretenses, for people who produce and manufacture
▶ 6:11:37unsafe products like medicine, like food, like baby uh furniture or clothing. Uh people that corporations that do harm to people, you want to protect them by giving them immunity from uh lawsuits. That's what you're pretty much doing by making it unaf unaffordable for the public to be able to sue these corporate wrongdoers.
▶ 6:12:08Uh suing in court is expensive and corporations can defend all day and all night. They can defend the case till the cows come home. Particularly when they know how much money you have available to fight them.
▶ 6:12:25They have unlimited resources to fight you and they getting it uh and they fight you based on uh getting a tax deduction for uh their expenditures paying these uh white shoe silk stocking um tassel shoe wearing golden briefcase carrying corporate lawyers charging $1,000 plus uh uh an hour and they get a tax credit for that. a tax cut.
▶ 6:12:55I excuse me. They get a tax deduction for paying these folks who they hopnob with, by the way, at the uh country club. All of them together, the corporate lawyers, the insurance companies, the multinational corporations having a party. They will also be meeting at Trump's uh addition to the White House, the gilded uh um yeah, the guilded facility that he's deconstructed the White House to build.
▶ 6:13:26And uh these are the same folks standing behind him at the inauguration. Those are the folks that this bill protects, not the regular working people, the ordinary human beings in this country who work hard, play by the rules, and the only thing they want is to see their children uh rise up and do better than they. And that American dream has been lost, now can't even afford to buy a house or go on vacation.
▶ 6:13:56This bill is not addressing that issue. This bill puts more of your money into the pockets of these corporate wrongdoers and for that reason I oppose the bill and uh and I yield back.
▶ 6:14:10Gentlemen yields back. Uh I believe the gentleman from Kentucky has an amendment. Have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report.
▶ 6:14:20Amendment to the amendment.
▶ 6:14:22The point [clears throat] of order.
▶ 6:14:22Point of order reserved by the ranking member from Maryland. Without objection, the mill be considered as read. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized to explain this amendment.
▶ 6:14:30This this is a very simple amendment. Um it's been proposed today by the proponents of the bill that this is about keeping foreign influence out of our courts and our foreign adversaries, keeping them out of our uh IP and generally protecting America from foreign influence. So my amendment offered in good faith would limit this bill to exactly that.
▶ 6:14:56It says, and it makes an exception for the financial disclosure for anybody who's a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States or any entity organized and principally operated under the laws of the United States or any state thereof and not controlled directly or indirectly by a foreign person. That's all that's all the amendment does. It's very simple.
▶ 6:15:18It basically says that this bill is about foreign adversaries and we're not going to make it broadly applicable to other things. And um I yield back.
▶ 6:15:33Uh gentleman yields back. Gentleman sits on his point of order.
▶ 6:15:36Uh no, I just want to speak in favor of the amendment.
▶ 6:15:38Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 6:15:39Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the the amendment is is one that I think everybody should be able to uh agree to because um it it answers what we take to be the major point of the proponents here which is that this is an effort to isolate and repel foreign influence.
▶ 6:16:01And so, uh, the gentleman from Kucky's amendment, uh, carves out from the bill people who are natural citizens of the United States, um, as well as entities organized and operating under the laws of the United States and not controlled by a foreign person. Um, so I think this vindicates the the purpose um, of what the legislation is.
▶ 6:16:26Um and and at the very least we could then debate meaningfully the suggestion that uh you know it's a danger to have um litigation that's being financed by you know someone who is either directly or indirectly being influenced by a foreign entity. So I appreciate uh his clarification of the legislation. I would assume that everybody in good faith would adopt it and then we can go forward to try to analyze the legislation. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 6:16:56Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 6:16:59Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He's moved to strike the last word.
▶ 6:17:01Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 6:17:03Mr. Chairman, nowhere in this legislation did we say this was a foreign entity nefarious prevention act. the fact that yes, Huawei with its hundreds or thousands of tentacles in the US, including US entities that would gladly funnel money into third party litigation, could in fact be involved.
