▶ 0:32:43right. Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Pursuant to committee rule two and House rule 11 clause two, the chairman may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. Now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. more. Lead us in the pledge.
▶ 0:33:20to notice, call up HR 7730, the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment Act of 2026 for purposes of markup and move the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill.
▶ 0:33:30Hr 7730.
▶ 0:33:32Objection. The bill will be considered as read and open for many amendment at any point. The bill we are considering, HR7730, the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment Act, is an important bipartisan bill that will help small businesses and individual consumers reorganize their financial affairs in bankruptcy. First, HR 7730 increases the debt limit for cases under subchapter 5.
▶ 0:33:59In 2019, I spo sponsored the bill that created the subchapter 5 process, which allows small businesses the opportunity to efficiently reorganize their debts and exit bankruptcy as a viable small business. Between 2020 and 2024, Congress temporarily increased subchapter 5's debt limit, allowing debtors with up to 7.5 million in debt to be eligible for subchapter 5. In 2024, the higher limit expired and reverted to around 3 million. All available evidence suggests that subchapter 5 is working as Congress intended.
▶ 0:34:30It was also an important resource during COVID. Subchapter 5 provides a quick, cheap, and effective path forward for an indebted small businesses, allowing business owners to keep employees on payroll while repaying creditors. Subchapter 5 has also proven to be better for creditors. Evidence shows that creditor recoveries are higher in subchapter 5 than they would have been under chapter 11. HR7730 permanently reinstates the higher $7.5 million limit.
▶ 0:34:54By reinstating the higher debt limit, HR7730 will allow more small businesses to effectively reorganize their debts and exit bankruptcy as a financially viable business. Bill also modifies the eligibility criteria for individual debtors filing for relief under chapter 13. Between 2020 and 2024, Congress temporarily allowed individual debtors to aggregate their secured and unsecured debts for purposes of qualifying for chapter 13.
▶ 0:35:17After 2024, the temporary change expired, meaning individual debtors can only qualify for chapter 13 if their unsecured or secured debts are under the respective thresholds. HR7730 reinstates the ability for debtors to qualify for chapter 13 if their aggregate debts are less than 2.75 million regardless of how those debts are constructed. Let's see. Chair now recognized the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement.
▶ 0:35:48Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, I am pleased to support this bipartisan bill which would restore and make permanent higher debt limits for working families, individuals, and small businesses under both chapters 11 and 13 of the bankruptcy code. Uh, bankruptcy is a critical guardrail for the life and dignity of the American people. It allows people to take chances and then to start over again. Even the president himself has filed for bankruptcy six times under Chapter 11 alone.
▶ 0:36:15Uh but bankruptcy is important not just for big business risktakers like the president, but for hundreds of thousands of small businesses and working families who are shouldering debts that would have once been considered extraordinary, but today merely reflect the cost of staying afloat. Although it remains a remedy of last resort, our bankruptcy system must be equipped to provide relief when economic pressures collapse the margins of household and commercial stability.
▶ 0:36:39A well-calibrated system does not punish misfortune or entrench failure, but provides a lawful path forward when everything else has failed. HR 7730 reestablishes a higher debt threshold for small businesses under subchapter 5 and working families under title 13. For 5 years, subchapter 5 of the bankruptcy code offered small businesses a path back to viability by providing a simpler pathway to restructure debt, save jobs, and continue serving in the community.
▶ 0:37:07Regrettably, that path was narrowed not because the policy failed, but because in June 2024, the debt limit set by Congress, the maximum debt small businesses can have and still be eligible for subchapter 5, lapsed and dropped by 60% from 7.5 million to $3 million.
▶ 0:37:25Despite clear data and agreement among the bankruptcy bar that the seven and a half million debt limit was a success both for small businesses and their creditors, we reverted back to the old lower debt limit that excludes way too many of the small businesses subapter 5 was designed to support. Without a workable path to reorganize all that remains of these businesses is used equipment and unpaid bills. this tremendous loss in values lost not only for business owners but also for their employees, their creditors, and our communities.
▶ 0:37:55I'm heartened by the bipartisan agreement we have to permanently restore the $7.5 million debt limit in the bankruptcy threshold adjustment act of 2026. This is sensible and long overdue. I thank our colleagues uh representatives Klein, Koreah, Nagus and Loose for their uh Nagus and Lee for their leadership on this important legislation and I urge our colleagues to support it and hope we can advance it quickly on the House floor. Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
▶ 0:38:20I thank the gentleman and I also want to thank uh our colleagues, Congressman Korea, Congressman Nuse, and Congresswoman Lee for their assistance on this bill. Without objection, all of their opening statements will be included in the record. Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of the substitute. Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 0:38:36Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 0:38:38Without objection, the amendment in the nature of substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base text for purposes of amendment. Uh chair recognizes himself to explain the amendment. The amendment simply strikes of 2026 from the title of the bill. This change is not intended in any way to alter the important purpose of the bill and I urge support for the amendment. Um
▶ 0:38:57Who seeks recognition? The gentle lady from Florida. Miss Lee.
▶ 0:39:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to share my support for HR 7730, the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment Act, a bipartisan effort I'm proud to co-lead alongside Congressman Klene as well as Congressman Koreah and Nagus. This bill strengthens a key tool that helps small businesses reorganize and stay open. Subchapter 5 of Chapter 11.
▶ 0:39:25Subchapter 5 was designed to be a faster, more coste effective path for small businesses to restructure their debts and continue operating. It has worked as intended, giving business owners a practical way to get back on stable footing while preserving jobs and economic activity. During the pandemic, Congress temporarily expanded access to this tool by increasing the debt eligibility threshold from 2.7 million to 7.5 million.
▶ 0:39:56That change allowed more small businesses like restaurants, contractors, and farms to reorganize instead of shutting their doors. But that higher threshold has since expired. restores and makes permanent the $7.5 million threshold so that more small businesses and working families can access the streamlined process moving forward. In Florida, where small businesses are the foundation of our economy, this matters.
▶ 0:40:25These businesses need a fair opportunity to reorganize, remain competitive, and continue serving their communities. This is a targeted common sense fix that supports small businesses stability without expanding the system beyond its intended scope. I'm grateful to my colleagues for their partnership and I urge support for this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 0:40:48Thank the gentle lady. The chair now recognizes gentleman from California, Mr. Korea, for five minutes.
▶ 0:40:53Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Klein for leading this effort to provide small businesses with a more accessible, faster, and less expensive process for bankruptcy. It was your legislation that created CHUP chapter 5, small business bankruptcy process through the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019. Also want to thank our co-sponsors, Mr. Nagus and Miss Lee.
▶ 0:41:23This bill essentially provides an access to the bankruptcy seat code that small businesses can afford, that's more efficient, and keep small businesses open on Main Street to serve our community. And as pointed out by the American Bankruptcy Institute, the nation's largest association of bankruptcy professionals, subchapter 5 provides efficient, cost-effective, and creditor beneficial reorganizations to small businesses.
▶ 0:41:52Sadly, a significant number of small businesses have been denied access to this process when the 7.5 million cap reverted back to 3.5 million, which happened in 2024. And ABI estimates that nearly 1500 small businesses that could have benefited from this higher cap did not because of the lower cap.
▶ 0:42:15In essence, the changes will make a huge difference for many small businesses and that without these changes, small businesses would be forced to choose between liquid liquidating their assets through chapter 7, going through a relatively more laborious and expensive and drawn out regular chapter 11 process, or just not filing at all. All these options are bad for debtors, creditors, and for our community.
▶ 0:42:42And by permanently lifting the cap, not only help small businesses, but will help them restructure the debt and remain on Main Street. This is a bipartisan bicameal bill. Let's get it done in support of small businesses and individuals as they restructure through bankruptcy so they can continue to contribute to our local businesses and economies. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
▶ 0:43:06Uh gentleman yields. I thank the gentleman for his uh friendship and cooperation on this bill who seeks Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, recognized for five minutes.
▶ 0:43:18U Mr. Chairman, move to strike last word. Gentleman's recognized for five minutes. Uh chairman, HR 7730 is an important piece of legislation. I want to thank you uh for your leadership on bankruptcy issues. Uh, I also wanted to commend the great work my colleagues, Miss Lee, Mr. Korea, Mr. Nagus, uh, and all that they are doing to help make the bankruptcy system work for the American people.
▶ 0:43:46Uh, in July of 2025, the subcommittee on administrative state, regulatory reform, and antitrust held a bipartisan hearing to examine the effectiveness of the bankruptcy system. Uh we also explored whether narrowly tailored legislative updates were warranted to ensure that the bankruptcy system continues to work as intended. Uh this bill is a direct result of that bipartisan exploration of the bankruptcy system.
▶ 0:44:12Every witness at the hearing testified about how effective the subchapter 5 program has been in the six years since its and HR 7730 will help to continue the record of success. I think we can all agree that small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy in all of our districts. And as uh every small business owner will tell you, efficiency and predictability are critical.
▶ 0:44:39This is especially true when a struggling small business goes through bankruptcy. Subchapter 5 has proven incredibly effective at responding to the needs of small business debtors. Uh it uh has also been overwhelmingly successful at giving small businesses a path out of bankruptcy. This bill will also allow more small businesses to reorganize, create American jobs, and continue supporting their local communities.
▶ 0:45:05However, I will acknowledge the concerns of the commercial real estate sector that the law could be misused by sophisticated investors attempting to avoid meaningful oversight of financial issues. This could allow businesses that a reasonable person would not consider a small business to use subchapter 5 for In cases where this m may occur, I trust the judicial conference and our bankruptcy trustees will look into these cases and take action as
▶ 0:45:35necessary to combat potential fraud. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. And I yield back.
▶ 0:45:42Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentle lady from California for five minutes. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman and I am uh so pleased that we are taking this bill up today. I'm proud uh to have joined as a co-sponsor of this bill and I think that we are doing this first. I want to give credit to you as well as Mr.
▶ 0:46:01Korea and the other members who worked on this but it's one of the issues that this committee has historically worked on on a bipartisan basis and it's really important uh to the health of the small business community. uh we know that this works because it did work until it expired.
▶ 0:46:21And so I I just wanted to say briefly, I won't take my whole five minutes, that not only do I support this, but I'm hope hopeful that we can get this on the floor on an expedited basis and I know the Senate is working on it as well and bring relief to the small businesses across the United States. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 0:46:40Gentle lady yields. Anyone else seek Hearing none. The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I.
▶ 0:46:53Oppose say no. An opinion of the chair. The eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of substitute is adopted. Question is on favorably reporting the bill is amended. All those in favor say I. I
▶ 0:47:03oppose. No. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. pursuant to notice, I call up HR 6453, the ADA 30 days to comply act for purposes of markup and move that the committee report it favorably to the house. Clerk will report the bill.
▶ 0:47:33HR 6453 to amend. Objection. The bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. I recognize myself for an opening statement. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act to protect people with disabilities, not to line the pockets of plaintiffs attorneys.
▶ 0:48:04But too often parts of the ADA are abused by plaintiff's attorneys looking for quick settlements and easy money. That kind of abuse hurts everyone. It hurts small businesses trying in good faith to comply with the law and it distracts from the ADA's real purpose, which is improving access for people with disabil. HR6453 takes a simple reasonable approach. Before filing suit, a plaintiff must give a business written notice of the alleged problem and a chance to fix it. That notice has to say where the problem is, when it was encountered, and how the person encountered it.
▶ 0:48:34The business has then has up to 60 days to acknowledge the issue, and make any needed corrections. That is not a loophole, but a fair chance to solve the problem without dragging everyone into expensive and time-consuming litigation. This bill is needed because ADA litigation has become a magnet for abuse. Title three of the ADA requires businesses and other places of public accommodation to be accessible to people with disabilities. And this is a very good thing. But too many lawsuits brought under these provisions are not about access.
▶ 0:49:04They're about cash. In recent years, ADA lawsuits have more than tripled from just over 3,500 in 2013 to more than 10,000 in 2023. However, the number of low volume plaintiffs, those who file fewer than eight lawsuits in a year, have stayed the same, representing around,00 to,700 cases per year.
▶ 0:49:25Instead, the spike in these lawsuits have come from high volume plaintiffs, those who file at least eight lawsuits in a year, who represent over 86% of all ADA cases since 2013. In many instances, these are driveby lawsuits. Lawyers look for technical violations, file suit, and pressure businesses to settle whether or not anyone was truly harmed. In one reported case, a plaintiff was offering $1,000 per lawsuit and was told by the firm that he could make over $100,000 a year just working for them.
▶ 0:49:56Many of these cases have been exposed as blatantly fraudulent. For example, one suit against a Chinese restaurant in 2021 alleged that it had a quote lack of sufficient knee or toe clearance under the outside dining surfaces for wheelchair users and quote even though the restaurant had no outdoor seating.
▶ 0:50:15The same firm that filed this suit also filed one against the neighbor of the Chinese restaurant, alleging the exact same violation, despite the fact that the restaurant was only open for takeout when the alleged violation occurred. In a lot of these highvolume plaintiff cases, the goal is not to protect the disabled or enforce compliance with the ADA, but to make money from legal fees and settlement agreements. And it's not just businesses that pay the price.
▶ 0:50:41These cases also clog up our already overburdened courts, especially in Florida, New York, and California, where most of these high-volume cases are filed. In 2022 alone, high volume ADA filers made up 12% of all civil cases in the Southern District of Florida, 12.7% in the Central District of California, and 20.8% in the Southern District of New York.
▶ 0:51:04That means real cases with real victims are forced to wait while courts deal with a a flood of manufactured claims. HR6453 would help put the focus back where it belongs. It does not eliminate anyone's right to sue. It simply says, "Tell the business what is wrong. Give them a chance to fix it and if they refuse, then go to court." That encourages compliance, improves accessibility, and reduces abusive litigation.
▶ 0:51:32It helps people with with disabilities get barriers removed faster. It helps honest businesses fix problems without being shaken down. And it helps keep our courts open for legitimate claims. This is a common sense reform. It protects the rights of the disabled while curbing abuse that undermines the law. I urge support for the bill. And with that, the chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement.
▶ 0:52:00Thank you, Mr. Klein. Um, I'm going to oppose HR6453, the so-called ADA 30 days to comply Act, because it would undermine the Civil Rights of Americans with Disabilities, and set a really dangerous precedent for civil rights enforcement.
▶ 0:52:18The bill would amend the ADA to prohibit a victim from filing a lawsuit to enforce his or her rights under the act until the victim gives detailed notice to the business owner of the ADA violation and then waits up to 60 days, not 30, to allow the business to quote make substantial progress towards removing a barrier to access. Well, this would obviously change the nature of the right.
▶ 0:52:43It would no longer be a right to remove barriers to guarantee equal access, but rather a right within 60 days to get someone to agree to make substantial progress towards removal of an obstacle to equal access. This undefined, vague new standard means the owner does not even have to remedy the violation within this 60-day period to forstall the discrimination lawsuit.
▶ 0:53:11the business owner merely has to show that they've made substantial progress. Uh, whatever that vague concept might mean. HR6453 will reduce voluntary compliance with the ADA and advantage people who choose to ignore the law despite Congress having passed this landmark civil rights legislation almost 36 years ago in July 1990.
▶ 0:53:33Civil rights statutes like the ADA depend on the credible threat of self-help litigation for enforcement purposes, which is why no civil rights statute has a pre-lawsuit 60-day notice and opportunity cure requirement like the one now being proposed. I asked my colleagues, is there any other civil rights statute that requires the victim to essentially obtain the permission or consent of the person who discriminated against them before they can file suit against the discriminator?
▶ 0:54:05Um, the people with disabilities who are the beneficiaries of the ADA, the protected class are not disability inspectors. The closest analog I can think of uh is in the context of employment discrimination where a victim is required to file a charge of discrimination with the EOC to take remedial action before a lawsuit can be filed. But this analogy does not really help the supporters of the bill.
▶ 0:54:31The key difference is that the EOC is a public body, a civil rights enforcement agency that is charged with investigating the allegation and remedying the discrimination. The accused discriminator in an ADA case is not a public regulatory agency, but someone who has an incentive to use the proposed notice and cure provisions under the bill to delay litigation and to discourage or reject merited claims.
