▶ 0:05:23Is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider five measures. H.r. 6387 h.r. 6398. H.r. 60 409. H. Res. 1156 and hr 8035. Hr 6387 hr 6398 and 64 093.
▶ 0:05:46Measures from the energy and commerce committee pertain to mitigating regulatory burdens that stem directly from the clean air act that fall upon the shoulders of the states. Inevitably, some will leap to their feet and allege that republicans are gutting supposed environmental safeguards and that we don't care if the world burns. We don't need a crystal ball or some sort of tarot card reading to predict this.
▶ 0:06:15It's the same line that's used ad nauseam, with no difference whatsoever to facts or evidence. Let's be clear about the facts and the context surrounding them. The clean air act was signed into law more than 50 years ago. Since this time, we've found better ways to prevent wildfires. We made unmatched progress against emissions, and we live in an age when foreign pollution has contributed to non-attainment designations in at least 85 counties.
▶ 0:06:44The air quality of some communities is suffering due to no fault of their own. We shouldn't be using the clean air act as a punitive measure, a machine against our localities. Perhaps most important is the fact that related supreme court case law has changed and intersecting statutes have been rewritten.
▶ 0:07:08We need to reconcile these elements of the clean air act with these facts, and our colleagues across the aisle are more than welcome to join us in enacting meaningful reforms. H. Res. 1156 would express the house's support for tax policies that support working families across our nation, as well as a recognition of the positive impacts that the working families tax cuts have delivered for hard working families. And what are some of those positive impacts?
▶ 0:07:37Increasing access to health savings accounts for millions of americans. Permanent expansion of the child tax credit. A permanent increase in the standard deduction. No tax on tips. No tax on overtime. The expansion of educational freedom and choice through 529 accounts for families. The list goes on and on. The facts and evidence as to why the working families tax cuts are a boon to the american people are as clear as day. There's no debate about it.
▶ 0:08:06Finally, we'll turn to hr 8035, which reauthorizes. Section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act until october 20th of 2027. As president trump and others have said, pfizer remains extremely important to our national security, especially given the current global events.
▶ 0:08:28A short extension 18 months will ensure the trump administration has the tools necessary to protect our homeland. Preserve the recently enacted reforms critical to safeguarding americans constitutional rights, and will allow the congress to continue to evaluate any future changes that may be necessary to the program.
▶ 0:08:50With that, I look forward to the discussion that will take place here today, and I yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make. >> well, thank you, madam chair. And let me just say, today's agenda is really something. Uh, first, republicans want us to vote on giving themselves a pat on the back for their big, ugly bill. You don't even use the bill's actual name in this resolution.
▶ 0:09:12Instead of calling it its actual title, which you named it the one big beautiful bill act, you're calling it the working families tax cuts act, rebranding it because it's so unpopular. So let me give you, you guys a little bit of advice. If your bill is popular and helps people, you don't need to pass another measure to tell people how popular and great it is. You wouldn't need to rebrand it. You wouldn't need to tell people something works.
▶ 0:09:40Um, if it actually works, uh, they would know. Second, we have the fire act, uh, the red tape act and the fences act, all huge giveaways to big polluters so they can dump more toxins into our air and make people sicker. And then we have a pfizer extension that republicans don't even know if they can pass. So here's the point. I spent my time meeting with constituents over the last two weeks. I didn't buy a bubble wand in disney world. Um, I spent my time listening to people I work for.
▶ 0:10:09And you know what they said to me? They're asking what the hell is wrong with trump? He's obviously unwell. He's acting like a maniac. And my voters want to know why you guys are acting like everything is just normal. It's not normal and you all know it. He is very obviously deeply unwell. There is something wrong with him. He's up past midnight attacking the pope. He's posting pictures of himself as jesus and as a catholic. I'm horrified by that.
▶ 0:10:40And I'm sick and tired of republicans. Republicans acting like everything is okay because the people back home in my district, and I think people all across the country think he's nuts. And they want to know when republicans are going to grow a spine and stand up to this lunatic. We've been at war in iran for a month and a half. Gas is way above $4 a gallon. The epstein files are still being hidden.
▶ 0:11:06Dhs is still shut down, costs are skyrocketing, and the president of the united states isn't doing anything to solve any of that. He's posting pictures of himself as jesus and saying he's going to commit war crimes.
▶ 0:11:22And this committee, the powerful house rules committee, which could meet to do something about any one of these issues, is passing a non-binding bill to congratulate republicans for passing a bill they already passed. I mean, this is insane, madam chair. Take any one of these issues, the dhs shutdown, for example, and look at how it's impacting people.
▶ 0:11:46Dhs is still shut down because republicans are fighting with each other instead of working together to do their job. Mike johnson had a perfect bipartisan deal and delivered to him and rejected it, only to reverse course and accept it. So why aren't we voting to reopen dhs today? Good question. Nobody knows. Apparently, mike johnson doesn't really even care because we're not even considering dhs legislation today in this committee.
▶ 0:12:15And trump is now paying tsa workers anyway. Apparently, he believes that he could have paid tsa workers all along, so he withheld the pay because he wanted to use tsa workers as pawns. What a rotten thing to do. And again, this is just one of the many broken promises and betrayals from trump and the republicans in congress. You guys promised lower prices on day one. Promise broken. Everything is more expensive. Rent, healthcare, groceries, gas.
▶ 0:12:44You guys promised to release the epstein files. Promise. Broken. It's now been months and months since democrats forced a vote to demand the release of the files. Yet the administration continues to stonewall and protect pedophiles instead of prosecuting them. You guys promised no new wars. Promise way, way broken. We we have now been at war with iran for over a month and a half. 13 american service members are dead. Hundreds more are wounded. Thousands of civilians have been killed. And now get this.
▶ 0:13:16Now we are blocking the strait of hormuz. The strait that iran already blockaded. So we are blockading their blockade. How does that make any sense? Meanwhile, oil prices continue to soar and higher oil prices mean higher gas prices, higher food prices, higher housing costs. It will drive everything up. Costs are going up and up because trump's because of trump's war, and he is taking money out of the pockets of every single american family. And for what?
▶ 0:13:45So we can reopen a strait that was already open before the war started. I mean, what a disaster. Families are hurting. Gas prices are digging into people's budgets. Fertilizer prices are hurting farmers. Our troops are at risk. Our allies are abandoning us. Our adversaries are laughing at us. And republicans big plan for the week is passing a resolution to congratulate themselves for a bill they already passed last year.
▶ 0:14:12A big, ugly bill, by the way, that made $1 trillion cut to medicare and medicaid and a $200 billion cut to food assistance for seniors and kids so they could give new tax breaks to multi-millionaires and billionaires and giant corporations. That is what we get from republicans every week in the rules committee. More broken promises, more betrayals, more fluff while people back home are crying out for action.
▶ 0:14:41A reckoning is coming, madam chair. And for the people who are being hurt by the policies of this president and this republican congress, that reckoning cannot come soon enough. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, representative palmer and representative tonko, from the committee on energy and commerce. Your full statement will be submitted for the record.
▶ 0:15:10We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. We ask you to address all legislation under your committee's jurisdiction. In your five minutes. Representative palmer, I welcome your testimony. >> chairwoman fox, ranking member mcgovern, and the members of the rules committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm pleased to speak in support of three pieces of legislation, h.r. 6409, the fences act, h.r.
▶ 0:15:36Six 398, the red tape act, hr 6387, the fire act. All three bills are important part of energy and commerce permitting reform efforts. Offenses act, h.r.
▶ 0:15:516409, introduced by my colleague congressman august pfluger of texas, ensures that states and local communities are not penalized for foreign air emissions emanating outside the united states, across sites across the country are being unfairly penalized for pollution that originates beyond us borders, including air emissions from natural events like the canadian wildfires. Currently, the clean air act allows states to adjust their plans when foreign emissions prevent them from meeting federal standards.
▶ 0:16:20However, guidance from the epa under the previous administration narrowed the relief, limiting it to only human caused emissions from abroad. This bill clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or manmade, are excluded from consideration when determining whether a state meets national air quality standards.
▶ 0:16:38Importantly, the bill allows states to account for foreign emissions earlier in the regulatory process instead of forcing them to wait until the very end and risk costly delays for federal sanctions.
▶ 0:16:51The red tape act, hr 6398, introduced by my friend congressman john joyce of pennsylvania, eliminates the duplicative requirement in the clean air act that requires epa to assess and provide feedback on environmental impact statements other agencies prepare under nepa, an action agency preparing an environmental impact statement under nepa, already possesses the expertise and resources necessary to assess the environmental impacts.
▶ 0:17:18Epa is often already involved in the nepa review process as a cooperating agency, requiring them to provide secondary review under section 309 is unnecessary, duplicative and inefficient. This duplicative review leads to increased delays and expenses in the nepa process. This legislation is an important step to streamline permitting, and it removes burdensome inefficiencies in the current nepa process.
▶ 0:17:44The fire act hr 6387, introduced by congressman gabe evans of colorado and co-led by congressman adam gray of california, amends the clean air act to ensure that states are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures like prescribed burns and brush clearing. States currently limit these practices for fear of falling out of attainment or due to the costly and lengthy exceptional events process.
▶ 0:18:09The fire act ensures that states are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures. It provides clarity and predictability for air quality planning, reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers and communities, and rewards proactive wildfire mitigation measures. Prescribed burns or controlled burns are the most effective way to decrease both the severity of wildfires and the public health problems associated with the smoke they produce.
▶ 0:18:37These bills are an essential component of the committee's permitting reform efforts. The clean air act is overdue for an update. Outdated provisions are holding back american manufacturing. These three bills deliver, permitting reform to remove those barriers, boost domestic production, unleash american energy and lower costs for hardworking americans. Urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 6409, hr 6398, and hr 6387. Thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back.
▶ 0:19:09>> gentleman yields back now recognized representative tonko from the committee on energy and commerce. >> I thank chair and ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee for the opportunity here. I'm here to testify on hr 6409 hr 6398 and hr 6387. I strongly oppose all three of these bills. Across the country, americans are struggling to afford health care after congressional republicans allowed affordable care act premium tax subsidies to expire.
▶ 0:19:37Simultaneously, the trump administration initiated a large scale rollback of common sense, climate and environmental programs designed to improve public health and lower americans utility bills. Now, the president is adding fuel to the fire by waging an illegal war in iran that has raised gas prices to record breaking levels. Simply put, president trump and republicans are worsening the affordability crisis.
▶ 0:20:01And while my democratic colleagues are working on solutions to this crisis, congressional republicans are doubling down with bills that will make these problems even worse. Today, we are here to discuss three partizan bills that will gut critical public health protections in the clean air act and make americans sicker. H.r. 6398. The red tape act would exempt major federal projects and regulations from any scrutiny of their impacts on air quality and public health from epa experts.
▶ 0:20:31The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by removing the requirement that epa's comments be made available to the public, ignoring the consequences of major actions won't make them go away, but that is exactly what the red tape act would have us do. And for the people who live near these major projects, turning a blind eye to the problem doesn't protect their families from toxic exposures.
▶ 0:20:57Worse yet, the red tape act is being billed as permitting reform, when in reality it is a bill to let polluter run amok without proper safety or common sense guardrails out of sight from the public. The two other bills being considered today are a direct attack on the national ambient air quality standards, which set health protective limits to common air pollutants such as fine particulate matter and ozone.
▶ 0:21:23Republicans claim that the fire act and the fences act are needed to ensure states are not penalized for pollution from wildfire and wildfire mitigation efforts, or pollution from foreign sources. While those are both worthy goals, the clean air act already provides flexibility to epa and states to address these issues. Beyond those duplicative provisions, these bills take a sledgehammer to the public health protections at the core of the clean air act.
▶ 0:21:50The fire act does little to make it easier for states to use prescribed burns as a tool for wildlife management. Instead, it expands the definition of exceptional events that states can claim when demonstrating compliance with air quality standards to include regularly occurring weather like drought and heat. To put it simply, the fire act would give polluters a free pass on the clean air act, allowing states to use a hot day as an excuse to ignore the harm inflicted on the health of americans.
▶ 0:22:18The fences act would ignore bad air quality in areas that experience any foreign pollution, and remove epa's ability to impose sanctions on states that fail to make progress toward reducing cleaning up the air. Republicans framed this as reducing regulatory burden, but in reality, the bill removes all accountability, would grind to a halt, and will leave millions of americans to breathe on, breathe unhealthy air while being told it is safe.
▶ 0:22:48Clearly, these are serious problems with both of these bills. That is why I have filed amendments to address some of the major deficiencies. I urge this committee to make them in order for the floor. Congress should be focused on making life more affordable for the american people, not saving a few dollars for corporate polluters. These bills are nothing more than a partizan attempt to make executives richer while making americans sicker in the process. With that, I strongly oppose h.r. 6409, h.r. 6398 and hr 6387.
▶ 0:23:21And with that, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back, and I recognize miss fischbach for her time of questioning and comments. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you both for being here. Really appreciate it. Um, I do support these. I think in general, reducing regulations and straightening some things out make a lot of sense.
▶ 0:23:40And I just have just a quick question for representative palmer, and maybe you can talk about how the red tape act removes some of the duplicative efforts to streamline the review of an action. The energy, the ease. >> well, it's pretty obvious, um, representative fischbach that that, um, it eliminates duplicative process.
▶ 0:24:05And by requiring the epa to do duplicative reviews, it's almost, we're almost saying that the agencies with jurisdiction are incompetent to do the reviews. I don't believe that the supreme that's the position of the supreme court, that the agencies, uh, are able to do this. So when you add this, this extra layer of review, it slows the permitting process, which adds to the cost of, of projects.
▶ 0:24:30As we learned during the four years of the biden administration, when we had about 20%, I think it was cumulative inflation, that just delaying a project for years would add substantially to the cost of the project. So what we're trying to do, and, um, contrary to what my colleagues across the aisle believe is we're trying to, to maintain the environmental quality that we have. I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which we built environmental systems.
▶ 0:24:59So I'm very familiar with what goes into to, uh, cleaning the air and the water and, and doing it the right way. But when you add layers here that delay the permitting process, you're adding to the cost and really making the affordability crisis what, what it is today, just in four years of the biden administration. >> thank you, Mr. palmer, and I appreciate all of the authors for bringing this forward and for you taking the time to be here with us at rules.
▶ 0:25:28And thank you very much. And I yield back. >> now, recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, miss mcgovern, for his time of questioning and comment. >> well, thank you very much. And, um, anyway, I'm I'm opposed to these amendments, but, um, like Mr. palmer, Mr. tonko so much, I'm going to pass on questions back. >> thank you very much. Now recognize Mr. roy for his time. Questions and comments I appreciate I yield back. Gentleman yields back now recognize miss scanlon of pennsylvania for her questions and comments. Thank you.
▶ 0:26:00>> uh, Mr. chairman look, these bills appear to be just another republican handout to their donors in the oil and gas industry. It seems to be a cornerstone of the conservative agenda to make our skies dirtier, the air we breathe less healthy just to boost profits for corporations. If these bills will become law, they will make people sick.
▶ 0:26:23They're going to harm our children, and they'll allow states with already lax pollution enforcement standards to further undermine air quality. The district that I represent already has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country caused by environmental factors. So I cannot in good conscience endorse legislation which would increase the assault on their young, their young lungs.
▶ 0:26:47So there's really only one constituency for gutting the clean air act, and that is the polluters that the law keeps in check. So I will be opposing the legislation, all three bills. Mr. tonko, is there anything you wanted to add? >> no, I think it's just I would highlight again that they are ready. The epa already has the opportunity to exclude, um, certain emissions, uh, from, uh, you know, the, uh, prescribed burns and wildfires and the like.
▶ 0:27:16And, uh, in some cases, they would be able to exempt state within their state boundaries, some of the pollution that's occurring. So, uh, it is again, a gift to the polluters. >> so there's already flexibility to address instances where someone's able to make a good case as opposed to a blanket overturning of regulations. >> exactly. >> thank you. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from georgia, Mr. scott for his time questioning and comments. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:27:47>> um. I don't. >> have any questions on the language, but I do. I do want to I wish I could say this in a private conversation, but I can't, so I do want to say it. Uh, the easter sunday post about annihilating a civilization is not okay. I won't, it's not. And posting a picture portraying yourself as jesus is not okay.