▶ 6:17:27Uh, and I think in the case of trying to thwart 5G, which they've done a pretty good job of, uh, in fact participates, but they're not limited. My example included the George Soros article. That George Soros article is from 2018. This is a growing problem. It has been for a long time.
▶ 6:17:47And last time I checked, George Soros is an American What is important to understand is what if the litigant, the true litigant is your rival, your competitive rival who only wants to in a patent litigation see your intellectual property. get behind the disclosure so they can find out what your sales are, what your profits are, what your margins are, how many units you sold.
▶ 6:18:18Now, I don't know how many of you have been defendants or plaintiffs in a patent case, but I run out of fingers and toes before I get done with all of my cases, and I can tell you when I'm a defendant, the most important thing they want to know is how many I sold. And when they know that, they know what they need to know about market share. One of the most important parts of their consideration. They don't have to win the case. They just have to win the discovery.
▶ 6:18:46So the fact is that by exempting all American entities, including green card holders, American corporations, shell corporations, and so on, from discovery by the judge, from inc camera review by the judge. You don't just gut this legislation. You get the very very concept that there's a reason you're supposed to know who your accuser is. In a criminal case, it's undoubtable. But in a in a civil case, it is still expected.
▶ 6:19:17It simply isn't happening. Your true accuser could in fact be your arch rival in business. But you don't know that. the true recipient of that very confidential in some cases information that isn't in patents but is in fact a trade secret becomes discoverable and for a little company that emerging company trade secrets can be everything.
▶ 6:19:40So the fact is I oppose this and I think all those who support underlying reform will certainly see this as of no value in improving the bill and I Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 6:19:54Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
▶ 6:19:56I rise uh Mr. Chairman to strike the last word.
▶ 6:20:00Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 6:20:01I rise in support of the amendment. Um I'll point out that uh in a David and Goliath world. Um David is the winner in the minds of the people. This is a David and Goliath The bill protects Goliath from David.
▶ 6:20:24And it actually makes no sense because David is already um weak and has a limited arsenal at his disposal, just a small rock. Whereas the big giant has the weight of the Supreme Court, the weight of its money, the weight of the legislative branch, the weight of the executive branch. It's got everything going for it, but it wants more.
▶ 6:20:54Like a a a fat just a glutton just can't stop stuffing their face with with food. in this case is money. The more money I get, the fatter I get, the more, you know, the more I want. It's just uh it's ridiculous that we when the American are the ones who need our assistance.
▶ 6:21:24We need to level the playing field for them, but we want to tilt even further the playing field in favor of these Goliath corporations. It's not fair. It's not right. The American people realize what we're doing here. Not a thing to help lower their costs. Not a thing to help bring fairness to uh an unfair environment. No matter how hard you work, it seems like you just can't.
▶ 6:21:53It it all goes to nothing.
▶ 6:21:56You work hard, your kids are suffering, uh your wife, Um, and here we have Congress doing everything it can to to make it even more comfortable for the rich, the wealthy, the well-connected, the fat cats are getting fatter. It's just uh I mean, what we're doing, the American people see through it.
▶ 6:22:25This legislation would even p cause problems for uh Epstein file victims to be able to sue corporate defendants who are alleged to be complicit in their victimization. I don't know if the gentleman from uh Kentucky would want to add to that.
▶ 6:22:46Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 6:22:47I would.
▶ 6:22:48Yeah. I think it it encompasses it started out as an IP bill and then I think to hide the nature of it being an IP bill. It was broadened in hopes of broadening the constituency of corporations who would be interested in this bill and the u but what has happened is it has also broadened I think the constituency of people who should oppose this bill the the Davids not the Goliath which could include people who've been harmed for instance by pesticides or people who've been
▶ 6:23:18sexually abused or traffked and um if I may take a few more seconds to talk about the bills uh his opposition to my amendment. He said that it's not fair that the defendant has to disclose the number of products sold or things like that. Well, that is material to the lawsuit.