▶ 0:54:58I understand that my colleagues who support the bill uh as Chairman Klein suggests are concerned with so-called driveby ADA lawsuits filed by attorneys and individuals allegedly for personal profit rather than a desire to derive the benefits of the law and that they're concerned that small businesses are vulnerable to threats of litigation by unscrupulous parties. Um, of course, just because there are a lot of lawsuits filed against a business doesn't mean that they're frivolous. It could mean that there are indeed widespread ADA violations.
▶ 0:55:30Um, for example, the National Council on Disability reported in 2007, 17 years after the law's enactment, that many public accommodations are still not in compliance with Title 3 and are not in fact accessible. There appears to be little evidence disputing that finding in the near decades since that report's publication that compliance has significantly uh improved.
▶ 0:55:53I would also note that the bill makes no distinction between small businesses and large corporations with the significant resources uh to actually comply easily with the with the law. That would be a separate bill entirely. But to the extent that vexacious disability rights enforcement litigation is a legitimate problem, and it may be, it has mostly been limited to a handful of states, mainly California, Florida, and New York, and is driven by their state disability protection laws.
▶ 0:56:22Unlike the ADA, these state laws provide for statutory damages. The ADA only permits private plaintiffs to obtain injunctive relief ordering the business to remedy the barrier to access, not statutory money damages. Um, in short, to the extent there's any incentive for someone to be a vexacious litigant in the disability rights space, those incentives are not flowing from the federal ADA.
▶ 0:56:52If there are precautions to be added to state law somewhere, they should be advanced at the state level but not be used to dilute and undermine the Americans with Disability Act at the national level. Furthermore, federal courts already have the tools to deal with problematic ADA litigants. For in for instance, they have sanctioned parties found to be vexacious litigants. They've refused to award attorneys fees where a lawyer failed to serve a defendant with a demand letter prior to filing suit.
▶ 0:57:20and they've dismissed cases for lack of standing where the plaintiff cannot allege any real harm. Therefore, it's unnecessary for Congress to address this issue by passing a bill that would fundamentally undermine ADA enforcement. The ADA is already designed to address concerns regarding the cost of compliance by providing built-in flexibility. Title 3 defines discrimination as including the failure to remove barriers that are structural in nature in existing facilities where such removal is readily achievable.
▶ 0:57:51The ADA defines readily achievable as easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. This standard has been the governing legal principle for increasing access since the ADA passed 36 years ago. It ensures that rather than having a one-sizefits-all requirement, businesses have flexibility to determine what steps are possible based on their size and resources.
▶ 0:58:15We cannot lose sight of the fact that the ADA is not a mere building code, but a landmark civil rights law that Congress passed to ensure that tens of millions of people with disabilities would be fully integrated into the mainstream of American life, free from the exclusion and stigma they've historically faced. This legislation would turn the ADA on its head and shift the burden from the business committing discrimination to the very people the law is meant to protect.
▶ 0:58:40If it if this bill were to become law, instead of a disabled person expecting access to a business to be the norm, they would instead expect to be discriminated against by a business until they spoke up and complained. But that is not how civil rights law works. This legislation would delay potentially indefinitely the ability of people with disabilities to enforce their civil rights in court. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose HR6453. I yield back.
▶ 0:59:06Thank the gentleman. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 0:59:18Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6453. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair recognizes himself to explain the amendment. The amendment strikes the year from the title of the bill. It's not intended in any way to alter the substance or important purpose of the bill. I urge support for the amendment and yield back. Who seeks
▶ 0:59:45You do. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Scan. It's recognized for five
▶ 0:59:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose HR6453. As someone who's worked with the folks in the disability community for decades. Let's be honest about what this bill does. It does not strengthen the ADA. It weakens it.
▶ 1:00:05It tells people with disabilities that when they're denied access to a restaurant or a store or a doctor's office, a hotel, they have to wait longer, do more paperwork, and clear more hurdles before they can enforce the rights that they already have under the law.
▶ 1:00:22Under this bill, an individual seeking relief would have to provide a technical notice, identify the right owner or operator, which is not easy, and then wait while a non-compliant business makes quote substantial progress, end quote, something that is not currently defined in law. On addressing the complaint, you can see that this just opens up a a huge area for abuse and delay. This is a radical departure from how civil rights laws work.
▶ 1:00:51and it sends exactly the wrong message. It says to businesses, "Ignore the law unless or until someone forces you to care." Um, disability advocates also warned that if this bill were to become law, businesses would have little incentive to comply unless or until they are caught.
▶ 1:01:11As it stands, the ADA tries to make access the norm and something that businesses must consider as a condition of doing business, a precondition to opening as opposed to something they can skirt until they get caught.
▶ 1:01:27Uh, I am disappointed that instead of focusing on policies to reduce burdens for individuals with disabilities, the majority has decided to focus on putting up roadblocks to legal pathways meant to to protect vulnerable citizens. Uh, I'm not surprised that this majority would try to pass yet another bill that puts its thumb on the scale for business.
▶ 1:01:51But Americans with disabilities don't need Congress telling them to educate business about a law that's been on the books for more than 35 years. They need us to defend their civil rights, to support compliance, to expand technical assistance, and make it easier, not harder, for them to participate in American life. So I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and I yield back.
▶ 1:02:16Who seeks recognition? Mr. Honor is recognized for five
▶ 1:02:21Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'd like to speak in strong support of the ADA 30 days to comply act. Uh, my office has heard from small businesses in my district who are being harassed by outofstate law firms who are weaponizing the ADA to make a profit. According to the NFIB, hundreds of Missouri small businesses have received ADA web demand letters demanding thousands of dollars in settlements.
▶ 1:02:48These law firms recruit plaintiffs to bring lawsuits against them, even though these plaintiffs have never visited the business and have no intent to do so. Our state legislature is one of the first in the nation to try to address this problem. Missouri, it turns out, is one of the states most impacted by law school uh a law lawsuit abuse in this area. In fact, fifth in the country. And this is why it is important. This issue is important to the Missouri delegation.
▶ 1:03:19ADA compliance lawsuits have more than tripled since 2013. And no one truly believes this is because ADA violations have tripled since 2013 or that Missouri is a particularly egregious offender. If anything, new boat modern building codes and new uh construction result in over time more uh real estate uh commercial and residential being ADA compliant.
▶ 1:03:49Certainly in my own field of health care, uh we have been 100% ADA compliant for decades. If plaintiffs want to sue a small business for ADA violations, they should do so in good faith and give those businesses the opportunity to correct violations. And that is why the ADA 30 days to comply act is critical for small business owners. This bipartisan legislation requires plaintiffs to tell businesses exactly how they are violating the ADA.
▶ 1:04:18It cracked down on phantom plaintiffs by requiring the plaintiff to describe how their rights were actually violated by the business. But most importantly, it gives businesses the chance to cure and remediate any potential ADA violation. Isn't that the whole point of the ADA? Congress did not pass the ADA to give law firms a financial windfall. It did so to protect people with disabilities. The ADA 30 days to comply Act will restore this congressional intent.
▶ 1:04:47and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. Thank you. I yield back. Thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Korea, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I rise in uh strong support of this legislation. And just want to share with my colleagues a few of my stories in my district. I don't get calls from Target or Walmart.
▶ 1:05:12I get phone calls from the small businesses, the uh new immigrantowned businesses that maybe have their businesses on our main street, State College Boulevard, where all the businesses there were probably those buildings were built 50 years ago. New immigrant comes in and buys it. An American just saved up enough money to buy new business.
▶ 1:05:36Then a plaintiff comes in and what we think is going on is they're taking the zip codes and doing a mail merge and suing everybody in that area. One lady in particular called my office in Spanish crying wanting to know if this was a real lawsuit. And when I explained to her this, it was her violation, her sin. Bought a business 20 years ago.
▶ 1:06:04The striping, the blue striping for the was two or three inches off. Paid at the end of the day, restriped $20,000 out the door, including attorney's fees. Few months later, got hit with another lawsuit. Same thing. This time, the ADA ramp was out of compliance by a few inches. Have another gentleman, mechanic, same thing. got hit with a lawsuit.
▶ 1:06:35The bathroom was off. The toilet was off by a couple of inches. Cost him $40,000 out the door. Look, I I'm a big supporter of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Great monumental legislation for Americans with disabilities to be treated with dignity and respect.
▶ 1:06:59all what we're trying to do with this legislation and give people the opportunity to fix the problem before you have to pay through the nose. A and I got an article here. California state senate just passes the f nation's first bill for accessibility violation cure period. gives 120 days to cure an accessibility violation before filing a lawsuit.
▶ 1:07:30Remind everybody here that the pump act gives 10 days got give 10 no 10 days notice for the business to cure before you move forward. That's all we're asking. We're not talking about taking away the opportunity of a small business or saying you can't comply with the ADA. We're saying giving the small business the opportunity to comply. Again, it's not the big guys. It's the small guys that are getting hammered.
▶ 1:08:01And I don't think it's unreasonable to give them the opportunity to fix the problem moving forward. They're already getting pounded by tariffs. They're getting pounded by other changes in our economy. and they continue to get hit with federal legislation, not state, but federal legislation.
▶ 1:08:23And and I hope we can look at this legislation and reason enough to do what's right for Main Street as well as doing right for those Americans with disability. This is a win-win situation. That's why I'm fully supportive of this legislation.
▶ 1:08:39Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 1:08:40Of course. The gentleman describes a situation that I I have uh also uh seen in in my own district of really abusive litigation. There's a a set of lawyers that files lawsuits you know and in fact the state bar did intervene with some of those lawyers because of uh uh their activities.
▶ 1:09:03Um, I am a strong supporter of the ADA, but there are there has been abusive litigation here and it's put small businesses there's a little coffee shop in San Jose that had to close just because uh it was impossible to to to comply uh and the the dollar amount was beyond what they could do.
▶ 1:09:24I'm wondering if there could be a discussion between here and the floor to limiting the relief to small businesses instead of, you know, we don't want to let Target uh off the hook. Uh but I am sympathetic to these small businesses that have basically been put in out of business because of the really the abuse of action not of the disabled community but of some lawyers that are taking advantage unfair advantage of this
▶ 1:09:54Ma'am, if I can respond to your comments. I think that's an excellent point. uh if you want the legislation to make a distinction between the targets of the world and the small coffee shop that you described in your comments. Um I'm happy to work with you on on some possible language moving forward.
▶ 1:10:12I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 1:10:14Gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. Ice is recognized for 5 minutes.
▶ 1:10:18Thank you. I'm I'm encouraged with the discussion I'm hearing on a bipartisan basis on this bill because it really is a question of are we for a very small subset of plaintiffs trial lawyers who victimize these companies or are we for the legitimate implementation of the Americans with Disability Act as uniformly as we can.
▶ 1:10:44I just want to make one additional point in the the hope that we'll bring more people from both sides of the aisle onto this legislation in its current or substantially current form. The discussion included for some reason uh you know tar or target as some people call it and uh as though they were somehow too big uh to be treated the same as small businesses.
▶ 1:11:13I'm going to make a statement which is if Target in good faith applies for building permits, complies with them, and is inspected and then in fact has a violation, why wouldn't we give them the same 30 days?
▶ 1:11:31And one of the big points that I think goes without uh being understood, those small companies that were whether it was 20 years ago or or or last week in most cases they've complied in good faith with the law or their predecessor or the person that had it before. And if you're the landlord, it may be a small business that is your tenant, but it's just as likely that you get sued because you're the landlord.
▶ 1:12:01What I would say is that if my friends on the other side of the aisle want to do any amendment, the safe haven that should apply to anyone for this 30 days, if there's going to be a limitation at all, is if the government has told you you're you put out uh a building uh permit, it went through a process, you in the case of us as the two Californians that just spoke tens or hundreds of thousands
▶ 1:12:31of dollars in fees. They've reviewed it and yet it's two inches off. Who is really to blame? Is it in fact simply the lowhanging fruit to sue whoever happens to be the occupant of that building or the owner at the time? So, I appreciate that this is a bipartisan bill and it has biccameal support and it might finally see a uh a vote and successfully be signed by a president.
▶ 1:13:00But to do so, I would say has to be more expansive than just saying small or micro businesses because most often many of those small businesses rent. If we simply say, well, it's only small businesses, then they'll just sue the landlord or they'll just sue somebody else with deep pockets.
▶ 1:13:20So, having seen this for this bill in some form for a quarter of a century and not yet being able to get it across the finish line, I'm certainly willing to make any and all compromises that are in good faith suggested. But let's realize that a first notice often includes that you've complied with your city inspector, your state inspector, the the building plans uh simply were overlooked or erroneous.
▶ 1:13:50Why is it that whether it's an oversight by the architect, an oversight by the building inspector, an oversight by the reviewing board, um uh or the contractor simply painted an inch off? Why is it there shouldn't be a notice in correction? We're not asking that when it's discovered for it to remain grandfathered wrong.
▶ 1:14:11We're simply saying that in good faith, unless you are fully beholding to a small group of the plaintiff's trial bar, you're going to want to have these corrections made in a timely fashion and 30 days is a very small amount of notice. And obviously if you don't do it or if you don't correct everything that can be reasonably believed, fine. But this will dramatically reduce the kinds of suits that you're hearing about from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
▶ 1:14:39Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 1:14:40Of course I will.
▶ 1:14:41I I would just note that the California State Senate recently passed uh a measure and they had 120 days to cure and did a safe harbor for businesses with 50 or fewer employees. Now, I could argue that that's too many.
▶ 1:14:58Um, but I think the point they were trying to make is that the threat of litigation for a truly small business, I mean, they might have a defense, but they don't have the capacity to actually advance that. And so, they have to pay up.
▶ 1:15:15And I and I applaud the gentle lady pointing out that California, which has been a latigious state, has done something because it's come become that bad. I would only say that whether it's San Jose or San Diego, if your city permit allowed it to be built wrong, it doesn't shouldn't matter how large the entity is. The notice and correction because let's face it, we can't sue San Jose even though they let it be built wrong. Why couldn't why shouldn't we give notice?
▶ 1:15:44And and that's why I wanted to expand what the gentle lady wisely is saying could be a potential compromise. And thank the gentleman. I yield back. Gentleman from California yields back. I appreciate the gentleman from California's views and the answering the question from the gentle lady from California and the comments from the gentleman from California earlier. The chair now recognized gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for five minutes.
▶ 1:16:05Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I was going to argue against this amendment because uh, you know, I've got a disability and I appreciate the ADA and when it came up in Tennessee and in the 90s, uh, I supported the state ADA and it was a some people were against it entirely back then. U, it's a bill Steny Hoyer was greatly responsible for passing in the Congress and it's been an excellent bill, but the compromise, if there can be one, I understand the lawyer problem and we had that then too, is a good one. Can Mr.
▶ 1:16:33Chair, would you consider recommending that this bill be put off for a while so they can work on a compromise than have us deal with the compromise rather than something else?
▶ 1:16:43So, we would need to take into account the view of the sponsor and so we would rather advance.
▶ 1:16:48Sorry. Sorry.
▶ 1:16:49I know you from Tennessee. I just walked in. Uh we we would need to talk with Representative Law or the sponsor. I'd like to proceed on the legislation, but you know there as you well know your experienced member, there's there's always time between when something u moves out of committee and when it actually gets to the floor. Uh and we can we can take that as
▶ 1:17:07there is always that time. But I think this committee is the committee that should decide whether that proposal is
▶ 1:17:12and we can always bring something back if we need to. But I want to I want to I' I'd want to go talk to uh the congressman from uh
▶ 1:17:17I wish you could talk to Congressman Mask and see what he thinks about it. You know, I was listening to Elvis song the other day, walk a mile in my shoes and I thought about myself and my shoes and Mr. Mask and he doesn't have shoes. And that's what you ought to consider is not understand the businesses and understand the lawyers that sometimes are out there just to make a dollar and but there could be a better way to do this. If you're out of out of out of out of compliance by a certain percentage, then then it's different.
▶ 1:17:40But to make that the the person with a disability have to file a paper complying exactly with the statute before they can get relief is wrong. It's putting a burden on people who shouldn't have that burden. The burden should like should be on the businesses who already know what the law is. But if you want to do something, do it in this committee and and talk to people who have disabilities. And you've got people in your caucus who have disabilities and I think they would concur with me that you ought to get it. You can prove it, but don't make it to where the person with the disability has the burden put on
▶ 1:18:07The gentleman yield.
▶ 1:18:08Yes. Uh Mr. Cohen, thank you so much for that excellent intervention in the discussion. I just want to support what you've said. Um and perhaps uh my my good friend from California can respond uh to this point. Um I I understand that the state senate in California as Mr. Isa um says also has acted to create this um I think it's a 120day period uh which would allow for cure there.