▶ 0:28:14And so I would just, uh, advise all of the people at the white house that the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. And if you read proverbs, you would know that. And galatians will caution you that god will not be mocked. And with that, Mr. chairman, I will yield the remainder of my time. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from colorado, Mr.
▶ 0:28:43Matthews, for his time for questions and comments. >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. chairman, and I certainly, as a man of faith, would agree with my colleague from, uh, from georgia. I want to say thank you to representative palmer and representative tonko for being here, uh, to talk about these three bills that the committee is going to. Our committee is going to consider. Uh, Mr. palmer, I wanted to talk a bit first about the fire act.
▶ 0:29:10So help me understand, in your view, what does this bill do? I thank my friend from colorado for the question. Um, I think what it does is it allows states to take action to mitigate against, uh, fires that not only can cause extreme damage because of, of how hot they burn, but also reduces the amount of pollutants that are emitted, um, being able to go
▶ 0:29:42In and do controlled burns, uh, to do, uh, wildfire mitigation, like removing dead wood and fuel from, from the forest floor changes, uh, what gets emitted into the atmosphere. So if you could do that and do it on a regular basis and I think, uh, you know, maybe twice over every five years, uh, would be acceptable.
▶ 0:30:05You what you wind up burning in the controlled burns is, is, uh, the fire is not nearly as hot and you don't have a lot of the emissions that you would have if you, if you had an out of control wildfire, like we've seen in so many cases. Okay.
▶ 0:30:19So as I understand it, this legislation, or at least according to the author of the legislation, and I think based off your description, what the bill does is it excludes prescribed burns from the definition under the relevant law such that it does not count towards the calculations that are rendered by the epa in terms of determining whether an area would be in a non-attainment or
▶ 0:30:49Attainment zone by virtue of pollution. Fair enough. >> it's that plus, uh, um, removing some of the impediments, regulatory impediments against the prescribed burns. >> which impediments? >> well, there's, there's, um, things that the states or private landowners have to, to get in order to, to do that. And particularly in california, and I think colorado's experienced some pretty hot fires as well. And it's particularly a problem on federal lands.
▶ 0:31:17And that that's something that I think the natural resources committee has taken up. Uh, and you're on that committee, you're well aware of, of, of some of the issues that, but not in this. >> I guess what I'm saying, I guess as I, because this bill is a pretty short bill, basically it's five pages, I think six pages. It's it's just saying under the statute that prescribed burns. Yeah. Right. Are now considered an activity that would not be counted towards the, the the pollution. >> that's right.
▶ 0:31:47But but under prescribed burn you're going to have less emissions, um, with less problematic emissions than you would if you had a massive wildfire. >> I understand your argument there.
▶ 0:32:01So I guess here's what I'm getting at and I start, that's a better way for me to frame the question earlier this year, rather earlier last year, on october 16th of 2025, the trump administration published a memo via the epa under administrator lee zeldin. I'm going to read you an excerpt of that memo.
▶ 0:32:20Quote, it's the policy of the us environmental protection agency that any regulatory provisions that would limit strategic deployment of prescribed fire should not be included in clear air act state implementation plans as part of the control strategies for attainment or maintenance of the naaqs. Are you familiar with that? >> I'm not familiar with the memo, no. >> okay.
▶ 0:32:42I will also tell you that in 2016, the epa promulgated specific guidance around wildfires and prescribed burns. The point I'm getting at here is that as best as I can understand, what this bill seeks to accomplish is already existing law. So I'm not familiar with anything that bars the state of alabama or the state of colorado.
▶ 0:33:10From making the argument that you've articulated that if a prescribed burn happens, that that ought not to be considered for purposes of determining or evaluating whether or not a particular jurisdiction meets the attainment or nonattainment standards. And if I'm wrong about that and your team behind you may have some. >> yeah. >> information to share with you there. >> yeah. >> and maybe you could help illuminate this. >> under the clean air act.
▶ 0:33:39The epa can exclude this, but the process of determining what emissions that qualify as an exceptional event, like I said, is very complicated. That that has and time consuming and it's uncertain for the state. So we're trying to do is get some, uh, certainty. But they do not easily qualify as an exceptional event because their man made activities.
▶ 0:33:58Uh, so, uh, emissions from wildfires really qualifies as an exceptional event, but emissions from wildfire mitigation activities intended to reduce the frequency or severity of wildfires do not. So the this is what we're I think, um, the gentleman from colorado, Mr. evans, the gentleman from california, Mr. gray, are trying to address. >> I think, uh, and I'll move on because I know we have other bills to discuss.
▶ 0:34:25Although representative tonko wants to expound on this and we welcome him to that. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement about the the nature of the the type of relief that this bill seeks to achieve.
▶ 0:34:37Because as I understand it, what this bill is doing is essentially kind of a blanket style policy versus the current procedures that are being implemented by the trump epa and were implemented by the biden epa and the obama epa, where essentially, if a state wants to pursue a prescribed burn and wants for purposes of this attainment, non-attainment classification wants to be able to make sure that those don't count, uh, that they go through the process with the epa.
▶ 0:35:04But I understand your argument is that they shouldn't have to, or they should just be a blanket policy that that this is something that is worth pursuing. And so therefore, they shouldn't go through that regulatory process. >> if I may, um, I like to point out between 2016 2023, no tribe, state or local agency successfully used an exceptional events demonstration for prescribed fires. And in 2024, the epa only approved one. So I do think. >> they were. >> submitted.
▶ 0:35:33Well, that I don't know. But, uh, my guess. >> is an important data point. >> well, I'll be happy to provide that information to the, to you, um, representative neguse and to the committee. Yes, sir. Afterwards, Mr. >> tom cole representative, I would just say that there seems to have been a good balance struck here with states giving flexibility, given flexibility to move for an exemption, and the epa maintaining a certain standard so that that balance is very delicate.
▶ 0:36:00But it's been struck, and I think it has worked well. >> I certainly agree. I think, Mr. palmer, no surprise to you that I feel the same way about the fences act. And also we have a disagreement on that bill.
▶ 0:36:14And again, kind of explaining that bill to a layman, my understanding is essentially what you're trying to do is to exclude foreign pollution sources that may be impacting a particular community from the determination as to whether or not that community is in attainment or non attainment of the goals that the epa promulgates under the clean air act. For what is an acceptable level of pollution? Fair?
▶ 0:36:45>> uh, yes, I do agree that that it is unfair for the states to be required to meet these standards when, for instance, in california, 25% of the particulate matter is foreign source.
▶ 0:36:59>> okay, so let me why don't we walk through a hypothetical, although it's not so much hypothetical because we live at, uh, in colorado, let's assume that you have a state or a jurisdiction, I should say, you know, a couple of counties in the metro area around denver that are in non-attainment, right? So by that, I mean, the epa has determined that this particular area is not attaining the pollution goals, right?
▶ 0:37:28That they're essentially exceeding the goals for what would be acceptable pollution. And as a result, a lot of folks may be getting asthma. You may be creating, you know, respiratory diseases that are metastasizing in the population. That jurisdiction argues. Let's say that it is in part because of foreign pollution. Right? >> um.
▶ 0:37:49>> this bill would essentially allow that jurisdiction to make that argument and to evade any kind of prophylactic steps that they would otherwise be required to take to reduce the pollution in their community. Is that right? >> I think that what you run into here is that you underestimate the ability to determine the source of, of, of, of the pollution.
▶ 0:38:14Uh, having worked in I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which was environmental systems. We built the pollution control equipment. So we know what gases went through a flue gas scrubber or into a what particulate matter we removed and a precipitator or baghouse. So you can make a determination about the source of your pollution. Uh, separate. >> uh oh no. But I'm saying, what if you're right, I guess I'm maybe that was way too.
▶ 0:38:45>> if we're right, here's the thing I. In addition to working for the engineering companies, I grew up dirt poor and, uh, and shared a bedroom with my brother had cardboard between the two floors. And one of the things when we talk about environmental impact for things like asthma, childhood asthma, uh, most people start thinking about it. It's just the air pollution. It really isn't. Uh, that could be a mitigating circumstance that on that end, but it's also indoor pollution.
▶ 0:39:14It's, uh, insect, uh, uh, fecal matter. It's mites, it's dust. Uh, it could be the failure to, um, to mitigate dust from, from roadways, uh, for people who live close to that. So there are a lot of things that impact air quality and impact these things that, that I think let me, but let me finish my point. Uh, Mr.
▶ 0:39:40Nagase, it's that if you really want to talk about the impact of health, what you want to do is create better jobs. You want to give people more opportunities to live in better housing, have, uh, eat better, live better, uh, have better access to health care. And when you start imposing these regulations based on, uh, a source of pollution that, that a local locality has nothing to do with it. They can't control, then you start impacting, uh, economic opportunity for.
▶ 0:40:11>> for I understand that's your argument. So let me, let me give you the counterpoint, okay? If you are in the most polluted zip code in the united states of america, okay? And in that zip code, we establish that 50% of the pollution in that zip code comes from foreign sources. That does not mean that the pollution that that that residents in that zip code are experiencing is not deeply destructive to their health.
▶ 0:40:40And I think the concern I have about this bill is basically what this bill is saying is, look, if you're in that deeply polluted zip code, if the city or the jurisdiction or the multi-county jurisdiction can prove that some of that is from foreign pollution such that you would actually no longer be considered, uh, you know, in the non-attainment zone, you don't have to do anything about it.
▶ 0:41:03And I'm not I understand the necessity for perhaps some other legislation that we could work together on bipartisan legislation to try to enforce standards internationally such that we can stop the foreign pollution that's permeating a lot of the rocky mountain west. Just by way of example, as you probably know, the vast majority of the non-attainment counties and jurisdictions are in the west, the western part of our country, west of the mississippi.
▶ 0:41:30And a lot of that has to do with foreign pollution. But that does not make it any easier for my neighbors to breathe clean air in colorado. And that's my point. I don't this legislation. I've given you plenty of time. Mr. tom cole. I want to give you an opportunity. If you if you're so inclined. >> yeah, I, you know, I, I see the, uh, the attempt here is to, uh, you know, allow groups, communities or, or, um, communities in general to bypass responsibility.
▶ 0:42:00And that responsibility may come in various formats. But when it comes to the environmental impact, we should do all we can to give them the tools they require and demand that that be done. And again, I think allowing for exemptions, um, excluding them from the, uh, certain situations is a tender balance and it has been maintained by epa.
▶ 0:42:25If epa is implementing its, its standards, uh, effectively, and we would hope that they are. >> I, I certainly agree with you and I appreciate the chairman's indulgence. I think this debate would be a lot different if we replaced pollution with poison. Nobody, nobody would argue, you know, again, you could, of course, be indignant about the fact that there are foreign sources of poison that might be impacting you, but you still got to do something about it.
▶ 0:42:52You know, you're not going to let your community, you know, ultimately be harmed by that. You're going to have to take some steps to hopefully rectify the situation. And my fear here is that we're just basically saying no, if if it's foreign and if it's a foreign contribution of pollution and you're off the hook. Um, and I just don't think that's the way we should go. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from south carolina. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Let me ask a question.
▶ 0:43:19I don't know whether this has come up in y'all's committee, but it's come up in my state of south carolina about the dangers of chemtrails. It's pollution. Uh, and some states have banned it, like florida. I don't know what some others are. Did you all delve into that at all? As far as the, uh, what it's doing to the environment. >> we have not. >> okay, well, I have no questions. Thank you. Okay. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 0:43:47Seeing no further individuals wishing to ask questions. I thank the panel for being here, and we will take a brief recess while we move to the next panel. Thank you. Thank you.
▶ 0:45:19I now welcome our second panel, representative kelly and representative sanchez from the committee on ways and means. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative kelly, I welcome you for your team to testify here today, and you are now recognized.
▶ 0:46:09>> tax increase from taking place. The data shows that it's doing just that. By the end of march, more than 23 million taxpayers claimed new overtime deductions. More than 5.6 americans claimed the deduction of income, and nearly half of all filers benefited from at least one of the new deductions designed to provide relief and reward hard work that is not marginal. Real relief is being delivered in real time. Tax refunds are up over 11%.
▶ 0:46:38Over 70 million americans have received tax refunds this season, totaling $241.7 billion. That's a 14.5% increase over last year, for an average of $3,462. Remember what was at stake a $4 trillion tax hike in action would have caused higher rates and lower refunds under the leadership of president trump, republicans stopped that.
▶ 0:47:06In addition, we made permanent and strengthened the tax code that recognizes something simple. An honest day's work should lead to an honest day's pay. In short, you get to keep more of your own hard earned money. Building on the success of tax cuts and jobs act, that principle is now reflected permanently in law. If you work overtime, you get to keep more of it. If you earn tips, you get to keep more of it. If you're raising a family, the tax code supports you. If you receive social security benefits, 88% of our seniors won't pay any tax.
▶ 0:47:35Now, as a father of four and grandfather of ten, I'm proud the working family tax cuts is making historic investments in our future, shaping a brighter and more prosperous destiny for future generations. More than 4 million children are enrolled in trump tax accounts. Now think about what that means for the next generation. Many of those children will receive a $1,000 initial investment.
▶ 0:48:01Growing tax free trump accounts provide families and children a solid foundation to carry out their version of the american dream. Now let's talk about main street business. Before serving in congress, I spent my entire career in the private sector as the owner of a family owned car dealership founded in 1953 by my mother and father. I know what it's like to try to manage your business and meet payroll, while making sure washington gets its share, too. My district is home to one of the highest concentration of small manufacturers.
▶ 0:48:31These manufacturers are aiding president trump in his goal of employing american workers, producing right here at home, and buying american. Revitalizing the industrial might of the united states cannot happen without the restoration. Immediate expensing for equipment and research and development. The working family tax cuts made the 20% small business deduction permanent, providing an average of $4,600 in relief to 8 million business owners.
▶ 0:49:02In total, more than 12 million small business owners will see an average of $7,500 in tax relief. Now, there were times when our family, the business would would have enough money to make payroll, but not enough money to pay ourselves. It's reality in so many small business owners face. These are real dollars that can be reinvested into workers equipment and expansion from employers to employees, seniors, children.
▶ 0:49:29This law is reaching across our entire country and our economy. Now, I come from a part of the country where people measure work a little bit differently. So when someone says they worked a half day, that means they work 12 hours, not four. There's the reality for millions of americans, people who do not ask for special treatment, but only fairness. And this law reflects that expectation. It aligns the tax code with how americans actually earn a living. It stopped a tax increase.
▶ 0:49:57It guaranteed stability and certainty, and it gave families and businesses the opportunity to get more of their own money. But let's also take a second to thank treasury secretary and irs ceo designee on their leadership on implementing the law and delivering on the promise of an increased level of taxpayer service has been incredible. Real businessmen understand how to run an organization by driving productivity and quality through technology, rather than a simple headcount.
▶ 0:50:30Modernizing delivery of service through technology has led to faster and larger refunds than ever before. This tax day, americans are seeing the result of a clear policy choice to let keep workers keep more of what they earn, to support families trying to get ahead, and to build a tax system that works with the economy and not against it. That is what the working families tax cuts set out to do in this filing season is delivering. Thank you.
▶ 0:50:57>> gentleman yields back now recognize miss sanchez for her time. >> thank you, mister chairman and ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee. After two weeks off, congress has a lot to address. President trump is weeks into an illegal war of choice in iran. Americans are paying the sky high prices at the gas pump. There has been no justice for the victims of jeffrey epstein, and the president's promise of lowering costs for americans is all but a distant memory.
▶ 0:51:24Instead of solving any of those problems, the republicans are taking the time to pat themselves on the back about a bill that we've never passed. After all, the resolution we have before us is about a bill called, quote, the working families tax cuts, end quote, act. Now, I wasn't too sure. And I asked my staff, have we ever passed a bill in the house called the working families tax cuts act? And sure enough, we have it.