▶ 6:23:42What is not material to the lawsuit is how you beg borrowed your way into court in order to hire that lawyer to get there. That is not material to the case. And so that would be my rebuttal to it's not fair that the big corporation has to say how many times they stole the patent in order to determine the outcome of that trial. And I yield I yield back to that was Mr. Raskin's point that I'm reiterating, but I I yield back to Mr. Johnson to the gentleman uh from
▶ 6:24:12I was listening to your uh passionate testimony. I wanted to hear a little bit more about the fat cats if I could. Just like just a little more elaboration about the tassels and the briefcases. Like [laughter] how how gigantic are these fat cats?
▶ 6:24:25These are real big folks. They're huge. As a matter of fact, huge.
▶ 6:24:31Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 6:24:32Yes, I would.
▶ 6:24:34Uh so at what weight can I get this bill through? [laughter] You know, at 160bs, 140 lbs. I do have a question for the gentleman though. If the defendant is a small business, do they get in do they get to use this? You know, you you've mentioned large businesses, but how do you feel if it's a qualified small business against a large one? Should should they be able to use this bill?
▶ 6:25:02I think the playing field is is as level as it can be at this particular time,
▶ 6:25:08though it's not level enough. And uh this legislation will tilt it even more in an unbalanced direction. So that's why I oppose this legisle expired. The gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 6:25:21Uh thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 6:25:22Wait, wait, excuse me. I'm sorry, Kevin. Oh, I I got to go in the order. I need to go to order. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Then we'll come to the gentleman from California.
▶ 6:25:28Yeah, Mr. Chairman, just a quick comment. I mean it to me the the reason I was attracted to the bill or thought the bill made good sense is because the legal system is being that that the system is being leveraged by outside dollars. It's that simple.
▶ 6:25:52There's money coming in from the outside that that quite honestly I I'm not sure how you can justify that. And eventually the $18 billion that's being used to skew the system makes no sense.
▶ 6:26:12And I think the amendment makes the case because what you're saying is yes, let's get these foreign governments out of this particular discussion. Let's make sure that we somehow carve that piece out and say yes, that's justified. Um, you know, I get it. It's part of the the security piece, but you're you're admitting basically that the system is skewed.
▶ 6:26:40that right now we've got outside dollars coming in that no one knows where it's coming in. And in some instances, it's already been proven it's there to and sometimes to gain damages. So I I mean maybe maybe this amendment uh narrows it, but it also makes the case I think that the system's broke. It's broke right now.
▶ 6:27:09And if that number of 18 billion continues to escalate, we'll just be back here in the next Congress doing it again because it's not working the way it's set up right now. It's just not working. And you can talk about the little guy, but you know, at the end of the day, the client is not in control of their own cases anymore.
▶ 6:27:29They're just not they're they're not in control of it.
▶ 6:27:32Somebody's out there shopping for outside dollars to fund these. And that's why I think we're just going to be back here next Congress doing the same thing.
▶ 6:27:40Would the gentle
▶ 6:27:41Will the gentleman yield for a question? but I appreciate that you're bringing our attention to what are the like systemic effects of this, but when you say it skews the system, I wonder if you could be more specific about that. I mean, say my community is a victim of some kind of environmental harm and we decide to go to court to try to vindicate our rights and to sue to stop the harm.
▶ 6:28:09Tell me how our being uh our getting third-party funding from any particular source will alter the course of the litigation or the integrity of the proceedings when the court has to make sure it's deciding on the facts on the evidence and based on the law.
▶ 6:28:30Well, I don't know how TPLF kind of uh makes a difference necessarily in that scenario other than the relationship between, you know, the person that that's engaged in a lawsuit and suddenly they're they're making decisions about where they should go with that lawsuit uh based on dollars that clearly are leveraged. So that when the case is settled, uh, there's going to be a windfall
▶ 6:29:01with the gentleman yield.
▶ 6:29:02That's what's going on right now.
▶ 6:29:04The gentleman yield.