▶ 1:18:38And I and I think that there's a a far more compelling argument to do it at the state level precisely because they're statutory damages. You talked about a case with $20,000, a case with $40,000. Um, under the federal law, the only remedy is equitable relief, only ordering compliance with the statute. So, we don't have that problem with the ambulance chasing lawyers, uh, trying to rev up, you know, you know, a million-doll hit against some small business.
▶ 1:19:08It's not happening. So, it seems to me the only problems I've heard about are in California, and it sounds like the representatives in California are dealing with the problem. They're addressing it. But why would we impose this straight jacket on people all across America when, as Mr. Cohen says this is so vital to make commerce equally available to people with a
▶ 1:19:34because of the way California frames this issue right now. Most of the lawsuits if not all are through federal law and what we want to do is put some constraints of using this federal sword against small businesses. That's why
▶ 1:19:53if I could just correct one thing, it's not through federal law. What's happening is they're adding a state law claim to a federal lawsuit to get into federal court. But once California corrects the state law, um they're not going to be able to do that anymore. And then that will filter out anybody who's just looking for a shakedown money judgment as opposed to the people like Mr. Cohen um who really just want to see that the laws complied with with equitable enforcement.
▶ 1:20:20Right now, the issue is really extortion by the attorneys at the federal level. We want to put some guard rails around that. Most of the lawsuits under existing law, if we don't move forward with this legislation, we'll continue to have the situation right now, which is the small guys getting beat up, a lot of them being put out of business.
▶ 1:20:40Well, I it's not happening in other parts of the country. And again,
▶ 1:20:45it is happening, I believe, in other states, not only California. It is happening in other states.
▶ 1:20:52We've heard of a few states like Florida and California where there are money statutory damages available where they are appending the state law claim to a federal lawsuit to get into federal court. And then you're right and then that that becomes a real problem for people who may be the subject of abuse of lawyers who've not been fared out by the bar or by a judge. But that doesn't happen in the other places. So,
▶ 1:21:16but it that does happen in other states and messen right now the situation is
▶ 1:21:21we do have lawyers that are essentially extorting the small businesses
▶ 1:21:25under state law and it's got to be dealt with at the state level not under federal law.
▶ 1:21:29It has to be happen at the federal level, sir.
▶ 1:21:31No, because it's they're only appending it to federal litigation. So, I just I I think that that's that's a real problem you identified, but it's a separate problem. The time of the gentleman
▶ 1:21:41we're going to agree to disagree on this has expired
▶ 1:21:44even though we have Maryland and California in a discussion. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
▶ 1:21:49Mr. Chairman moved to strike last word.
▶ 1:21:50Gentleman's recogn
▶ 1:21:51I've already spoken to this in in the opening statement but I I would just want to raise the point that uh as I said uh in 2022 ADA filers made up 12% of all civil cases in the Southern District of Florida, 12.7% in the central district of California and 20.8 in the Southern District of New York. So, we have a nationwide problem here. And it's also important to note that uh you don't just have injunctive relief as part of the federal uh legislation.
▶ 1:22:21The underlying law allows for attorneys fees as well. So, uh that's where you have a lot of the problem arising. So, uh it is a national problem. It is um this bill is appropriate and I'd ask that we move it today.
▶ 1:22:32Will the gentleman yield for one
▶ 1:22:34Yes, I yield to uh the ranking member and then I'll yield to Mr.
▶ 1:22:37Just very quickly. the the attorney's fees are only for a prevailing party.
▶ 1:22:43That's my understanding.
▶ 1:22:44Okay. So, in other words, if somebody finds that there's an ADA violation and they get the only kind of relief you can get, which is injunctive relief that you need to put in uh a ramp or whatever, then there would be the reasonable attorney's fees subject to all the rules of the court. In other words, I think what the gentleman from California is complaining about is a real problem under state law, but you got to deal with it in Florida or New York or California because even if if we pass this today, it strikes me they still have the same problem there.
▶ 1:23:12But my point is that what you get is a negotiation and a settlement where you have these attorneys fees come into play and then you have 20, 30, 40, $50,000 uh for for redrawing uh lines outside a restaurant. Uh so I I do think we have a problem at the federal level. I yield to the gentleman from California.
▶ 1:23:32And if I Mr. Chairman that Mr. Raskin, that's the issue. Attorney's fees. Okay. If you're a small guy, you're not going to be able to afford attorney's fees. Okay. And that's a challenge that we have here. Yes, you're right. plaintiffs can't get monetary damages under the ADA, but you get the fees, litigation expenses, and the cost fueling this essentially lawsuit abuse surge. We want to do is put guard rails on this, put parameters here.
▶ 1:24:00We can have the goals of the ADA move forward, but not at the expense of small businesses. Give them the opportunity to cure, give them the opportunity to do what they're supposed to do, fully 100% ADA compliant, but not at the expense of going out of business. That is not a win-win for everybody. They're not going to fix the problem. They're going to go out of business. Give them the opportunity to cure.
▶ 1:24:25I yield back.
▶ 1:24:26Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
▶ 1:24:30Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I would tell you that Arizona suffers from the same state issues that California suffers from because we allow anyone to bring a lawsuit on ADA compliance. uh even if you're not asserting that you yourself are uh uh disabled but that you have observed.
▶ 1:24:51So, we have lawyers going around chasing around and they're measuring literally hired these people are hired to measure signs uh on a pool at a at a hotel and if it's uh supposed to be 4 feet or 3 foot 6 in and it's 3' 8 in, they will then extort a a settlement. And that's that's part of that that's one side of it. The other side of it is exactly what Mr.
▶ 1:25:17Korea was describing where um someone will go around and again they have people looking for these kinds of violations and let me give you an example of some of the violations in Arizona and what they will then do is um um they will file for injunctive relief. They're hoping to get the attorney's fees of many thousands. So, the small business owner is stuck with paying their own attorneys fees and the cost of someone else because here's some of the here's some of those.
▶ 1:25:46Uh uh this one is indoor batting cage owner. Uh Deanna Francis, she had four more than required of wheelchair uh uh handicap accessible spaces in her parking lot. Four more than are required under ADA. Um but her problem was that uh uh she had reserved parking signs there. Those signs were a few inches too short. So the lawsuit was brought.
▶ 1:26:17Um here here's others. I mean you just go through these uh this guy's his signs were two inches too short. And that's that's the that's the problem with this is is you're not allowing these people to cure. And uh and if you really if you're really about we want to make sure that that that folks uh are compliant with ADA to benefit those who are disabled then then you should give them the right to cure.
▶ 1:26:47And so I'm going to Mr. Chairman just offer a couple of art some articles for UC if that's possible.
▶ 1:26:53What uh Sure.
▶ 1:26:54Yeah. Parking lot trolls lawsuit happy ADA defenders are officially enemies of the state.
▶ 1:26:59Without objection. Parking lot trolls part two. Slew of ADA compliant suits may have dangerous repercussions for Arizona's disabled.
▶ 1:27:09Attorney behind ADA lawsuits discipline. So at least one guy got disciplined.
▶ 1:27:13Uh businesses blinded blindsided. Thousands are sued for ADA violations on their website.
▶ 1:27:19Legally blind racing women accused of filing frivolous ADA lawsuits.
▶ 1:27:24Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 1:27:26Gentlemen yields back. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania is
▶ 1:27:31Thank you. I have a couple unanimous consent requests. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the consortium for constituents with disabilities dated March 25th, 2026, signed by 27 organizations opposing HR6453, highlighting how under this legislation, businesses would have no incentive to comply with the ADA's accessibility requirements unless and until they receive notice.
▶ 1:27:55I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the Paralyzed Veterans of America Act dated March 25th, 2026 opposing HR6453.
▶ 1:28:06Thank you.
▶ 1:28:11Question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will follow will be followed immediately by a vote on the on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. No.
▶ 1:28:23And you pin the chair. The eyes have it. The amendment. The nature of substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I.
▶ 1:28:30I. Those opposed no.
▶ 1:28:32No. Roll call being requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 1:28:36Mr. Jordan.
▶ 1:28:38Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa.
▶ 1:28:40Okay. What's up next?
▶ 1:28:42Mr. Biggs.
▶ 1:28:44Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. McCllinto.
▶ 1:28:47Mr. Tiffany.
▶ 1:28:48Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Massie.
▶ 1:28:51Mr. Massie votes I. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Vandrew,
▶ 1:29:03Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nells, Mr. Nells votes yes. Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes yes. Miss Haggamman, Miss Lee,
▶ 1:29:12Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Not
▶ 1:29:22Mr. Harris.
▶ 1:29:23Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander
▶ 1:29:27Mr. Schmidt
▶ 1:29:29Mr. Gil
▶ 1:29:30Mr. Bombgardner I contacted you.
▶ 1:29:32Mr. Rasin
▶ 1:29:34Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler
▶ 1:29:36I I don't know.
▶ 1:29:38Miss Lofgrren
▶ 1:29:39I'm going to pass until we get our compromise worked out.
▶ 1:29:41Mr. Cohen
▶ 1:29:42I'll take care of it. So I'm gonna vote no because I don't have enough time to wait for
▶ 1:29:47Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swallow, Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipol, Miss Jipal votes no. Mr.
▶ 1:29:58Mr. Corey votes I. Miss Scandan,
▶ 1:30:00Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Necuse, Miss Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballant, Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove, Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett, Mr. Gilly, you're not recorded. Mr. Gil votes yes.
▶ 1:30:29Mr. Kn, you're not recorded. Mr. Knot Miss Camlager Dub, you are not recorded.
▶ 1:30:54Miss Camagerd votes no.
▶ 1:31:01Clerk will report.
▶ 1:31:02Mr. Chairman, there are 16 eyes's and eight nos.
▶ 1:31:07The um eyes have it in the bills to be reported. Favor to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. Nature of substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 3420, the words matter act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill
▶ 1:31:34HR 3. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement. This bill updates certain federal laws to reflect changes in the terminology used to refer to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Congress began this process in 2010 with Rose's law. In a number of statutes, the law changed references to mental retardation to references uh to be references to intellectual disabilities.
▶ 1:31:57Over the past few decades, intellectual disability has replaced mental retardation as the term used by both public uh and uh by both the public and doctors to refer to conditions affecting cognitive development and functions. Unfortunately, Ros's law did not update every reference throughout the code. The words matter act would finish the job that Ros's law began. Notably, this bill would not change how any law on the books works. The bill explicitly states that it cannot be construed to alter any rights or obligations imposed by the statutes that it amends.
▶ 1:32:28The bill is simply about replacing an outdated term with one that is commonly used and widely understood today. And I want to thank uh our friend and colleague, Mr. Sessions from Texas for introducing this bill, and I urge members to support it. And with that, I would recognize the ranking member for an opening statement.
▶ 1:32:43Thank you, Chairman Jordan. I'm very pleased to support this bipartisan The Words Matter Act would remove obsolete terminology in more than two dozen federal statutes by replacing references to mentally and mental retardation with the term intellectual disability and its variance. Language evolves and government government struggles to catch up.
▶ 1:33:07In fact, the Rword was initially adopted as medical terminology to replace older and even more demeaning language to describe people diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. However, the Rword turned into a slur against people with intellectual disabilities, a way to denigrate, diminish, and deride.
▶ 1:33:27Advocates fought for decades to end use of this word, but the movement galvanized as a result of young activists who partnered with the Special Olympics in 2009 to launch a campaign called Spread the Word to End the Word, which encouraged students across America to sign a pledge to stop using the Rword.
▶ 1:33:46The following year, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the bipartisan Roses Law, which required the government to replace the term mental retardation with intellectual disability in the federal code, named after then 9-year-old Marylander Rosa Marcelino, whose family started to advocate for the change after Rose's individual education plan explicitly labeled her with the Rword.
▶ 1:34:09That law however was limited to education, health and labor laws and did not mandate the change pervasively uh and generally through the US code. Sadly after so much progress at a time of public cruelty and coarseness, the rword is once again back in fashion everywhere from social media to schools and in everyday conversation making today's markup an important statement. Uh but don't take my word for it. Let me share the thoughts of some people living with intellectual disabilities.
▶ 1:34:39My constituent Nicole Leblanc from Silver Spring said, quote, "Every time I hear the Rword, I want to run, hide, and curl up into a ball. I was bullied and called the Rword from elementary school to early adulthood. I often wished I was normal. My only friends at school were the teachers at the playground. I also grew up with a brother saying the Rword when he would get mad and it took years to get him and others to understand how harmful it is. We need to stop the Rword now more than ever.
▶ 1:35:09It's just as harmful even if it's not being said to someone's face. It's time to demand a world where people with disabilities, visible or invisible, are respected and accepted for who they are. I'm thankful to my colleagues, Congressman Sessions and Congressman Pokean, and all the co-sponsors of the bill who've joined together to finish the work started by Rose's law back in 2010 to once and for all remove the harmful term from our federal code. All people are worthy of and should be treated with respect, including in how we refer to them in federal law.
▶ 1:35:40I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support the the bill and yield back.
▶ 1:35:43Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will report the
▶ 1:35:51Amendment in the nature of a substitute
▶ 1:35:53without objection. The amendment in the nature of substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. Chair now recognizes himself to explain the amendment. The amendment simply updates the year and the short title of the bill doesn't not in any way alter the substance of the measure before us. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. I am going to be uncarerilistically short here.
▶ 1:36:20This is a day in American The judiciary committee, the Republicans and the Democrats came together and agreed on a piece of legislation. It's a good day in America. I yield back.
▶ 1:36:35Gentleman yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition? All right. Hearing none, the question is on adoption of the amendment and the nature of substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no. Repent of the chair. The eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of substitute is adopted. Questions now on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 1:37:00The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. the nature of substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
▶ 1:37:18All right, committee will be at ease.
▶ 1:38:51Bless you.
▶ 1:39:40Is that what it's called?
▶ 1:39:42We're hanging out. That's a I didn't know that. That's kind of like an official term. I know. I heard that.
▶ 1:39:56I I never, you know, All
▶ 1:40:37right. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 8065, the Restoring Executive Branch Authorities to Oversee Offices of the United States Attorneys Act of 2026 for purposes of markup and move that committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill
▶ 1:40:51HR 8065 to amend titled. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the freshman gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Schmidt, for an opening statement.
▶ 1:41:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh to all of my colleagues, it's an honor to introduce HR 8065, the Restoring Executive Branch Authorities to oversee offices of the United States Attorneys Act of 2026. The enforcement of federal law is a fundamental constitutional duty that is at the heart of the Executive Branch's Article 2 responsibilities. It's the president's job to nominate US attorneys, and it's the Senate's job to provide advice and consent.
▶ 1:41:27Yet, senators have abused the blue slip process to obstruct highly qualified nominees in their states, leaving vital law enforcement positions unfilled. This does a disservice not only to their constituents, but to the broader justice system as a whole. In light of this obstruction, at least three separate district courts have attempted to choose the US attorneys who would appear before them.
▶ 1:41:50These actions create the potential for conflicts and they violate the vital separation of powers set forth in our constitution by vesting in the judiciary a function which is inherently executive. This bill averts the constitutional crisis that district courts and senators have created.
▶ 1:42:07First, it restores the authority of the United States Attorney General to appoint temporary US attorneys for timelmited assignments by clarifying that each and every temporary appointee may serve for 120 days. These 120day time limited assignments ensure that the important positions at the head of each of the US attorney's offices are helmed during times of transition and are filled by individuals chosen by the executive branch.
▶ 1:42:34It also puts an end to the delay tactics and gamesmanship by senators to prevent the executive branch from exercising its constitutional responsibility to steer the US attorney's offices while awaiting confirmation of permanent nominees. At the same time, by limiting each temporary US attorney's appointment to a 120-day limit, the bill preserves the important role of the Senate in providing advice and consent for permanent nominees.
▶ 1:43:00The bill also puts an end to the recent attempts by activist US district courts to violate the Constitution and usurp the authority of the executive branch by rejecting the executive branch's chosen temporary US attorneys and replacing them with the court's own choices. HR 8065 would stop the payoff for gamesmanship and removes the constitutionally questionable statutory provisions for courts to appoint US attorneys when the position is unfilled.
