House Rules Committee Holds Hearing On Pending Legislation

[18:44] Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to [18:48] declare recess at any time. Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider five measures, [18:55] HR 6387, HR 6398, HR 6409, HR 1156, and HR 8035. HR 6387, HR 6398, and 6409, [19:13] three measures from the Energy and Commerce Committee pertain to mitigating regulatory [19:18] burdens that stem directly from the Clean Air Act that fall upon the shoulders of the states. [19:25] Inevitably, some will leap to their feet and allege that Republicans are gutting supposed [19:30] environmental safeguards and that we don't care if the world burns. We don't need a crystal ball or [19:35] some sort of tarot card reading to predict this. It's the same line that's used ad nauseum with no [19:42] deference whatsoever. The facts are evidence. Let's be clear about the facts and the context [19:48] surrounding them. The Clean Air Act was signed into law more than 50 years ago. Since this time, [19:55] we've found better ways to prevent wildfire. We've made unmatched progress against emissions, [20:02] and we live in an age when foreign pollution has contributed to non-attainment designations [20:08] in at least 85 counties. The air quality of some communities is suffering due to no fault of [20:16] their own. We shouldn't be using the Clean Air Act as a punitive measure, a machine against our [20:22] localities. Perhaps most important is the fact that related Supreme Court case law has changed and [20:29] intersecting statutes have been rewritten. We need to reconcile these elements of the Clean Air Act with [20:35] these facts, and our colleagues across the aisle are more than welcome to join us in enacting [20:40] meaningful reforms. HREZ 1156 would express the House's support for tax policies that support working [20:48] families across our nation, as well as a recognition of the positive impacts that the working families' tax [20:55] cuts have delivered for hardworking families. And what are some of those positive impacts? Increasing [21:01] access to health savings accounts for millions of Americans, permanent expansion of the child tax [21:07] credit, a permanent increase in the standard deduction, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, [21:13] the expansion of educational freedom and choice through 529 accounts for families. The list goes [21:20] on and on. The facts and evidence as to why the working families' tax cuts are a boon to the American [21:27] government, and people are as clear as day. There's no debate about it. Finally, we'll turn to H.R. 8035, [21:35] which reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until October 20th of [21:43] 2027. As President Trump and others have said, Pfizer remains extremely important to our national [21:50] security, especially given the current global events. A short extension, 18 months, will ensure the Trump [21:57] administration has the tools necessary to protect our homeland, preserve the recently enacted reforms [22:04] critical to safeguarding Americans' constitutional rights, and will allow the Congress to continue to [22:11] evaluate any future changes that may be necessary to the program. With that, I look forward to the [22:17] discussion that will take place here today, and I yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make. [22:23] Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And let me just say, today's agenda is really something. First, Republicans want us [22:30] to vote on giving themselves a pat on the back for their big ugly bill. You don't even use the bill's actual [22:35] name in this resolution. Instead of calling it its actual title, which you named it the One Big Beautiful Bill [22:41] Act, you're calling it the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, rebranding it because it's so unpopular. So let me give you [22:48] you guys a little bit of advice. If your bill is popular and helps people, you don't need to pass another [22:54] measure to tell people how popular and great it is. You wouldn't need to rebrand it. You wouldn't need to [23:02] tell people something works if it actually works. They would know. Second, we have the Fire Act, the Red Tape Act, [23:11] and the Fences Act, all huge giveaways to big polluters so they can dump more toxins into our air and make people sicker. [23:18] And then we have a Pfizer extension that Republicans don't even know if they can pass. [23:24] So here's the point. I spent my time meeting with constituents over the last two weeks. [23:29] I didn't buy a bubble wand at Disney World. I spent my time listening to people I work for. [23:35] And you know what they said to me? They're asking, what the hell is wrong with Trump? [23:39] He's obviously unwell. He's acting like a maniac. And my voters want to know why you guys are acting [23:47] like everything is just normal. It's not normal. And you all know it. He is very obviously deeply [23:53] unwell. There is something wrong with him. He's up past midnight attacking the Pope. He's posting [24:00] pictures of himself as Jesus. And as a Catholic, I'm horrified by that. And I'm sick and tired of [24:06] Republicans acting like everything is okay. Because the people back home in my district and [24:13] people all across the country think he's nuts. And they want to know when Republicans are going to [24:18] grow a spine and stand up to this lunatic. We've been at war in Iran for a month and a half. [24:25] Gas is way above $4 a gallon. The Epstein files are still being hidden. DHS is still shut down. [24:34] Costs are skyrocketing. And the President of the United States isn't doing anything to solve any of [24:40] that. He's posting pictures of himself as Jesus and saying he's going to commit war crimes. And this [24:48] committee, the powerful House Rules Committee, which could meet to do something about any one of these [24:54] issues, is passing a non-binding bill to congratulate Republicans for passing a bill they already passed. [25:02] I mean, this is insane, Madam Chair. Take any one of these issues, the DHS shutdown, for example, [25:09] and look at how it's impacting people. DHS is still shut down because Republicans are fighting [25:14] with each other instead of working together to do their job. Mike Johnson had a perfect bipartisan [25:20] deal hand-delivered to him and rejected it, only to reverse course and accept it. So why aren't we [25:27] voting to reopen DHS today? Good question. Nobody knows. Apparently, Mike Johnson doesn't really even [25:34] care because we're not even considering DHS legislation today in this committee. And Trump [25:41] is now paying TSA workers anyway. Apparently, he believes that he could have paid TSA workers [25:47] all along. So he withheld the pay because he wanted to use TSA workers as pawns. Kind of what a rotten [25:54] thing to do. And again, this is just one of the many broken promises and betrayals from Trump and the [26:00] Republicans in Congress. You guys promised lower prices on day one. Promise broken. Everything is [26:06] more expensive. Rent, health care, groceries, gas. You guys promised to release the Epstein files. [26:11] Promise broken. It's now been months and months since Democrats forced a vote to demand the release of [26:17] the files. Yet the administration continues to stonewall and protect pedophiles instead of [26:22] prosecuting them. You guys promised no new wars. Promise way, way broken. We have now been at war with [26:30] Iran for over a month and a half. Thirteen American service members are dead. Hundreds more are wounded. [26:36] Thousands of civilians have been killed. And now get this. Now we are blocking the Strait of Hormuz, [26:42] the strait that Iran already blockaded. So we are blockading their blockade? How does that make any [26:49] sense? Meanwhile, oil prices continue to soar. And higher oil prices mean higher gas prices, higher food [26:56] prices, higher housing costs. It will drive everything up. Costs are going up and up because of Trump's war. [27:05] And he is taking money out of the pockets of every single American family. And for what? So we can reopen [27:11] a strait that was already open before the war started? I mean, what a disaster. Families are hurting. [27:18] Gas prices are digging into people's budgets. Fertilizer prices are hurting farmers. Our troops are at risk. [27:25] Our allies are abandoning us. Our adversaries are laughing at us. And Republicans' big plan for the [27:31] week is passing a resolution to congratulate themselves for a bill they already passed last [27:38] year. A big, ugly bill, by the way, that made a trillion dollar cut to Medicare and Medicaid. And a [27:44] $200 billion cut to food assistance for seniors and kids. So they could give new tax breaks to [27:49] multimillionaires and billionaires and giant corporations. That is what we get from Republicans [27:55] every week in the Rules Committee. More broken promises, more betrayals, more fluff, while people [28:01] back home are crying out for action. A reckoning is coming, Madam Chair. And for the people who are [28:08] being hurt by the policies of this President and this Republican Congress, that reckoning cannot come [28:14] soon enough. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our [28:21] witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Representative Palmer and [28:28] Representative Tonko from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Your full statement will be submitted for [28:34] the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. We ask you address all legislation under [28:41] your committee's jurisdiction in your five minutes. Representative Palmer, I welcome your testimony. [28:48] Representative Palmer Palmer, I welcome your testimony. [28:48] Representative Palmer Palmer Thanks, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and the members of the Rules [28:53] Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm pleased to speak in support of three [28:58] pieces of legislation, H.R. 6409, the Fences Act, H.R. 6398, the Red Tape Act, H.R. 6387, the Fire Act. All three bills are [29:09] important part of Energy and Commerce's permitting reform efforts. The Fences Act, H.R. 6409, introduced [29:16] by my colleague Congressman August Pflueger of Texas, ensures that states and local communities are not [29:22] penalized for foreign air emissions emanating outside the United States. States across the country are [29:29] being unfairly penalized for pollution that originates beyond U.S. borders, including air emissions from [29:34] natural events like the Canadian wildfires. Currently, the Clean Air Act allows states to adjust their plans [29:40] when foreign emissions prevent them from meeting federal standards. However, guidance from the [29:45] EPA under the previous administration narrowed the relief, limiting it to only human-caused emissions [29:52] from abroad. This bill clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or man-made, are excluded [29:58] from consideration when determining whether