▶ 0:51:51The republican tax cuts for the rich is so unpopular that they are now trying to change the name almost a year later. And the name isn't the only thing that they're trying to rewrite, right? They're also trying to hide what the bill actually does. Some of these tax benefits for working families are all well and fine. But of course, republicans being who they are, they couldn't help but make sure that the wealthy and well-connected got the best deal. But don't take it from me.
▶ 0:52:19Let's let the numbers do the talking under the one big ugly bill, a person making above $1 million a year in 2027 will get an average tax cut of over $96,000. Meanwhile, a person making less than $50,000 will get just a $247 tax cut. That's barely $0.68 a day. This bill gave millionaires almost 400 times the cuts it gave to average working americans.
▶ 0:52:47And how did we pay for this bag of goodies for the wealthy? Well, first we took away health care from 17 million americans. We substantially cut food assistance for 4 million americans. We cut subsidies for clean energy, ensuring that americans would pay more for their energy bills for years to come. So you're kicking americans off their health insurance. You're raising gas prices to $6 a gallon and then stripping them of food stamps.
▶ 0:53:13But thank god they're going to get that $0.68 a day because republicans really care about working families. And that's not all. The bill also cut taxes for the top 1% of americans by at least $1 trillion over the next decade, and granted $75 billion to the already bloated budget of the dangerous and out of control ice agents roaming our streets and terrorizing our communities. Shockingly, after all that, the bill still costs $4.7 trillion.
▶ 0:53:47Republicans told us that economic growth would pay for it. They also told us that tariffs would pay for it. Never mind that the illegal tariffs were struck down, or that they raised prices on american families and alienated our trade partners. Never mind that gdp growth at the end of last year was just a measly half of a percent.
▶ 0:54:06So not only are the tax cuts for the rich being paid for on the back of americans health care and food security, they are being paid by your kids and your grandkids, who will be footing the bill for this reckless bill for generations to come. President trump's big, ugly bill cost the american people far more than it got them, and slapping a half resolution on the table eight months later as a pr stunt is not going to change that fact. I think the members and I yield back.
▶ 0:54:37>> yields back now recognizes, uh, Mr. fischbach for her five minutes or her time. No questions. She yields back. Mr. mcgovern. Uh, massachusetts. >> yeah. Just briefly, let me just say that, um, americans are struggling. I mean, people are hurting. Uh, and the president's illegal war in iran has put american lives at risk and caused prices of everything from gas to groceries to fertilizer to skyrocket. That's just a fact.
▶ 0:55:03Agencies like fema, tsa and the coast guard are still not funded. We're not we're still technically shut down. President trump promised to lower prices on day one. That was his promise. But instead of addressing any of these important issues, republicans want us to vote on a non-binding resolution that basically, as miss sanchez says, passed them on the back for a bill you passed last july. Mr.
▶ 0:55:28Kelly, is it your testimony today that this resolution accurately describes the impacts of the bill? Republicans name the one big, beautiful bill act became law last july. >> so are we talking about the share of taxes paid by by the american people? >> is the bill that we're dealing with right now? Does it accurately describe the impacts of the bill that you guys called the one big, beautiful bill act? >> yeah, we actually call it the working families tax cut. Uh, I do think, Mr. mcgovern. >> you just changed that name.
▶ 0:55:59That's not what you called it when you passed it. Well, so anyway. >> I guess that's my option to call it what I want. So I think you can call me anything you want, but so if you're asking me a. >> question. >> okay, I get it, I. >> get it, but you know, but this resolution says that your big, beautiful bill, uh, prevented a major tax hike from occurring, but I don't see anything in the resolution that mentions that.
▶ 0:56:21The reason why was because republicans back in 2017, scheduled tax cuts for working people to expire at the end of 2025 while making major tax cuts for corporations permanent. Um, I don't see that reflected in this bill. Um, correct me if I'm wrong.
▶ 0:56:39And in january, the white house put out a press release stating that the big ugly bill I'm going to call it I want will cause average refunds to rise by $1,000 or more this year. I mean, that's what the what the white house put out. But according to the latest irs statistics, refunds are up just like $346. That's 65% lower than what president trump promised.
▶ 0:57:06And these refunds are being completely, completely, completely wiped out by the tariffs. Um, and this war in iran. So I mean, we just saw the largest monthly increase in gas prices in nearly six years. Why don't you mention that refunds this year are way lower than what you guys promised in your resolution? >> yeah.
▶ 0:57:27Well, I think that, uh, when you look at talking about the math of things, uh, the gas price that we're facing right now today, uh, pales in comparison to what it was in the previous administration. Uh, when you look at the actual dollars that we're talking about. So, and that's the previous administration, there was no, there was no conflict taking place in the war in, in the world, but we still saw gas prices go up and up and up. And we haven't reached that level yet.
▶ 0:57:56And I would say that pretty soon we're going to see it drop down. So when the strait of hormuz was closed, gas prices went up, market prices changed. Uh, but the previous four years, there was no there was no conflict anywhere. And yet the price of gasoline was much higher than it is today. >> so the price of gas today. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, is way higher today than it was when trump first took office, even though he promised that he was going to lower prices on day one.
▶ 0:58:21And your resolution, you talk about how the 1% are going to pay a greater, quote, greater share of total income taxes. But the truth is that your big, ugly bill showered the wealthy and tax cuts that they don't need. And don't just take my word for it. Based on estimates from the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation, the top 20% of earners in america are receiving roughly 70% of the tax cuts under the new law, and people making over $1 million will receive a tax cut of more than $96,000 a year.
▶ 0:58:50That's 390 times more than those earning under $50,000 will receive a tax cut of less than $1 per day. So where in where in this resolution in which you guys are patting yourself on the back, does it mention any of this? >> okay, well, just to correct this a little bit, the gas price under president trump is $0.32 lower today than it was under president biden. That's without any conflict in the mideast. Uh, so that was just driven to be because that's where they wanted to put it. So I get all that. >> price is higher today than when trump took office.
▶ 0:59:21>> under the biden administration. It was higher. >> so, so oh, so you're saying that the gas prices are not higher today than when trump took office? >> no, I didn't say that. They weren't higher than when trump took office. But I'm saying that's still $0.32 less a gallon than it was under the previous administration. So if you want to compare apples to apples, let's compare apples to apples. >> take on basically said the lower prices on day one, he he, we were all misinformed. So gas prices.
▶ 0:59:45I don't know about how it is in your district, but I'll tell you, my district people are not at all happy with the trajectory of the way gas prices are going right now. Yeah, I'm hearing it from, you know, people all over in rural areas and suburban areas and in urban areas. Um, an article published in february 6th, um, this year in politico states, quote, republicans tax cuts shave billions off amazon's tax bill.
▶ 1:00:09The company says it ran a $1.2 billion tax bill last year, down from $9 billion the previous year, even as its profits jumped by 45% to nearly $90 billion. Where in the resolution do you mention these corporate giveaways? >> I don't think it's mentioned in the resolution. >> I mean, just I think it's interesting that it's not mentioned. And in this bill, you also get rid of the nearly 100 year old tax on gun silencers and sawed off shotguns.
▶ 1:00:38Um, this is what I call the hitman handout. Um, that's not mentioned in this bill either. So how did republicans pay for all of these, you know, kind of handouts by imposing the largest ever cut to medicaid, $1 trillion and the largest ever cut to the affordable care act, and snap by adding $4.7 trillion to our national debt. But but the resolution that kind of caused all that, that you guys are patting yourself on the back about doesn't mention any of that.
▶ 1:01:08Um, you know, I mean, nothing. I mean, I'm, I don't. Am I missing something here? >> no, I don't think I think you're straight on your talking points. That's what we need to say. And I understand what you're saying. I don't agree with you. I I've actually lived the previous four years under the previous administration. >> my opinion, um, these are, these are, these are facts by reputable, you know, cbo and nonpartisan, um, you know, organizations. Why doesn't your resolution mention that?
▶ 1:01:37Because of cuts to food assistance in the big ugly bill, that 2.5 million low income adults and children have already been kicked off a snap, including over 100,000 people in your home state of pennsylvania. >> I don't know, I don't have the same figures you have. >> yeah, but that's just that's the impact. >> let me assume what your your you're bringing up. I get that. >> million americans who will lose their health care, including 1 million who have already lost their their aca coverage because of the the cuts in the big ugly bill.
▶ 1:02:04I mean, you know, when I said at the beginning that people are struggling, I mean, I'm talking about, you know, regular people who are who are basically seeing their lives becoming more difficult and complicated because of the bill that you you were all patting yourself on the on the back on. I mean, in truth, nothing about this resolution, um, including the title, um, accurately depicts the republican tax bill.
▶ 1:02:27Um, and, um, you know, and I, um, again, I'm, I'm still kind of amused by the name change as if somehow that's all that needs to be done so that people don't realize the terrible impact that the big ugly bill has had on, on regular families, that all you need to do is change the name and, and boy, that solves all the problems. I mean, I, um, I don't think that this bill that you passed is either big or beautiful.
▶ 1:02:55Um, and, um, as somebody who represents a working class district, I gotta tell you, if they heard anybody, democrat or republican, say that somehow we all should be grateful for donald trump and that everything is going really well right now. They would, they would they would boo you out of the hall. Um, I mean, again, the reality is that people, you know are facing difficult times.
▶ 1:03:21People are hurting and they're frustrated because they don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. Miss sanchez, am I missing anything? >> no. I think you've, um, spent a lot of facts today, and I think people would do well to look at the numbers as you've given them. Um, it's very clear that this bill was grossly lopsided and favored the moneyed and the well-connected. >> I don't really have anything else. I yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:03:49Now recognize the gentleman from texas, Mr. roy? >> no questions, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from colorado, Mr. neguse. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you, Mr. kelly. And miss sanchez. I just want to pick up where our ranking member left off to. Mr. kelly, this is a resolution, not a bill, correct? Yes. Okay. The resolution is nonbinding. Is that right?
▶ 1:04:17You know. >> yes. >> what was that, non-binding? It's non-binding. Okay. If it passes the house, it passes the senate. It's signed into law by the president. Nothing changes. Correct? Correct. Okay. But can you you said yes. Yes. That nothing changes. Okay.
▶ 1:04:42So pretend I'm a constituent of yours in erie, pennsylvania. Walking down the street and I say, congressman kelly, what did you do this week in washington? You say, I passed a resolution commemorating a bill that I voted for a year ago.
▶ 1:05:08This resolution achieves nothing, changes nothing, does nothing. Right. >> well, yeah, I, I walked down the streets of erie quite a bit. I don't actually have people coming up to me and saying those type of things. >> so no, no, no, I'm asking. >> you know, I know you're asking me, are you from erie? What was that? Are you from erie? I mean, you're saying so, so somebody comes up to me in the streets of erie and says, oh, let me let me differentiate about what it is you're talking about. >> I'm confused. Right?
▶ 1:05:38Bad hypothetical. Let's pretend I'm a congressman from colorado. Which you are. And I'm asking you, yeah, what would we do this week? What does this resolution do? >> well, you know what I would I would only say this, uh, of the years that I've been here and I and I mean this sincerely, it would be nice if for a change, we would take a look at the efforts on both sides of the aisle to improve the working conditions and the incomes of every single american.
▶ 1:06:06I don't care how they're registered or how their vote or whether they wear where they practice their religion. So what we put something forward, but this isn't actually makes sense and really and really does a much better job. >> but Mr. kelly, I guess what I'm saying is you could have decided this week, you know what? Congress has been on easter recess for two weeks. It's time to address the health care crisis in our country. Let's put a bill on the floor. Bipartisan democratic bill, republican bill, you name it.
▶ 1:06:35We're going to put some ideas on the floor. You could put a tax bill on the floor. You could put a bill on the floor that addresses the cost of living. You could put a bill on the floor that addresses the cost of gasoline. Instead, you put a resolution on the floor that by your own admission, Mr. kelly does nothing. And I just. I don't really understand why we're wasting time commemorating acts of congress. Help me understand this. >> well, here's. This may help.
▶ 1:07:07So this filing season has been a massive success thanks to changes in the working families tax. The most recently available irs data shows that over $241 billion have been refunded. 241 no, no, no. You're asking me what I would say to somebody. >> asking you about the benefits of the bill. I'm I get it. I understand that you believe that the bill that you all have renamed. Okay, I get it. You believe that that bill has made the lives of the american public better? I disagree, but I understand that's your argument. That's not what I'm asking you. Okay?
▶ 1:07:38What I'm saying is you serve on one of the most important committees in the united states congress. I assume you'd agree. >> I do, right? >> yeah. Ways and means committee. >> yes, with miss sanchez. >> with miss sanchez. Why? Jurisdiction? >> why jurisdiction? >> right over a lot of challenges that are facing the country. And I'm just trying to understand why you've decided to spend this week considering a commemorative resolution. That's it.
▶ 1:08:07I that's the question. >> well, I guess you would have to ask why how the process works and why is it on the why is it here this week that we're doing? I don't know, uh, I watched last fall. We, we, we didn't spend any time here. And this year, uh, we're also spending, I think, I don't know how many days now we've been, been shut down in certain parts of the government. I think people ask me more than anything else, what is wrong with you people. Yeah.
▶ 1:08:33And so we're putting this forward so we can show the features and benefits that add value to the american people. >> that's kind of my that's. >> not that hard thing to figure out. >> I would say. Mr. kelly, I think that your chairman, um, has put you in an impossible position.
▶ 1:08:47I mean, it's not fair, I think, to you to have you present this resolution on behalf of the committee, because the honest, honest reality is I think we all would concede, right, if we're being honest, that there are far better ways for the united states congress to spend its time than debating resolutions that commemorate bills that were passed by the united states congress. You've been in congress 26 years. No. Oh. How long? >> no, no, since 20. >> 1106, 2011. I'm sorry. How long is that? 16 years? Yes.
▶ 1:09:19Can you recall an instance where you've had a resolution that you're voting on, commemorating a bill that you've passed? >> that's a that's a good question. And I've been in here when we're in the majority and when we're in the minority, and I've often asked myself the same thing when I go back home. And in fact, the people that I represent ask me the same thing from time to time. So I would think that we can debate, we can debate this back and forth. What was it worthwhile? Was it not worthwhile?
▶ 1:09:47I think it's very important for people to see the features and benefits they're going to add to their real life and real dollars and cents. This is. This sounds. >> like a no, Mr. kelly. >> well, you sound like a no to me. It sounds like what you just asked me. So what did we talk about? >> you know what I'm saying is, you've been here a long time. Far longer than I have. I'm just trying to get a sense of, is this normal? Is this usually what happens? That you pass a law and then a year later, you you do a holiday to celebrate that law's passage?
▶ 1:10:15I don't that's what I'm trying to understand. Maybe you have examples from your team that you can cite before my time. >> no, no, no. So so what I would suggest. So if you were back in colorado and somebody said, what does this thing that they're talking about mean to you? I would just say, yeah, tell them it's $4,300. >> I wouldn't pass a resolution. I don't need to pass a resolution of the congress to tell them. I could just tell them. I could say I passed this law, I voted for it. And here are the ways that it's impacting your family. Okay?
▶ 1:10:41I don't have to waste everybody's time and go through this elongated process to have a resolution passed by the us house of representatives to honor that work. That just doesn't seem like a good use of your time. My time? The congress's time when there's so many challenges facing the country. But it sounds like I'm not going to convince you of that. >> no, you're absolutely not. I've I've been here too long to listen to one sided arguments about about who struck john. Listen, I, I would think that the american people expect an awful lot more out of both parties all the time. Not part of the time, but all the time.
▶ 1:11:11Um, so I've watched wasted time. Excuse me? I've watched it. We've wasted more time. Nobody in the private sector would run a business this way. Nobody in the private sector would continue down these roads and say this is the right way to do it. Unfortunately, that's the way the model works. >> you and I ought to fix it. >> so we're on the same page. >> I mean, that's what I'm saying. You have this commitment from me. Here's what I'll tell you is that, you know, we've I introduced a lot of bills, uh, you know, to challenge to address various problems, public lands issues, forest management, things of that nature.