▶ 1:43:27At base, US attorneys are the executive branch's representatives in federal court, executing and enforcing federal law. The president and his administration, not judges, should select the men and women who speak on behalf of the president in court. HR 8065 is common sense legislation that restores the separation of powers and safeguards the functioning of the US attorney's offices. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Uh I would yield back and then, Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 1:43:59Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Rask, for an opening statement.
▶ 1:44:03Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad we waited for Mr. Schmidt to arrive because we're going to have an interesting constitutional conversation today. I think uh we or at least I oppose this legislation HR 8065 which seeks to punish and reprove and bypass uh all the courts and judges who found that the Trump Department of Justice violated the law by illegally installing acting US attorneys rather than simply telling the president and their party leader to try
▶ 1:44:33to change his MO and follow the law by actually nominating US attorneys. uh to the Republican controlled Senate to confirm them. The response from the majority in the committee is to try to change the law by cutting out the courts in Congress and empowering Attorney General Bondi to indefinitely and repeatedly and recurrently appoint political loyalists who could not get the support of the US Senate. Now, let's go get back to basics.
▶ 1:45:02as the the gentleman from Missouri suggests um the president appoints and then the Senate engages in advice and consent. That's the constitutional design uh for uh for principal officers um and uh for other officers that are designated by law. Okay.
▶ 1:45:27uh this if you read Hamilton in uh number 76 in the Federalist Papers, he said the reason that the Senate is put into that position is to prevent executive favoritism, corruption, and the appointment of unfit individuals just based on personal connections.
▶ 1:45:45Um, in at least six different judicial districts around the country, judges who've been appointed both by Republican and Democratic presidents, including one appointed by President Trump himself, have ruled that President Trump and Attorney General Bondi unlawfully installed a temporary US attorney in the district in order to circumvent the Senate's rendering of of advice and consent. This bill would change the law to make all of these illegal US attorney picks legal.
▶ 1:46:14Current law states that if there's a vacancy in the office of US attorney, the AG may appoint an interim attorney who's allowed to serve 120 days. If 120 days passes and there's still no presidential nominee who's been confirmed by the Senate, at that point, the district court may appoint an interim US attorney to serve until the vacancy can be filled. This bill would remove the courts from the process entirely.
▶ 1:46:38If a US attorney position is vacant because the president cannot get Senate confirmation, the attorney general would be able to just keep appointing one loyalist or sickant after another after another over and over again to serve throughout the entire presidency, completely defeating the constitutional design.
▶ 1:46:58This bill would change US attorney appointments law so that the Trump administration can continue to weaponize the legal system and the DOJ is a tool to exact revenge on the people he doesn't like. And we could name lots of them.
▶ 1:47:12Um, everybody knows, for example, about Lindseay Halagan, who was on President Trump's personal legal team before she joined his White House after the president forced out his own previous pick for US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia because that prosecutor refused to pursue baseless charges against FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Leticia James.
▶ 1:47:34Trump put Miss Halligan in the job to do his political bidding and he did just that pursuing an indictment for former director she did just that uh pursuing indictment for former director Comey that very same week of her appointment. The problem was Trump did not have the legal authority to appoint Miss Halligan without the advice and consent of the Senate. So a district judge threw out the indictments because Miss Halligan was never actually legally allowed to become US attorney. Did that stop Miss Halligan? No.
▶ 1:48:03She continued to play US attorney in court for another two months before a different judge was forced to bar her from misrepresenting herself that way. That judge, the Honorable David Novak, who was appointed to the bench in 2019 by President Trump, wrote, quote, "The court finds it inconceivable that the Department of Justice, which holds a duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, even those with which it may have disagreement, would repeatedly ignore court orders while simultaneously prosecuting citizens for
▶ 1:48:34breaking the law. But that is the inconceivable situation we find ourselves in today. This administration has repeatedly ignored and defied dozens of court orders. In New Jersey, judges first found that the complex personnel maneuvers Trump and Bondi used to install another one of his personal attorneys, Alina Haba, as US attorney, were illegal.
▶ 1:48:54Months later, New Jersey judges had to again strike down a convoluted Trump scheme to get around the rules, finding that the gang of three the Justice Department tried to put in place to lead that office was also unconstitutional. A district judge in New Jersey warned that if the government continues to illegally appoint US attorneys in the district, the court will be forced to start having to dismiss valid criminal cases because of their lack of legal force because of all of the illegality at the top.
▶ 1:49:23These are not isolated episodes of lats. Courts have had to confront unlawfully appointed interim US attorneys in numerous cases. The administration has avoided the normal Senate confirmation process.
▶ 1:49:37The president has only managed to submit nominations for 18 of the 62 currently vacant US attorney positions and instead relied on the attorney general's ability to temporarily install top prosecutors at a moment's notice, sometimes in quick succession when the president fails to pressure them into pursuing baseless political prosecutions.
▶ 1:50:00That's what happened in the Eastern District of Virginia where three different people were named as US attorney in four days as the president looked for a prosecutor who would bring the charges he wanted against FBI Director Comey. So what are we doing here today in the face of these repeated attempts to circumvent the requirement that nominees be respected and reputable enough to actually be confirmed by the Senate and today a Republican controlled Senate?
▶ 1:50:27Are we encouraging the administration to abide by all these court orders and follow the law? No. Instead, uh, our dear colleagues are trying to change the rules so that Trump can get away with this lawless behavior and appoint whomever he wants as US attorney without any input from the United States Senate as provided for in the Constitution. Since the Civil War, when there's been a vacancy in the office of US Attorney, the courts have had the ability to appoint someone to temporary fill the role.
▶ 1:50:55But now the majority wants to cut the courts out completely, invest all that power in the attorney general to continually appoint US attorneys that could not be passed by the Senate. And if they could be confirmed by the Senate, they would be confirmed by the Senate. The purpose of Senate confirmation and the district's authority in the event of a vacancy is to serve as a check on unlimited pre presidential power.
▶ 1:51:20The framers recognized the dangers of unilateral power and that's why Hamilton wrote in 76 that the purpose of confirmation would be to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment or from a view to popularity. And yet today, that's exactly what Donald Trump is doing. Illegally appointing unfit US attorneys based on prejudice, connection, and political loyalty.
▶ 1:51:47and my colleagues seem not only to approve of that, but they want to make it the law. We've had no hearings on this topic or this bill. Instead, it's been rushed to mark up. We didn't even see text for it, I think, until two or three days ago. I can only conclude that the rush here was at the behest of President Trump and the attorney general, who cannot seem to be bothered to pick US attorneys who could actually make it through the US Senate.
▶ 1:52:09I oppose this effort strongly to remove to change the process and to hand unchecked authority to Pam Bondi to install political loyalists as the nation's top prosecutors and I urge my colleagues to reject the bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 1:52:24Gentleman yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute.
▶ 1:52:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 1:52:34Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 1:52:35Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas to explain the
▶ 1:52:46Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment in the nature of a substitute strikes the year from the title of the bill. It does not change the substance of the bill before us. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.
▶ 1:52:55Gentleman yields back. Who seeks From Georgia, Miss McBth is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:53:02Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'd like to speak in opposition to um, HR865. And like the ranking member, Mr. Rascin, I too believe that Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department is illegally installing unqualified loyalists as interim US attorneys is just as the latest attempt to turn the Justice Department into an instrument of political retribution.
▶ 1:53:29Some of Trump's picks for US attorney have no prosecutotorial experience whatsoever and others are so embroiled in political controversy that they can't even to be can't even seem to to be confirmed in the United States Senate. And with that, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to my esteemed colleague from Georgia, uh, Mr. Johnson.
▶ 1:53:51Gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Johnson's
▶ 1:53:53Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. chair and thank you uh my dear colleague. I move to strike well I don't move to strike um MAGA Republicans are introducing this bill so that President Trump can install incompetent loyalist who are so inexperienced incompetent and partisan that they cannot even be confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate.
▶ 1:54:21Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his political enemies and anyone who has ever tried to hold him to account. To do this, he demands lackey in place as United States attorneys who will follow his orders and do his bidding regardless of the legal merit of any of those That is not how the system works.
▶ 1:54:46The 93 US attorneys are charged with ensuring that quote the laws be faithfully executed end quote and serve as the chief federal law enforcement officer in their district. They have tremendous discretion and power because they choose who in their districts will be charged with crimes like firearms trafficking, drug cartel investigations, tax fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, child exploitation, and every other federal
▶ 1:55:17That is why from the very creation of the federal court system in 1789, US attorneys have been appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress knew from its founding that there needs to be a check on such unbridled power.
▶ 1:55:36Recognizing that sometimes it takes time to obtain advice and consent of the Senate, Congress allowed for certain stop gap measures such as allowing the court to appoint an interim US attorney or allowing the attorney general to appoint a short-term US attorney to give four months time for the president to appoint someone who can be confirmed by the Senate.
▶ 1:56:01But the lawless Trump administration does not want any checks on its power because Donald Trump wants to be a king. And that's why we are here today. And that's why we're going to be out on the streets this weekend in over 2,000 locations across the country. Millions of Americans will be out proclaiming in America we have no kings. And we rejected kings 250 years ago and we reject them today.
▶ 1:56:30It's dangerous to give Trump an end around Congress. If his picks for US attorney are so extreme that they cannot even get through a MAGA Republican Senate, the answer is not to cut out the Senate and let Trump do whatever he wants. It's to hold him to because we reject Kings. And because we reject Kings, I strongly oppose this bill. And I'll urge my colleagues to do the same.
▶ 1:57:00And with that, I yield back.
▶ 1:57:03Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman yields back to the gentle lady from Georgia. I yield.
▶ 1:57:09Georgia yields back.
▶ 1:57:10Who seeks recognition?
▶ 1:57:12Mr. Chairman,
▶ 1:57:12gentleman from New York is recognized.
▶ 1:57:16Mr. Chairman, I I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Um, which I find to be more remarkable, uh, not that Donald Trump wants this to happen, because of course he does, but that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle once again have rolled over and are actually pedalling this dril and garbage onto the House floor.
▶ 1:57:43the notion that Donald Trump cannot appoint unilaterally the most unqualified, unfit, and partisan US attorneys would therefore lead you to try to pass a bill allowing him to do it rather than going to him and saying, "Well, the advice and consent process is intentionally designed to be a bipartisan process.
▶ 1:58:12where the president needs to work with the Senate to get approval. Just because he does not get his own lackey installed indefinitely does not mean that the constitution and the advice and consent clause is deficient. It just means that not everything can be partisan.
▶ 1:58:40And when we are sitting in the middle of a shutdown right now because as Senator John Kennedy, Republican from Louisiana, said this weekend, Donald Trump refused to enter into a deal with Democrats, "You are just facilitating the complete deterioration of the separation of powers and of our Do you really have such an issue with needing
▶ 1:59:11to appoint a qualified US that would get bipartisan support? Is that so unbelievable to you? Is that so preposterous? so objectionable that my god, you might actually have to recognize that we live in a two-party system and sometimes you're going to need the other party to get something done.
▶ 1:59:38has it become so partisan that you can't even imagine actually working with Democrats to move our country forward that you are going to ratify the appointment of Lindsay Hallan or Alina Haba which I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe to be some of if not the most incompetent unqualified appoint appointees is for
▶ 2:00:08a US attorney in the history of this country. Lindseay Halligan did not even know how to present a case in to the grand jury. She literally got there. Nobody in her office would go to the grand jury to try to indict New York Attorney General Leticia James on absolute garbage and zero evidence. So, she had to do it herself.
▶ 2:00:36but she didn't even know how to do it. And that's who you're going to bat for for Donald Trump, an an insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial history who was installed at the direction of Donald Trump in order to prosecute his enemies.
▶ 2:00:56I get that Donald Trump is going to view everything from his own personal political vantage point, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't have to do that. Some of you were assistant US attorneys like I was. You care about the Department of Justice.
▶ 2:01:18You can't possibly support the political prosecutions that you are And I don't want to hear one thing about Jack Smith and we started it. You know, it is full well apples and oranges. Nothing about Jack Smith has ever been demonstrated to be partisan.
▶ 2:01:41And yet we have a tweet from Donald Trump directing the attorney general to prosecute his I know you can't sit there and even imagine that those are the same things. You can't gaslight yourself in the own in your own mirror.
▶ 2:02:04And yet here you are trying to pedal his dril and do his dirty work as you have been doing for the last year and a half. And which is why our Department of Justice has completely lost all credibility and you are responsible for it and you are responsible for the devastation to our rule of law. I yield back. Gentleman's time is expired. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. BS.
▶ 2:02:31Thank you. Uh, I'm glad I'm glad uh the previous speaker said what he said with about 30 seconds so I could get the laughs out of my system. U because I'm just looking at uh Jack Smith and you know the the the same argument they're making is the same argument for which Jack Smith was found to be not constitutionally appointed. that is under the appointments clause of the US Constitution.
▶ 2:03:02He was found not to have been properly appointed under that clause and it's under appeal perhaps but but let's see how that plays out. But but I just find it humorous that you'd make that same argument and say, "Oh, no, no, no, because it's the same dog on clause. It's the same dog on clause that you're relying on here." and Jack Smith to to kind of say, well, oh, we never seen this kind of uh bias.
▶ 2:03:29You never saw that under um under uh Joe Biden's uh you know, reign of terror. We didn't see that kind of stuff going on. I'm looking at this this uh AG memo that that Chuck Grassley, Senator Grassley released, and it's dated January 13, 2023. AG briefing. AG briefing it is. and they they talking about all the people whose records they want to get, all the members of Congress records that they want to get.
▶ 2:03:59Uh, oddly enough, I see my name on there. And the reason is that my name was on there. It says it, it says it pretty clearly here. He sent lots of texts with Meadows, calls with Meadows, Perry and Chiproy. He made those I made those calls. So, he wanted to go in and and get all of my phone records. That That's not abuse.
▶ 2:04:21Yeah, it is. Yeah, come on. You commit a crime to investigate. You
▶ 2:04:24know, it's you know it's abuse and that's my time so shut up. Here's the here's the deal. Here's the deal. No, no, he's interrupting me and dog gone it, he needs to be quiet. That's the
▶ 2:04:34Committee will be in order.
▶ 2:04:36Yeah. No, I I can say it. You calm down. You calm down.
▶ 2:04:40The gentleman from Arizona is
▶ 2:04:42Thank you. So when we when we go through here and I ask the rhetorical question, is that is that reason to grab all my records because I texted to the chief of staff, a personal friend I've known for a long time? No. Apparently so. But that wouldn't be abuse when the authoritarian is in control, would it? No. Because that's the problem with y'all. That's the problem.
▶ 2:05:08You have no ability to self-reflect and say, "Well, maybe we got a problem on our side, too. You're just going to project." I'm going to yield time to Mr. Schmidt. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized.
▶ 2:05:21Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. Just a couple of points I'd offer to the committee as we uh try to consider the bill as opposed to sort of debating the politics of the day. Uh first with respect to the constitutional provision at issue, I certainly agree with the points that my friends on the other side have made about the importance of the advice and consent role of the Senate. I I would simply remind the committee that the constitutional provision says nothing about courts. Nothing.
▶ 2:05:51And so to the extent the process here is the president nominates and the senate gives its advice and its consent having a process that then allows whichever party blocks uh action in that manner that was contemplated by the constitution to turn to the court and say you do the president's job for him you do the senate's job for him uh is manufactured out of whole cloth. This bill eliminates that problem. Secondly, the constitutional provision talks about vesting power in the Senate to give its advice and consent.
▶ 2:06:21It does not talk about vesting power in an individual senator to block the uh ability of the Senate to u give its vote up or down on a nominee or of the president to have a nominee of his or her choosing. Uh but that's exactly what happens here. Uh the reality is that these are not nominees who are being offered up debated as folks seem to want to today on their individual merits or their individual personalities or their individual actions and then the Senate disposes of them.
▶ 2:06:50What's happening is an individual senator because of the arcane procedures of the Senate is able to prevent the Senate from ever doing its constitutional duty. If you don't like these nominees, that's fine. The Senate can vote them down. Then they're gone.