▶ 6:29:04What's going on?
▶ 6:29:06Yes. Uh, I might further your your comments by by answering that uh the the reality is you need to know who you're settling with. You know, need to know who you're negotiating with. the very disclosure that there is a third-party entity who has some any operational control or benefit uh is should be discoverable but currently often isn't. So you you might be talking to someone, you might be in litigation with somebody, but you don't know.
▶ 6:29:34And as I'm sure the professor knows, the the fact is that uh mandatory arbitration and mediation and conferences often go on time and time again and they are simply a waste of money if the people who show up are in no position to do anything other than burn your money. So there is there are many reasons for it but I will comment if I don't mind on uh the idea that one is discoverable and one isn't.
▶ 6:30:04The depth of a pocket for defense uh when it's insured is in fact always discovered. The depth of of the ability to pay is always discovered. That sounds great except you haven't been convicted of anything. It happens at the front end of it and at that point you have no idea. We're not talking about how deep the pockets are. We're talking about who the pockets are. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
▶ 6:30:30Yield back.
▶ 6:30:33LA from Washington.
▶ 6:30:35Uh thank you. I'd like to speak in support of Mr. Massiey's amendment because I think that uh this is one of those situations where we've got people on both sides who are concerned about the enormous amount of money and leverage that these giant corporations have in these lawsuits and the amount of power that this legislation is originally drafted would give to those entities.
▶ 6:30:57And I'm confused, frankly, by the changing nature of even what this legislation is supposed to accomplish because originally I thought it was supposed to be about these foreign funders who were, you know, and I think Mr. Massiey's Mr. Massiey's amendment narrows it substantially to say, all right, if that's the problem we're supposed to be addressing, then let's address that problem.
▶ 6:31:23But now it seems that we're coming back to a whole set of other arguments about the legal system being skewed. If it's skewed, it's skewed in favor of those giant corporations. There are so many little guys who never get a shot at even getting to court. They don't have the money to get to court. There's no way they can even think about it. And so if you were to analyze the amount of money in the system right now, it's skewed towards the big guys.
▶ 6:31:50And I think the concern and the reason that there is both support from you know both parties on this against the original piece of legislation is because we have similar views that right now the system is being utilized supported funded by those giant corporations. This bill in its original form would just give more tools to those big guys. And Mr. I'm sorry.
▶ 6:32:18I don't know that there's going to be any weight at which the fat cats are going to get lean enough um that that we would want to support this because they're really huge right now. And I think that this amendment from Mr.
▶ 6:32:32Massie is actually a sensible way to narrow the bill and to to really try and get at what is it's supposed to be about because in each hearing it seems to change a little bit and um and I so I'm very supportive of of this amendment and uh I hope we can pass it.
▶ 6:32:52Would the gentle lady yield?
▶ 6:32:53I would.
▶ 6:32:54You know, I would uh I would ask you to notwithstanding today come to our hearing tomorrow. will wave you on to the subcommittee. And you can see in fact one after another small companies finding themselves swamped uh in claims for a product that they never touched. They never uh bought they never manufactured and in fact they didn't control even who ultimately bought the product. They have no idea until they're sued.
▶ 6:33:23So we do have examples and they are small businesses. They're actually in uh uh in in uh Congressman Gore's in u in his district.
▶ 6:33:36I I appreciate the offer. I appreciate the offer. I would say that for every one of those examples, I guarantee you that the vast majority of examples that we find are are not those examples. And listen, this happens where somebody will find a small business. I'm not saying that's never the case. I'm sure that's the case. But the vast majority of of money right now is coming from the giant corporations.
▶ 6:34:01And the vast majority of people who would be benefited by the bill um are those are the big guys. And I think we need to be looking at legislation in terms of what the effect is going to be on the entire system that already discourages the little guy from even getting into court. I mean, that's that's a very difficult thing to even get into court and have the money. Looks like the ranking member would like looking so thoughtful.
▶ 6:34:28I' I've got a question for you if that's all right if you deal.