▶ 1:11:41And I am not going to introduce a resolution if I get one of those bills signed into law, I'm not going to introduce a resolution that honors that bill. I'll just leave it at that bill, okay. And let the american people decide whether or not it was in their interest or not. I'm I'm going to ask that perhaps you make that same commitment. What do you think? >> yeah, well, I would just tell you this. I'll look forward to working with you over the next time. So if you do introduce something, I'll say, I remember one time you and I sat in committee and you and you challenged me on this. >> I will say.
▶ 1:12:12>> so let's at the end of the day, let's just let's. This already is law. It's already working. And the american people are doing quite well under this. Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect. >> I hear you, but I'm just saying that it could have been a press release. I mean, this, this, this, this could be accomplished with a five minute interview, you know, on a television. We don't need to we don't need to get the machinery of the us house of representatives to pass proclamations, honor laws that were passed previously.
▶ 1:12:35And obviously, as the ranking member said, you know, the convenient name change that, you know, you all have landed on, uh, what are you calling it now? >> the working families tax cut. >> working families tax. When did you make that decision? >> what wasn't? I didn't come up with that myself. Actually, it was it was presented. I think it came out of ways and means when I think it came out of ways and means, when we changed the name on it from the one big beautiful bill. >> when was it? >> and I will just tell you, I can't give you the exact date.
▶ 1:13:03>> because I gotta tell you, I looked I searched the bill. Did you find it? It's a long bill. Hundreds of pages. You know how many times the working families tax cut is mentioned? >> I don't. >> know, none. >> no. Okay, so you're happy with the new typekit? >> not in the bill. No, no, no. Your title, the new title you just referenced. >> no. >> cannot be found. >> yeah, yeah. >> whatever you all are calling it today. >> I don't think you know, but honestly, I don't think whenever we would have named it, you would have been happy with the way. >> you know, you're probably right. >> working families tax cuts is something that every single american understands. >> I hear. >> you, especially working families.
▶ 1:13:33>> I'm not I don't begrudge I get it. No, I don't begrudge you either saying that, you know, maybe we can move on from name changes to bills and proclamations honoring bills, and we can just get to the nitty gritty of trying to try to address some of the challenges facing the public. Mr. sanchez, if you care to expound on that. >> sure. Well, Mr. kelly thinks that it's important to trumpet the wonderful things in this bill. I want to I want to give folks a reality check.
▶ 1:13:54Um, cbo estimates that the bill, whatever you want to call it, but it certainly is not the working families tax cut bill, um, will make the bottom 20% of households worse off. They will lose more in cuts from assistance programs and health care that than they're going to gain. The average household income will fall by $1,200. That's 3.1% for those with incomes in the bottom 10% of the income scale.
▶ 1:14:23So we're talking about the people who need help the most. Well, right. Rising by $13,600 or 2.7% for those with incomes at the top 10%. So there's nothing that's working families about this. This is definitely a giveaway to those at the top. And I, we heard about refunds.
▶ 1:14:45I just want to fact check this as well, because a new center for american progress report found that trump's promise to increase tax refunds by $1,000 or more has actually fallen flat. Filing season ends tomorrow, and the average refund so far is just $346, up from a year ago. And that average is heavily influenced by refunds that are given to, you guessed it, the highest income earners.
▶ 1:15:13So it's not working families that are getting the benefits of this bill. The bill is poorly named, and I agree with you. Instead of passing resolutions about bills that have already passed, why don't we work on passing some bills that are really going to give relief to american working families? What's what's so crazy about that idea? >> here, here. Thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. scott. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:15:42Um, miss sanchez, you said that gas was $6 a gallon in the state of california. Is that correct? >> yeah. In some places it's above $6 a gallon. It it varies, but it's definitely above $5 a gallon. I normally fill my gas, my gas tank up and it costs around $5,052. Last time I filled it up last week, $75. And I drive a hybrid, which gets really great gas mileage. >> I drive an f 350.
▶ 1:16:11Um, so it cost me a little more to fill up, but I want to get back to the $6 that you said it cost in california. Um, you know how much gas cost in georgia right now? >> no idea. >> it is depending on where you are metro versus rural, it's somewhere around $3 and 50 to $3.60 a gallon. >> and how's the air quality there? >> it's great. Really wonderful, especially in rural georgia. But I mean.
▶ 1:16:41>> anywhere rural probably has better air quality than an urban city. >> well, I mean, atlanta, you know, I mean, I I'm in atlanta a fair amount. In fact, I'm there twice a week. Um, but, but I live in, in rural america, but I would just suggest to you that atlanta is a metro area, just like you represent a metro area. I mean, the problem is you got gavin newsom taxing the citizens of california $2.30 a gallon more than than the governor of georgia is.
▶ 1:17:08In fact, the governor of georgia suspended the gas tax for 60 days. Um, and my question for you is, why doesn't gavin newsom do something like that to help the citizens of california? >> well, I think that. >> we all acknowledge that gas prices are higher today than they were a few weeks ago. But let's I mean, republican governors have tried to help their citizens by by cutting taxes, while governors like gavin newsom are more interested in putting the money, uh, in the coffers of the state.
▶ 1:17:39So why. >> don't you give me the answer? If you if you will give me an opportunity to answer, okay, I will say, number one, I don't think this resolution mentions anything about gas prices. I could be wrong. But secondly, please, please, you asked me a question and I'm trying to I'm trying to answer. If you'll not talk over me and allow me to give my answer.
▶ 1:17:58But but I don't believe the resolution mentions anything about gas prices, but I'll tell you that those prices are higher now because we are in a war that, um, the president didn't feel the need to consult with congress about. And because of tariffs that the president unilaterally imposed, which were found to be illegal by the supreme court. >> that's not true. My question. >> is, it is true. It is true.
▶ 1:18:23>> and gas $2.30 a gallon more in in the state of california than it is in the state of georgia. >> but it's higher in georgia than it was when trump first took office. The. >> this is my time. I I'm asking you the question. >> and I. And I think I've answered it sufficiently. >> thank you. You have not answered it. Why is gas. >> I think. >> I have a question. Why is gas $2.30 a gallon more in the democrat run state of california than it is in republican state?
▶ 1:18:51>> the california gas tax, for your information, is $0.60 a gallon. It's not $2.30 a gallon. There are federal taxes involved, which are uniform throughout all of the states. >> you have significant carbon fees in the state of california. Your prices in california are $2.30 a gallon more than they are in georgia. >> and we're the fourth largest economy in the world. >> and therefore it should be cheaper. >> no, it should be cheaper. It would be a lot cheaper if we weren't at war with iran.
▶ 1:19:19And if we weren't trying to open a strait that was open before we got into war with iran. But call me crazy, call me crazy. >> I would call you that. But you take offense to it. >> well, you can you can call me crazy. I want to tell you that my constituents don't think I'm crazy. They know why their gas prices are higher now than they were when trump first took office. And they know why. The grocery costs are higher. They know why their healthcare costs more because of bad policies passed by republican.
▶ 1:19:50>> Mr. chairman, sorry, is gas. The truth? >> the truth hurts. >> stenographer has no idea what y'all are saying because you're both talking at the same time. >> well, the. >> truth is $2 and 32. >> at some point. >> that's fine, that's fine. She's not going to answer the question, Mr. chair. It's my time. I know it's your gas is $2.30 a gallon more in the state of california than it is in the. Don't ask a question than it is in the state of georgia.
▶ 1:20:13The reason for that is because you have a democratic governor and total democrat control of the state legislature, and so nobody in the state government does anything to help the citizens of california. >> no, nobody does. Nobody, not one person as far as. Okay. >> as far as dhs not being funded. You want to talk about blockades? It's the senate democrat blockade on a rule vote, on a procedural vote in the senate. That is the only reason the department of homeland security, who does tremendous value to our country.
▶ 1:20:45>> they got a slush fund, they got a slush fund. >> and hang on in here and ask the question. Yes. Go ahead. >> she can't stop talking. I mean, it's the bottom line is chuck schumer in the senate. Democrats have run a blockade rule and will not allow a vote on dhs funding. And that is the only reason dhs is not funded that I yield. >> gentleman yields back now recognizes Mrs. leger fernandez of new mexico. >> well hello, everybody. >> and I. >> want to make a couple of points.
▶ 1:21:12First is that over in the senate they have passed by unanimous consent twice, twice a dhs bill, twice. And that unanimous consent. What is unanimous mean, representative sanchez, a representative? It's not your time, representative sanchez. What does unanimously mean? Does that mean that every republican senator said, okay. >> that means that 100% of the people agreed and nobody disagreed. Right.
▶ 1:21:42>> so so let's let's correct that one. Thank you. I think that, representative sanchez, you were making a very valid point. Each state is going to make its own decisions about what it wants to do with regards to state taxes, state policy. But what we have here is we have the trump administration knowing, knowing that the straits of hormuz, because the generals told him, would be a major problem.
▶ 1:22:11If you decide to go into war, that it would lead to gas prices. And that's the point you were making. Is that right? Really? It's like everybody's prices have gone up because of trump's war, trump's iranian war tax. Is that what you were trying. >> to say?
▶ 1:22:34Yeah, and I was trying to like, connect it back to the original bill, which doesn't give the tax relief that was promised because it's being eaten up by tariffs and by these higher gas prices. So average working families aren't getting ahead under the trump administration. They're falling further behind. >> so in fact, there was a the federal reserve, which is neither democrat or republican.
▶ 1:22:56The federal reserve just issued a report that pointed out that all of the core inflation before the war was all tied to trump's tariffs. >> illegal tariffs that the supreme court struck down. >> right. And this was even before the war with the gulf war. But let's get back to the issue of this big, beautiful bill, the big, beautiful bill.
▶ 1:23:22Um, and representative kelly, uh, I wanted to just ask you, I think you represent greenville. Is that correct? >> I do, yes. >> and do you represent upmc horizon hospital in greenville? >> uh, well, you know what? I don't recognize that hospital. >> okay. Well, upmc horizon, you know, I actually tend to know all of the different hospitals in my district, in my state, because they're all so important. Right.
▶ 1:23:48And I think that the rural hospitals are incredibly important. Uh, and upmc horizon is one of the dozen of hospitals, there's a dozen, a dozen hospitals in pennsylvania that's at risk of closure because of the one big, beautiful bill.
▶ 1:24:09Um, in fact, a recent report commissioned by the hospital health system association of pennsylvania, this is pennsylvania, uh, said one of the nation's largest state hospital associations. Do you know that association? >> no. Tell me. >> uh, well, it's the hospital health system association of pennsylvania. I don't know if they've come to meet with you, but my hospital's from new mexico. Come to meet with me.
▶ 1:24:34And they said that your bill, uh, that you're trying to rename now and proclaim its glory. It's going to kick 95,000 pennsylvanians off of the aca coverage and put another 300,000 for medicaid, 300,000 people in pennsylvania. >> yeah, those those are figures you may have, ma'am. I don't have those figures. But if we're talking about the working families tax cuts, where is it that you want to go with the hospitals?
▶ 1:25:04>> well, the working I love the fact that they changed the name, right? The fact that they changed the name. Like why did you have to change the name? You thought it was a big, beautiful bill? Uh, and so I'm going with it because medicaid reimbursements, I'm quoting the call stalin's. Do you know nicole stalin's? No, you don't know nicole stalin's from pennsylvania. >> I'm sorry. >> who? Nicole stalin, she's the executive director of the hospital and healthcare system of pennsylvania. >> no, I don't know her.
▶ 1:25:31>> well, I'm going to read her, quote, medicaid reimbursements could drop to $0.64 for every dollar of care provided for pennsylvania hospitals. And that's why you're going to lose so many people. So that's why we're I'm going to this because this is a direct result of your bill, uh, which now you want to have a new name for, uh, in your district alone, 22,000 people are going to lose coverage. >> uh, how many people do you remember? You know what?
▶ 1:26:00If you want to share that information with me, I'd like to see it. I don't know what the source of your information. I will, so we'll be glad to take a look at it right here. >> actually, uh, we will hand it over because these are things that I think you would want to know. Yeah. How many people do you represent? >> same as you. Three quarters of a million people. >> yeah. So 22,000. That's a lot.
▶ 1:26:20That means that any time you go into a room, uh, you're going to basically be looking at a room this size, you're going to be looking at 2 or 3 people who are losing their health insurance coverage. And I think that that's really important. I wanted to go into something else.
▶ 1:26:37Uh, president trump, um, he recently said that because of this war that we were so heatedly debating earlier and its impact on gas prices, he said, I'm open, quote, it's not possible for us to take care of daycare, medicaid and medicare, all these individual things. Uh, you can't do it on the federal, uh, we have to take care of one thing. Military protection.
▶ 1:27:05But all these little things, all these little scams that have taken place. >> are those your words are his. >> those are president trump's words. >> these little things, all these little things are the things that we can't really care about. I think he said to go to the states. I don't think he's I don't think he said that we shouldn't be taking care of it. >> well, we're we're in congress and it's our job to take decisions about where are we going to use our federal money for.
▶ 1:27:33So do you agree with them that we shouldn't be using federal money for medicare, medicaid, daycare? >> well, I think we spend an awful lot of money. So if you're asking, asking me about the working families tax cuts, what we're talking about right now, I'm not sure I'm following it. What a hospital in one of my towns that I represent in pennsylvania. Uh, you're talking about different cuts to different programs. So, um, I don't know what that has to do with what I'm sitting here talking with you about today. >> do you don't know your bill.
▶ 1:28:03You're working your bill cut medicaid the way it paid for those tax cuts for the billionaires is by cutting medicaid. You don't know that. No, representative. >> no, I don't follow your district as much as you probably follow my district. So I don't know what it looks like in your district. I really when you're talking about these things, this is something that you've decided to, to light on and say, this is what we're talking about. These people are losing their, their benefits.
▶ 1:28:30I don't I don't follow that line of thinking because I don't think it's entirely correct. And I don't know what your sources are. >> well, I. >> just told you where the resources are there from your health hospital and health care associations. And you know what? We're going to make sure that we print that. Actually, I have it right here. I will provide it to you. But representative sanchez, will you hand this to. So this report, which I hope you care about, what happens to the people in your district.
▶ 1:29:00I'll tell you what happens to the people in my district. >> yeah. >> I care about my district. >> I care about your district. I care about all the people in the united states. >> so I'm going to lose six rural hospitals in my district. Six. Six? >> what about it? >> we're going to lose them. Are you? They're going to close because of the one big, beautiful bill, which is only beautiful if you're a billionaire because you took the money from medicaid.
▶ 1:29:25You took the money from snap, you took the money from these programs that serve communities in districts like mine and throughout pennsylvania. And you used it to pay for tax cuts. Representative sanchez, can you sort of it sounds like the, uh, you know, there's a little confusion about what that bill did. Can you clarify on that? >> sure. Yeah. There were huge cuts to the aca tax subsidies.
▶ 1:29:56There were huge cuts to medicare reimbursement rates. And what I think people don't seem to realize is that rural hospitals disproportionately rely on the medicaid payments in order to stay open and keep their doors open. So it doesn't just matter to the person on medicare or medicaid, because the rest of the community has those services, because the hospital can afford them. When you have these deep cuts to these programs, they start shuttering specialties.
▶ 1:30:26And the very first to go is generally ob gyn labor and delivery. Um, that means that many women now are not going to have access to that kind of, um, health care that they need. And, you know, if you're in a car accident and you need an emergency room, but because the medicaid cuts made the hospital go under, you have to travel an hour to get the care that normally you would travel ten minutes to.
▶ 1:30:51Um, that's going to mean very bad outcomes and possibly deaths as a result of the fact that these deep, deep cuts put, um, hospitals in an untenable position of keeping their doors open. >> yeah. And I think that all of this discussion is about priorities, right? The, the reason I quoted president trump and what he thinks we should be spending money on, which is his war, uh, in iran, is because that's his priority, right?
▶ 1:31:21He's willing to spend billions, uh, on his war. Uh, we've already spent $25 billion like that, 25 billion that would have kept all of these hospitals. I'm talking about, uh, it could have really helped keep them open. And that's the issue that we're talking about is where are your priorities? Are your priorities pursuing a war in iran?