a state meets natural air quality standards. Importantly, [30:04] the bill allows states to account for foreign emissions earlier in the regulatory process instead [30:10] of forcing them to wait until the very end and risk costly delays for federal sanctions. [30:15] The Red Tape Act, H.R. 6398, introduced by my friend Congressman John Joyce of Pennsylvania, [30:22] eliminates the duplicative requirement in the Clean Air Act that requires EPA to assess and provide [30:28] feedback on environmental impact statements other agencies prepare under NEPA. An action agency preparing [30:35] an environmental impact statement under NEPA already possesses the expertise and resources necessary to [30:42] assess the environmental impacts. EPA is often already involved in the NEPA review process as a cooperating [30:49] agency, requiring them to provide secondary review under Section 309 is unnecessary, duplicative, [30:56] and inefficient. This duplicative review leads to increased delays and expenses in the NEPA process. This [31:03] legislation is an important step to streamline permitting and it removes burdensome inefficiencies [31:08] in the current NEPA process. The Fire Act, H.R. 6387, introduced by Congressman Gabe Evans of Colorado, [31:16] and co-led by Congressman Adam Gray of California, amends the Clean Air Act to ensure that states are not [31:21] penalized for wildfire mitigation measures, like prescribed burns and brush clearing. States currently [31:28] limit these practices for fear of falling out of attainment or due to the costly and lengthy exceptional [31:33] events process. The Fire Act ensures that states are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures. [31:40] It provides clarity and predictability for air quality planning, reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens [31:46] on manufacturers and communities, and rewards proactive wildfire mitigation measures. Prescribed [31:53] burns or controlled burns are the most effective way to decrease both the severity of wildfires and the [31:59] public health problems associated with the smoke they produce. These bills are an essential component [32:04] of the committee's permitting reform efforts. The Clean Air Act is overdue for an update. Outdated [32:09] provisions are holding back American manufacturing. These three bills deliver permitting reform to remove [32:15] those barriers, boost domestic production, unleash American energy, and lower costs for hardworking Americans. [32:22] I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6409, H.R. 6398, and H.R. 6387. Thank you, Mr. [32:31] Chairman. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Now recognize Representative Tonko from the Committee on [32:38] Energy and Commerce. I thank Chair Fox and Ranking Member McGovern and members of the committee for the [32:42] opportunity here. I'm here to testify on H.R. 6409, H.R. 6398, and H.R. 6387. I strongly oppose all three of these bills. [32:53] Across the country, Americans are struggling to afford health care after Congressional Republicans [32:58] allowed Affordable Care Act premium tax subsidies to expire. Simultaneously, the Trump administration [33:04] initiated a large-scale rollback of common-sense climate and environmental programs designed to [33:10] improve public health and lower Americans' utility bills. Now the President is adding fuel to the fire [33:15] by waging an illegal war in Iran that has raised gas prices to record-breaking levels. Simply put, [33:22] President Trump and Republicans are worsening the affordability crisis. And while my Democratic [33:27] colleagues are working on solutions to this crisis, Congressional Republicans are doubling down [33:32] with bills that will make these problems even worse. Today, we are here to discuss three partisan bills [33:39] that will gut critical public health protections in the Clean Air Act and make Americans sicker. H.R. 6398, [33:46] the Red Tape Act, would exempt major federal projects and regulations from any scrutiny of [33:52] their impacts on air quality and public health from EPA experts. The bill would also make the [33:58] permitting process less transparent by removing the requirement that EPA's comments be made available [34:04] to the public. Ignoring the consequences of major actions won't make them go away, but that is exactly [34:11] what the Red Tape Act would have us do. And for the people who live near these major projects, turning [34:17] a blind eye to the problem doesn't protect their families from toxic exposures. Worse yet, the Red [34:23] Tape Act is being billed as permitting reform, when in reality it is a bill to let polluter run amok [34:29] without proper safety or common-sense guardrails out of sight from the public. The two other bills being [34:37] considered today are a direct attack on the national ambient air quality standards, which set health [34:43] protective limits to common air pollutants, such as fine particulate matter and ozone. Republicans [34:49] claim that the Fire Act and the Fences Act are needed to ensure states are not penalized for pollution from [34:54] wildfire and wildfire mitigation efforts or pollution from foreign sources. While those are both worthy goals, [35:01] the Clean Air Act already provides flexibility to EPA and states to address these issues. Beyond those [35:07] duplicative provisions, these bills take a sledgehammer to the public health protections at the core of the [35:13] Clean Air Act. The Fire Act does little to make it easier for states to use prescribed burns as a tool [35:19] for wildlife management. Instead, it expands the definition of exceptional events that states can claim [35:25] when demonstrating compliance with air quality standards to include regularly occurring weather, [35:31] like drought and heat. To put it simply, the Fire Act would give polluters a free pass on the Clean Air Act, [35:37] allowing states to use a hot day as an excuse to ignore the harm inflicted on the health of Americans. [35:43] The Fences Act would ignore bad air quality in areas that experience any foreign pollution and remove [35:49] EPA's ability to impose sanctions on states that fail to make progress toward reducing cleaning up the air. [35:56] Republicans framed this as reducing regulatory burden. But in reality, the bill removes all accountability, [36:03] would grind permitting to a halt, and will leave millions of Americans to breathe unhealthy air while [36:09] being told it is safe. Clearly, these are serious problems with both of these bills. That is why I have [36:17] filed amendments to address some of the major deficiencies. I urge this committee to make them in order for [36:23] the floor. Congress should be focused on making life more affordable for the American people, [36:27] not saving a few dollars for corporate polluters. These bills are nothing more than a partisan attempt [36:33] to make executives richer while making Americans sicker in the process. With that, I strongly oppose [36:39] H.R. 6409, H.R. 6398, then H.R. 6387. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. [36:47] The gentleman yields back and now recognizes Ms. Fischbach for her time of questioning. [36:53] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you both for being here. I really appreciate it. I do support [37:00] these. I think in general, reducing regulations and straightening some things out make a lot of sense. [37:05] And I just have just a quick question for Representative Palmer. Maybe you can talk about [37:11] how the Red Tape Act removes some of the duplicative efforts to streamline the review of an action, [37:18] the energy, the EIS. Well, it's pretty obvious, Representative Fischbach, that it eliminates the [37:29] duplicative process. And by requiring the EPA to do duplicative reviews, it's almost, [37:35] we're almost saying that the agencies with jurisdiction are incompetent to do the reviews. [37:40] I don't believe that. That's the position of the Supreme Court, that the agencies are able to do [37:47] this. So when you add this extra layer of review, it slows the permitting process, [37:53] which adds to the cost of projects. As we learned during the four years of the Biden administration, [37:59] when we had about 20 percent, I think it was cumulative inflation, that just delaying a project [38:06] four years would add substantially to the cost of the project. So what we're trying to do, [38:12] and contrary to what my colleagues across the aisle believe, we're trying to maintain the [38:18] environmental quality that we have. I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which [38:23] we built environmental systems. So I'm very familiar with what goes into cleaning the air and the water [38:29] and doing it the right way. But when you add layers here that delay the permitting process, [38:36] you're adding to the cost and really making the affordability crisis what it is today, [38:42] just in four years of the Biden administration. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. And I appreciate all of [38:49] the authors for bringing these forward and for you taking the time to be here with us at Rules. And [38:53] thank you very much. And I yield back. Now I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, [38:57] Mr. McGovern, for his time of questioning and comment. Well, thank you very much. And [39:01] anyway, I'm opposed to these amendments, but I like Mr. Palmer and Mr. Tonko so much, I'm going to [39:07] have some questions. Thank you very much. Now I recognize Mr. Roy for his time of questioning. [39:17] The gentleman yields back. Now I recognize Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania for her questions and comments. [39:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, these bills appear to be just another Republican [39:30] handout to their donors in the oil and gas industry. It seems to be a cornerstone of the [39:35] conservative agenda to make our skies dirtier, the air we breathe less healthily, just to boost [39:42] profits for corporations. If these bills will become law, they will make people sick. They're going to [39:48] harm our children, and they'll allow states with already lax pollution enforcement standards to further [39:55] undermine air quality. The district that I represent already has one of the highest rates of childhood [40:01] asthma in the country, caused by environmental factors. So I cannot, in good conscience, endorse [40:08] legislation which would increase the assault on their young, their young lungs. So there's really only [40:15] one constituency for gutting the Clean Air Act, and that is the polluters that the law keeps in check. [40:20] So I will be opposing the legislation, all three bills. Mr. Tonko, is there anything you wanted to add? [40:26] No, I think it's just I would highlight again that they already, the EPA already, has the opportunity to [40:32] exclude certain emissions from, you know, the prescribed burns and wildfires and the like. And in some cases, [40:42] they would be able to exempt states, within their state boundaries, some of the pollution that's [40:48] occurring. So it is, again, a gift to the polluters. So there's already flexibility to address instances [40:55] where someone's able to make a good case, as opposed to a blanket overturning of regulations? [41:00] Exactly. Thank you. I yield back. [41:03] General, I yield back now. I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for his time of questioning and comment. [41:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions on the language, but I do, I do want to, I wish I could [41:21] say this in a private conversation, but I can't, so I do want to say it. The Easter Sunday post about [41:30] annihilating a civilization is not okay. It's not. And posting a picture portraying yourself as Jesus [41:38] is not okay. And so I would just advise all of the people at the White House, the fear of the Lord [41:47] is the beginning of wisdom. Read Proverbs, you would know that. And Galatians will caution you that God will [41:56] not be mocked. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my time. [42:04] The gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Maguse, for his time for questions and comments. [42:11] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly, as a man of faith, would agree with my colleague from Georgia. [42:21] I want to say thank you to Representative Palmer and Representative Tonko for being here to talk about these three bills that the [42:28] the committee is going to, or our committee is going to consider. Mr. Palmer, I wanted to talk a bit [42:33] first about the Fire Act. So help me understand, in your view, what does this bill do? [42:41] I thank my friend from Colorado for the question. I think what it does is allow states to take action [42:50] to mitigate against fires that not only can cause extreme damage because of how hot they burn, [42:59] but also reduces the amount of pollutants that are emitted. Being able to go in and do controlled burns, [43:09] to do wildfire mitigation, like removing dead wood and fuel from the forest floor, changes what gets [43:17] emitted into the atmosphere. So if you could do that and do it on a regular basis, and I think, you know, [43:23] maybe twice over every five years would be acceptable. What you wind up burning in the controlled burns is [43:34] the fire is not nearly as hot, and you don't have a lot of the emissions that you would have [43:39] if you had an out-of-control wildfire like we've seen in so many cases. [43:44] Okay. So as I understand it, this legislation, or at least according to the author of the legislation, [43:52] and I think based off your description, what the bill does is it excludes prescribed burns from the [44:00] definition under the relevant law such that it does not count towards the calculations that are [44:09] rendered by the EPA in terms of determining whether an area would be in a non-attainment or attainment [44:14] zone by virtue of pollution. Fair enough? It's that plus removing some of the impediments, [44:22] regulatory impediments against the prescribed burns. Which impediments? Well, there's things that [44:29] the states or private landowners have to get in order to do that, and particularly in California, [44:35] and I think Colorado's experienced some pretty hot fires as well, and it's particularly a problem on [44:41] federal lands, and that's something that I think the Natural Resources Committee has taken up, [44:48] and you're on that committee. Correct. You're well aware of some of the issues that [44:52] But not in this bill, I guess is what I'm saying. Because this bill is a pretty short bill. [44:56] Yeah. Basically, it's five pages, I think six pages. It's just saying, under the statute, [45:01] that prescribed burns, right, are now considered an activity that would not be counted towards the [45:10] pollution. That's right. But under prescribed burn, you're going to have less emissions, [45:16] less problematic emissions than you would if you had a massive wildfire. [45:23] I understand your argument there. So I guess, here's what I'm getting at, and I start, [45:29] perhaps a better way for me to frame the question. Earlier this year, or rather earlier last year, [45:35] on October 16th of 2025, the Trump administration published a memo via the EPA under Administrator Lee [45:42] Zeldin. I'm going to read you an excerpt of that memo. Quote, it's the policy of the U.S. Environmental [45:48] Protection Agency that any regulatory provisions that would limit strategic deployment of prescribed [45:53] fire should not be included in clear air act state implementation plans as part of the control [45:59] strategies for attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Are you familiar with that? I'm not familiar [46:05] with the memo, no. Okay. I will also tell you that in 2016, the EPA promulgated specific guidance [46:14] around wildfires and prescribed burns. The point I'm getting at here is that, as best as I can understand, [46:22] what this bill seeks to accomplish is already existing law. So I'm not familiar with anything [46:31] that bars the state of Alabama or the state of Colorado from making the argument that you've [46:38] articulated that if a prescribed burn happens, that that ought not to be considered for purposes of [46:46] determining or evaluating whether or not a particular jurisdiction meets the attainment or non-attainment [46:51] standards. And if I'm wrong about that, your team behind you may have some information to share with [46:59] you there that maybe could help illuminate this. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can exclude this, [47:06] but the process of determining water emissions that qualify as an exceptional event, like I said, [47:11] is very complicated and time-consuming, and it's uncertain for the state. So what we're trying to do is get some [47:18] uncertainty, but they do not easily qualify as an exceptional event because they are man-made [47:23] activities. So emissions from wildfires rarely qualifies as an exceptional event, but emissions [47:30] from wildfire mitigation activities intended to reduce the frequency or severity of wildfires do not. [47:36] So this is what we're, I think, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, and the gentleman from California, [47:44] Mr. Gray are trying to address. I think, and I'll move on because I know we have other bills to discuss, [47:51] although if Representative Tonko wants to expound on this, if we welcome him to that, I think we just [47:55] have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the type of relief that this bill seeks to [48:03] achieve. Because, as I understand it, what this bill is doing is essentially kind of a blanket style [48:08] policy versus the current procedures that are being implemented by the Trump EPA and were implemented [48:15] by the Biden EPA and the Obama EPA, where essentially if the state wants to pursue a prescribed burn [48:20] and wants for purposes of this attainment, non-attainment classification, wants to be able to make sure that [48:25] those don't count, that they go through the process with the EPA. But I understand your argument is that [48:32] they shouldn't have to. There should just be a blanket policy that that this is something that is worth [48:36] pursuing, and so therefore they shouldn't go through that regulatory process. If I may, I'd like to point [48:43] out between 2016-2023, no tribe, state, or local agencies successfully used an exceptional events [48:50] demonstration for prescribed fires, and in 2024, the EPA only approved one. So I do think... [48:56] How many were submitted? Well, that I don't know, but... [48:59] I mean, that would be a pretty important data point. Well, I'll be happy to provide that information to [49:05] you, Representative Neguse, and to the committee afterwards. Mr. Tronco? [49:10] Representative Neguse, I would just say that there seems to have been a good balance struck here [49:15] with states given flexibility to move for an exemption and the EPA maintaining a certain standard [49:23] so that that balance is very delicate, but it's been struck, and I think it has worked well. [49:28] I certainly agree. I think, Mr. Palmer, it's become a notice of surprise to you that I feel the same [49:36] way about the Fences Act, and obviously we have a disagreement on that bill. And again, kind of [49:41] explaining that bill to a layman, my understanding is essentially what you're trying to do is to exclude [49:49] foreign pollution sources that may be impacting a particular community from the determination as to [49:56] whether or not that community is an attainment or non-attainment of the goals that the EPA promulgates [50:05] under the Clean Air Act for what is an acceptable level of pollution. Fair? [50:08] Yes. I do agree that it is unfair for the states to be required to meet these standards when, [50:18] for instance, in California, 25 percent of the particulate matter is a foreign source. [50:23] Okay. So let me, why don't we walk through a hypothetical, although it's actually not so much [50:28] a hypothetical because we live in Colorado. Let's assume that you have a state or a jurisdiction, [50:37] I should say, you know, a couple of counties in the metro area around Denver that are in non-attainment, [50:44] right? So by that I mean the EPA has determined that this particular area is not attaining the [50:51] pollution goals, right, that they're essentially exceeding the goals for what would be acceptable [50:55] pollution. And as a result, a lot of folks may be getting asthma, you may be creating, you know, [51:00] respiratory diseases that are metastasizing in the population. That jurisdiction argues, [51:06] let's say, that it is in part because of foreign pollution, right? This bill would essentially allow [51:16] that jurisdiction to make that argument and to evade any kind of prophylactic steps that they would [51:23] otherwise be required to take to reduce the pollution in their community. Is that right? [51:31] I think that what you run into here is that you underestimate the ability to determine the source [51:37] of, of, of the pollution. Having worked in it, I worked for two international engineering companies, [51:44] one of which was environmental systems. We built the pollution control equipment so we know [51:49] what gases went through a flue gas scrubber or into what particulate matter we removed in a precipitator [51:56] or bag house. So you can make a determination about the source of your pollution separate. [52:04] Well, no, but I'm saying what if you're right? I guess I'm, maybe that was way too complex. [52:08] Well, if we're right, here's the thing. I, in addition to work for the engineering companies, [52:14] I grew up dirt poor and, uh, and, and shared a bedroom when my brother had cardboard between [52:19] the two floors. And one of the things when we talk about environmental impact for things like asthma, [52:24] childhood asthma, uh, most people start thinking about it. It's just the air pollution. It really [52:29] isn't, uh, that, that could be a