▶ 6:34:31Um what's odd about this legislation is that the rhetoric goes a lot further than the actual measure. So if you if you take what our friends are saying seriously, like um uh the gentleman from Wisconsin, there's something illegitimate about having third party funding at all. Well, then why not just try and ban it? Why not prohibit it if there's something wrong with it?
▶ 6:34:56But if there's not something wrong with it, if I've got a right to take out a loan from whomever I want or to get money from whatever source I want to, if that's a right as a US citizen to do it to go to court, then leave us alone and stop harassing us because that's what it is. It's basically big business harassment.
▶ 6:35:15Of little people trying to get into the legal system. I I completely agree with the ranking member and I think that we're getting at some of the crux of the problem in the in in the system as it stands today. I yield back.
▶ 6:35:27Yield back. The gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 6:35:29Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I think there's definitely truth on both sides of the argument here. I'm not sure I fully buy the image of David versus Goliath on one side or the fat cats on the other side. Um I think it is true uh that this bill would crack down on on abuses. Uh well, it's also true that it would uh likely deter or chill meritorious litiga litigation.
▶ 6:35:51Uh I think it's true uh that the bill could level the playing field uh when it comes to disclosure while also potentially further uh unleveling the playing field uh when it comes to resources. So just listening to the debate, it's pretty clear to me that this will not have the votes to pass on the floor, let alone get to 60 in the Senate. So if we actually want to make policy here and this is a complicated policy. There's all kinds of exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions and so forth.
▶ 6:36:18Why not narrow it to that class of uh cases that we can all agree are the most concerning those where you have foreign influence involved and see how the policy plays out there and then we could revisit it in the future. I be happy to yield to Mr. Isa. Well, the amendment as it is that uh doesn't say how you discover that. Do you have are you in in considering that this amendment by Mr.
▶ 6:36:46Massie should be changed to allow for in-depth disco discovery? Because if if I can't know that the third party funder is in fact when I go up the chain the the Chinese communist government, I'm not going to find out by simply the US company saying I'm a US person and that ends it. So even if we were to go with narrowing it the way Mr.
▶ 6:37:09Massie is saying all cases would have to essentially come to a the judge in camera to try to figure out does it have that element and then the question is how would you do further discovery.
▶ 6:37:25um many of the things if and I want to uh take thank you and take you at your word that that perhaps there is a narrowing but perhaps the narrowing is that if the defendant has sales less than $und00 million or a net worth of less than $10 million they would be entitled to this information because at that point they'd be pretty slim. But it sounds like the people on the other side don't think that I'm thin enough or that I'll ever be thin enough. And I'm quite frankly pretty happy where I am.
▶ 6:37:55I don't think I want to get any thinner. The reality is that this did start off concerned about intellectual property. And if I could write the bill in the narrowest way, I would say it only concerns patent and intellectual property related cases. But to be honest, Mr. Massie objects to that and doesn't really give a darn about the rest of it by comparison.
▶ 6:38:17So it isn't going to change the fact that we have narrowed this to an inc camera review by a federal judge and it need go no further if the judge sees no need for it to be disclosed further.
▶ 6:38:30And quite frankly, I don't know how you narrow any more than simply saying we trust a nonpartisan lifetime appointment judge to simply look and say, is there a reason particularly to affect the protective orders um as to who gets information when there is a third-party profit and loss participant who might even be a competitor?
▶ 6:38:56I thank you, gentlemen.
▶ 6:38:57I yield to uh the gentleman from Kentucky. I think the gentleman from California, if Mr. ISO wants to narrow my amendment, I'm open to language to do that. I think it's sort of problematic. You might let the cat out of the bag in the very beginning when you try to if if you put very specific things in there of how you're going to find out if there's foreign interests or not, but I'm sure there's a way to do it. And u I'm sure there's a way to limit the inc camera review.
▶ 6:39:24I have another amendment to your bill because I've got some concerns about the inc camera review. Um, we may or may not get to that today, but if you if you have any ideas, I'm open to how we make sure that the bill is limited only to foreign entities.