▶ 2:07:04but to suggest that somehow the constitution contemplated that an individual US senator who does not like the president has a veto power over both the role of the president and the role of the senate as a whole is simply a misreading of what that that document does. So uh I I think staying on point of what the bill actually does the problems it actually corrects is helpful and I would urge my colleagues to uh to adopt this measure. I would yield back to the gentleman from Arizona
▶ 2:07:32and I yield sir. All right, the gentleman from Arizona yields back. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Noose, is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 2:07:38Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we I guess I might because I I appreciate the gentleman's point from Kansas and I certainly want to engage in a reason debate about the merits of this bill. And so, if he's willing to engage in a colloquy, Mr. Schmidt, help me understand my my understanding of the argument is that you disagree with judicial the district court appointing a temporary or interim US attorney. Is that fair?
▶ 2:08:10It is. And it's because I believe that has been abused given the Senate's
▶ 2:08:15got it
▶ 2:08:15refusal to do his job. And that that provision has in effect with the exception of a brief two-year period or a year and a half period um has existed since the Civil War. I know you served as Kansas attorney general. How are district attorneys vacancies for district attorneys handled in Kansas?
▶ 2:08:35Uh district attorneys Kansas for state prosecutions has a two-tiered system. We have 105 counties of which I believe six have district attorneys.
▶ 2:08:44Correct. uh 99 have county attorneys. They're slightly different in the law.
▶ 2:08:49How many vacancies handled
▶ 2:08:50and they are all uh handled by election.
▶ 2:08:53Um and when there's a vacancy, it's it's uh replaced in the manner you'd replace any other elected office holder in a
▶ 2:09:00okay election.
▶ 2:09:01So let let me read to you Kansas law section 22A sub paragraph 103 or excuse me section 103 sub paragraph B. When a vacancy occurs in the office of district attorney, the district judges of the district in which the vacancy occurs shall appoint a person to serve as temporary district attorney until a person qualifies to fill the vacancy pursuant to the governor's power to appoint a permanent district
▶ 2:09:31attorney to fill that vacancy akin to the president's decision to use attorney. I my view would be if it's good enough for ought to be good enough for the country. Don't you agree? I know proudly representing the state of Kansas, I I find it hard to believe that you believe that in Kansas it's totally appropriate and proper for district judges to fill a vacancy on a temporary basis, but improper for district judges at the federal level to do so, notwithstanding the fact that they've been doing so since
▶ 2:10:01the Civil War. And I'll give you a chance to respond.
▶ 2:10:03Yes. What u what uh my friend the gentleman uh misses in that analysis is two I think fairly important points. One is that while I served in that role I also objected to that provision of state law and we tried to get a change and were not successful in doing that. Having said that I realize that's a bit beside his point. Um
▶ 2:10:21I hope your success uh there is emulated here uh sir. Uh I hope you're as successful changing federal law as you were Kansas law
▶ 2:10:29if at first you don't succeed. Isn't that right? Um but secondly I would point out to my friend there is I think an important difference and that is that the Kansas law for replacing when there's a vacancy in office of for example a district attorney uh it does have time elements in it. That is to say you cannot have a circumstance as as tends to happen here um where essentially you have just forfeited to the judicial branch the ability to fill that role calling it temporary but functionally it's it's permanent because there are other provisions in law that cause things to move along.
▶ 2:10:59We wouldn't have this problem here if the Senate didn't abuse its
▶ 2:11:03blue and I and I appreciate the back and forth. Um,
▶ 2:11:06would the gentleman yield for a
▶ 2:11:09Well, um, would we not think it ironic that the Senate has actually confirmed 31 of President Trump's nominees to US attorney in his first year. The exact same number that were confirmed in the first year of the Biden administration. So, it's not that they're not moving the nominations. It's that they don't want to have to go through that process because of the kind of people they want to appoint to do the kinds of prosecutions that real lawyers re won't do.
▶ 2:11:36Precisely right the ranking member is correct and I would just say the law of unintended consequences is very plainly present in this bill and I talked to I think my colleagues who I suspect will be around a little longer.
▶ 2:11:51I know at the top of the dis you know half of my colleagues on side are running for you know governor in Wisconsin Arizona they won't be here to deal with the fallout of this bill but in effect just understand if this bill were signed into law I don't think it will be but if it were a Democratic president could make the decision to appoint interim US attorneys in every judicial district in the United States of America and have those interim appointments go into perpetuity
▶ 2:12:21every 120 days in New Jersey, in Kansas. That is the future that this bill contemplates. And so I I just would ask my colleagues to think very carefully uh about the slippery slope that they are creating with respect to this statutory proposal. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's I I'm out of time. I'm happy to engage in a colloqui with your time if you'd like, but I yield back to the
▶ 2:12:43Gentleman yields back. Who seeks The gentleman from Kansas. Does he seek? No. All right. Uh we go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for five
▶ 2:12:54Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make clear, it was stated that Democrats have resisted Mr. Trump's recommendations on occasion. In Tennessee, I have been the only elected Democrat. And so when a vacancy be comes due, the president looks to me for recommendations.
▶ 2:13:17When Obama was president and I made recommendations, I worked with Habar Alexander and Bob Corker to get people who they could be for and who kept our bench at an outstanding level of judicial experience and book and and and ethical uh achievements, good people. During the last term of Mr. Biden, the Republican senators would not work with me at all.
▶ 2:13:42and they've stopped people who were recommended who were outstanding nominees with great credentials recommended by the bar etc etc etc. So it's a bipartisan problem with the blue slip. As far as Mr. Trump's appointees some of them like Miss Cannon had no business being appointed and that's who was mentioned about Jack Smith and saying invalidating the appointment of Jack Smith.
▶ 2:14:11Miss Cannon doesn't have a clue and she's was put in there and should never have gotten in. She was a political appointee. She's now in charge of a grand jury looking to try to indict John Brennan because Trump wants him indicted.
▶ 2:14:25And unfortunately, the intelligence committee in a partyline vote released 10-year-old classified documents to the grand to the Justice Department, which they wanted to go after John Brennan, an 80 some odd year old American patriot who Trump is trying to indict or forced to hire a lawyer to defend himself in federal court because he's vindictive and wants to go after anybody that did anything about him. Mr.
▶ 2:14:54Trump's recommendations on some of these judges are more like who should have been nominated for Miss America in Atlantic City in days past. Mr. Trump looks at their pulkitude, not their aptitude. And if he looked at their aptitude and not their pulpitude, he might have done better with his judges and he might have even done better with his wives. I yield back.
▶ 2:15:15You to Mr.
▶ 2:15:16Goldman yields to Mr. Goldman from New
▶ 2:15:20Thank you um for yielding from my friend from Tennessee. um uh to my my friend from Kansas, I I would love to address I I think the the thrust of what your argument is um which is effectively that the blue slip process has overtaken the appointment of US attorneys and has effectively undermined the advice and consent requirement under the constitution.
▶ 2:15:50Is that fair? I think that's fair if uh my colleague would would add to that the important underscoring in my view at least that the Senate still retains its full authority to determine how to process these, how to dispose of them, how to handle them. They could vote them down, right? But the Senate makes its own rules and the Senate could decide.
▶ 2:16:17The Senate has decided that the blue slip process uh initially they decided that that's how it would work and they're deciding every day today that that's how it should continue to work. And let's remember their majority they are controlled by the Republicans. So the Senate has the advice and consent power and then the Senate decides how to implement that power.
▶ 2:16:45You may not like the blue slip process, but that is the Senate's decision. That is not something that we should be sitting here talking about a law to undermine and overturn that. When, and this is, I think, the critical point, if this bill were to pass, there would be no advice and consent clause.
▶ 2:17:13It would write the advice and consent clause out of the constitution because it would mean that the president could appoint an interim US attorney for a 100 days, 120 days, and renew that over and over and over again. This the president would never go to the Senate to seek confirmation. That's obvious. That's obvious that that's what the consequences would be.
▶ 2:17:44So rather than try to eliminate the advice and consent clause, why don't you encourage the president to find someone that both parties can agree on? I yield
▶ 2:17:55Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Tennessee yields. Times expired. Gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Vander, is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 2:18:01A couple issues. I wouldn't bring them up, but they were brought up and they It's a little bit of a segue, but let's talk about Jack Smith because my friend from New York, Mr. Goldman, did bring him up and said that he wasn't political. I And I got to give it to him. He kept a straight face. Nobody here, nobody else could. I think even a few Democrats smiled. I mean, I don't know anybody in his position that could be more political, more obviously political than he was in everything that he did.
▶ 2:18:31the documents case, the way he went about investigation, what the Department of Justice did. I mean, it was raw, abusive, mean, overstepping bounds politics.
▶ 2:18:42Would the gentleman yield for a question on that?
▶ 2:18:44Uh, soon as I'm done, I promise I will. I just wanted to talk about one other issue as well. Um, the shutdown that was also brought into it. And I just don't like things statements are made and then they hang out there and some people think they may be accurate. Uh, Republicans have been willing to compromise. We do want this to end. And when it came to ICE, we were willing to uh have them wear badges. We were willing to have them have body cams. We're willing to have them trained in crowd control. We were willing to ensure that they didn't go into sensitive areas.
▶ 2:19:14And there's a longer list than that. That's all that I just rec. And I think it's been polit they believe I don't think it has been but they believe it's been politically advantageous to just continue this horrible shutdown that we have which hurts our coast guard by the way. Nobody mentions the Coast Guard matters a lot to me because boot camp for the Coast Guard. 90% of them are trained in New Jersey in my district. The Secret Service, the TSA, what it does to all of our constituents everywhere.
▶ 2:19:45I would maintain and I will say it with a straight face. This is without question a Democrat shutdown. With that, I will yield to the gentleman.
▶ 2:19:54Thank you. Um to my my friend from New Jersey, you uh and your colleagues very frequently uh accuse Jack Smith of being hyperartisan and political. Um whe when I previously referenced um Lindseay Halligan's uh attempted indictment of the New York State Attorney General, uh I didn't just say that's political and partisan because she is
▶ 2:20:24a Democrat. Um it's pretty even obvious that she's not only a Democrat, but she held Donald Trump accountable. So there's clear motive there, but I'm not even referring to that. What I pointed to is a direct statement from the president of the United States to indict her after he removed a career US attorney who refused to do it because there was no evidence.
▶ 2:20:55So, as you describe Jack Smith's partisanship and his politicization, I would ask you, can you please point me to a single piece of actual evidence other than just your assertion that because he investigated and indicted the former president of the United States that it therefore must be partisan and political?
▶ 2:21:19And and that's not why it was partisan and political is the way that he was willing to indict it is everything how he wait a minute let me my time now the department of justice at that time that existing department of justice in the last administration treated Republicans and Democrats totally differently and particularly President Trump whether you like President Trump or not is not the issue. Whether you find him obnoxious or you love him is not the issue. The issue was it's a court of law.
▶ 2:21:49You're a special counsel. You're a prosecutor. Whatever the case may be in all these cases, they were not carried out in an evenhanded way. Leticia the whole thing we had attorneys general here. Here's the point I'm making. The point I'm making is you're saying that this system is so srisacked now and so perfect or it was. It was not. I've never seen more raw politics. It's scary what some of the members in the dis have gone through over the years.
▶ 2:22:17Some of the things that happened particularly with that department of justice with Jack Smith was part and parcel to and was called in especially because he was so unbelievably partisan and mean-spirited at the same time. It was hellish.
▶ 2:22:32Will the gentleman yield?
▶ 2:22:34Uh who is that?
▶ 2:22:36Yes. I You're yielding back to me. I will yield to Mr.
▶ 2:22:40Mcccleintoch. I was just going to suggest may one of the bits of evidence we could offer is the fact that he ignored FBI procedures in approving the armed raid on the home of a former president of the United States over a civil dispute involving documents and that is from testimony that this committee has received from whistleblowers within the department of justice who were involved with that
▶ 2:23:02I thank the gentleman for the point. I yield back. Chairman,
▶ 2:23:05gentleman yields back. Uh, gentleman from California.
▶ 2:23:09Does the gentleman from California seek time? No.
▶ 2:23:13You want to yield, Lou?
▶ 2:23:15All right. Gentleman from California is recognized and yields to the gentleman from New York.
▶ 2:23:19Just very briefly, um, I I I want to go back to uh to what you said, Mr. Van Drew, uh, that Democrats, Republicans and Democrats were treated um very differently under the Biden Uh, I would point out to you that the Department of Justice in the Biden administration indicted the president's That department indicted the president of the United States son.
▶ 2:23:50And you are trying to say that that was a purely partisan department.
▶ 2:23:55Gentleman, yield for 5 seconds.
▶ 2:23:57I I I'm going to ask you a question actually um and then I'll yield. Uh, what party was Bob Mendez, Senator Bob Mendez with?
▶ 2:24:09The You asking me?
▶ 2:24:11These cases were so egregious, so outrageous. There was such a public outcry. Yeah, they had to. I mean, they kept trying to protect, if you remember, with his son, they were trying to strike a sweetheart deal and they didn't get away with it because the judge wouldn't allow it. Thank God. All right, I'll I'll reclaim my time because actually the reason they they the reason they didn't that the the plea deal didn't go through,
▶ 2:24:35forgive me, I have to vote in transportation. That's the only reason I'm walking in on you. Um the uh the only reason that plea agreement fell through is because of the exact same issue that we are talking about right now is the vindictiveness, the vengefulness, the lawlessness of this president.
▶ 2:25:01And so what Hunter Biden's lawyers wanted the same plea agreement that nobody would have that uh that they agreed to. But it wasn't because it was a lenient plea agreement.
▶ 2:25:19It was because they wanted protections against Donald Trump becoming president and retroactively undoing the decision about Hunter Biden and going after him because of the exact same things that we have seen over and over and over with Tish James, with James Comey, with John Brennan, with Adam Schiff. The list goes on.
▶ 2:25:43It is a joke that you're trying to say, "Oh, that Republicans were treated so terribly under Biden and Democrats were treated so well." George Santos got a pardon.
▶ 2:25:57Every single Republican that was under investigation had their investigation dropped or Every single person with any political background that Donald Trump has investigated or prosecuted is a So you can try to make an excuse, oh well, Senator Bombends was so egregious.
▶ 2:26:20It doesn't. I mean, Donald Trump's George Santos's crimes were pretty darn egregious, too.
▶ 2:26:26You're not complaining about the pardon that went to him. let's go back just briefly to the original point which is you can throw stones and cast dispersions and make all sorts of allegations. And Mr.
▶ 2:26:43Mcccleintoch, the testimony you're referring to, of course, has nothing to do with the reality of whether or not there was probable cause and whether or not that was a legitimate search because it may have been a civil dispute when it began, when the National Archives politely asked for the classified documents back, but it certainly became a much larger larger
▶ 2:27:13dispute criminal in nature when the president obstructed the National Archives. Then the president obstructed the FBI and refused to give them back, lied about how many documents he had, withheld documents that were supposed to be turned over, and then ultimately after two years of and learning that he was continuing
▶ 2:27:43to conceal information, which the ranking member revealed so important, related to his own business interests. They did a search warrant. Now, there's not a prosecutor in the world that would say that that search warrant on its face did not have probable cause or was not And yet, somehow because it's a search warrant of Donald Trump, it couldn't possibly be because Donald Trump did something wrong.
▶ 2:28:14It's got to be because it's partisan. It's absurd. I yield back.
▶ 2:28:21Gentleman yields back. Does the ranking member have an amendment?
▶ 2:28:24I do. It's at the desk.
▶ 2:28:30Oh, can you speak on his amendment?
▶ 2:28:35It's a good amendment.
▶ 2:28:36Okay. The gentleman reserves the uh the clerk will read the amendment.
▶ 2:28:40Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8065 offered by Mr. Rascin. Without objection, we can I guess it was read. Uh and the gentleman uh from Maryland is recognized to explain his amendment.
▶ 2:28:53Okay. And the rest of that sentence was insert after that person the following who must have prosecutorial experience at the federal or the state level and must be a member of the bar of that state. So, uh, but despite all of the the eloquence and the passion on our side of the aisle, I don't think we've been able to successfully persuade anyone that this is a dangerous circumvention and perhaps a violation of our constitution, which requires that there be Senate advice and consent for
▶ 2:29:23people uh who are going to act in this capacity. And as we said, uh, in Donald Trump's first year in office, 31 US attorneys have been approved under Senate Advice and Consent, the exact same number that happened to have been approved under President Biden. So, it's not that they're not getting people through. It's that they want, some people seem to want the president to have the ability to appoint whomever he wants, even if that person could never pass even a Republican controlled Senate.