▶ 1:31:46Are your priorities making sure that we have healthcare for americans? And that's the issue that we are raising today. Now, uh, representative sanchez, I'm the last democrat, uh, I think on the panel. Is there anything else you want to clarify about anything that was discussed today?
▶ 1:32:08>> yeah, I just want to mention that, you know, there is one other issue that is really nasty that is in this bill, and that is it purports to try to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing government services. But many of these government programs, um, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for.
▶ 1:32:26But this is the first time that congress is taking away senior citizens medicare benefits, um, because they are now making naturalized citizens, uh, ineligible, um, for medicare, the medicare program, these are people that have worked and paid into the system, some of them for 20 years or more. And because of the cuts and because of the language in the bill, they are now no longer eligible for a program that they paid into. And that is fundamentally just on a human level. Wrong. Um, it's immoral.
▶ 1:32:56And, um, I don't think we should have a resolution lauding all the great things in this bill, which is actually a really terrible bill. >> well, thank you very much. And I with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> gentlelady yields back. Uh, Mr. clarify a couple of points. Uh, the name of the bill was changed by senator schumer by a motion on the floor of the senate. It became h.r. One, the act, in order to make clarification for the public.
▶ 1:33:26It then it was adopted by many on the republican side, the moniker of the working families and tax cuts, so that people could keep track of what the bill was. Because there's so many h.r. Ones, one, every term that floats around. And so that was the clarification in regard to, uh, some of the medicaid language that happened. And there's, there's a lot of things moving parts because it was a big bill.
▶ 1:33:49Um, what happened was there was, and I, I can't speak to other states, but in virginia, they previously, before medicaid expansion had not had what is sometimes called a sick tax or a provider tax. Virginia created one to pay its portion of its 10% portion of medicaid expansion. But of course, then the hospitals get reimbursed or the state gets reimbursed for the tax that the hospitals pay.
▶ 1:34:18And it it gives it back to the hospitals currently, in essence, making it. So virginia has never paid its 10% share. The tax went from allowed by the federal government to be reimbursed from 5.99, or roughly 6% to, if I remember correctly, about 3.5% over a period of years by senate action. And that's what many of the outside groups have been reporting on that would cause hospitals to close. But that is not a certainty.
▶ 1:34:45And further, if the states pick up and again, I can't speak for any state but the commonwealth of virginia. If the state were to pick up its fair share that it agreed to and it did medicaid expansion, none of these hospitals would have that particular cut. Does the gentleman from pennsylvania have any reason to disagree with any of the comments I have just made? >> absolutely not. >> alright. And with that, I yield back, and I appreciate the panel for being here today, and we will take a brief recess before the next panel.
▶ 1:35:12Oh, ralph, I'm sorry, I I'm I'm Mr. ralph. I'm sorry you don't have any questions. Alright, alright, we're just changing panels. So the recess will be about 30s apparently. Thank you.
▶ 1:37:24I now welcome our third panel chairman, jordan ranking member raskin from the committee on judiciary. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman jordan, I welcome your testimony. >> thank you. Thank you, madam chair. The judiciary committee has conducted extensive oversight of the fisa program, and we've seen a huge change from just a few years ago, when congress last reauthorized section 702 in the reforming intelligence and securing america act.
▶ 1:37:53That law contained 56 different reforms to the fisa law, including title one and 702, which is up, as we all know, for reauthorization now include a new training process, approval of requirements before running a us person query. There were audit requirements, including audit requirements and accountability measures for those who misuse the program and enhanced reporting and transparency.
▶ 1:38:20In fact, we get some reports now on the number of us persons who were searched in the database every quarter. Uh, these reporting and transparency requirements, such as allowing certain members of congress and staff to attend foreign intelligence court proceedings and the results are good. In 2021, before risa was enacted, the fbi reportedly reported conducting nearly 3 million us person queries. An audit of those queries found that 278,000 times, they did not comply with the rules.
▶ 1:38:49I think this is important. Just a few years ago, because of what we were were doing, requesting the inspector general to look at, we found that they were doing 3 million queries in one year and 278,000 times in that respective year. They didn't follow the rules. They didn't follow their own rules. Fbi agents ran queries on protesters, donors to congressional campaigns, public officials, journalists, colleagues and ex-girlfriends.
▶ 1:39:17But today, the story is totally different. Totally different in the year after we passed our law. So last year, the fbi reported conducting just 9089 us person queries from 3 million to 9000. Of those, 9127 did not comply with the rules, and most of those 127 were clerical errors, typo errors when they were going through the process.
▶ 1:39:402026 is not 2024, thanks to erisa, and proper queries have fallen from the recent high of 278,000 to 127, and due to the improved reporting required by the law, congress has more insight than ever into the program's operation today. Us inquiries conducted by the fbi are audited to ensure compliance with applicable requirements and standard. The results of those audits and other information are provided to congress on an annual semiannual.
▶ 1:40:09And as I said earlier, even quarterly basis. We're also all aware of the state of the world right now. Multiple recent isis inspired attacks here in the united states, military operations in both venezuela and iran. The 702 program is incredibly important for protecting our national security and advancing our interests abroad. In light of the progress that has been made and the threats we face, we think a temporary short term extension of the program makes sense.
▶ 1:40:39Now, that does not mean our job is over. The judiciary committee will continue to conduct aggressive oversight of fisa, just like we've done for the past five years, and we will continue to work on some things that we think will be helpful in the future. But again, 2026 is not 2024 and a short term clean extension of the 702 part of fisa law is an acceptable outcome for the situation that we find ourselves in. I think it's interesting that we're talking.
▶ 1:41:06Maybe I'll finish with this, madam chair, that we're talking months, not years. We're not talking a ten year reauthorization. We're talking a five year. We're talking 18 months. After 56 reforms that have definitely worked. While we're facing the threats that we face and while we're involved in the military conflicts that we're involved with, again, I would urge a yes vote for the legislation with that would yield back. >> thank you, chairman jordan. Ranking member raskin. >> thank you, chairwoman fox, and thank you, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 1:41:36Uh, I also want to thank my friend, chairman jordan, who's really done more to educate me on fisa 702 than anybody. Um, but I want to ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing president trump and stephen miller's so-called clean extension of section 702 of fisa. The clean extension is a dirty deal.
▶ 1:41:59The bill before us today leaves the trump administration in charge of policing its own abuses of this sweeping authority that is going to be unacceptable to the american people, who understand how our privacy rights and civil liberties are being trampled every day. Fisa needs independent guardrails, and my colleagues on the intelligence committee acknowledge as much.
▶ 1:42:22Simply put, we must reform fisa to protect our privacy and civil liberties and ensure that section 702 will not be used to spy illegally on americans. Many of you know that I voted in 2024 with most house democrats and most house republicans to reauthorize section 702 without a warrant requirement.
▶ 1:42:41At the time, I was persuaded that the specific reforms adopted by the biden administration and codified in the 2024 reauthorization, as the chairman explains, would provide sufficient safeguards against government abuse of the privacy rights and civil liberties of the people. These reforms relied on internal watchdogs to keep the intelligence agencies in line, and on the administration to accurately report its own abuses to congress and to the courts.
▶ 1:43:09But those reforms now depend on trump administration officials to respect the law, which is, I'm afraid, oxymoronic, if not just moronic. After returning to the white house, donald trump quickly removed the office of internal auditing, the internal watchdogs charged with verifying fbi's representations that the reforms are actually being put into place.
▶ 1:43:33President trump then illegally fired a majority of the members of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, which was set up as an independent body to guarantee the privacy and civil liberties of the people in the operation of fisa. The department of justice then reassigned other key compliance personnel. The fbi shut down its independent compliance office.
▶ 1:44:03The administration's recent claim that fbi compliance exceeded 99% in both 2024 and 2025 might be true, but the people charged with checking this claim are gone, and even 1% noncompliance, if they are to be trusted, could mean that the data of thousands of american citizens has been illegally accessed and compromised by the fbi. And the truth is that the fbi has no idea how many times its analysts have accessed U.S.
▶ 1:44:33Person information in the last year as we speak. The intelligence community is using a system that the fisa court itself has deemed unlawful and inconsistent with the statute. The details of this case remain inexplicably classified, and the doj seems to be waiting until the last possible minute to indicate whether the government will fix this problem or appeal the decision. But the point is that the agencies appear to have constructed a way to work around the prior guardrails that we've put in place.
▶ 1:45:02And neither doj nor oddny has any way to count how many times that workaround has actually been used. 99% compliance, maybe, but only if you think the fbi has come up with a way to give us an accurate count. And only if you trust kash patel to give us an honest self-assessment in the first place. Look, times have changed since 2024. The watchdogs are gone.
▶ 1:45:28We cannot take at face value the representations of an administration that routinely violates americans constitutional rights, lies to federal judges, and defies court orders. Those who argue for a blank check are telling american people they can rely on kash patel to report to congress.
▶ 1:45:46When the fbi abuses its 702 authorities, can we really trust them to operate section 702 consistent with the law, without proper guardrails, U.S. person information is ripe for abuse. It can and has been abused to spy on american citizens. In 2022, the fisa court detailed an historical pattern of non-compliant inquiries.
▶ 1:46:10Queries of fbi, improper searches swept in elected officials, campaign donors and black lives matter protesters, among others. President trump has made it clear he's in favor of mass surveillance. His administration has built profiles in american citizens, demanded that ai companies assist government in mass surveillance, and paid palantir hundreds of millions of dollars to build a mega database of americans personal data.
▶ 1:46:34The president has made clear he sees fisa as a tool a president can abuse to spy on his political opponents. How can we possibly trust him to operate section 702 consistent with the law? Madam chair, we've got time to get this right. Voting no on the clean reauthorization does not mean 702 suddenly turns off in april. Fisa allows existing certifications to continue past a sunset in the fisa court is certified 72 programs through march of next year.
▶ 1:47:04It's nonsensical to think that the administration, which has gutted so many internal oversight functions engaged in mass surveillance, immediately violates people's rights, can be trusted to police itself. With this sweeping authority, congress must enact strong guardrails on 702. Let's start by opposing a clean reauthorization. I will vote no when this comes to the floor later this week. If it does, I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I thank you very much, madam chair. >> thank you very much, Mr. raskin. Um, Mr.
▶ 1:47:32Jordan, do you want to respond to anything that Mr. raskin has said? >> uh, well, my, my, my friend from maryland talked about all these abuses. All the abuses happened when democrats were in the white house. I mean, the numbers I gave you, the 278,000 times, they didn't follow the rules that was in the previous administration. Go back to title one, go back to 2016. We all know what happened.
▶ 1:47:58We all know that the clinton campaign, the democrat campaign hired the law firm perkins coie, who hired the public relations firm fusion gps, who hired a foreigner, christopher steele, who then wrote a document that gave the fancy name dossier that was used by the obama administration, the comey fbi, to go take it to the fisa court.
▶ 1:48:19Again, this is title one, but this was abuse to the secret court, lied to the court, got the warrant to spy on the other party's campaign that happened in american politics and american election. So, um, you know, when you talk about times have changed. They have. We went from 278,000 times this, this, this, this 702 program was abused where they didn't follow the rules to 127. I would argue that's a result of the good work of the congress and the risk act we passed two years ago that had the 56 reforms. So yeah, times have changed.
▶ 1:48:48I think they've changed for the much better. And that's why I'm not opposed to a short term, 18 month extension. >> um, what what is your response to Mr. raskin saying that the um we're not facing a deadline, um of april 20th, but that um this can go on because. >> this court. >> heard this today. >> have you authorized the rules?
▶ 1:49:18Uh, I've heard that argument. I think, uh, I never tried to get in too many debates with the constitutional law professor, Mr. raskin, but, you know, that's going to get challenged in court if we don't reauthorize the law. And there's no reauthorization of the 702 program. And the administration is simply banking on what the fisa court said when they approved the rules presented to the fisa court. I think that's going to get challenged in court.
▶ 1:49:41We probably don't want that when we're in the middle of two conflicts and we've had multiple, um, multiple terrorist attacks and threats here on the homeland. So I think that is a big concern. And I would argue better to reauthorize, much better to reauthorize. That's what the deadline is next, next tuesday. So I would argue we should do that versus going to court and having the fight in the court. >> uh, one more question.
▶ 1:50:04Can you expand on the non compliant queries conducted by the fbi that were discovered due to the accountability reforms implemented from risa? >> well, of the so I think you're asking now that we've passed the bill, there's been a handful. Most of those were just typos. Different clerical mistakes in the process. They go, they got to get approval from someone.
▶ 1:50:30Maybe they didn't get the official sign off from someone before they did the query. It could be those kind of things. So it's relatively minor versus what we saw before when they were doing searches of members of congress. They were doing searches on donors, on journalists, on black lives matter, people on people who were here january 6th. So they were doing those kind of things, which I know the the ranking member would agree. That is that's not how it works in our under our, our constitution.
▶ 1:50:56So, um, those are the concerns now and even better now we have consequences if you're a member, if you're an employee at the fbi and you engage in doing things wrong, you can be held to account. >> and, and what, what are those penalties. >> all the way up to termination? It could be it could be termination now. So so those are those are, you know, first did you not follow up?
▶ 1:51:22There's there could be marks on the record or it could be terminated if they're not following the rules that are approved by the court before they on the on the front end. >> thank you, Mr. jordan. You bet. Mr. mcgovern, you're recognized. >> you know, I have a tough time believing that this administration, um, cares about accountability. Um, you know, I'm, I can't get over the fact that they pardoned everybody who attacked this building on january 6th. I'll never get over that beating up cops.
▶ 1:51:48And and with almost no resistance from the republicans here. Um, and you know, when you talk about short term extensions, I, why don't we talk about short term extensions? I think about a month, you know, or six weeks or eight weeks. I don't think about a year and a half. That doesn't strike me as a short term extension. But before I get to my questions, Mr. raskin, do you have anything you want to add? Um. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 1:52:15Um, well, first of all, I take your point about a short term extension being something like a week we talk about here for two weeks, but 18 months seems like a lot longer. It seems like an attempt to entrench, uh, this law without the protections that a lot of people on a bipartisan basis think we need. I guess, you know, my reaction to to Mr.
▶ 1:52:41Jordan, uh, I think reflects the whole reason why we need to have a bill of rights in categorical rights, because, you know, when your party is in, you kind of see no wrong. And I'm not putting this on on my friend Mr. jordan. I'm saying everybody, right. It's very easy.
▶ 1:52:59Let me go back to, you know, jefferson and the the democrat republicans versus the federalists when john adams was in, they could see everything wrong that adams was doing with the alien and sedition acts and attacking people's civil liberties and privacy rights. And then when jefferson was president, the other side saw everything that they were doing wrong in terms of curtailing people's rights. That's why we need the law, because the human mind is a fragile instrument. We see things through our own perspective.
▶ 1:53:28And so, you know, I want to thank Mr. jordan, who really educated me a lot about what's really going on with fisa in 702 and why it's so important to have these protections built into the process. And what we've gotten instead, as I pointed out, was a dismantling of the office of internal auditing, a sacking of, I think, every member but one of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, and then a transfer out of the personnel who are actually looking at it. So that sets us up ripe for abuse.
▶ 1:53:55And that would be true regardless of who's president. But especially, I would say from my perspective, a president who has done so much to trample the civil rights and civil liberties of law firms, lawyers, um, colleges, universities, immigrants, citizens protesting in minnesota. It just doesn't show the kind of sensitivity to people's privacy rights and civil liberties rights that we need. >> let me Mr.
▶ 1:54:23Jordan, let me let me ask you, um, I mean, we're the rules committee. I mean, I think 25 amendments have been submitted to this committee. Um, you know, the issue is, you know, for this committee, um, you know, and obviously I'm as chair of the judiciary committee, um, your voice matters here, um, with the, with the majority, I mean, um, do you support a, a full and open debate on all those amendments? And specifically, do you support the biggs amendment?
▶ 1:54:53Number three, uh, the warrant requirement, is that something you support? >> um, I'm for, I mean, that's up to you guys. Decide what amendments. >> it's not really not up to us. That's a good cop out that people do this. >> I thought. >> that's how it works. >> the rules committee decides carefully how the world works. And what amendments. >> do you support? The biggs amendment number three. >> I'm for I'm for a clean, uh, reauthorization, as I said before, because, you know, I understand you guys said clean short term is is a shorter time period, but 18 months is one of the shortest reauthorizations. >> that's a year and a half.