mitigating, uh, circumstance that on that end, but it's also [52:36] indoor pollution. It's, it's, uh, uh, insect, uh, uh, fecal matter. It's, it's mites. It's dust. Uh, [52:45] it could be the failure to, um, uh, to mitigate dust from, from roadways, uh, for people who live, [52:53] uh, close to that. So there are a lot of things that impact, uh, air quality and impact these things [53:00] that, that I think let me, but let me, let me finish my point, uh, Mr. Neguse. It's that if you [53:08] really want to talk about the impact of health, what you want to do is create better jobs. You want [53:12] to give people more opportunities to live in better housing, have, uh, eat better, live better, uh, have [53:19] better access to healthcare. And when, when you start imposing these regulations based on, uh, a source [53:26] of pollution that, that, uh, a local locality has nothing to do with, that they can't control, then [53:32] you start impacting, uh, economic opportunity for, for people. And I understand that's your argument. [53:36] And so let me, let me give you the counterpoint. Okay. If you are in the most polluted zip code in [53:43] the United States of America, okay. And in that zip code, we establish that 50% of the pollution in [53:52] that zip code comes from foreign sources. That does not mean that the pollution that that per, that [53:59] residents in that zip code are experiencing is not deeply destructive to their health. [54:04] And I think the concern I have about this bill is basically what this bill is saying is, look, [54:08] if you're in that deeply polluted zip code, if the city or the jurisdiction or the multi-county [54:16] jurisdiction can prove that some of that is from foreign pollution, such that you would actually no [54:22] longer be considered, uh, you know, in the non-attainment zone, you don't have to do anything about it. [54:27] And I'm not, I understand the necessity for perhaps some other legislation that we could [54:33] work together on, bipartisan legislation, to try to enforce standards internationally, [54:38] such that we can stop the foreign pollution that's permeating a lot of the Rocky Mountain West, [54:44] just by way of example. As you probably know, the vast majority of the non-attainment counties [54:49] and jurisdictions are in the west, the western part of our country, west of the Mississippi. [54:55] And a lot of that has to do with foreign pollution. But that does not make it any easier for my [55:01] neighbors to breathe clean air in Colorado. And that's my point. I don't, this legislation, [55:06] I, I've given you plenty of time. Mr. Tonko, I want to give you an opportunity if you, [55:10] you're so inclined. Yeah, I, I, you know, I, I see the, uh, the attempt here is to, uh, you know, [55:17] allow groups, communities or, or, uh, communities in general to bypass responsibility. And that [55:27] responsibility may come in various formats, but when it comes to the environmental impact, [55:34] we should do all we can to give them the tools they require and demand that that be done. And again, [55:39] I think allowing for exemptions, um, excluding them from the, uh, uh, certain situations is a tender [55:47] balance. And it, and it has been maintained by EPA. If EPA is implementing its, its standards, uh, [55:55] effectively, and, uh, we would hope that they are. I, I, I certainly agree with you, and I appreciate [55:59] the chairman's indulgence. I think this debate would be a lot different if we replaced pollution [56:04] with poison. Nobody, nobody would argue, you know, again, you could, uh, of course, uh, be indignant [56:11] about the fact that there are foreign sources of poison that might be impacting you, but you still [56:16] got to do something about it. You know, you're not going to let your community, you know, ultimately [56:20] be harmed by that. You're going to have to take some steps to hopefully rectify this situation. And I, [56:26] my fear here is that we're just basically saying, no, it doesn't, if, if it's foreign, and if it's a foreign [56:32] contribution of pollution, then you're off the hook. I just don't think that's the way we should [56:36] stop it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back now. I recognize the gentleman from [56:40] South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a question. I don't know where this has come up [56:44] in y'all's committee, but it's come up in my state of South Carolina about the dangers of chemtrails, [56:50] its pollution, uh, and some states have banned it, like Florida. I don't know what some others are. [56:57] Did y'all delve into that at all as far as what it's doing to the environment? We have not. Well, I have no [57:09] much. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no further individuals wishing to ask questions, [57:16] I thank the panel for being here, and we will take a brief recess while we move to the next panel. [57:21] Thank you. I now welcome our second panel, Representative Kelly and Representative Sanchez [58:47] from the Committee on Ways and Means. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, [58:50] and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Kelly, I welcome you for [58:56] your to testify here today, and you are now recognized. Tax increase from taking place. [59:35] The data shows it is doing just that. By the end of March, more than 23 million taxpayers claimed [59:42] new overtime deductions. More than 5.6 Americans claimed the deduction of a tipped income, and nearly [59:49] half of all filers benefited from at least one of the new deductions designed to provide relief and [59:55] reward hard work. That is not marginal. Real relief is being delivered in real time. Tax refunds are up [1:00:03] over 11%. Over 70 million Americans have received tax refunds this season totaling $241.7 billion. [1:00:12] That's a 14.5% increase over last year for an average of $3,462. Remember what was at stake? A $4 [1:00:21] trillion tax hike. Inaction would have caused higher rates and lower refunds. Under the leadership of [1:00:27] President Trump, Republicans stopped that. In addition, we made permanent and strengthened the [1:00:33] tax code that recognizes something simple. An honest day's work should lead to an honest day's pay. [1:00:39] In short, you get to keep more of your own hard-earned money. Building on the success of Tax Cuts and Jobs [1:00:44] Act, that principle is now reflected permanently in law. If you work overtime, you get to keep more of it. [1:00:50] If you earn tips, you get to keep more of it. If you're raising a family, the tax code supports you. [1:00:55] If you receive Social Security benefits, 88% of our seniors won't pay any tax. Now, as a father of four [1:01:03] and grandfather of 10, I'm proud the Working Family Tax Cuts is making historic investments in our future, [1:01:08] shaping a brighter and more prosperous destiny for future generations. More than 4 million children are [1:01:15] enrolled in Trump tax accounts. Now, think about what that means for the next generation. [1:01:20] Many of those children will receive a $1,000 initial investment growing tax-free. [1:01:27] Trump accounts provide families and children a solid foundation to carry out their version of the [1:01:32] American dream. Now, let's talk about Main Street. Before serving in Congress, I spent my entire career [1:01:38] in the private sector as the ownership of a family-owned car dealership, founded in 1953 by my mother and [1:01:44] father. I know what it's like to try to manage your business and meet payroll while making sure [1:01:50] Washington gets its share too. My district is home to one of the highest concentration of small [1:01:55] manufacturers. These manufacturers are aiding President Trump in his goal of employing American [1:02:01] workers, producing right here at home, and buying American. Revitalizing the industrial might of the [1:02:07] United States cannot happen without the restoration, immediate expensing for equipment, and research [1:02:13] and development. The Working Family Tax Cuts made the 20 percent small business deduction permanent, [1:02:20] providing an average of $4,600 in relief to 8 million business owners. In total, more than 12 million [1:02:28] small business owners will see an average of $7,500 in tax relief. Now, there were times when our family, [1:02:35] the business would have enough money to make payroll, but not enough money to pay ourselves. It's reality [1:02:42] that so many small business owners face. These are real dollars that can be reinvested into workers, [1:02:48] equipment, and expansion. From employers to employees, seniors, children, this law is reaching [1:02:55] across our entire country and our economy. Now, I come from a part of the country where people measure work [1:03:00] a little bit differently. So, when someone says they worked a half day, that means they worked 12 hours, [1:03:06] not four. That is the reality for millions of Americans, people who do not ask for special [1:03:11] treatment, but only fairness. And this law reflects that expectation. It aligns the tax code with how [1:03:18] Americans actually earn a living. It stopped a tax increase. It guaranteed stability and certainty, [1:03:24] and it gave families and businesses the opportunity to get more of their own money. But let's also take a [1:03:31] second to thank Treasury Secretary Besant and IRS CEO Designione. Their leadership on implementing [1:03:39] the law and delivering on the promise of an increased level of taxpayer service has been incredible. [1:03:45] Real businessmen understand how to run an organization by driving productivity and quality [1:03:50] through technology rather than a simple headcount. Modernizing delivery of service through technology [1:03:56] has led to faster and larger refunds than ever before. This tax day, Americans are seeing the [1:04:01] result of a clear policy choice to let workers keep more of what they earn, to support families trying [1:04:08] to get ahead, and to build a tax system that works with the economy and not against it. That is what [1:04:14] the Working Families Tax Cuts set out to do. In this filing season, it is delivering. Thank you. [1:04:19] The gentleman yields back. I recognize Ms. Sanchez for her time. [1:04:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McGovern and members of the committee. [1:04:31] After two weeks off, Congress has a lot to address. President Trump is weeks into an illegal war of [1:04:37] choice in Iran. Americans are paying the sky-high prices at the gas pump. There has been no justice [1:04:43] for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the President's promise of lowering costs for Americans is all but [1:04:49] a distant memory. Instead of solving any of those problems, the Republicans are taking the time to pat [1:04:55] themselves on the back about a bill that we've never passed. After all, the resolution we have [1:05:00] before us is about a bill called, quote, the Working Families Tax Cuts, end quote, Act. Now, [1:05:06] I wasn't too sure, and I asked