▶ 2:29:53That's what this is about because he's been installing people who will bring prosecutions against the former FBI director Comey or against uh lawyers in New York uh who he has an objection to or against members of the United States Congress like six veterans who serve with us who had the temerity to exercise their first amendment rights simply by saying that members of the armed services not only have a right but a duty.
▶ 2:30:25not follow unlawful orders and he wanted to bring them to court. Well, um we've been unsuccessful in trying to convince you. I think maybe some people there are a lot of members on your side who aren't here. So maybe that's why they're not here because they're made very uncomfortable by this bill. But let's try to slightly improve the proposition.
▶ 2:30:46I would hope that everybody here can agree that if this bill is going to be passed that the people who the president could repeatedly and recurrently and continuously appoint as US attorneys outside of the constitutional design, they must have prosecutorial experience at the state or federal level and must be a member of the bar of that state. That is simple. I am certain that the former attorney general of a state would agree with this. But look what's actually happened.
▶ 2:31:14Take Alina Haba in New Jersey who had no prosecutorial experience, right? Um she was a political operative. She said that her objective was to help turn New Jersey red. Then she brought charges against US Congresswoman Monica Maccgyver. Look at Lindseay Hagan in Virginia.
▶ 2:31:34also had no experience as a prosecutor and she was thrust into that position because uh the prior US attorney who President Trump had himself put into office refused to go along with the completely illegitimate harassment investigation and prosecution of the former FBI director, Mr. Comey. Um so she had no experience as a prosecutor. Look at this one from Nevada.
▶ 2:32:04Seigal Chhata. Okay. She ran for attorney general in 2022 and lost, but in the course of the campaign suggested that her opponent, incumbent Aaron Ford, who is black, should be hanging from an effing crane. She compared Jewish Democratic members of Congress to Nazi collaborator collaborators and called Fonnie Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, who's black and who charged Trump with interfering with that state's election. so ghetto. Okay.
▶ 2:32:34And this person also had no prosecutorial experience obviously because qualified prosecutors don't talk like that. So, if we're really going to go down this road of trying to sideline the Constitution, sideline the US Senate, punish the Senate because of their internal rules, even though we've got our internal rules in the House, then at least let's build some minimal professional standards into the process so that they've got to be a member of the bar and
▶ 2:33:05uh they have to have some prosecutorial experience at the federal or state level anywhere. And with that, I submit it to the wisdom of the committee. Mr. Chairman,
▶ 2:33:14thank the gentleman. Does he do I continue to have a reserve point of order? Now the the gentleman withdraws his amendment, his reserve. Um I'll recognize the gentleman from
▶ 2:33:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and um appreciate our colleague from Maryland engaging in the discussion. Just looking at the at the proposal, um it is, as I understand it, twofold. That is to say, it proposes to impose by statute uh to restrictions on the authority of, in this case, the president to nominate somebody um to serve as United States attorney.
▶ 2:33:55I suppose I suppose it also would impose limitation on the ability of the Senate to confirm that person.
▶ 2:34:02Would the gentleman yield for clarification? Of course, we're not talking about the nomination process now. We're talking about the unilateral appointment under your legislation of someone to just become the US attorney, right? Or are you saying it goes back to the Senate?
▶ 2:34:15The appointment. The appointment.
▶ 2:34:16Okay. The appointment. So, not nomination. The appointment. Yeah.
▶ 2:34:19And I I would just point out a couple of things as the committee weighs this uh I intend to vote against it. I think uh first of all, there already is a residency requirement for US attorneys. It's in federal law now. They must reside in the district to which uh they've been appointed to serve. Uh I'm not sure what is gained by adding a requirement that they also be a member of the bar of that district. I believe they must be a member of the bar now in order to practice. Uh but remember they are practicing federal law on behalf of the federal government.
▶ 2:34:48They just happen to be in that federal district. Um I'm not sure what the relevance or the rationale is for the local state bar requirement. with respect to uh prosecutorial experience. I mean certainly um with respect to some of the the latter argumentation today and the examples that have been pointed at uh there's a lot of um uh interest in the uh criminal prosecution component of US attorneys.
▶ 2:35:11But as I'm sure my colleague is well aware, there is a long list of United States attorneys now former United States attorneys who have been appointed by presidents of both parties who have not had criminal prosecution experience uh but have done really a very good job. they've ultimately been under the current process confirmed by the Senate. So, I'm not sure.
▶ 2:35:30It seems to me this is a a bit of a solution in search of a problem uh that's focusing on the the headlines of the day and not on the underlying uh issue of how we make sure that the executive branch, not the judicial branch, is deciding who is appearing in court to represent the executive branch.
▶ 2:35:46Would the gentleman uh yield? Would gentleman yield?
▶ 2:35:50Of course. Thank you. Uh, I might suggest a a friendly amendment to my colleague from Maryland. Uh, in light of the gentleman from Kansas's points, uh, if you were to say must be a member of the federal bar, I think that would be consistent with anyone who in history uh, in modern times has been a US attorney. Um, I might also point out that US attorneys are often tasked to be multi-jurisdictional, even national.
▶ 2:36:18So the the idea that you have to be from one the reality is you might be moved somewhere else or or asked to to be it. So the the notice of of state law seems to be uh inconsequential to the question of are you before the federal bar? Are you qualified?
▶ 2:36:36And I'm going to join with my colleague from uh Kansas and just say would we be hurting ourselves since once you're the US attorney you do all that comes before the office of the US attorney and I can tell you in the case of for example Carol Lamb a US attorney appointed by George W. Bush fired by George W. Bush her background was really not criminal.
▶ 2:37:03As a matter of fact, she loved u white collar crime and and and and so on and she got into the complexity of that. Many US attorneys under your party in fact are pliff's trial lawyers who do civil.
▶ 2:37:20So, I might suggest that as a friendly uh one that if you were to cut it down to just members of the federal bar, you might see an open door and still reach the basic point, which is uh if you're a a judge, a lawyer in good standing uh before the federal bar, you should be considered even if your entire portfolio was in civil matters because you will have dozens, maybe even hundreds of attorneys who have the criminal
▶ 2:37:52involved. So that's just a friendly suggestion and I thank the gentleman for yielding and I yield back.
▶ 2:38:04Oh, actually you wanted to be fair enough. She's from even the previous one. The gentle lady, Miss Scandal is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 2:38:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I do uh strongly oppose HR 8065 and also support Mr. Rascin's amendment. It is shocking but not surprising that our House Republican colleagues would bring forward legislation designed to enable rather than curtail this administration's efforts to undermine both the Department of Justice and our constitutional order.
▶ 2:38:38Under current law, when the president appoints a US attorney, that nominee needs the advice and consent of the Senate to become permanent. And if the Senate doesn't act within a certain period, then the district court can make an interim appointment. That framework exists for a reason. It preserves accountability, it prevents abuse, and it ensures that these powerful prosecutorial positions are not filled indefinitely without meaningful oversight.
▶ 2:39:06Yet, this president has repeatedly nominated US attorney candidates so partisan and so unqualified that they cannot win Senate approval even when the president has a Senate majority. So, the solution is not to make it easier for this president and every other president to bypass the Senate altogether.
▶ 2:39:29Time and time again, we've seen this administration use the interim appointment process to prosecute the president's political enemies, reward loyalists, and attempt to block or delay court proceedings relating to the White House's own unlawful conduct. The weaponization of the Department of Justice flies in the face of both ethical government, ethical prosecutions, and the separation of powers.
▶ 2:39:54And it's exactly the kind of abuse that our current law is designed to prevent and which it has prevented. Hence, today's bill, which would make it easier for the administration to appoint unqualified partisan hacks whose only qualification is their willingness to do the president's bidding regardless of the law. So, I would support Mr. Raskin's amendment which would require the president's appointees to have a bare minimum of qualifications.
▶ 2:40:24But the underlying concern remains if HR865 were to become law, the administration could simply abandon the Senate confirmation process for US attorneys. It could cycle through its interim prosecutors indefinitely, denying Congress its constitutional role in providing advice and consent on those appointments. Congress should not stand by while House Republicans try to hand Donald Trump even more unchecked power.
▶ 2:40:53Our district courts serve a critical role in checking abuses of executive power, including efforts by strongman administrations to politicize and weaponize the Department of Justice. We should be defending the court's authority to appoint US attorneys when necessary, not stripping it away. So, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
▶ 2:41:16Um, I also seek unanimous consent to introduce into the record a letter dated July 28th, 2025 signed by 116 retired federal and state judges.
▶ 2:41:26Without objection, so ordered.
▶ 2:41:28Thank you. They were pointing out the grotesque and disqualifying use of
▶ 2:41:32the gentle lady does not describe the entire contents. Just
▶ 2:41:35just a little bit. Yeah, it's still okay. still my time but so raising the point that we had some very disqualified uh disqualifying people on the uh on the dis there. Um does the ranking member have anything else he wants to add?
▶ 2:41:50Um I do and uh maybe I can thank you very much and thank you for those trenchant remarks uh Miss Ganlin. Um so uh our distinguished acting chair raised two uh questions um that I want to be able to respond to. The first was he said um well the amendment is good so far as it goes with respect to requiring criminal prosecutorial experience.
▶ 2:42:16But there might be somebody that um the administration wants to unilaterally appoint who doesn't have prosecutorial experience who's a civil lawyer who's a distinguished civil lawyer. And here's the thing. What we're talking about is the filling of a vacancy outside of the normal constitutional process. Now, do I agree with uh Mr. Isa that somebody who is a very distinguished civil lawyer could be a great US attorney? Sure. But then that's got to be up to the US Senate.
▶ 2:42:44That's their job to be able to examine and analyze it. We're doing a whole side escape valve during a vacancy. And in that case, I think we've got to stick with what we know is the bread and butter of the job. And that's why somebody who's put in that job for 120 days or 240 days or 360 days or uh 480 days or 600 days if my math is right.
▶ 2:43:11Um that is somebody who's got to know about what is the basic function of the US attorney which is criminal prosecution. And so that's why I think that's an absolutely bare minimum if we're going to circumvent the Senate of the United States. But secondly, I think it's the exact same point with respect to the State Bar. I thought this would be totally non-controversial. I really did.
▶ 2:43:36I thought everybody would say, "Well, of course they should be a member of the State Bar." I can guarantee you and I and I risk being contradicted here, but without having done any research, I would be willing to bet anybody in the room that every US attorney in America today is a member of the bar of the state in which they practice. Now, somebody can start googling it and contradict
▶ 2:43:57and and in that note, who else seeks
▶ 2:44:00And the gentle lady's long.
▶ 2:44:02Oh, I'm so sorry. Okay. I seek time.
▶ 2:44:04I recognize the gentle lady. Would you like to yield to the ranking?
▶ 2:44:06I will. There we go. Yield to the ranking member. Thank you kindly. Anyway, I'll take somebody to lunch if they can find a US attorney who doesn't come from the local legal and political culture that they're from. And certainly Mr. Schmidt would would see the logic of that. Um because so much of what goes on is federal state cooperation.
▶ 2:44:29So much of what goes on is uh managing relationships with the the bench, with the judges, with the lawyers, and so on. I mean, I shouldn't even really need to state that a US attorney should be a member of the bar of uh the jurisdiction where they serve. Um, so for the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would object to either side of this if we're talking about just filling a vacancy, but perhaps indefinitely. We can't be putting unqualified people on the bench.
▶ 2:44:58And I think without this provision, um, this bill is utterly hopeless. I mean, I think it's going to have a difficult time in the Senate as it is, but it's utterly hopeless if you're going to say that the president of the United States, whether Republican or a Democrat, can start plucking people from other parts of the country and installing them indefinitely as US attorneys over the local population.
▶ 2:45:21If you go back and read the Declaration of Independence, part of the Bill of Particulars mobilized against King George was his appointment of prosecutors and judges against and over the wishes of the local population. And we shouldn't be moving in that direction. We as the judiciary committee should be upholding professional excellence and not undermining it. Uh so I don't know if anybody needs some time from me. Uh the gentle lady from Vermont can offer you some time back. Thank you.
▶ 2:45:51Thank you, uh, Mr. Ranking Member. Uh, just briefly, this is an incredibly reasonable amendment, and I I just I I sit here uh, week after week, and I know that there are people on both sides of the aisle that want us to do reasonable things together. And this is not an outrageous amendment. It's not a trick.
▶ 2:46:13It's simply saying the people that will be put in these incredibly important positions will have experience, will be able to do the job, especially as my colleague from New York pointed out, the president can just continue to reup them and re-up them and reup them. So, they'll be in this position for how many days? And this is incredibly reasonable. And Mr. Van Drew, my colleague from New Jersey. Um, you often talk in this committee about reasonleness.
▶ 2:46:43You often talk in this committee about, "Come on, can we come to our senses and come together in a bipartisan manner?" I I I can't express how many times I've heard you say some version of that. Here is an opportunity, Mr. Vandrew. Here's an opportunity for a reasonable amendment.
▶ 2:47:01If I could reclaim my time for a sec, Comma time, but that's fine.
▶ 2:47:04Oh, this is your time. If I could re-reclaim your time, um, you know, there are states, including my own, Maryland, which have, um, years requirements before you can even run for attorney general. In Maryland, you've got to be a member of the bar and a practicing lawyer for 10 years before you can run for attorney general. I'd be interested how many states have a requisite like that.
▶ 2:47:29So that shows you how far away the federal government is straying from common sense and public opinion in the states where we really do want professionals and people who have experience who've trained to be doing these jobs as opposed to I'm going to send in my political crony or hack. Thank you for yielding. The gentle lady further yield
▶ 2:47:52uh just for a moment. Uh the gentleman has the kernel of a good basic suggestion which is where where I want to make sure we understood. If we were talking about legally available by license in some state to practice before their bar and thus can wave into the district for which they're assigned. That would seem to be the minimum standard under which the Senate would routinely look at a candidate.
▶ 2:48:20I just simply was opining that I believe that this standard is greater than that which sometime very often is put before uh the Senate and approved and and I agree with the ranking member that this is a a challenge to get through the Senate and I understand that but why wouldn't we use the basic standard that most of you all that are attorneys in the room would appreciate which is hey you want to be a US attorney for a short period of time maybe 600 days according to the member you have to be a member of bar and
▶ 2:48:50you have to be able to wave into the federal uh bar that you're going to practice in front of. I think that standard is acceptable to both sides.
▶ 2:48:59And just briefly, and we don't need to belabor this, but I think the point that my colleague from New York made is that there is no SAP gap. The president just can continue to do this, and we have seen him push the boundaries of what is an an acceptable practice over and over again. And I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Has anyone else seen uh recognition? If not, the question is gentle lady from Washington.
▶ 2:49:24Oh, the gent gentle lady from Washington. I apologize. I'd already looked that way and I looked back. No
▶ 2:49:29Gentle lady is recognized to strike the last word for five minutes.
▶ 2:49:32Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Um this you know the fact that we're debating this amendment which is a very sensible amendment tells you the state of affairs that we're in that we're saying that uh the the person must have prosecutorial experience at the federal or the state level and must be a member of the bar of that state. Um it just tells us the dire situation that we're in and and addresses the underlying bill which is what I want to speak to.
▶ 2:49:59Um because I do think this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to give President Trump unlimited power to use the Department of Justice as his own personal law firm. And it comes in response to an appropriate check that was exercised by judges to the abuse of power from Trump when he tried and failed to install his own personal lawyer as the interim US attorney so he could pursue his own personal vendettas against people who disagreed with him. And I think this is incredibly dangerous.
▶ 2:50:28I want to rewind a bit because the mission of the DOJ is to quote uphold the rule of law to keep our country safe and to protect civil rights end quote. Donald Trump has done the exact opposite. His administration has disregarded judicial orders, eliminated $150 million in community violence prevention grants, and gutted the civil rights division. He has fired dozens of experienced career prosecutors.
▶ 2:50:55And instead of advancing DOJ's mission, he has weaponized the department to pursue his political enemies. Take for example the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Leticia James. On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to retaliate against Mr. Comey for refusing to politicize the FBI and against Miss James for successfully suing Trump for fraudulent business practices.
▶ 2:51:23In the Eastern District of Virginia, a longtime civil servant, Eric Sbert, was serving as interim US attorney when the Trump administration pressured him to file charges against both Mr. Comey and Miss James. But investigators found insufficient evidence to bring charges against Miss James and raised concerns about a potential case against Mr. Comey. So Sebert told senior DOJ officials about this lack of evidence and decided not to file charges.