▶ 1:55:24That's too long for me. But the question I asked was not whether a year and a half is too long or not. The question is, do you support the biggs amendment number three? Uh, the warrant requirement. And, um, and you don't want to seem to answer that, but. >> no, I'm I'm fine with the clean. As I said, I'm clean now, if, if, if the reforms that we put in place, if we find out there's abuse in the future, we may have to come, we have to relook at that thing. I, I get that, but I'm satisfied with the position we're in right now. >> so you. >> do clean reauthorization is fine. >> so you do not.
▶ 1:55:54The chairman of the judiciary committee, uh, does not support the biggs amendment. >> as I've said multiple times, I'm fine with the clean reauthorization. So for. >> short term, you know, clean extension or not, I mean, would you at least support allowing the biggs amendment to get an up or down vote on the floor? I mean, why can't I mean, why can't we in the house decide this? Why, why, why, why is it up to you? >> and I think you're going to get a chance later. Later this evening, when you get a chance to vote, you guys will get to decide where. >> on the floor. >> right here.
▶ 1:56:23You get to decide what. >> to vote. But I don't know if we have one, two, three, four compared to nine. I mean, I could tell you how this is going to work. >> well, when you guys were in charge, I think it was 9 to 4 just the other way around. That's how it works. >> and I would I would vote to make the biggs amendment in order. The question is the question is, do you believe that we should have an up or down vote on this? >> and I leave I leave that to the congress, the house, the way it works, that's. >> I think that's a you know what I mean?
▶ 1:56:45You know, we all talk about democracy and you know, that, you know, this, that we're supposed to be a model for the rest of the world and we're supposed to debate important issues seriously and passionately. Uh, but again, you know, under republican leadership, this has become the most closed congress in history. You know, more bills go to the floor with no amendments in order. And on something like fisa, on issues of warrants, on issues of privacy. I mean, people feel strongly about that, not just people on the judiciary committee.
▶ 1:57:13I understand not just people on the rules committee, on the intelligence committee, but others feel strongly about it. And the idea that somehow it's an imposition to ask that we debate and vote on it on the house floor, that everybody has that opportunity, that that's just too much. Boy, this place. >> is I didn't use imposition. I didn't use that word. >> well, I mean, you're basically saying, no, Mr. raskin. >> but I think the house of representatives should absolutely debate that, discuss it, analyze it and vote on it.
▶ 1:57:41And, um, I think, you know, that that would be perfectly within our power and rights and duty to send that forward. Um, you know, it's interesting. A number of courts, including the fisa court, have found that a search warrant requirement is not constitutionally required. In this context, the supreme court has not opined on it and analyzed, um, the whole issue.
▶ 1:58:06But, um, you know, I think this is something that congress itself should be debating and trying to, uh, trying to understand. This is a time when people's civil liberties and people, civil rights really are under attack. And I think that we should be debating the critical thing is that one way or another, we need to have judges involved before there are searches of american persons taking place.
▶ 1:58:28You know, even if the courts are right, that you don't need to have a warrant, at the very least, a judge has got to be interposed between the fbi and just doing a search of americans. >> going back to the biggs amendment, just for a second, I mean, correct, correct me if my mind is failing me, but, uh, we have voted on that in the previously. Right? >> yes, indeed. >> and if I remember correctly, it was a tie vote. >> um. 212 yeah, yeah. >> and you know, um, how did you vote on that? >> I voted for it. >> yeah.
▶ 1:58:58You voted for it, but now you're against it. >> uh, it's funny how things change because I think Mr. raskin voted against. >> I voted against it, and now I'm for it. So. And which might explain why we need it. >> I guess. >> to the ranking member, I voted. I voted for it after we saw 278,000 abuses of the rules, their own rules. Now we have much less abuse, much problem 127 mostly clear. So things have changed for the better. And I'm saying short term I can live with that.
▶ 1:59:25And if things get bad again, I'll be right back here advocating for additional change. >> if I could address that. I mean, I, you know, um, gullibility is not a quality I usually associate with Mr. jordan, but I don't know how he knows that the issues have been solved here. It seems like he's taking the word of kash patel, because all of the real monitors and watchdogs have been fired and sacked and driven out of the building. >> inspector general. >> um, well. >> we all agree with generals. Do the work on all these things. >> I can reclaim my time.
▶ 1:59:55I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it was a tie vote previously. >> was. >> um, and you know, it's, it's clear that people feel have strong opinions about this. Um, and it's clear that people have a lot of concerns. And I guess the, the issue is if you want to vote no on it this time, that's, that's your prerogative. But you can tell the chairwoman right now that you think that the biggs amendment should be made in order. And we can have that debate, and I'm sure that it will be made in order.
▶ 2:00:24We could have that debate and we can have that vote. I will vote for the biggs amendment I did before. I want to do it again. Um, but I mean, the the idea that given, you know, how tight that was in the last go around, why not? Why not give people that same opportunity? >> well, I don't know about the ranking member, but I found that just because I might suggest something to chairman fox doesn't mean she's going to do it. She makes up her own mind. And I know the folks in north carolina understand that as well.
▶ 2:00:51>> well, I mean, I would I would say maybe the speaker could could make the judgment. But every time he's asked by by a reporter about any question, he says he doesn't know anything about it. So I, I'm not sure whether he'd weigh in on this or not. I'm just simply saying that this is an important matter to people. Um, but quite frankly, not just democrats, but for a lot of republicans. Um, and I know there are a lot of republicans that would vote for the biggs amendment, including Mr. biggs, who would lead the charge. But I mean, I know a lot of republicans would. Well, this is this is not like a you know, a side issue.
▶ 2:01:21All I'm suggesting is that we ought to have a here's a radical idea. We ought to debate it and vote on it. Yeah. You know, and that's my recommendation. Clearly. >> I'm not saying it's not an important matter. I think it is an important matter. That's why that's why I've spent years, years reforming this program. And we have done a number of reforms that all of us participated in getting done. And I think that has made a world of difference.
▶ 2:01:43And for a short term, 18 month extension, at the point we find ourselves in america right now with conflicts going on overseas with terrorist attacks on the country. I think this is important because it's a foreign intelligence, foreign intelligence surveillance program. We need to be listening to what foreigners might be up to and what they might try to do to our country. >> if you're so convinced that everybody believes that this bill is perfect, then, you know, put the biggs amendment, biggs amendment on the floor and let people vote it down. If that's the. Is that the case? That's all I'm saying, Mr. raskin.
▶ 2:02:14>> well, um, what time is the time when people's civil liberties and privacy rights are most offended and most violated? Um, so this would suggest the fact that we're in a war, um, and indeed a war that was never declared by congress has never been authorized by congress. Um, suggests to me that we need to zealously protect the civil liberties and civil rights of the people. >> let's vote on this stuff, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Michelle fischbach. You're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:02:42And, um, you know, there have been serious concerns about, um, about the abuse of some of these things in the past, and I think you pointed out very, um, very well that they were of the past administration and there was, uh, numerous 56, as I recall, um, in 2024, we did those reforms. They are taking place now. Um, and I appreciate them.
▶ 2:03:06There's the increased transparency, oversight, accountability, there's a lot going on there and very helpful, uh, reforms. And so I appreciate that. Um, and so I do support the, the short term plan extension because I think it makes sense at this point. And, um, Mr. chair, I was just wondering if maybe, you know, you mentioned, uh, kind of briefly mentioned, you know, maybe some military actions going on or military things going on. And can you speak about why, um, this extension is so important right now.
▶ 2:03:36And, and given the dhs, uh, democrat shutdown right now. And, um, so I'm wondering if you could maybe talk about the importance of it with those things going on? >> oh, great point. I mean, we can't necessarily say this can't talk about much in this room, but we've all been to the, to the briefings where we hear from key people in the administration, the director of the cia, the director of the fbi, head of the chairman of the joint chiefs. And they all talk about how important this this program is.
▶ 2:04:03We want our government to listen to what bad guys are doing overseas. I always say this is a foreign intelligence surveillance act, two sections, title one 702. So we want that to happen. We are concerned about when american when there's queries done on americans. And that's why we put the 56 reforms in. And we're going to continue to watch this, as I said before. But you have this environment that we're in involved in venezuela, this military conflict in iran, the numerous threats we've had here and terrorist attacks we've had here in the united states.
▶ 2:04:32You have all this going on. And, oh, by the way, the democrats have shut down part of dhs for, what, 50, 58 days. So, um, I think that is in that environment. I think that just underscores what we've what we've talked about already. >> and thank you, Mr. chairman. I think given what you've just mentioned. But the environment and situations we're in right now, this. And it's a short term, 18 months.
▶ 2:04:57Um, and making sure that we have this taken care of by april 20th, um, I think is incredibly important. So I thank you for bringing it forward and I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. fischbach. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. You know, for the last three years, reforming fisa has been one of the rare areas of bipartisan agreement on the judiciary committee. So I am a little disappointed to see Mr.
▶ 2:05:25Jordan's change of heart, because he has been a steadfast supporter of americans fourth amendment rights. Um, for anyone not convinced about the need to strengthen the fourth amendment and the need to reevaluate the laws governing intel collection right now under the trump administration, we're seeing precisely the kinds of abuses that are made possible when congress gives up too much authority to the government allowing it to survey its citizens.
▶ 2:05:49We have seen under the authority of national security, presidential memos seven, which was issued last september, the trump administration weaponizing the government to spy on and target american citizens on the basis of their speech. They're surveilling protesters who oppose the administration policies. They're surveilling people who have beliefs that conservatives simply don't like. These are the types of abuses that concern the drafters of the bill of rights.
▶ 2:06:18And I think they'd be horrified to see what's happening in america today. Um, look, we all share concerns about our national security, particularly as the president has started a war in the middle east without authorization and apparently without any clear goals or objectives. Um, and we're also concerned about national security because for six weeks or more, um, our house republican colleagues have refused to fund dhs.
▶ 2:06:44They have rejected a unanimous, um, senate bill that would have funded dhs. They have refused to take yes for an answer. So, yes, there are legitimate national security concerns. But during both the last fisa reauthorization and today, there are sensible reforms on the table to ensure that we continue to collect valuable intelligence while also preserving americans fourth amendment rights. And so those reforms should be allowed to vote.
▶ 2:07:12I oppose the bill as it is. I would ask the chair and the majority that as we consider the rule later today, we make an order. The amendments that have been mentioned. Mr. big's number three amendment, which would have a warrant requirement, and his number four amendment, which would prevent the government from buying bulk data again without a warrant when when targeting individuals. Mr. raskin, is there anything else you want to add? >> um, I thought you captured it nicely, miss scanlon.
▶ 2:07:39I would say it's easy to support oversight and scrutiny when the other team is in power. And we passed all of those dozens of bipartisan reforms together when president biden was in office and we began to make progress on an inherently vulnerable. Um, context within within fisa.
▶ 2:08:01Um, but president trump came in, dismantled the office of internal auditing, dismantled the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, ousted the critical monitors. Um, clearly views it, um, as a place where there was political abuse before and thinks it's ripe as an instrument for political abuse.
▶ 2:08:22And, um, you know, I'm willing to say that it is, uh, an instrument that we must protect against any president and any team that gets in. And so, uh, but I would definitely oppose a clean, uh, reauthorization. And I know that we can do a lot better than that.
▶ 2:08:42And I know that we do have, in substance, significant majorities of the house of representatives who support, if not a search warrant requirement in every case, certainly substantial reform to what's taking place now. >> and we have seen the abuses in a variety of contexts.
▶ 2:08:59And certainly as members of the judiciary committee, we've seen representatives of the administration be less than forthcoming when asking for the information that we would need to see if these reforms have really taken effect. So thank you for your testimony, and I yield back. >> thank you, miss scanlon. Uh, Mr. scott, you're recognized. >> thank you. Thank you, madam chair. And, um, Mr. jordan, Mr.
▶ 2:09:28Raskin, uh, welcome to the rules committee. Uh, when we're talking about 702. Um, we are talking about terrorism, cartels, drug dealers, am I is that a fair statement from both of you agree with that? Terrorist terrorism primarily not. Uh, and so I just, um, and most of our questions in the past have gotten around the conduct of the fbi.
▶ 2:09:58Is that a fair statement? Mhm. And, and today after the reforms that the majority of us voted for, um, the fbi is prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime, right? They can't just go looking for something to arrest somebody with. And I'm, I'm thankful that we passed that.
▶ 2:10:21And they can only access fisa 702 if the foreign the section 702 target is relevant to an existing open predicated, full national security investigation. Is that accurate? Yeah. They're already has to be a full investigation going before the fbi can use 702. >> yeah. >> they can't. National security related investigation.
▶ 2:10:51>> right. It can't just be some static situation where they go, oh, I'm going to search austin scott, which is things that happen in the past. >> absolutely. They happen in the past. And, um, if they happen for me, by the way, I didn't set myself. >> no, I was just an example. I'm sorry. >> um, it would have been a pretty boring search, I'm afraid. Um, today, now prior to what the, the reforms, we adopted a third to a fourth of the agents at the fbi had access to the database. Correct?
▶ 2:11:23>> it was a huge number. The one estimate we heard in a briefing three years ago was potentially 10,000 agents could access the database. >> it's it's it's less than it's it's 3000 agents today. >> significantly smaller. >> less than 6%. Um, and they don't even have access to all of the database. Correct? >> yes. >> um, point is this.
▶ 2:11:48We're everybody agree. We all agree on that Mr. raskin like every is anything I said not been accurate. >> well, I'll just say this. We don't know a lot about what's taking place right now. So for example, when we talk about the reduction in the number of queries, where who's got the right to do the queries, there are other things that are not being defined as queries. They're still taking place. There are searches, there are reviews. There are other things that are happening.
▶ 2:12:18And this is the problem with not having meaningful oversight. >> I, I, um. That's a, I just want to get back to the what we agree. I hear you. And if that's happening, then, then I expect chairman jordan would work with you to resolve that. Is that is that fair enough? Fair, fair. I mean, none none of us want that.
▶ 2:12:45None of us on this committee, on the intelligence committee or any other committee, want them operating outside of the law. But I, I, again, want to get back to. The fbi is prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime. The fbi can only access fisa 702 data if the foreign target is relevant to an existing open predicated, full national security investigation. We're talking about terrorism.
▶ 2:13:16>> forgive me. Are you referring to a foreign target or an american citizen, a us person? >> they they they can only query if the foreign target. It. Mr. jordan. >> all that's right. But they could query the american's name in the context of all that. An ongoing predicated investigation. As I said before, what was happening prior was completely static situation, not the investigation. I'm going to search a congressman. I'm going to search donors. I'm going to search journalists. I'm going to search my ex-girlfriend.
▶ 2:13:46That was a kind of baloney that was going on prior that. That's right. >> I agree with you. And, and, um, but there are times when a foreign target may be in communications with a us citizen. That it would be necessary to move expeditiously to stop a terrorist attack inside the united states of america. >> yes.
▶ 2:14:11And there may be they may want to move expeditiously on the american because the american may not know they're somehow engaged in some. They may want to warn and give them a sort of a preemptive. Like, hey, we need to let you know this. >> that that's correct. Uh, and I just say this to say this, this is a list that's the point was made that you know, who voted for what last time.
▶ 2:14:33This is an important tool for protecting american citizen security. And I do think that risa did a very good job of making sure that we balance the protection of american citizens, stopping the abuses that we had seen in the past, and
▶ 2:15:03Protecting americans constitutional rights. And I do think that we need to, um, have this vote on the extension. And then I expect that things will continue. And if we see any abuses over the next 18 months, then I imagine the, the backlash from that would be pretty extreme for anybody at the fbi that did that. And I will tell you, Mr.
▶ 2:15:28Raskin, I think you would see republicans, including this one, that if there were any abuses from the fbi lining up for very serious consequences to the people that abuse the constitutional rights of any american citizen. And so I'll just. Mr. jordan, do you have anything else that you would like to say? >> no. That was that was well said. I would just point out and I should have said this earlier, but I was I was thinking about title one and 72.