my staff, have we ever passed a bill in the House called the Working [1:05:12] Families Tax Cuts Act? And sure enough, we haven't. The Republican tax cuts for the rich is so unpopular [1:05:20] that they are now trying to change the name almost a year later, and the name isn't the only thing [1:05:25] that they're trying to rewrite. They're also trying to hide what the bill actually does. Some of these [1:05:31] tax benefits for working families are all well and fine, but of course, Republicans being who they are, [1:05:37] they couldn't help but make sure that the wealthy and well-connected got the best deal. But don't take [1:05:42] it from me. Let's let the numbers do the talking. Under the one big ugly bill, a person making above [1:05:48] $1 million a year in 2027 will get an average tax cut of over $96,000. Meanwhile, a person making less [1:05:58] than $50,000 will get just a $247 tax cut. That's barely 68 cents a day. This bill gave millionaires [1:06:08] almost 400 times the cuts it gave to average working Americans. And how did we pay for this bag of [1:06:14] goodies for the wealthy? Well, first we took away health care from 17 million Americans. We [1:06:19] substantially cut food assistance for 4 million Americans. We cut subsidies for clean energy, [1:06:25] ensuring that Americans would pay more for their energy bills for years to come. So you're kicking [1:06:31] Americans off their health insurance, you're raising gas prices to $6 a gallon, and then stripping them [1:06:37] of food stamps. But thank God they're going to get that 68 cents a day because Republicans really care [1:06:43] about working families. And that's not all. The bill also cut taxes for the top 1% of Americans [1:06:50] by at least $1 trillion over the next decade and granted $75 billion to the already bloated budget [1:06:58] of the dangerous and out-of-control ICE agents roaming our streets and terrorizing our communities. [1:07:04] Shockingly, after all that, the bill still costs $4.7 trillion. Republicans told us that economic growth [1:07:13] would pay for it. They also told us that tariffs would pay for it. Never mind that the illegal tariffs [1:07:19] were struck down or that they raised prices on American families and alienated our trade partners. [1:07:25] Never mind that GDP growth at the end of last year was just a measly half of a percent. So not only are [1:07:32] the tax cuts for the rich being paid for on the back of Americans' health care and food security, [1:07:38] they are being paid by your kids and your grandkids who will be footing the bill for this reckless bill [1:07:43] for generations to come. President Trump's big ugly bill cost the American people far more than it got [1:07:51] them. And slapping a half-assed resolution on the table eight months later as a PR stunt is not going [1:07:56] to change that fact. I think the members and I yield back. You know, he yields back, now recognizes Ms. [1:08:04] Fischbach for her five minutes or her time. No questions. She yields back. Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts. [1:08:10] Yeah, just briefly, let me just say that Americans are struggling. I mean, people are hurting. And the [1:08:19] President's illegal war in Iran has put American lives at risk and caused prices of everything from gas [1:08:25] to groceries to fertilizer to skyrocket. That's just a fact. Agencies like FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard [1:08:31] are still not funded. We still technically shut down. President Trump promised to lower prices on day [1:08:38] one. That was his promise. But instead of addressing any of these important issues, Republicans want [1:08:44] us to vote on a non-binding resolution that basically, as Ms. Sanchez says, pats them on the back [1:08:49] for a bill you passed last July. Mr. Kelly, is it your testimony today that this resolution accurately [1:08:56] describes the impacts of the bill Republicans named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that became law last July? [1:09:04] So why are we talking about the share of taxes paid by American people? [1:09:08] I'm just saying, is the bill that we're dealing with right now, does it accurately [1:09:12] describe the impacts of the bill that you guys called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act? [1:09:17] Yeah, we actually call it the Working Families Tax Cut. I do think, Mr. McGovern- [1:09:22] You just changed that name. That's not what you called it when you passed it. [1:09:25] Well, I guess it's my option to call it what I want. So I think you can call it anything you want. [1:09:30] So if you're asking me a question- I call it the Big Ugly Bill, so that's my option. [1:09:33] Okay, I get it. I get it. [1:09:35] But this resolution says that your Big Beautiful Bill prevented a major tax hike from occurring. [1:09:43] But I don't see anything in the resolution that mentions that the reason why was because Republicans [1:09:49] back in 2017 scheduled tax cuts for working people to expire at the end of 2025 while making major tax [1:09:57] cuts for corporations permanent. I don't see that reflected in this bill. Correct me if I'm wrong. [1:10:05] And in January, the White House put out a press release stating that the Big Ugly Bill- I'm going to [1:10:10] call it what I want- will cause average refunds to rise by, quote, $1,000 or more this year. [1:10:18] I mean, that's what the White House put out. But according to the latest IRS statistics, [1:10:24] refunds are up just like $346. That's 65% lower than what President Trump promised. [1:10:31] And these refunds are being completely, completely, completely wiped out by the tariffs and this war [1:10:37] in Iran. So, I mean, we just saw the largest monthly increase in gas prices in nearly 60 years. [1:10:44] Why don't you mention that refunds this year are way lower than what you guys promised in your resolution? [1:10:51] Yeah, well, I think that when you look at talking about the math of things, the gas price that we are [1:10:59] facing right now today pales in comparison to what it was in the previous administration. [1:11:06] When you look at the actual dollars that we're talking about, so, and that's, [1:11:10] previous administration, there was no conflict taking any place in the war, in the world, but [1:11:16] we still saw gas prices go up and up and up, and we haven't reached that level yet. [1:11:20] And I would say that pretty soon we're going to see it drop down. So, when the Strait of [1:11:24] Hermos was closed, gas prices went up, market prices changed. But in the previous four years, [1:11:30] there was no, there was no conflict anywhere, and yet the price of gasoline was much higher than it is [1:11:34] today. So, the price of gas today, I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, is way higher today than [1:11:41] it was when Trump first took office, even though he promised that he was going to lower prices on day one. [1:11:45] In your resolution, you talk about how the one percent are going to pay a greater, quote, [1:11:49] greater share of total income taxes. But the truth is that your big ugly bill showered the [1:11:55] wealthy in tax cuts that they don't need. And don't just take my word for it. Based on estimates [1:12:00] from the non-partisan joint committee on taxation, the top 20 percent of earners in America are [1:12:06] receiving roughly 70 percent of the tax cuts under the new law. And people making over a million [1:12:11] dollars will receive a tax cut of more than $96,000 a year. That's 390 times more than those earning [1:12:17] under $50,000 will receive a tax cut of less than $1 per day. So where in this resolution, [1:12:25] in which you guys are patting yourself on the back, does it mention any of this? [1:12:28] Okay. Well, just to correct us a little bit, the average gas price under President Trump is 32 cents [1:12:33] lower today than it was under President Biden. That's without any conflict in the Mideast. [1:12:38] So that was just driven because that's where they wanted to put it. So I get all that. [1:12:42] Are the gas prices higher today than when Trump took office? [1:12:46] Under the Biden administration, it was higher. [1:12:48] So you're saying that the gas prices are not higher today than when Trump took office? [1:12:52] No, I didn't say that they weren't higher than when Trump took office, but I'm saying that's [1:12:56] still 32 cents less a gallon than it was under the previous administration. So if you want to [1:13:00] compare apples to apples, let's compare apples to apples. [1:13:02] I'm afraid to take on basically say there's a lower prices on day one. We were all misinformed. [1:13:08] So gas prices, I don't know about how it is in your district, but I'll tell you my district, [1:13:13] people are not at all happy with the trajectory of the way gas prices are going right now. [1:13:17] Yeah. [1:13:18] I'm hearing it from, you know, people all over in rural areas and suburban areas and in urban areas. [1:13:24] An article published on February 6th this year in Politico states, quote, [1:13:29] Republicans tax cuts shaved billions off Amazon's tax bill. The company says it ran a $1.2 billion [1:13:37] tax bill last year down from $9 billion the previous year, even as its profits jumped by 45% [1:13:44] to nearly $90 billion. Where in the resolution do you mention these corporate giveaways? [1:13:50] I don't think it's mentioned in the resolution. [1:13:52] Okay. I mean, I just, I think it's interesting that it's not mentioned. [1:13:55] And in this bill, you also get rid of the nearly 100-year-old tax on gun silencers and sawed-off [1:14:02] shotguns. This is what I call the hitman handout. That's not mentioned in this bill either. [1:14:09] So how did Republicans pay for all of these, you know, kind of handouts? By imposing the largest [1:14:17] ever cut to Medicaid, a trillion dollars, and the largest ever cut to the Affordable Care Act [1:14:22] and SNAP by adding $4.7 trillion to our national debt. But the resolution that kind of caused all [1:14:29] that, that you guys are patting yourself on the back about, doesn't mention any of that. [1:14:35] You know, I mean, nothing. I mean, am I missing something here? [1:14:39] No, I don't think, I think you're straight on your talking points. That's what you wanted to say, [1:14:42] and I understand what you're saying. I don't agree with you. I've actually lived the previous four [1:14:47] years under the previous administration. This is not my opinion. These are facts by reputable [1:14:54] CBO and nonpartisan, you know, organizations. Why doesn't your resolution mention that because of [1:15:01] cuts to food assistance in the big, ugly bill, that 2.5 million low-income adults and children have [1:15:07] already been kicked off a SNAP, including over 100,000 people in your home state of Pennsylvania? [1:15:14] No, I don't know. I don't have the same figures you have. [1:15:15] Yeah, but that's just, that's the impact. [1:15:18] Well, I'm going to assume what you're, you're, you're bringing up. I, I get that. [1:15:21] 15 million