▶ 2:51:50When Donald Trump found out, he immediately told reporters that he wanted Seabbert out. Sebert resigned under this pressure and Trump inserted Lindseay Gallagghan, a former member of his personal legal team with no prosecutorial evidence, hence Mr. Rasin's amendment to succeed Sabbert as interim US attorney. Within three weeks, Halligan filed charges against Miss James and secured an indictment.
▶ 2:52:17Now, thankfully, a federal judge saw through this corruption and dismissed the indictment for violating the laws that Congress passed that establish clear and specific restrictions on how the president can fill vacancies in US attorney positions. And when Halligan tried to bring these charges again, a grand jury twice, not once, but twice declined to bring an indictment.
▶ 2:52:43Judges in at least five other federal districts made similar rulings, including in the Northern District of New York, where Trump loyalist John Sarone was disqualified from serving as acting US attorney after he launched a federal investigation into Ms. James successful civil fraud suit. In all of these instances, the rule of law prevailed.
▶ 2:53:07Now, this bill seeks to get around the rule of law and take Congress and judges out of the equation completely. It would allow Trump to permanently install his loyalists, people like Halagan and Sarone, to all 96 US attorney positions without congressional consent or judicial review.
▶ 2:53:30And this would fundamentally threaten the independence and the mission of DOJ and make it much easier for the Trump administration to steer valuable resources away from things that make us safer and towards his personal vendetta campaign.
▶ 2:53:45Will the gentle lady yield?
▶ 2:53:46I will in just one second. I really believe that we have to fight against this kind of authoritarianism and I wonder if my colleagues are thinking about what happens when there's a Democratic president in in office and how you would respond to that. I'd be happy to yield.
▶ 2:54:01Um, and just for the timekeeper, can I get the next five minutes in case I run
▶ 2:54:07The gentleman will be recognized for 5 minutes when his when the time expires in 19 seconds.
▶ 2:54:13You just wasted nine seconds.
▶ 2:54:15I did.
▶ 2:54:16Gosh, now I'm discombobulated. So, just a question. Do just conceptually, do you think it's a problem for an article 3 judge to pick the government's attorney who will bring cases in front of him or
▶ 2:54:30Take take the the administration.
▶ 2:54:31The gentleman is recognized for five
▶ 2:54:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So when I was when I was practicing, it'd be a very odd it'd be a very odd mechanism to have the judges that we practiced before on the federal bench select my boss because my boss ultimately gives the thumbs up, thumbs down, change this charge, amend amend the the course of the investigation. That's a little bit that's a little bit awkward in my opinion. And I would love
▶ 2:55:00Would the gentle lady yield? It's not my
▶ 2:55:03Oh, c could I could I uh impinge on your time to answer?
▶ 2:55:06It depends on what you're thinking about your question of course is um equally
▶ 2:55:14Makes sense.
▶ 2:55:15No, it no, it doesn't make sense because the Supreme Court justices who are appointed by the Supreme Court by the president also have to rule on the president all the time as we've seen even in cases like presidential immunity. So there's some degrees of separation there, but
▶ 2:55:30far less so uh than a temporary appointment of an assistant of an of a US attorney. I think not. But in any event, the courts have upheld the whole practice because they're inferior officers. And so that's why the courts can play this stop gap role when there's an immediate vacancy. In other words, if it were unconstitutional, it would have been rejected long ago, but the courts have repeatedly upheld it against that
▶ 2:55:58Well, I I I understand. I'm just asking conceptually, do you not see how there could at least be a perceived uh conflict if the judges are choosing the charging attorney exclusively for that
▶ 2:56:09No more so than the president choosing the US Supreme Court justices, who are the people going to have to rule on the president. That's I mean, we are human. So, we
▶ 2:56:17Well, the Supreme Court hears cases that have nothing to do with the president. the article the article 3 judge
▶ 2:56:22they hear a lot of cases that have nothing to do with the US attorney
▶ 2:56:24well they would have exclusive u review of all the cases brought by the US
▶ 2:56:29but they could recuse in the event of a direct conflict of interest if they needed to and I think there have been some examples where that's happened
▶ 2:56:35I'm not talking about a direct conf I'm saying the the US attorney has to be integrally involved in every civil or uh matter that comes before the bench that's a direct involvement at least
▶ 2:56:46the genuine yield
▶ 2:56:47depends on what you're going to ask
▶ 2:56:49you won't to
▶ 2:56:50Yes. Go ahead.
▶ 2:56:52The the problem is that the only reason you have uh US attorneys appointed by the judges is because the president hasn't submitted someone to the Senate for confirmation or the Senate has refused confirmation.
▶ 2:57:07So the law says okay in that case you can have the jud the the the local judges appoint a a US attorney temporarily but it it it it assumes that there's going to be uh a nominee for the for for the position approved by the Senate.
▶ 2:57:28And so right now you've got the judges doing it, you know, you've got them trying to I mean the administration trying to say, "Okay, we'll appoint this person for x number of days, 250 days, I think, and then when that person expires, we'll assume the next one and the next one, which eliminates Senate confirmation
▶ 2:57:48Well, you're you're assuming political impropriy on the side of the president or the Senate. But couldn't there be political impropriety on behalf of the judges as well? There could be political impropriety on anybody, but the point is that the president has to submit someone for the Senate and in the and we wouldn't be talking about this if the Senate had approved somebody.
▶ 2:58:09Well, I I I I tend to agree, but again, my my issue is let's say hypothetically if there is political impropriety from the judges, that's an extremely close involvement to the cases being brought before them in that.
▶ 2:58:19I don't think it's a question of impropriy on the part of the judges. The judges have a duty to appoint someone for 250 days to give the president and the Senate the time to to to
▶ 2:58:33Would it not make more sense if the judges could just decline and say this person's not
▶ 2:58:37No, because then there'd be no US
▶ 2:58:39If the gentleman yielded for one second, I would just say you you should be supporting my amendment because that builds in the professional qualifications that might be missing if we just let anybody be appointed by anybody who whoever they want. I understand the gentleman's point, but there is there is some separation of powers issue that is that's what I'm trying to get at. Again, I I can't imagine the judges that I appeared before saying, "I'm going to appoint your boss."
▶ 2:59:02That just seems to be very closely tied in terms of of how the practice is unfolding in front of those various
▶ 2:59:09And I appreciate the discussion for
▶ 2:59:10I mean, I I agree, but that's been the system, and I don't know that anybody has been able to show that it's contaminated in any way. I mean the judges obviously have a vested interest in maintaining their proety and their reputation and their integrity.
▶ 2:59:24If the gentleman would yield just just for one second the
▶ 2:59:28this is in the situation of a temporary assignment. So obviously the real process I think addresses the underlying issue that you're talking about because it requires confirmation by the Senate. This is in a situation where a president might actually fire somebody just so they can install somebody of their own choosing. And in that situation, who where is the bigger problem? So, I think the whole intent was to have the Senate confirmation process.
▶ 2:59:57This is an interim situation solution um that we're talking
▶ 3:00:03And the gentleman's time has expired. Who else seeing seeks rec seeing nobody else? Thank goodness. Um the question now is on the amendment
▶ 3:00:13offered by the gentleman from Maryland in the form of a substitute. All those in favor say I. I.
▶ 3:00:19All those opposed say no.
▶ 3:00:21In the opinion of the chair the nos definitely have it. The nos have it.
▶ 3:00:25We have a recorded vote. Mr. Chair,
▶ 3:00:26uh pursuant to the rule that ro that amendment will be would be wave or be
▶ 3:00:34Oh, I'm sorry. I have to do that.
▶ 3:00:36we are. I thought we were Oh, that's right. We're not. I've just switched committees. I apologize. The clerk will call the role. I'm not in I'm not in foreign affairs right now. I just left there. I apologize.
▶ 3:00:46You're not in Kansas anymore either. So,
▶ 3:00:49You know, it's the problem with multiple committees. You have to go back and forth and re readress. The clerk will call the role because I would have gotten an objection to rolling the vote. Darn it.
▶ 3:01:02Mr. Jordan, Mr. Isa,
▶ 3:01:05Mr. Isa votes no. Mr. Biggs,
▶ 3:01:08Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. McCcleinto,
▶ 3:01:12Mr. Tiffany,
▶ 3:01:14Mr. Massie,
▶ 3:01:16Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein,
▶ 3:01:22Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Vandrew,
▶ 3:01:27Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore,
▶ 3:01:32Mr. Moore votes no. Miss Hegman,
▶ 3:01:35Miss Lee, No.
▶ 3:01:37Mr. Hunt.
▶ 3:01:40Mr. Fry. Mr. Growthman. Mr. Knot.
▶ 3:01:45Mr. Not votes no. Mr. Harris, Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Raskin.
▶ 3:02:03Mr. Raskin votes yes. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Lofrren Mr. Cohen Mr. Cohen votes I. Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swallwell Mr. Lou Miss Jipal Miss Jipal votes I. Mr. Miss Scandlin Mr. Negus Miss Mcbath Miss McBth votes I.
▶ 3:02:30Miss Ross Miss Balant Miss Balant votes I. Mr. Garcia Miss Cam Lagard Mr. Mosquitz Mr. Goldman
▶ 3:02:41Mr. Goldman votes I miss Crockett
▶ 3:02:46Mr. Fitzgerald you're not recorded Mr. Fitzgerald vets. No.
▶ 3:03:13The clerk will report.
▶ 3:03:14Mr. Chairman, there are eight eyes and 10 nos. And the amendment is not agreed
▶ 3:03:19Who seeks recognition?
▶ 3:03:20Who seeks recognition? Seeking none. Seeing none, the question is on the
▶ 3:03:29Come on. The question is on a on the on appointment of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Uh this will be followed by immediately by a vote uh reporting the bill. All those in favor on the question of adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute signify by saying I.
▶ 3:03:50I. Any opposed?
▶ 3:03:54In the opinion of the air chair, the eyes have it. The eyes have it.
▶ 3:03:59Yes, please.
▶ 3:04:02Oh, this is the Okay.
▶ 3:04:03No, no, he withdraws it. The question now occurs uh independent chair. The eyes have it. The question now appears occurs on the amendment and nature of substitute as adopted. The question is in favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed?
▶ 3:04:24In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The eyes will have it. After a roll call vote, the clerk will call the
▶ 3:04:30Mr. Jordan.
▶ 3:04:32Mr. Isa.
▶ 3:04:33Mr. Isa votes I. Mr. Biggs.
▶ 3:04:35Mr. BGS votes I. M. Mcccleintoch.
▶ 3:04:39Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie,
▶ 3:04:43Mr. Massie votes I. Mr. Roy, Mr. Mr. Klein,
▶ 3:04:50Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden.
▶ 3:04:52Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Van Drew,
▶ 3:04:56Mr. Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes yes. Miss Hagamman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot,
▶ 3:05:11Mr. Knot I, Mr. Harris,
▶ 3:05:14Mr. Herder,
▶ 3:05:15Mr. Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt,
▶ 3:05:17Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Raskin,
▶ 3:05:24Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler,
▶ 3:05:27Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughrin. Mr. Cohen.
▶ 3:05:32Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell Mr. Lou Miss Jipal Miss Dryal votes no Mr. Miss Scandan
▶ 3:05:46Miss Scanland votes no Mr. Negus Miss McBTH
▶ 3:05:51Miss McBth votes no Miss Ross
▶ 3:05:54Miss Ross votes no Miss Ballot Miss Ballot votes no. Mr. Garcia Miss Cam Loger Dove
▶ 3:06:02Mr. Mosquitz Mr. Goldman
▶ 3:06:05Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett,
▶ 3:06:16Mr. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I Mr. Mr.
▶ 3:06:46Gil, Mr. Here we go. That's Yes.
▶ 3:09:43Mr. Johnson, you're recorded as no
▶ 3:15:04Mr. Craya,
▶ 3:15:06Mr. Craya votes no.
▶ 3:15:16Clerical will report.
▶ 3:15:17Mr. Chairman, there are 12 eyes and 11
▶ 3:15:20The vote being 12 in the affirmative and 11 in the negative. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
▶ 3:15:38Pursuant to notice, I call up HR1 1468, the Protect America's Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move that the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. to establish the CCP initiative.
▶ 3:15:56Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gooden, for an opening statement.
▶ 3:16:04Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the committee for considering HR1 1468, the protect America's innovation and economic security from CCP Act, which focuses our attention on the single greatest threat to the American people, the Chinese Communist Party. The threat we face from China needs no introduction. But catering to all those present, I will repeat, the CCP, the sole entity in control of China, is a threat to us on every socioeconomic, political, and cultural level.
▶ 3:16:28Our intelligence community has been raising these concerns for years, labeling China the defining threat of our generation. These concerns were echoed in testimonies from current and previous agency heads before this committee. Even Director Ray testified before this committee that no country presents a broader, more comprehensive threat to our ideas, innovation, and economic security than the CCP. And China's multi-pronged war against our people, economy, and infrastructure.
▶ 3:16:54The CCP has infiltrated our communities, sown disharmony, and stolen our hard-earned successes. The CCP achieves this by aggressively targeting and recruiting civilians to spy on other Chinese nationals and steal critical data from their employers. The sectors most targeted by Chinese espionage are the bedrock of American innovation. Academic institutions, R&D, and IP. CCPbacked espionage against American companies has become rampant in recent years.
▶ 3:17:22In 2019, trade theft alone cost our economy over half a trillion dollars annually with China behind most of it. Since then, the damage could have only have grown. This bill addresses this problem by creating a dedicated program under the DOJ called the CCP initiative, focusing on countering economic espionage. The initiative establishes an enforcement strategy to protect critical sectors most vulnerable to the CCP's thievery, academic institutions, R&D labs, and the defense industrial base.
▶ 3:17:50While the intelligence community sounded the alarm on China's continued infiltration of our society, the Biden administration shuttered existing programs already addressing these concerns. Thanks to them, we regressed without a justifiable cause and had a virtually non-existent policy to counter the CCP's economic espionage activities. This bill fixes the last administration's mistakes by adopting a clear multiaceted approach.
▶ 3:18:13It builds a framework of multi- agency cooperation and mutual consultation, ensuring that effective measures against our nation's greatest threats are never compromised by an incompetent executive wing. And the roll back of the China Initiative left us also lacking a dedicated approach and no oversight on issues of critical national interest. Since the program's end, the DOJ has done little to counter the CCP's economic espionage.
▶ 3:18:36While Congress has rarely, if ever, been updated on the status of these activities, to ensure the DOJ's cooperation and dedication of at least some resources in this area, an annual reporting requirement has been included, which secures congressional oversight and involvement. This ensures agencies focus on countering China's economic espionage and keeps Congress updated to act against these threats. The CCP poses a whole of community threat, which requires nothing less than a whole of government approach.
▶ 3:19:03This also requires no additional funding from Congress and has a negligible impact on the DOJ's current budget under the program. Before concluding, I'd like to underline that the worst affected by the CCP are people of Asian descent, specifically Chinese American citizens and people of Chinese origin in the United States who are identified and disproportionately targeted by the CCP for their schemes.
▶ 3:19:26The CCP ruthlessly targets and harasses them and their family members in many cases, especially those who are considered dissident and refuse to bow down. Passing this bill will not only counter existing cases and deter new attempts to infiltrate our country, but also signal that the CCP's days of targeting our communities are over. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of safeguarding our country, our people, and our future against the greatest threat of our lifetimes and support HR 1468.
▶ 3:19:54And I also have a uh amendment nature of a substitute. When you're ready, I yield back to the chairman.
▶ 3:19:59Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for opening statement.
▶ 3:20:04Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um I strongly oppose HR1 1468, which would reestablish the discredited and discriminatory China initiative at the Department of Justice. Our colleagues in offering the bill today invite us all to participate in some magical thinking. They invite us to pretend the China initiative didn't happen during the last Trump administration and to pretend that it wasn't a total failure.
▶ 3:20:28They'd like us to believe that the first China initiative did not result in Chinese researchers at American universities being targeted uh for simple paperwork errors so the DOJ could criminally prosecute someone and claim a victory. But that's what happened which is why many of those cases were dismissed and o were overturned on appeal.
▶ 3:20:48And our colleagues want us to pretend that if we just change the name a little bit from the China Initiative to the CCP initiative, well then no one will notice that the bill is essentially the same failed enterprise all over again. But we should resist this exercise in magical thinking because we can't change the past. If collective delusion meant we could all just go back in time and actually abolish the China Initiative, I for one would be all for that.