▶ 2:15:56There are criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully disclosure of classified information and stuff related to 702. So there are some criminal penalties we put in in in two years ago that I think are positive as well. >> that's correct. And I do think that there needs to be a review of the incident. I do think that if you're you know, if you're active in an investigation, you're moving fast and you do something a thousand times. If you do something a thousand times, you're prone to make an error on one of them.
▶ 2:16:19So as long as the agents are treated fairly, um, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm good with the consequences for anybody that that knowingly and willingly abuse it. Madam chair, I'm going to, um, yield at this stage. Thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you, Mr. scott. Miss leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chair.
▶ 2:16:40And and as I'm sitting here and like investigating and understanding like what this bill does, it strikes me, um, chairman, um, do you think the federal government should be able to access and gather our medical records? >> I think it's against the law right now. I don't think so. No, I'm. No, I'm not for that. >> and in general, do you do you think that would be right, that we'd have the federal government accessing and gathering and compiling, uh, our medical records?
▶ 2:17:10>> you know, I, I don't like the federal government telling us what we can say, tell us what we can tweet getting into our privacy. I don't like that at all. It's why we have the bill of rights. >> yeah, you don't like it at all. But the reality is it's happening right now. And that's because, uh, under this law, and I think it is an issue of what the law is. And that's our job as to decide what the law is.
▶ 2:17:32Right now we have the data brokers, uh, loophole for the federal government is able to amass this information by buying it from others, right? Am I correct in understanding it that way? >> and that's why last congress and I think we're working on that bill, this congress as well, out of our committee, uh, given the name fourth amendment, it's not for sale. Any anything that would require a warrant that would otherwise require a warrant from government. Government can't just go by that information. And so we've we've passed that before. We'll look to pass it again.
▶ 2:18:02I'm trying. >> but we don't it's not in this clean. It's not in this authorization. And I think that that's the problem because we know that that's happened. I think that, uh, the, the question is, uh, the, the statement made by, uh, Mr. scott was if we've seen abuses, then we should do something about it. But we've already seen these abuses. Uh, you know, it's not hypothetical.
▶ 2:18:25So in one instance, data brokers sold private location data from around 600 planned parenthood locations across 48 states to an anti-abortion political group that used it to target misinformation to women. Uh, and another example, texas law enforcement exploited data broker footage for more than 83,000 automatic license plate reader cameras.
▶ 2:18:51Uh, we have an instance in georgia, uh, where, uh, data was gathered and then the, the law enforcement used it to prosecute a woman, uh, who had had a miscarriage. And whether or not you agree with this particular subject, whether you're allowed to deal with miscarriages, you know, I think we should I think women should be protected. The law doesn't presently provide.
▶ 2:19:19And we're going to be addressing this. And this is my concern. And ranking member raskin. I mean, there need to be reforms, uh, now, right? Because otherwise we're going to have 18 months without any reforms and guardrails as I see this bill. Is that correct? >> this is a time of tremendous danger for people's civil liberties and their civil rights. Um, and I know my friends across the aisle thought, uh, it was serious under president biden.
▶ 2:19:48Well, um, you know, that pales by contrast to what we're living through today in terms of the government weaponizing the justice department, prosecuting or trying to prosecute members of congress. Um, going after people identified by the president as his political foes, um, and using the government in a completely partizan and subjective way.
▶ 2:20:14And I just think there are vast millions of americans, if not the vast majority of americans who would not trust this government with our privacy rights and with our civil liberties like this. We need to build the protections in. And again, I say it with all due respect, that this should be for all administrations, but there are lots of people who feel it very intensely right now.
▶ 2:20:42>> and we should not have the government spying on its citizens. It's it's residents. And that's what's happening here. Uh, and so it might be that this administration's actions sort of really tell you the abuses are happening. So we should act now, right? So that it then applies to all further administrations. >> well, that's right. And you know, the problem with. Well, let's take 18 months and then see what happens. Um, is a lot can happen in that time and we're not going to know what's happening.
▶ 2:21:11I mean, you know, uh, Mr. jordan had his phone records. Um, they were revisited or, I don't know, reviewed by the government. He didn't find out for several years. I think that that was taking place. >> that was that was subject to a warrant. >> right. That was subject that wasn't just am I correct? >> there was a I think there was a process that will explain exactly what happened. But the point is that, um, and this has happened again on both sides, on all sides.
▶ 2:21:38So I'm trying to lift it just one centimeter above the normal partizan contest we have here. We need rules that are going to bind the government regardless of who's in power. Um, and we've got the opportunity to say that a court, a judge has got to look at, uh, any attempt by the fbi to query things of a private nature of us persons, us citizens. >> yeah. And I.
▶ 2:22:07>> really liked it last time when we had a I told him I thought I was living in an alternate universe when we were pushing for, uh, affidavits and we were pushing for things to protect privacy. And we had agreement across the aisle among certain of us. And I wish we were back in that position. And we weren't saying we have to do it now. We pushed ourselves up the deadline and not like a short extension, 18 months.
▶ 2:22:34That's a long time for a lot of damage can be done to people's personal data, but I will unless there's something urgent. >> well, just on that 18. >> month point, I mean, it feels to me like I don't know exactly where the 18 month, you know, time came from, but it seems to me like it's saying to the administration, okay, you get 18 months more to do what you want to do, and then we'll talk about what happens in the future.
▶ 2:23:00In the meantime, there's no emergency, um, in terms of renewing this because the present certifications are going to be lasting for a long time. So we've got time to work this out. Yeah. >> well, uh, I did yield back and I do appreciate your smile because I, I mean, it just feels like you're in a different place than you were last time. And we'll, we'll. >> point out that that the examples you raised on the government purchasing material, most of those are outside. 702 most of those are law enforcement. And we.
▶ 2:23:28So when we passed the bill last year, we worked with local law enforcement. Where does it make sense for them to be able to purchase certain information, but not others that would that would, you know, we think, violate the fourth amendment. So, um, that is much broader than, than, than 702. >> yeah, yeah. Well, problem is, is that, you know, social security data was released. I mean, this is an administration that has released so much private information about, uh, americans that it is alarming and scary. And with that, I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you, miss fernandez.
▶ 2:23:58Mr. griffith, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, chairman jordan, is there anything else you wanted to add in response to prior? Alright. I have to tell you, I I'm really concerned. I know it's 702. Um, I've been to the briefings in the previous administration when we were talking hundreds of thousands. I've been here where we're talking about, I think your terminology was a handful. And I think that's accurate.
▶ 2:24:26So there's no question in my mind that this administration is doing what it's supposed to. That said, I worry about civil liberties. Uh, I've been a student of, uh, the wilkes height rebellion and john wilkes and the whole creation of our constitutional freedom from government intrusion. And I'm very, very concerned, and I and unfortunately, I'm finding myself drawn to arguments on both sides, uh, because it is a close call for me.
▶ 2:24:53Uh, but what can you do to reassure me besides telling me that this administration is doing and it has been doing the right thing and will continue to do, I hope, what can you do to reassure those of us who are a little concerned?
▶ 2:25:07But, uh, I mean, why why should it be clean when we could be looking at, uh, you know, amicus, uh, interventions not on case by case, not on a case here and there, but on all cases looking at, uh, perhaps, uh, you know, specialized warrants and then notification to people so they have a right to defend, maybe not in the first instance, but certainly somewhere down the road where they can say, wait a minute, why did you take my property, my, my privacy and my information?
▶ 2:25:38>> um, I would just say maybe, maybe a few quick thoughts. One is, you know, I know the democrats are making a different argument, but we've been around congress a while. You've been around for a while. Normally you reauthorize things for several years. This is 18 months. So, uh, while they might want to say that's a long time, I think that's relatively short time period. Uh, remember the one we voted on two years ago with all the reforms was two years. And we're just now starting to see all those reforms in the, in the positive impact they've had. So, uh, it's short term, those reforms are there.
▶ 2:26:05Second, um, I think, you know, the other side likes to criticize the current fbi director, but it was that fbi director who first gave us the information about all the abuses happening in title one, fisa. He wrote the memorandum. We don't know about what took place with the dossier, how a foreign author document was laundered by one campaign to the fbi, and then used as the basis to go spy on the other party's campaign. That's crazy. But that happened. And it was kash patel, director patel, who wrote that document and figured out what was going on.
▶ 2:26:35And at the time we were told, oh no, you guys are all crazy. Well, it turned out to be all true. And that was the beginning of it all. So that's the guy you have now at the fbi who's, I mean, responsible for the reforms we have seen. And then third, I would just say, like, there are good people in congress like you and everyone else in this who I think everyone's motives in here are genuinely. They're genuinely concerned about protecting the constitution, the bill of rights, the fourth amendment. >> so you believe if we find out there are problems, that we could get the votes at the end of the 18 months if need be?
▶ 2:27:06>> I know that I know. >> who's in charge. >> I know the amount of work that we've done on judiciary and started off just a handful on this. But what we've done and then how that is, as the gentlelady was, as miss fernandez was talking about how we came together in a bipartisan way to get the 56 reforms and, and things we did last year.
▶ 2:27:23Um, and how we almost, you know, the vote was 212, 212 um, so I know that this congress is committed to protecting american civil liberties, but in the situation we're in, I don't think it's too much to say short term when the commander in chief at a time we're into military conflicts, uh, military operations for a short term extension of something that we've reformed dramatically, I don't think that's too much to ask.
▶ 2:27:48And if there are additional problems in the next 18 months, by golly, we'll dig into it and we'll address it in a bipartisan way and fix it. >> all right. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> Mr. norman, you're recognized. >> thank both of you for coming. Congressman jordan, you know, we've all seen the issues you had with unlawful investigations, unlawful document violating every right that you had. Scott perry, the same way.
▶ 2:28:17Do you really think one of one is are there consequences, uh, moving forward for those who violate that are on the books that are immediate that I know the, the numbers that can access files queries are limited, but what keeps them in check with, with all the tools they have available? >> one congress is watching much closer now. Congress is watching what they do.
▶ 2:28:45So we get the reports about what happened, how many searches, who did it. We get them quarterly. Now, uh, second, when it comes to title one, we can go in and like we have certain people cleared from the committee, certain lawyers on our committee staff who can go in there, we can go in there. So there's just much greater access, accountability process involved. And if someone's violating those processes, they're there are penalties that they're subject to both on the title one side and on the 702 side.
▶ 2:29:12Um, but if we find out, as I just said, if we find out in the future there were abuses and we need to enhance those criminal penalties, okay, because we're talking about people's liberties here. But as I've said now several times, I think the framework we're in, short term extension makes sense. >> well, everywhere I, everywhere I go, people want consequences. Not long drawn out hearings from, you know, you have all these hearings, you get, you know, the ones on the on the stand get scorched.
▶ 2:29:42But there's no there's no consequences for anybody. >> yeah. Only the well, it's funny you say that because that's the number one question I get is I'm traveling around the country. It's like. And you were you were more diplomatic about the way you said it. But most people just look at me like, hey, jordan, when is someone going to jail? Right? And I'm like, we can't prosecute anyone. All we can do is do the oversight and propose legislation, pass legislation and, and go from there.
▶ 2:30:06And we can do referrals if we think some some of that's warranted, which we've done a handful of those where we thought it was legitimately warranted. Um, but yeah, the one guy who was held somewhat responsible was kevin kline. Hans is the guy who lied to the court back and took a document, changed the meaning of it on an email. He was he lied to the court and he did have some consequences that he faced criminal penalties that he faced for lying to the court clear back in 2016, when when they went to the fisa court. >> okay. Thank you. I yield.
▶ 2:30:36>> Mr. newman, would you yield? Oh, yeah. Mr. chairman, you went over fairly quickly the oversight that occurs by the committee and by congress. Would you mind going over that again? I think a little more slowly, because I think that's a very important part of the reforms that were done. And I think it would. >> yeah.
▶ 2:31:05>> be good for all of our members to hear what you said. Mr. raskin has implied that there isn't any oversight going on, and I think it would be helpful. The role of congress in the oversight, particularly. >> okay, so on the front end to do the search, there's certain protocols and processes in place that have to be approved. Can't just be one person, 10,000 agents, just, you know, hitting the system.
▶ 2:31:31Uh, it has to be, first of all, within all the framework of what representative scott talked about in that kind of investigation that's going on, uh, then there's process in place. You got to get sign off from certain superiors and others in the fbi before you can do the search or the, or the query. Um, so those approval requirements, there's training on the front end process and approval requirements on the front end. And then there's, then there's accountability where they can give, they have to give us the reports what's going on.
▶ 2:31:59And we have the ability to go in and talk to them both on the title one and on and on seven, two. So the reporting, the transparency, the training and the process and the approval up front before you can do the searches, all that was in these multiple reforms we did two years ago to the bill. >> and to clarify, you said we have the ability. Is that indeed being done? Yeah, the oversight is being done.
▶ 2:32:27It isn't just that you have the ability to do it, but your staff. >> information comes to us. We can send staff into, particularly on the title one side, we can send staff into, um, the fisa court. And um, so all that is, is now and these in the reports, I remember we had the debate in the committee, the markup in committee a couple of years ago.
▶ 2:32:49Um, I think we had an annual report requirement and that was, that was no, we had a member offer the amendment and it was agreed on in a bipartisan way to, to shorten that time frame to semi annual and quarterly reports that we get. >> thank you, Mr. norman, for yielding. You yield back. Um, Mr. jack, you're recognized. >> Mr.
▶ 2:33:12Chairman, I just was hoping you could, uh, for the record and also for my own, uh, knowledge sake, you mentioned some of the reforms that were adopted back in, I think, 2024. Yeah, I think they were pretty expansive as it relates to protecting the rights of americans and could potentially assuage concerns of some of our colleagues. So would welcome you walking through some of those reforms for myself and others. >> yeah, it's like, as I said, as I said before, sometimes it's easier to tell the story because I don't know if you were in here.
▶ 2:33:41Uh, representative when during the opening statements, but to look at the numbers. So initially a few years ago, there were upwards of 10,000 fbi agents who could search the database. Um, we know from the ig and the reports we got that that process was abused in major ways. Um, where they were looking at members of congress, donors, journalists.
▶ 2:34:09Um, I always use the example ex-girlfriends. They were looking, which is not part of any investigation arising from actual foreign intelligence that they got while surveilling a foreigner. So the number who can actually query the system much smaller today, the abuses that took place or the number of queries actually done in 2021 were 3 million. Now it's down to last year, 9000.
▶ 2:34:34Um, and the number of abuses when it was 3,000,000 in 2021 was 278,000 times. They didn't follow their rules. And we think and now, now it's that that number is 127. But most of those were some of the clerical things as I was talking about the process. You have to go in the front end. Maybe someone didn't get approval of both the people he has to get approval of before he searched the database. Got only one sign up for those kind of things where the where that number.
▶ 2:35:02So, um, we think all the front end process, front end approval, limited number, who can do it, all those things are protections. And then if there are people who are messing up, set up all in the rules. And again, the rules get taken to the fisa court, they get a they get approved by the court itself. Here's how you're going to conduct searches on 702 program. Uh, if there are abuses, then there are consequences, including some criminal consequences, termination and other things for the agents who didn't follow the rules.
▶ 2:35:32>> thank you. I yield back. >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. jack. Mr. neguse, you're recognized. >> well. >> thank you, madam chair. I appreciate that. And I certainly wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member and the chairman of my, uh, my committee, uh, chairman jordan, I suspect ranking member mcgovern has already asked you this question, but I will just preface by saying, uh, I thought I'd seen everything
▶ 2:36:02In the house of representatives, but I never thought I'd see the day that jim jordan would be championing a clean, quote unquote, reauthorization of fisa. That was not. >> different program. >> bingo list. >> what was different program today? >> different party, it sounds like. >> no. >> no, not a different, totally different, totally different situation today. >> what one question I guess I've been struggling with is why 18 months? Clearly there's a lot of consternation about fisa.