Americans who will lose their health care, including 1 million who have already lost [1:15:25] their, their ACA coverage because of the, the cuts in the big, ugly bill. I mean, you know, [1:15:31] when I talked, said at the beginning that people are struggling, I mean, I'm talking about, you know, [1:15:35] regular people who are, who are basically seeing their life becoming more difficult and complicated [1:15:40] because of the bill that you're, you're all patting yourself on the, on the back on. I mean, [1:15:45] in truth, nothing about this resolution, um, including the title, um, accurately depicts the [1:15:51] Republican tax bill. Um, and, um, you know, and I, um, I, again, I'm, I'm still kind of amused by the [1:15:59] name change as if somehow that's all that needs to be done so that people don't realize that the, uh, [1:16:05] terrible impact that the big, ugly bill has had on, on regular families. Like all you need to do is [1:16:10] change the name and boy, that solves all the problems. I mean, I, um, I don't think that this [1:16:16] bill, uh, that you passed is either big or beautiful. Um, and, um, as somebody who represents [1:16:23] a working class district, I, I gotta tell you, if they heard anybody, Democrat or Republican, [1:16:30] say that somehow we all should be grateful for Donald Trump and that everything is going really well [1:16:34] right now, they would, they would, they would boo you out of the hall. Um, I mean, again, [1:16:41] the reality is that people, you know, are facing difficult times. People are hurting and they're [1:16:48] frustrated because they don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. Ms. Sanchez, am I missing anything? [1:16:54] No, I think you've, uh, spit a lot of facts today and I think people would do well to look at the numbers [1:17:01] as you've given them. Um, it's very clear that this bill was grossly lopsided and favored the moneyed [1:17:08] and the well-connected. I, I, I don't really have anything else to say. I yield back my time. [1:17:12] The gentleman yields back. I now recognize, uh, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy. [1:17:19] No questions. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, [1:17:24] Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Sanchez. I just want to pick up [1:17:30] where our ranking member left off. So, Mr. Kelly, this is a resolution, not a bill, correct? [1:17:38] Yes. Okay. The resolution is non-binding. Is that right? [1:17:42] You don't want to say, yes. Yeah. What was that? It's non-binding. It's non-binding. Okay. [1:17:54] If it passes the House, it passes the Senate, it's signed into law by the president, nothing changes, [1:18:00] correct? Correct. Okay. But can you, you said yes? Yes. That nothing changes. Okay. So pretend I'm a [1:18:12] constituent of yours in Erie, Pennsylvania, walking down the street and I say, Congressman Kelly, [1:18:21] what'd you do this week in Washington? You say, I passed a resolution [1:18:26] commemorating a bill that I voted for a year ago. This resolution achieves nothing, changes nothing, [1:18:37] does nothing. Right? Well, yeah, I, I walked down the streets of Erie quite a bit. I don't actually have [1:18:44] people coming up to me and saying those type of things. No, no, no. I'm asking you. No, I know you're [1:18:48] asking me. You're, you're, are you from Erie? What was that? Are you from Erie? I mean, you're, you're presupposing [1:18:53] there. No, I'm from Colorado. So, so somebody comes up to me in the streets of Erie and says, [1:18:56] oh, let me, let me differentiate about what it is you're talking about. Got it. Got it. Okay. All [1:19:00] right. Bad hypothetical. Let's pretend I'm a congressman from Colorado. Which you are. And I'm [1:19:05] asking you. Yeah. What do we do this week? What does this resolution do? Well, you know what? I would, [1:19:12] I would only say this, uh, of the years that I've been here, and I, and I mean this sincerely, it would be nice [1:19:21] if for a change, we would take a look at the efforts on both sides of the aisle to improve [1:19:26] the working conditions and the incomes of every single American. I don't care how they're registered [1:19:31] or how they're vote or where they, where they, where they practice a religion. But let's do that. [1:19:34] So, but, but we put something forward that actually makes sense and really, and really does a much [1:19:41] better job. But Mr. Kelly, I guess what I'm saying is you, you could have decided this week, you know [1:19:46] what? Congress has been on Easter recess for two weeks. It's time to address the health care crisis [1:19:53] in our country. Let's put a bill on the floor, bipartisan, Democratic bill, Republican bill, [1:19:58] you name it. We're going to put some ideas on the floor. You could put a tax bill on the floor. You [1:20:03] could put a bill on the floor that addresses the cost of living. You could put a bill on the floor that [1:20:07] addresses the cost of gasoline. Instead, you've put a resolution on the floor that by your own [1:20:14] admission, Mr. Kelly, does nothing. And I just, I don't really understand why we're wasting time [1:20:21] commemorating acts of Congress. Help me understand that. Well, here, here's, this may help. So this [1:20:31] founding season has been a massive success, thanks to changes in the working families tax test. The [1:20:36] most recently available IRS data shows that over $241 billion have been refunded. No, no, 241. No, [1:20:42] but no, you're asking me what I would say to somebody. I'm not asking you about the benefits of the bill. [1:20:46] I'm, I, I get it. I understand that you believe that the bill that you all have renamed. Okay. I get [1:20:53] it. You believe that that bill has made the lives of the American public better. I disagree, but I [1:20:59] understand that's your argument. That's not what I'm asking you. Okay. What I'm saying is you serve on [1:21:06] one of the most important committees in the United States Congress. I, I assume you'd agree. I do. [1:21:13] Right. Yeah. Ways and Means Committee. Yes. With Ms. Sanchez. With Ms. Sanchez. Why jurisdiction? [1:21:19] Why jurisdiction? Right. Over a lot of challenges that are facing the country. And I'm just trying to [1:21:25] understand why you've decided to spend this week considering a commemorative resolution. That's it. [1:21:32] That's the question. Well, I guess you would have to ask how the process works. And why is it on the, [1:21:40] why is it here this week that we're doing? I don't know. Uh, I watched last fall. We, we, we didn't [1:21:46] spend any time here. And now this year, uh, we're also spending, I think, I don't know how many days [1:21:51] now we've been, been shut down in certain parts of the government. I, I think people ask me more than [1:21:55] anything else, what is wrong with you people? Yeah. And so we're putting this forward so we can show [1:22:00] the features and benefits that add value to the American people. But that's kind of my point. That's not [1:22:03] that a hard thing to figure out. I would say, Mr. Kelly, I think that your chairman, uh, [1:22:07] has put you in an impossible position. I mean, it's not fair, I think to you, to have you present [1:22:14] this resolution on behalf of the committee, because I, the honest, our honest reality is, [1:22:19] I think we all would concede, right? If we're being honest, that there are far better ways [1:22:24] for the United States Congress to spend its time than debating resolutions that commemorate bills [1:22:32] that were passed by the United States Congress. You've been in Congress 26 years. No. Oh, how long? [1:22:38] No, since 2011. Oh, since 2011. I'm sorry. How long is that? 16 years. Can you recall [1:22:45] an instance where you've had a resolution that you're voting on commemorating a bill that you've [1:22:52] passed? That's a, that's a good question. And I've been in here when we're in the majority and when [1:22:56] we're in the minority, and I've often asked myself the same thing when I go back home. And in fact, [1:23:00] the people that I represent asked me the same thing from time to time. So I, I would think that we can [1:23:05] debate, we can debate this back and forth. What was it worthwhile? Was it not worthwhile? I think it's very [1:23:09] important for people to see the features and benefits they're going to add to their real life [1:23:13] and real dollars and cents. That sounded like a no, Mr. Kelly. Well, to you it may sound like a no. [1:23:19] To me, it sounds like you, what you just asked me. So what did we talk about? You know, what I'm saying [1:23:23] is you've been here a long time, far longer than I have. I'm just trying to get a sense of, is this [1:23:28] normal? Is this usually what happens that you pass a law and then a year later you, you do a holiday to [1:23:33] celebrate that law's passage? What I don't understand. That's what I'm trying to understand. Maybe you have [1:23:36] examples from your team that you can cite before my time. No, no, no. So, so rep, what I would [1:23:43] suggest. So if you were back in Colorado and somebody said, what does this thing that they're [1:23:47] talking about mean to you? I would just tell them. Yeah, tell them it's $4,300 a year. I wouldn't [1:23:51] pass a resolution. I don't need to pass a resolution of the Congress to tell them. I could just tell them. [1:23:55] I could say, I passed this law. I voted for it. And here are the ways that it's impacting your family. [1:24:00] Okay. I don't have to waste everybody's time [1:24:03] and go through this elongated process to have a resolution passed by the U.S. House of [1:24:07] Representatives to honor that work. That just doesn't seem like a good use of your time, my time, [1:24:15] the Congress's time, when there's so many challenges facing the country. But I, it sounds like I'm not [1:24:19] going to convince you of that. No, you, you're absolutely not. I've been, I've been here too long [1:24:24] to listen to one-sided arguments about, about who struck John. Listen, I, I would think that the American [1:24:29] people expect an awful lot more out of both parties all the time, not part of the time, [1:24:33] but all the time. Uh, so I've watched wasted time. Excuse me. I've watched it. We've wasted more time. [1:24:40] Nobody in the private sector would run a business this way. Nobody in the private sector would continue [1:24:45] down these roads and say, this is the right way to do it. Unfortunately, that's the way the model [1:24:50] works. You and I ought to fix it. So we're on the same page. I mean, let's, that's what I'm saying. I, [1:24:54] you, you have this commitment from me. Here's what I'll tell you is that, you know, we've, I introduced [1:24:58] a lot of bills, uh, you know, to challenge, to address various problems, public lands issues, [1:25:03] forest management, things of that nature. And I am not going to introduce a resolution. If I get one [1:25:08] of those bills signed into law, I'm not going to introduce the resolution that honors that bill. [1:25:12] I'll just leave it at that bill and let the American people decide whether or not it was [1:25:16] in their interest or not. And I, I'm going to ask that perhaps you make that same commitment. What do you [1:25:21] think? Yeah, well, I, I would just tell you this. Uh, I'll look forward to working with you over the [1:25:25] next time. So if you do introduce something, I'll say, I remembered one time you and I sat in the [1:25:29] rules committee and you, and you, you challenged me on this. So let's, at the end of the day, [1:25:33] let's just really listen to me anyway. This already is law. It's already working. And the American people [1:25:38] are doing quite well under this art. Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect. I hear you, [1:25:42] but I'm just saying that it could have been a press release. I mean, this, this, this could be accomplished [1:25:46] with a five minute interview, you know, on a television. We don't need to, we don't need to get the machinery of the U.S. [1:25:50] House of Representatives to pass proclamations to honor laws that were passed previously. Uh, [1:25:55] and obviously as the ranking member said, you know, the convenient name change that, you know, [1:26:00] you all have landed on, uh, what are you calling it now? The working families tax cuts. Working families [1:26:05] tax cuts. When did you make that decision? What wasn't, uh, I didn't come up with that myself, actually. [1:26:10] It was, it was presented. I think it came out of Ways and Means. When? I think it came out of Ways and Means [1:26:16] and we changed the name on it from the one big beautiful bill. When was that? And I will just tell you, [1:26:20] I can't give you the exact date. Because I, I got to tell you, I looked, I searched the bill. Did you [1:26:25] find it? It's a long bill, hundreds of pages. Do you know how many times the working families tax [1:26:29] cut is mentioned? I don't know. None. No? Okay. So you're happy with the new title? Not in the bill. [1:26:34] No, no, no. Your title. The title you just referenced. No, that's good. Cannot be found. Yeah, yeah, well. [1:26:39] Whatever you all are calling it today. I, I don't think, you know, but honestly, sorry. I don't think [1:26:43] whenever we would have named it, you wouldn't be happy with the Ways and Means. You know, you're probably right. [1:26:46] Working families tax cuts is something that every single American understands, especially working [1:26:50] families. And I'm not, I don't begrudge, I get it. No, I don't begrudge you either. I'm just saying [1:26:54] that, you know, maybe we can move on from name changes to bills and proclamations honoring bills, [1:27:01] and we can just get to the nitty gritty of trying to try to address some of the challenges facing the [1:27:05] public. Mr. Sanchez, do you care to expound on that? Sure. Well, Mr. Kelly thinks that it's important to [1:27:11] trumpet the wonderful things in this bill. I want to, I want to give folks a reality check. [1:27:21] CBO estimates that the bill, whatever you want to call it, but it certainly is not the working [1:27:26] families tax cut bill, will make the bottom 20% of households worse off. They will lose more in cuts [1:27:34] from assistance programs and health care that then they're going to gain. The average household income [1:27:40] will fall by $1,200. That's 3.1% for those with incomes in the bottom 10% of the income scale. [1:27:49] So we're talking about the people who need help the most while rising by $13,600 or 2.7% for those [1:27:59] with incomes at the top 10%. So there's nothing that's working families about this. This is [1:28:05] definitely a giveaway to those at the top. And I, we heard about refunds. I just want to fact check [1:28:12] this as well, because a new Center for American Progress report found that Trump's promise to [1:28:17] increase tax refunds by $1,000 or more has actually fallen flat. Filing season ends tomorrow and the [1:28:24] average refund so far is just $346 up from a year ago. And that average is heavily influenced by refunds [1:28:34] that are given to, you guessed it, the highest income earners. So it's not working families [1:28:40] that are getting the benefits of this bill. The bill is poorly named. And I agree with you, [1:28:46] instead of passing resolutions about bills that have already passed, why don't we work on passing [1:28:52] some bills that are really going to give relief to American working families? What's so crazy about [1:28:57] that idea? Hear, hear. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. I yield back. [1:29:02] Chairman Yields back now recognizes Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sanchez, [1:29:09] you said that gas was $6 a gallon in the state of California. Is that correct? [1:29:13] Yeah. Some places it's above $6 a gallon. It varies, but it's definitely above $5 a gallon. [1:29:20] I normally fill my gas tank up and it costs around $50, $52. Last time I filled it up last week, $75. [1:29:31] And I drive a hybrid, which gives really great gas mileage. I drive an F-350. So it costs me a little [1:29:40] more to fill up. But I want to get back to the $6 that you said it cost in California. You know how [1:29:46] much gas costs in Georgia right now? No idea. It is, depending on where you are, [1:29:53] metro versus rural, it's somewhere around $3.50 to $3.60 a gallon. [1:29:59] And how's the air quality there? It's great. [1:30:01] Really? It's wonderful, especially in rural Georgia. But I mean, the problem- [1:30:05] Well, I bet anywhere rural probably has better air quality than an urban city. [1:30:08] Well, I mean, Atlanta, you know, I mean, I'm in Atlanta a fair amount. In fact, I'm there twice a week, [1:30:16] but I live in rural America. But I would just suggest to you that Atlanta is a metro area, [1:30:21] just like you represent a metro area. I mean, the problem is you got Gavin Newsom taxing the [1:30:26] citizens of California $2.30 a gallon more than the governor of Georgia is. In fact, [1:30:34] the governor of Georgia suspended the gas tax for 60 days. And my question for you is, [1:30:40] why doesn't Gavin Newsom do something like that to help the citizens of California? [1:30:45] Well, I think that the- We all acknowledge that gas prices are higher today than they were [1:30:49] a few weeks ago. But let's, I mean, Republican governors have tried to help their citizens by [1:30:54] by cutting taxes, while governors like Gavin Newsom are more interested in putting the money [1:31:00] in the coffers of the state. So why doesn't- [1:31:02] Well, if you'll give me an opportunity to answer- [1:31:04] Why doesn't the state of California cut their gas tax? [1:31:05] If you will give me an opportunity to answer- [1:31:07] Okay. [1:31:08] I will say, number one, I don't think this resolution mentions anything about gas prices. [1:31:13] I could be wrong. [1:31:14] You brought the gas prices up. [1:31:15] But secondly, please- [1:31:16] You brought the $6.00 up. [1:31:17] You asked me a question, and I'm trying to- [1:31:19] I'm trying to answer if you'll not talk over me and allow me to give my answer. [1:31:24] But I don't believe the resolution mentions anything about gas prices. But I'll tell you that those [1:31:28] prices are higher now because we are in a war that the President didn't feel the need to [1:31:36] consult with Congress about, and because of tariffs that the President unilaterally imposed, [1:31:41] which were found to be illegal by the Supreme Court. [1:31:44] That's not true. [1:31:44] My question is- [1:31:45] It is true. [1:31:46] The Delta? [1:31:46] It is true. [1:31:47] And- [1:31:48] Why is gas $2.30 a gallon more in the state of California than it is in the state of Georgia? [1:31:54] But it's higher in Georgia than it was when Trump first took office. [1:31:58] This is my time. I'm asking you the question. [1:32:01] And I think I've answered it sufficiently. [1:32:02] Thank you. [1:32:03] No, you have not answered it. [1:32:04] Why is gas- [1:32:05] I think I have. [1:32:06] It's a simple question. [1:32:07] Why is gas $2.30 a gallon more in the Democrat-run state of California than it is in Republican [1:32:15] states? [1:32:15] The California gas tax, for your information, is $0.60 a gallon. [1:32:18] It's not $2.30 a gallon. [1:32:20] You have significant- [1:32:21] There are federal taxes involved, which are uniform throughout all of the states. [1:32:25] You have significant carbon fees in the state of California. [1:32:30] Your prices in California are $2.30 a gallon more than they are in Georgia. [1:32:35] And we're the fourth largest economy in the world. [1:32:38] And therefore, it should be cheaper. [1:32:40] No, I- [1:32:40] It should be cheaper. [1:32:41] I- [1:32:42] It would be a lot cheaper if we weren't at war with Iran and if we weren't trying to open a [1:32:46] strait that was open before we got into war with Iran. But- [1:32:49] But- [1:32:50] Call me crazy. Call me crazy. [1:32:52] Well, I would call you that, but you take offense to it. [1:32:54] Well, no, you can call me crazy, but I'm going to tell you that my constituents don't think I'm crazy. [1:32:59] They know why their gas prices are higher now than they were when Trump first took office. [1:33:04] And they know why their grocery costs are higher. They know why their healthcare is higher. [1:33:08] Because you won't help us pass a farm bill. [1:33:09] No, because of bad policies passed by this administration, this Republican- [1:33:12] All right, Mr. Chairman, this is my time. [1:33:13] Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. [1:33:14] Mr. Chairman, my point is- [1:33:15] Thank you, Mr. Rankin. [1:33:15] Sorry. [1:33:16] The truth hurts. [1:33:17] Ms. Scott and Ms. Sanchez, here's the problem. [1:33:18] The truth hurts. [1:33:19] The stenographer has no idea what y'all are saying because you're both talking at the same time. [1:33:23] Well, the truth hurts. [1:33:24] The gas is $2.30. [1:33:25] I want to argue at some point that's fine. [1:33:26] That's fine. [1:33:27] She's not going to answer the question, Mr. Chair. [1:33:28] It's my time. [1:33:29] I know. [1:33:29] It's your time. [1:33:29] The gas is $2.30 a gallon more in the state of California than it is in- [1:33:34] If you comment, don't ask a question. [1:33:35] ...than it is in the state of Georgia. [1:33:37] The reason for that is because you have a Democratic governor and total Democrat control of the state [1:33:42] legislature, and so nobody in the state government does anything to help the citizens of California. [1:33:47] No, nobody does. [1:33:48] Now, it's my time. [1:33:49] Nobody, not one person. [1:33:50] He's not asked a question yet. [1:33:51] All right. [1:33:52] As far as DHS not being funded, you want to talk about blockades. [1:33:56] It's the Senate Democrat blockade on a rule vote, on a procedural vote in the Senate. [1:34:02] That is the only reason the Department of Homeland Security, who does tremendous value to our country, [1:34:09] is not funded. [1:34:09] They got a slush fund. [1:34:10] They got a slush