▶ 3:21:13That initiative contributed to the climate of hate that proliferated in our country during that time period. And we've seen nearly 13,000 raced driven acts of hate and crimes against Asian-Americans that have uh taken place just in the last few years.
▶ 3:21:31But the most magical thinking I see today is when I hear our colleagues talk about the threat from China as though President Trump is not seeding more global power to China every single day and as though he is not completely financially entangled and intertwined with China in the CCP. During his first term, Chinese government and stateowned companies spent no less than $5.5 million at Trump hotels and properties. That's in documented receipts.
▶ 3:22:01We've got that. And that's to say nothing of the more than 100 valuable trademarks that Chinese authorities rushed to grant President Trump and his family after his first inauguration. In exchange, he opposed sanctions against Chinese telecom companies and banks, even when they threatened our national security. He even tried to cancel military exercises with Japan and South Korea because China and Russia complained about it.
▶ 3:22:29And the Trump China connection has only grown stronger in his second term. Over the last six months, the Trump administration, especially uh with the uh war in Iran, has weakened America's position in the world, strengthened China's position in the world.
▶ 3:22:45The administration has weakened America's soft power abroad by defunding foreign aid programs and closing embassies, hurt America's economy with uh blatantly unconstitutional, illegal, and arbitrary tariffs, and hamstrung our ability to respond to threats by firing government workers, including experts on China and national security personnel.
▶ 3:23:09uh, he has used his cryptocurrency ventures to pocket millions, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from Chinese billionaires with ties to the CCP. In May, a tiny Chinese tech company with ties to the Chinese government announced it had bought as much as $300 million of President Trump's memecoin despite having no revenue and only eight employees. Trump's use of his office for personal enrichment is notorious.
▶ 3:23:39But what's more striking now is how President Trump is using shei as a model for leadership, referring to him as a brilliant guy who controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. He assured President Xi that sending weaguers to force labor camps was quote exactly the right thing to do. he said and that violently cracking down on pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong was acting very responsibly.
▶ 3:24:06In his second administration, the president appears to be hellbent on remaking his own administration in the image of Shei's regime, cracking down on media outlets he disapproves of, attempting hostile takeovers of colleges and universities, attacking attorneys for representing causes or clients he just doesn't like, purging libraries of books he disfavors, sending masked agents in unmarked vans to arrest foreign students for voicing opinions he disagrees with, shipping people to El Salvador's
▶ 3:24:37torture prison and using AI to surveil individual social media posts and to create a mega database of information on America's citizens. Today's hearings Today's hearing is yet another attempt by Republican colleagues to attack our courts and judges for doing their duty and following the law because if they uh if my colleagues actually wanted to get something done on the trade crime threat from China, we'd have bipartisan legislation would accomplish it.
▶ 3:25:05HR1869, the Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act of 2025, has 44 bipartisan co-sponsors, including many members of this committee. Moreover, it would do exactly what our colleagues say they want to accomplish with this bill. HR1869 would create a task force within the criminal division at DOJ to investigate and prosecute trade related crimes with particular emphasis on violations of the statutes um enumerated.
▶ 3:25:34But it's no surprise that we're not looking at bipartisan ways to augment national security at the Department of Justice because Trump has for over a year now been deconstructing our national security infrastructure, replacing experience and expertise with loyalists and partisan vitriol. Since taking office, the president has gutted the national security division at DOJ and fired thousands of experienced employees at the State Department, draining our agencies of expertise.
▶ 3:26:04This administration has no real interest in protecting our national security from Chinese threats or otherwise. This is a big business money-making operation for the people in power. It's up to us, Congress, to take action to truly protect against strategic threats from China while preventing discrimination against American citizens. I encourage all of my colleagues to reject this legislation and I yield back.
▶ 3:26:28Gentleman yields back without objection. All other opening statements and Trump derangement rants will be included in the record.
▶ 3:26:35Mr. Chairman, what's a deranged Trump rant? Did you call the president
▶ 3:26:40It sounded like you called the president deranged. I know a lot of psychiatrists are saying that, but they're not
▶ 3:26:45That's how far this disorder uh affects your hearing and your reasoning. Mr. Raskin, reflect on what I actually said.
▶ 3:26:52I thought Trump derangement syndrome was following a deranged man in whatever he
▶ 3:26:56Gentlemen is not in order. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas to offer an amendment in the nature of a
▶ 3:27:03Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical corrections and substantive changes to some provisions. F
▶ 3:27:10first uh does the gentleman wish to introduce the uh
▶ 3:27:14Yes, I have an amendment at the desk. Excuse me.
▶ 3:27:16The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 3:27:18Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR1468. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of amendment.
▶ 3:27:28Chair now recognizes a gentleman from Texas to explain the amendment.
▶ 3:27:31Thank you. Then the earlier derangement threw off my procedural knowledge. I apologize. This amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical corrections and substantive changes to some provisions to better serve the stated goals and objectives of the bill objectives of the bill. This includes the substitution of provisions restricting the DOJ's discretionary authority. Additionally, the reporting requirements have been amended to include agencies with relevant expertise and subject matters covered by the report.
▶ 3:27:58And these amendments were made with the aim of providing necessary clarity, avoiding inter agency and internal conflict, and enhancing and strengthening the reporting capabilities of the DOJ while providing more opportunities for inter agency cooperation.
▶ 3:28:12One of the complaints two years ago uh was that our bill did not work with the DOJ and that's because the DOJ didn't want to work with us and so I heard your complaints and we answered them by working with the DOJ to get language that everyone is on the same page with uh with respect to the administration and I will yield back.
▶ 3:28:33Gentleman yields back. Is there any discussion on the amendment the nature of a substitute? Gentle lady from
▶ 3:28:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I have to oppose this bill um from my friend in Texas. I do have serious concerns about this. It would reestablish the China Initiative, which is a failed Trump era program that targeted Chinese government agents stealing US intellectual property. But in reality, the DOJ targeted research universities and defense contractors for minor infractions instead of actual threats to national security and intellectual property rights.
▶ 3:29:08DOJ already can and does prosecute cases of economic espionage and trade secret th theft, but this legislation is not just unnecessary. It would actually set us back. And look, I I represent a district that has a lot of Chinese Americans and has very strong ties um through trade, import, export, and other things uh to the Pacific region.
▶ 3:29:34Chinese immigrants were actually the first Asians to settle in Seattle in my area and they arrived in the 1860s from California or directly from China. And we have been dealing with anti-Asian hate in our state and across the country for a long time. The China initiative just enhanced that, exacerbated it. It was not just racist, but it was horribly ineffective.
▶ 3:29:59Despite thousands of investigations, only 150 individuals were even charged pursuant to the initiative and only a quarter of those charged were actually charged for economic espionage. Still, more of the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence or in the rare case of a conviction overturned on appeal. What we actually saw is that Chinese and Asian-American scientists, academics, researchers were the ones who bore the brunt of the China Initiative.
▶ 3:30:29Many of the people that were charged under this effort were academics and researchers who were accused of omitting details on their immigration paperwork or grant applications. And those issues would almost certainly never be charged absent the initiative driving a racist targeting of these individuals to pad the quote success numbers of the China initiative. There were a couple of directly impacted individuals. I can give you the cases here.
▶ 3:30:58Professor Gang Chen, former head of MIT's Department of Mechanical Engineering, was subjected to a year-long investigation under the China Initiative. Dr. Chen had his quote loyalty question, which is something that frankly many of us as immigrants often have, no matter how long we've been in this country. Um, but he had his quote loyalty question during a press conference and he was scapegoed as a national security threat. But in 2022, the DOJ dropped all charges against Dr. Chen.
▶ 3:31:28But it doesn't take away the harm that Dr. Chen went through. He said according to Dr. Chen, for 37 days, his family and he went through a living hell. That's how he described it. And the impact of that is going to last for a long time. Similarly, Professor Anming Hu at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville was the first academic to stand trial under the China Initiative after an initial visit from the FBI in 2018.
▶ 3:31:56He was charged in early 2020 for fraud and false statements and the trial took place in June of 2021. When the jury deadlocked, the judge declared a mistrial and the government sought a second trial. that trial never occurred because the judge issued a full acquitt on the basis that the government failed to meet its evidentiary burden.
▶ 3:32:18Now, today's renamed initiative does nothing to protect intellectual property rights or national security interests, but it does drive away talent from the United States, and it drains us of our STEM leaders and other academics.
▶ 3:32:32An Asian-American Scholar Forum study of over 1300 respondents found that as a result of the China Initiative, 61% felt pressure to leave the United States despa despite the vast majority of respondents wanting to stay and contribute to our science and technology fields. And the racial profiling, as as the ranking member said, does spur anti-Asian hate, which has already been on the rise since COVID.
▶ 3:33:00Nearly 13,000 incidents of anti-Asian hate, including hate crimes, have been reported in the last six years. And that's likely a vast underestimation because so many of those hate crimes just don't get reported. The Biden Harris administration was right to end the initiative and we have to prevent its return for the sake of our researched in institutions and also to prevent the racial profiling of Chinese individuals that utterly lacks any legitimate national security justification.
▶ 3:33:28So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back.
▶ 3:33:31Gentle lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the ANS? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. Those in favor say I. I.
▶ 3:33:48Those opposed say no.
▶ 3:33:49In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is now on favorably adopting the bill as amended. Those in favor say I. I.
▶ 3:33:59Those opposed say no.
▶ 3:34:02In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the bill is ordered reported favorably to the house. Members will gentlemen requests a recorded vote. Um, clerk will call the role.
▶ 3:34:13Mr. Jordan, Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs.
▶ 3:34:19Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch
▶ 3:34:21Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Gooden. votes. I Mr. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Miss Hagamman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr.
▶ 3:34:50Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Not, Mr. Not I, Mr. Harris, Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr. Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Rascin,
▶ 3:35:09Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, Miss Lofgrren, Miss Lafrren votes no. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gipol,
▶ 3:35:26Miss Jipal votes no. Mr. Kaha, no.
▶ 3:35:29Mr. Korea votes no. Miss Scandlin, Mr. Noose. Miss McBTH.
▶ 3:35:35Miss McBth votes no. Miss Ross,
▶ 3:35:38Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballot. Miss Ballot votes no. Mr. Garcia. Miss Cam Lagard.
▶ 3:35:46Miss Camager Dove votes no. Mr. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett.
▶ 3:35:57Mr. Moore. You're not recorded.
▶ 3:36:01Mr. Mr. Moore votes yes.
▶ 3:36:03Mr. Isa, you're not recorded.
▶ 3:36:05Mr. Isa votes yes. Mr. N.
▶ 3:36:08Mr. Nler, you're not recorded.
▶ 3:36:10Mr. Nadler votes no.
▶ 3:36:12Mr. Gil, you're not recorded.
▶ 3:36:14Mr. Gil votes yes.
▶ 3:37:28Mr. Harris, you're not recorded. Mr. Harris votes yes.
▶ 3:38:05Mr. under eye.
▶ 3:39:11Mr. Jordan Mr. Jordan votes yes.
▶ 3:39:31Mr. Massie, you're not recorded.
▶ 3:39:34Mr. Massie votes yes.
▶ 3:40:29Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Gman votes yes. Clerk report. Mr.
▶ 3:40:51Chairman, there are 14 eyes and nine nos. Uh the eyes have it and the bill is order to be reported favor to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. The nature of substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up the Protecting Americans from Russia Litigation Act of 2025 for purpose of markup and move that the committee favorably report in favor to the House. The clerk will report the bill.
▶ 3:41:20Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Biggs for an opening statement.
▶ 3:41:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make this statement today on behalf of Representative Hunt. American businesses are being targeted by foreign adversaries in HR6194. The Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act is needed to protect them. When foreign adversaries engage in malign activities, they threaten that threaten our country and our allies. We often use sanctions to defend American interests. US sanctions are a vital tool of American foreign policy and they safeguard peace and security.
▶ 3:41:55However, we have seen that American businesses can find themselves in difficult situations because of US sanctions. For example, a US business that sells goods in Russia may no longer be able to fulfill orders or complete contracts because of sanctions. Those Russian customers can go to Russian courts for breach of contract or other claims. It is no surprise that American businesses may not be treated fairly in some of these foreign courts and that compliance with US sanctions is not recognized as a defense.
▶ 3:42:23As a result, these foreign courts issue judgments and orders that target American businesses. When foreign interests seek to enforce judgments from foreign courts against US businesses in US courts, those judgments are typically enforced under principles of comedy. As a general matter, those principles can be important because we want foreign courts to similarly enforce US judgments. But in the case of US firms simply complying with US sanctions, we must protect our businesses and HR 6194 accomplishes that.
▶ 3:42:52This bill will prevent legal action taken against businesses who are simply complying in good faith with US sanctions. Similar provisions protect European countries in EU courts and the UK court, UK businesses in UK courts. Americans should get the same protections. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support HR6194 because protecting our businesses from being targeted by adversaries shouldn't be a partisan issue. I yield back the
▶ 3:43:19Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. We're asking for an opening statement.
▶ 3:43:22Mr. Chairman, thanks so much. I want to thank you also for bringing this important bipartisan bill, the Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2025, back to the committee for markup session. Americans should face penalties for breaking the law, not for following the law.
▶ 3:43:38But right now, we've got a conflict of law that could allow Russia to sue and win against American companies for following our law, specifically with regard to US sanctions against Russia by bringing punitive tort suits in our courts. We're telling US companies that they must enforce sanctions against Russian oligarchs and companies and other corrupt entities.
▶ 3:44:01But we can't help them when the targets of those sanctions turn around and sue the US company just for complying with the law that we've So suing uh American businesses in contract for refusing to perform a purchase agreement or for revoking software credentials or for freezing the funds of a Russian entity um are valid causes of action right now under US law, but they should not be. This is nonsensical.
▶ 3:44:30American companies are facing an impossible choice. Either break with Russia following the law and face TOR penalties or violate the sanctions law and face government penalties. In February of 2022, JP Morgan froze nearly $500 million of a Russian bank VTB funds uh VTB's funds in compliance with sanctions issued by the US Treasury.
▶ 3:44:55Two years later, VTB sued JP Morgan in Russian arbitration court, a case that later spilled into US federal district court and got litigated in our system. Although the case ended up collapsing procedurally, it shows how Russian entities can drag US companies into court with all the attendant time and exorbitant legal fees to punish them simply for daring to enforce sanctions. So, this bill addresses that discrepancy.
▶ 3:45:21It ensures that sanctioned Russian entities cannot sue US companies in the US court system merely for complying with sanctions in good faith. Um, these sanctions were imposed in the wake of Russia's lawless imperialist invasion of Ukraine and they are a necessary tool in the fight to help Ukrainians defend their sovereignty and their independence.
▶ 3:45:45Since Putin launched his lawless land-grabbing invasion in 2022, conservative estimates suggest that 15,000 innocent Ukrainians have been killed, including more than 700 children on top of the at least 50,000 soldiers who have died. Ukrainian officials have documented thousands of war crimes taking place by Russian forces, including rape, execution, torture, and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children.
▶ 3:46:12Uh, this illegal attack has internally displaced more than 3 million Ukrainians. It sent 6 million fleeing Ukraine in fear of their lives and left another 10 million in dire need of humanitarian aid. So, uh, we have every reason to, uh, double down on our sanctions and to make sure that Russia does not have the opportunity to sue our businesses just for complying with the law.
▶ 3:46:38Thank you, Chairman Jordan, Congressman Hunt, for shephering the bill through our committee, as well as our ranking member, Mr. Nadler, for his great work on this bill in the 118th Congress to get to get it where it is today. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and protect American businesses against legal harassment. I yield back.
▶ 3:46:56Gentleman yields back. Without objection, all of their opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognized the gentleman from Arizona to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 3:47:04Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk report
▶ 3:47:06amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 3:47:08Objection. Amendment in the nature of substitute will be considered as read, excuse me, and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona to explain the amendment.
▶ 3:47:17Yes, chairman. The amendment in nature of substitute strikes the year from the title of the bill. It doesn't change the substance of the bill before us. Urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.
▶ 3:47:27Gentleman yields back. Who seeks Question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. And the opinion the chair the eyes have it and the amendment the nature of a substitute is adopted. The questions on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it and the bill is already to be reported favor to the house.
▶ 3:47:56Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute uh incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. I believe that concludes today's uh work and uh the hearing is a thank you all.