▶ 2:36:29There's a real desire by a lot of your members, members on the republican side, members on the democratic side, ranking member raskin and others about potential changes that ought to be made. I just wonder, why are we landing on 18 months? Why not 12 months? Why not 14 months? Why not a shorter time frame for the authorization? >> um, I don't know. It's pretty long. Yeah, well, I actually think it's pretty short because most time we reauthorize things for five years, six years, seven years, eight years. >> defense authorization act reauthorization. >> well, that's a that's an annual thing. >> month's annual deal. >> right? Yeah.
▶ 2:36:59>> so I don't know, you're describing this as short. Would you describe. >> compared compared to a lot of other things we've done around and certainly this fisa law. I remember when I first got to congress, it was a lot longer than 18 months. I don't know what it was. I think it was four years, five years, maybe ten for some of it. And title one, I don't know that we I don't think that is up for reauthorization. We changed title one when we had to do the reauthorization for 702. We changed aspects of title one to protect americans liberty. So yeah, these are normally much longer, I think maybe in like ten before.
▶ 2:37:28So I think 18 months, relatively speaking, is short. >> I guess I would query whether or not, and I don't know if you remember asking if you thought about this, but it just it strikes me that a reauthorization that aligned with the expiration that's been outlined in the court ruling, right. Which I guess is next march, I guess. >> march 27th. >> yeah. Yeah, I it doesn't I don't quite understand why we wouldn't just time the authorizations to, to perhaps mimic that schedule. Well it's not and I suspect that that would.
▶ 2:37:58>> I don't know, I actually do not know that. Um, I don't know if the ranking member does either, but it's, I don't know why the, the court does it, when they do it, they reauthorize it for a year that runs through because they did it on march 27th. So it must go to march 27th next year. And of course, right now the timeline we're on is april 20th. So, um, I don't know. I don't know why it doesn't. They don't. >> fair enough.
▶ 2:38:19Well, I, I mean, based on some public reporting, it suggests that there's some members of your conference that are on their way to the white house to have a conversation with the president about this particular legislation. And maybe if they're checking their phones and or they're watching this debate, I would just say to them and throw this idea into the atmosphere that 18 months is awfully long. And it's, I would think, eminently reasonable to suggest a shorter timeline, perhaps an annualized one.
▶ 2:38:46But in any event, I know you all have had a fulsome debate on this ranking member mcgovern. >> well. >> I just it's going to be a long night. >> yeah. Got it, got it. >> well. >> I will I will stop there. I will yield back to the chairwoman. >> oh that's amazing. >> thank you, Mr. Mr. langworthy, you're recognized. >> um, I think I agree. We've had a full debate here. Uh, I don't have any additional questions, but thank you both for coming. Thank you.
▶ 2:39:13>> well, everybody's heard the the, um, bells for voting. I believe. Mr. himes, do you wish to speak? Okay. Well, I would say that our witnesses are excused if there's no further, um, questions of our witnesses, then you're excused, and we'll recognize Mr. himes. >> we'll go vote.
▶ 2:39:44>> no, I'm going to thank. >> you, madam chair. I'll, uh. I know we're under time pressure, so I'll be quick here. Um, uh, I'm pleased. >> to be on. Just a second so we can hear you. >> hey, jimmy. >> go ahead. >> so I'm pleased to be here to testify in favor of my amendment to the fisa 702 reauthorization legislation the house intends to consider tomorrow. I'll begin by saying that it is critical, critical that we reauthorize fisa 702.
▶ 2:40:10It is our most important intelligence authority, and it is used every day by professionals across the intelligence community to keep americans safe and advance our national security. There is simply no alternative to section 702, and allowing it to expire would be devastating under joe biden, the president's advisory board said that allowing this authority to expire would be the worst intelligence failure of our era. I want my colleagues to contemplate what those words mean.
▶ 2:40:39If we have an up or down vote on reauthorization tomorrow, I will vote to reauthorize because it is truly that important. With that said, I'm disappointed in the process, or lack thereof, that we have undertaken during this reauthorization. Two years ago, when congress last considered reauthorizing 702, there were numerous hearings, months of classified briefings, mark ups and a healthy debate on the floor about reauthorization, including amendments. We've had nearly none of that this time around. I think that's unfortunate.
▶ 2:41:07And while I have had productive conversations with chairman crawford, ranking member raskin and many other members were nonetheless looking at a clean reauthorization rather than a serious debate about reforms, I offered my amendment to show that there is another way this amendment would address what has long been the most controversial aspect of section 702, the fbi's authority to query 702 databases does 702 database with selectors. For us person.
▶ 2:41:32This amendment would create a judicial process whereby the doj would request fisa court permission to review content returned by us person queries, while including exceptions for certain types of queries and exigent circumstances. This deals with the problem with the full fourth amendment warrant, which is that if you have to show probable cause to a judge and get a fourth amendment warrant, all defensive queries go away. What's a defensive query terrorists are talking about?
▶ 2:42:03Jim himes, is that because jim himes is a terrorist? Maybe. And if so, you got evidence, get a warrant. But maybe they're targeting jim himes. That's a defensive query that goes away with a full blown biggs amendment, fourth amendment requirement. So this amendment is allowed to is designed to allow the fbi to conduct the queries of lawfully collected foreign intelligence that they need to conduct and defend americans against threats. But by putting the fisa court in the process, rather than simply approvals and reviews at the fbi and doj.
▶ 2:42:35And I'll remind my colleagues that this is the most heavily overseen collection program. They're overseen by all three branches of government. This will increase the confidence that queries are done only for proper and compliant foreign intelligence purposes. The hour is getting late, but there's still a path forward for congress to consider bipartisan reforms. I think this amendment would actually result in a much larger yes vote on fisa reauthorization, and that will increase the confidence that these powers cannot be misused.
▶ 2:43:03I hope the house takes the opportunity to make this amendment in order and have a real debate on reform. Thank you, madam chair. Mr. ranking member, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. himes. I don't have any questions. Mr. scott. >> I don't have any questions. I will say this about Mr. himes. As a member of the committee I serve with.
▶ 2:43:23He certainly, um, diligent, intelligent and, um, I appreciate him and working with him um on the, on hep c um that's that's it. >> I think you're the ranking member. >> please keep talking. Mr. scott wheeler I'm the ranking member. >> your fee is going up. >> thank you. I should have I should have acknowledged that when you sit down, I apologize.
▶ 2:43:51But as you were speaking, I realized that Mr. mcgovern. >> I thank the gentleman and and I appreciate his leadership. And I have no questions. >> Mr. norman, you've yielded back. Okay. Mr. scanlon, Mr. goose, miss leger fernandez. >> no, no, thank you. And thank you for pointing out that there really should have been more debate. I remember learning so much during last time, and it really is sad that we're going to move this forward for reauthorization.
▶ 2:44:20Maybe we don't know what's really going to happen without that debate and without those amendments. So thank you for raising that. >> again, if I may, just with miss fernandez, I very much appreciate you bringing up the purchase of commercially available data by any government entity. That's a really important thing that this congress should be debating, but it's really important that my colleagues understand that that's a really important debate that has absolutely nothing to do with fisa 702. Fisa 702 does not authorize any purchase of any commercially available data.
▶ 2:44:51>> I yield back. >> thank you. Um, Mr. holmes, there's no one else to ask you. Any questions? I believe you're excused. Thank you. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on hr? 6409 hr 6387 hr 6398 h. Res. 1156 or hr 88035. Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting.
▶ 2:45:19Without objection, the committee stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair.
▶ 6:18:07Against consideration of each such bill. The rule provides that each such bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in each such bill. The rule provides one hour of general the rule provides each such bill. One motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h. Res.
▶ 6:18:361156 expressing support for tax policies that support working families under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order, without intervention of any point of order to consider h. Res. 1156. The rule provides that h. Res. 1156 shall be considered as read.
▶ 6:18:57And finally, the rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their respective designees. >> thank you very much, Mr. langworthy. You've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? >> there's a lot I want to say, but no. >> okay.
▶ 6:19:24Hearing no further discussion, the questions on the motion from the gentleman from new york. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. >> as for roll call. >> Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. Um, the clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Yes, Mr. by Mr. norman. Mr. roy, Mrs. Mrs. and Mr. langworthy. Mr.
▶ 6:19:55Langworthy, I. Mr. scott. Mr. scott, I. Mr. griffith, Mr. jack. Mr. jack. I. Mr. mcgovern. >> no. >> Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss. Scanlon. Miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. neguse. Mr. no. Mr. fernandez. No. Madam chair, I. Madam chair, I. >> the clerk will report the total. >> six years, four nays. >> the ayes have it. The motion report is agreed to.
▶ 6:20:25Representative langworthy will be managing the rule for the majority. >> Mr. neguse, for the minority. >> the chair will now be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from georgia. Mr. scott. >> madam chair, I move the committee grant a closed rule for hr 8035 to amend the fisa amendments act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title seven of the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 through october 20th, 2027, and for other purposes, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 6:20:53The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees, and the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit. >> thank you very much, Mr. scott. Um, you've now heard the motion.
▶ 6:21:22Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? >> I just say, Mr. madam chair, I can't believe you're doing this. This is wrong. Uh, and so I urge people to vote no on this, uh, motion. And, uh, hopefully we can open this up so that everybody in this congress can have a chance to weigh in on this issue. So I yield back. >> thank you. Any further discussion, miss leger fernandez? >> madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 6:21:52I move the committee, make an order, amendment number three to hr 8035, offered by representative biggs, which creates a warrant requirement for searching the communications or other information of united states persons acquired under section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. Madam chair, this amendment follows up on what my ranking member noted that we should be able to vote on these important matters.
▶ 6:22:19It would require a warrant to search for information on us persons in the 702 database. This is an important issue, which is about our privacy. And what are we going to allow as a government to do?
▶ 6:22:35And not only that, but this amendment has been supported by members of this committee, and it is very disappointing to see that the three members most likely to vote for this amendment happen to not be here. If you have the courage of your convictions, you should show up and allow the body to have a vote on this amendment.
▶ 6:23:01And I would notice that a very similar amendment had a healthy debate and had a vote last time round. So I urge this committee to take that into account, to let the house of representatives vote on these important issues about how much government surveillance are we going to allow, and what kind of protections will we ensure for those living and working in the
▶ 6:23:34United states? And with that, madam chair, I yield back and urge everybody to vote for my amendment. >> miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> I just want to speak in support of the amendment. I think it is really critical. It's one of our most basic constitutional rights. One of the reasons why our country was formed is that the government doesn't have the power to search or seize the private communications and or the property, etcetera, of american citizens without a warrant.
▶ 6:24:05This is a matter that should be fully and fairly debated. We should not be kicking the can down the road for another year and a half without addressing this issue. So I totally support the amendment and hope that the entire house has the chance to vote on it. Madam chair, yield back. >> um. Thank you. >> uh, madam chair. >> I'm concerned about this amendment. Um, because it applies broadly.
▶ 6:24:34The warrant requirement in this amendment applies broadly to us persons, not strictly to us citizens. And if we were to have this amendment be adopted, we would we would potentially be allowing for anyone who's on us soil, including terrorist organizations and illegal immigrants, may be engaging in terroristic behavior.
▶ 6:24:57Uh, we would be opening up those persons on us soil also to an additional warrant requirement. It's not limited only to us citizens. Uh, and that's a huge concern for our national security. Um, a terrorist cell might as well just open up shop on us soil to avoid, uh, fisa. Uh, and, um, I am opposed to this amendment. I would encourage others to vote. No, I yield back.
▶ 6:25:28>> is there further discussion, Mr. neguse? >> thank you, madam chair. I would just simply say, and I know that the hour is late, so I'll be brief, but I recognize that the gentlewoman from indiana has views on this particular issue she's articulated, and I don't doubt her sincerity. I think that those arguments ought to be made on the house floor. We ought to have a debate on the house floor and be able to consider this amendment and have an up or down vote in the same way that we did two years ago.
▶ 6:25:56This amendment, as you'll remember, madam chair, was highly contested and ultimately probably the closest vote that I can recall in my time in congress. I think it merits consideration by the full body, irrespective of how one might feel about the amendment. I voted against the amendment. >> well, the gentleman will the gentleman yield? >> I'm happy to. >> thank you.
▶ 6:26:15Um, I think my concern here is that, um, even in the discussion tonight, we've heard people say that this applies to us citizens and us citizens are included in us persons, but so are terrorists. So I think it would be very dangerous for us to have a vote on the floor for this. If the if the warrant requirement were only applicable to us citizens, then I think that's worthy of debate on the floor.
▶ 6:26:41But we're opening up, uh, the united states to serious threats if we allow for, uh, an amendment to go through that would potentially, uh, add a warrant requirement requirement for us persons. And that's my concern with offering the amendment. Mr. neguse. >> I hear you. And, um, I would say, and I may be wrong on this, so I don't I would welcome the clarification. Is this different than the amendment from two years ago?
▶ 6:27:12>> I cannot remember. >> my understanding is that this amendment is the exact same as the amendment that we. But I. But maybe I'm wrong. >> it is. >> okay. So yeah, I mean, I think so. To your point, uh, miss haochen, I recognize again the sincerity of your views. I don't think that debate about the amendment would be dangerous. We had that debate two years ago. We had an up or down vote. And ultimately your argument argument you articulated, which, by the way, I think was supported by a lot of folks on my side of the aisle as well.
▶ 6:27:41Juan, the de last time, including I voted for the against amendment. So I'm not I'm just simply saying that it's not dangerous for us to have that debate on the floor. And I would yield to the gentleman from new mexico. >> and I think an important point is that we had a vote two years ago. We also now know, as we had the debate today, in terms of the presentation of the evidence of the, uh, the bill itself is that we have learned things in the last two years.
▶ 6:28:07So the debate might be different, uh, that people might have, might want to change their mind either way. Uh, and so that is the issue is, are we going to let the house of representatives vote on these issues of great importance to our national security, to the privacy, to the whole reasons why the united states was created in the first place, to limit government interference in our lives. Those are worthy debates that should be had on the house floor. That is why we are here.
▶ 6:28:39We are the people, according to john adams, who are the closest to the people who are supposed to look, feel and act for the people because we go out and we meet with them on a regular basis. And so we should be able to have these debates. Let us debate it. Many of your members feel strongly about this, and that might be why they're not here today, but they feel strongly about that. Let them make those arguments. Let others, like some of our members who don't think we should stop this, make those arguments. Let us have the debate.
▶ 6:29:08It's the job of the united states house of representatives to debate these issues and vote on them. We should let it go to the floor of the house. And thank you, representative, for allowing me to clarify that. >> I thank the gentleman. I yield back to the chairwoman. >> is there further discussion or debate? >> just very briefly. >> Mr. scott.
▶ 6:29:28>> I just want to remind anybody who's watching tonight and the members of the committee, uh, the fbi can only access fisa 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing open, predicated, full national security investigation.
▶ 6:29:50We are talking about law enforcement, specifically our fbi, their ability to operate in a timely manner to stop a terrorist attack on the united states soil. And with that, I yield back. >> further discussion. Hearing none, the questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying I, I those opposed say no.
▶ 6:30:18No, miss lazar fernandez requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. horton. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern, I miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. I Mr. fernandez, Mr. fernandez, I. Madam. Chair. No. Madam. Chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total.
▶ 6:30:48>> for a six nays. >> the nos have it. The amendments not agreed to. Are there further amendments or is there further discussion or amendments? Hearing none, no further discussion. The questions on the motion from the gentleman from georgia. All those in favor signify by saying aye, aye. Those opposed say no. No way. In the opinion interior, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. For roll call. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call.
▶ 6:31:17The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. Mrs. Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. and Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy, I. Mr. scott. Mr. scott, I. Mr. griffith, Mr. jack. Mr. jack. I. Mr. mcgovern, Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss. Scanlon. Miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. negus. Mr. no. Miss. Fernandez. Fernandez. No. Madam chair. Madam chair, I. >> the clerk will report the total. >> six yays four nays. >> the ayes have it.
▶ 6:31:45The motion to report is agreed to. Representative scott will be managing this rule for the majority. >> Mr. goose. >> Mr. neguse, for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.