▶ 6:39:44Thomas, if I can ask you, if we did that, would you vote for this bill?
▶ 6:39:48I would I would consider it. I would.
▶ 6:39:51In other words, you're not you're not saying you'd vote for the bill. Well, I want to see what your fix is to do that.
▶ 6:39:57If this amendment were passed, would you vote for the bill?
▶ 6:40:00I would consider it.
▶ 6:40:02I rest my case. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
▶ 6:40:05I yield back.
▶ 6:40:07Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from California.
▶ 6:40:12Thank you, Mr. Chair. I uh I would be supporting this amendment um because I agree with uh some of the discussion that I've heard. This is a very serious issue that actually warrants a longer discussion. Um because this is a problem that we all face within this legal system.
▶ 6:40:36I mean, at the end of the day, I think I hope what everyone wants is that regardless of who you are, if you are harmed, you should be able to go to court, plead your case, the merits of the case should be listened to, um, and you should be able to prevail if the merits stand. And it shouldn't be about how much money you have.
▶ 6:41:03And I just don't understand why our colleagues are so upset that plaintiffs are now kind of doing what they need to do to figure out how to get the financing they need to at least give them a shot at justice in the courtroom. Uh at the end of the day it is about leveling the playing field so that the little guy does have a chance.
▶ 6:41:26Now I we keep talking about foreign money and foreign influence and you know I mean we should also have a deeper conversation about that because there's actually a lot of foreign dollars that are already tilting the scales to the side of these big corporations because there are sovereign wealth funds.
▶ 6:41:49There are foreign investments and investors that are putting their money in these big corporations and that's how they're able to beef up their infrastructure. That's how they're able to beef up their legal arsenal. That's how they're able to continue to snuff out the little guys. So the the foreign money, I don't know about the black money, but the foreign money is already making its way through this system.
▶ 6:42:19Trust me, the big companies are like, "How do I get bigger?" Okay, monopoly time. Okay, how can I do this? Okay, foreign investments. Okay, they're trying to get a profit. Okay, they're going to get bigger and turn into a Pac-Man. Okay, little person, you're screwed.
▶ 6:42:34So why don't we jump way down the rabbit hole and unpack all of it and unpack all of it so that we can try to do what many folks say but not many folks do which is stand up for the little person so that they feel like the courtroom is as open to them as it is to the person walking in with the silk stockings and the tassels and the gold briefcase and all that all that because I don't know when you when you
▶ 6:43:05are hurt because you're making some quartz for some rich guy who's buying their fifth home. When you are hurt because you're not getting the disclosures you need and you're taking some medicine that's hurting you and the hospital or the doctor's not trying to help you.
▶ 6:43:24When you are hurt, when you go into the store and something bad happens and they just throw you out and try to like weigh you down with all of their lawyers so that you walk away, that's not helping David. That's not helping the little guy. That's not helping most of the constituents that we represent that live in our district.
▶ 6:43:45So, I do support this amendment and I think we should actually have a deeper conversation about third party financing and I think we should also have a conversation about foreign influence and foreign dollars that are already in the system making these big corporations even bigger even bigger. And with that, Mr.
▶ 6:44:04Yes, I would like to yield to the ranking member.
▶ 6:44:06Thank you very kindly. I just wanted to uh to add to the gentle lady's comments a point in response to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Kylie, who makes the eminently reasonable suggestion uh given the intense controversy this bill has created, why not go with the narrowest basis for the bill, the one that was originally promoted to everybody as the basis for it, uh which was to repel foreign influence.
▶ 6:44:34And the answer that we got from the gentleman from California is well it would be too uh inscrable and indeterminate to figure out who actually was a natural person who actually is an entity organized by the United States.
▶ 6:44:48In fact, if you look at the grammar of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, all of this comes within the discretion of the party which has the new obligation to disclose in writing in the court all other name parties the civil action um that has a legal right to receive any payment. So they would be the ones to say except where it's a natural person. That's not complicated at all. That makes it very simple. Thank you. I I yield back.
▶ 6:45:22Gentle yields back.
▶ 6:45:25Question. We got
▶ 6:45:26move to strike the last word.
▶ 6:45:28Gentleman from New York's recognized. Uh I will I will not take my my full five minutes, but the the pretty clear divide that I think we're trying to get at here is a debate between uh making sure we have access to courts, making sure that there is an ability to redress situations which requires some uh evening out of the system so that large corporations
▶ 6:45:58s cannot bludgeon plaintiffs to death with discovery with motions etc. On the flip side I do understand the Mr. is concern that if we are dealing with uh trade secrets, intellectual property, and you have an an unidentified foreign investor, potentially a competitor, potentially someone who can use those trade secrets with something else.
▶ 6:46:29That's a concern. But this doesn't the direct uh balance here in a meaningful way. And and I could be wrong, but I I think that's what Mr.
▶ 6:46:43Kylie was uh was trying to get at here is that there there is a way of enabling plaintiffs to get access to court and to be able to adjudicate their claims um with third party support to put up some of that money that is necessary to uh combat the massive amounts of money from the defendants. That's an important thing.
▶ 6:47:13That's very important in terms of just access to courts. If you have a third party um and separate and apart from the discovery aspect of it, you are ultimately going before a judge who is going to make the decision as to whether or not there's a legitimate claim. Now, Mr.
▶ 6:47:36ICE is concerned about small businesses getting pummeled with um you know with lawsuits that they can't afford, they have to do a nuisance settlement uh that they can't afford. Legitimate concern, but this is not the way to solve that. We can do serious tort reform so that there are more more serious penalties for frivolous lawsuits or for um overreaching.
▶ 6:48:06Will the gentleman yield?
▶ 6:48:08Yes, of course.
▶ 6:48:08Well, and then I I wonder given your experience whether you would agree also that lawyers have a professional responsibility to represent their clients and not some third party. And so there's a there's a duty of honesty and cander before the court if somebody's actually representing somebody who's not a plaintiff in the case.
▶ 6:48:27Well, of course, I think yes, the obviously the the plaintiff is the plaintiff and if somebody wants to invest in that claim, that is not the the client. Um, and I think what this ultimately goes to is that uh, corporations don't like the fact that plaintiffs may level the playing field in terms of finances.
▶ 6:48:51I mean, that's just simply what the opposition to third party litigation is, is that corporations, large defendants, feel like they have the upper hand and they don't want to give that up. Um, I I I agree with my my uh colleague from Washington that for every small business that has to deal with the multiple nuisance suits, I'm sure there are exponentially more um small plaintiffs who get run out of court.
▶ 6:49:20But this just I again I I know we worked on this and we we postponed it, but there is something here that we can agree on, but it has to include access to courts in a meaningful way um while protecting our national security.
▶ 6:49:41And by that's why I do support the amendment, but by uh ultimately the way that this is written makes it uh impossible to to do that. And I'd yield to Mr. Messi.
▶ 6:49:54You know, I don't think there's anything wrong at all with the wording of my amendment. If there's anything if it's flawed, then so is the entire bill
▶ 6:50:02because the bill relies on the lawyers being honest to the judge. And what I believe what Mr. Isa implied was what do you do if the lawyers are lying to the judge about foreign influence? Well, the whole bill has that defect. You know, they could lie to the judge about anything. So, and I don't think it's a defect, by the way, and I think the amendment is just fine as it's written. And I yield back, Mr. Colton.
▶ 6:50:26Thank you. Yeah, that was u I was not directing my comments at you. I agree that as written uh the amendment um which I support would address uh the concern of US citizens versus uh foreign entities or or persons uh and I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. We have four votes on the floor. The committee will recess for those four votes and then uh pardon
▶ 6:50:51eight votes on the floor. Four bills I guess eight votes um eight votes on the floor. The committee will recess and resume uh at on when the vote series is