fund. [1:34:11] Hang on. [1:34:12] He hasn't asked a question yet. [1:34:13] Go ahead. [1:34:14] She can't stop talking. [1:34:15] I mean, the bottom line is Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats have run a blockade [1:34:22] on the rule and will not allow a vote on DHS funding, and that is the only reason DHS is [1:34:27] not funded, and with that, I yield. [1:34:29] The gentleman yields back. [1:34:30] Now, I recognize Ms. Leisure Fernandez of New Mexico. [1:34:33] Well, hello, everybody, and I think I want to make a couple of points. [1:34:37] First is that over in the Senate, they have passed by unanimous consent twice, twice a DHS bill. [1:34:46] Yep. [1:34:46] Twice. [1:34:47] And that unanimous consent, what does unanimous mean? [1:34:52] Representative Sanchez, it's not your time. [1:34:55] Representative Sanchez, what does unanimous mean? [1:34:58] Does that mean that every Republican senator said, okay? [1:35:02] That means that 100% of the people agreed, and nobody disagreed. [1:35:05] Right, right. [1:35:06] So let's correct that one. [1:35:08] Thank you. [1:35:08] And I think that Representative Sanchez, you were making a very valid point. [1:35:13] Each state is going to make its own decisions about what it wants to do with regards to state [1:35:20] taxes, state policy. [1:35:23] But what we have here is we have the Trump administration knowing, knowing that the [1:35:31] straits of her moves, because the generals told him, would be a major problem if you decide [1:35:38] to go into war, that it would lead to gas prices. [1:35:43] And that's the point you were making, is that, really, it's like everybody's prices have gone up [1:35:51] because of Trump's war, Trump's Iranian war tax. [1:35:56] Is that what you were trying to say? [1:35:58] Yeah, and I was trying to, like, connect it back to the original bill, which doesn't give the tax [1:36:03] relief that was promised, because it's being eaten up by tariffs and by these higher gas prices. [1:36:09] So average working families aren't getting ahead under the Trump administration. [1:36:13] They're falling further behind. [1:36:14] So in fact, there was a, the Federal Reserve, which is neither Democrat nor Republican, [1:36:20] the Federal Reserve just issued a report that pointed out that all of the core inflation [1:36:28] before the war was all tied to Trump's tariffs. [1:36:33] Illegal tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down. [1:36:36] Right. [1:36:36] And this was even before the war with the Gulf of Strait. [1:36:39] But let's get back to the issue of this big, beautiful bill, the big, beautiful bill. [1:36:46] And Representative Kelly, I wanted to just ask you, I think you represent Greenville, is that correct? [1:36:55] I do, yes. [1:36:56] And do you represent UPMC Horizon Hospital in Greenville? [1:37:00] Well, you know what, I don't recognize that hospital. [1:37:04] Okay. [1:37:05] Well, UPMC Horizon, you know, I actually tend to know all of the different hospitals in my district [1:37:10] and my state because they're all so important, right? [1:37:13] And I think that the rural hospitals are incredibly important. [1:37:18] And UPMC Horizon is one of the dozen of hospitals, there's a dozen, a dozen hospitals in Pennsylvania [1:37:27] that's at risk of closure because of the one big, beautiful bill. [1:37:34] In fact, a recent report commissioned by the Hospital Health System Association of Pennsylvania, [1:37:40] this is Pennsylvania, said one of the nation's largest state hospital associations. [1:37:45] Do you know that association? [1:37:47] No, tell me. [1:37:49] Well, it's the Hospital Health System Association of Pennsylvania. [1:37:52] I don't know if they've come to meet with you, but my hospitals from New Mexico come to meet with me. [1:37:58] And they said that your bill that you're trying to rename now and proclaim its glory, [1:38:06] it's going to kick 95,000 Pennsylvanians off of the ICA coverage and boot another 300,000 [1:38:16] for Medicaid, 300,000 people in Pennsylvania. [1:38:19] Yeah, those are figures you may have, ma'am. [1:38:21] I don't have those figures, but if we're talking about the working families tax cuts, [1:38:25] where is it that you want to go with the hospitals? [1:38:28] Well, the working, I love the fact that they changed the name, right? [1:38:32] The fact that you changed the name, like, why did you have to change the name? [1:38:36] You thought it was a big, beautiful bill. [1:38:39] And so I'm going with it because Medicaid reimbursements, I'm quoting Nicole Stallings. [1:38:44] Do you know Nicole Stallings? [1:38:46] No, you don't know Nicole Stallings from Pennsylvania? [1:38:48] Who? I'm sorry, who? [1:38:49] Nicole Stallings, she's the Executive Director of the Hospital and Health Care System of Pennsylvania. [1:38:55] No, I don't know her. [1:38:55] Well, I'm going to read her quote, [1:38:57] Medicaid reimbursements could drop to 64 cents for every dollar of care provided for Pennsylvania [1:39:04] hospitals. And that's why you're going to lose so many people. So that's why I'm going to this, [1:39:09] because this is a direct result of your bill, which now you want to have a new name for. [1:39:16] In your district alone, 22,000 people are going to lose coverage. [1:39:23] How many people do you represent? [1:39:24] Ma'am, you know what, if you want to share that information with me, I'd like to see it. [1:39:27] I don't know what the source of your information. [1:39:28] Oh yeah, I will. [1:39:29] So we'll be glad to take a look at it. [1:39:30] We have it right here, actually. We will hand it over, because these are things that I think [1:39:35] you would want to know. [1:39:36] Yeah. [1:39:37] How many people do you represent? [1:39:39] The same as you, three quarters of a million people. [1:39:41] Yeah. So 22,000, that's a lot. That means that any time you go into a room, [1:39:47] you're going to basically be looking at a room this size, you're going to be looking at two or [1:39:54] three people who are losing their health insurance coverage. And I think that that's really important. [1:40:00] I wanted to go into something else. President Trump, he recently said that because of this war [1:40:09] that we were so repeatedly debating earlier, and it's in fact on gas prices, he said, I'm open quote, [1:40:16] it's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, and Medicare, all these individual things. [1:40:25] You can't do it on the federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection. But all [1:40:33] these little things, all these little scams that have taken place. [1:40:38] Are those your words or his? [1:40:40] Those are President Trump's words. Do you agree with that? [1:40:42] All these little things, all these little things, the things that we can't really care about. [1:40:44] I think he said that let's go to the states. I don't think he's, I don't think he said that we [1:40:48] shouldn't be taking care of it. Right. Well, we're in Congress and it's our job [1:40:52] to take decisions about what are we going to use our federal money for. [1:40:57] Okay. So do you agree with him that we [1:40:59] shouldn't be using federal money for Medicare, Medicaid, daycare? [1:41:03] Well, I think we spend an awful lot of money. So if you're asking, [1:41:06] asking me about the working families tax cuts of what we're talking about right now, [1:41:10] I'm not sure I'm following it with a hospital in one of my towns that I represent in Pennsylvania. [1:41:15] You're talking about different cuts to different programs. So I don't know what that has to do [1:41:21] with what I'm sitting here talking with you about today. [1:41:23] Oh, do you don't know your bill? Your work, your bill cut Medicaid. The way it paid for those tax cuts [1:41:34] for the billionaires is by cutting Medicaid. You don't know that? Representative Sanchez. [1:41:40] You know what? I don't follow your district as much as you can probably follow my district. So [1:41:45] I don't know what it looks like in your district. I really, when you're talking about these things, [1:41:49] this is something that you've decided to light on and say, this is what we're talking about. These [1:41:54] people are losing their benefits. I don't follow that line of thinking because I don't think it's [1:41:59] entirely correct. And I don't know what your sources are. Well, I just told you where the resources are. [1:42:03] They're from your hospital and healthcare associations. And you know what? We're going to make sure that we [1:42:09] print that. Actually, I have it right here. I will provide it to you. Representative Sanchez, [1:42:15] will you hand this to this report? Which I hope you care about what happens to the people in [1:42:24] your district. And I'll tell you what happens to the people in my district. Yeah, I care about my [1:42:28] district. I care about your district. I care about all the people in the United States. We're going to [1:42:31] lose six rural hospitals in my district. What about it? We're going to lose them. Why are you? They're [1:42:40] going to close because of the one big beautiful bill, which is only beautiful if you're a billionaire. [1:42:48] Because you took the money from Medicaid. You took the money from SNAP. You took the money from these [1:42:57] programs that serve communities in districts like mine and throughout Pennsylvania. And you used it [1:43:03] to pay for tax cuts. Representative Sanchez, can you sort of, it sounds like the, you know, there's a [1:43:10] little confusion about what that bill did. Can you clarify on that? Sure. Yeah, there were huge cuts to [1:43:18] the ACA tax subsidies. There were huge cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates. And what I think people don't [1:43:26] seem to realize is that rural hospitals disproportionately rely on the Medicaid payments [1:43:33] in order to stay open and keep their doors open. So it doesn't just matter to the person on Medicare [1:43:39] or Medicaid, because the rest of the community has those services because the hospital can afford them. [1:43:46] When you have these deep cuts to these programs, they start shuttering specialties. And the very first [1:43:52] to go is generally OBGYN labor and delivery. That means that many women now are not going to have [1:43:59] access to that kind of health care that they need. And, you know, if you're in a car accident and you [1:44:06] need an emergency room, but because the Medicaid cuts made the hospital go under, you have to travel an [1:44:12] hour to get the care that normally you would travel 10 minutes to, that's going to mean very bad outcomes [1:44:19] and possibly deaths as a result of the fact that these deep, deep cuts put hospitals in an untenable [1:44:28] position of keeping their doors open. Yeah. And I think that all of this discussion is about priorities, [1:44:33] right? The reason I quoted President Trump and what he thinks we should be spending money on, [1:44:40] which is his war in Iran, is because that's his priority, right? He's willing to spend billions [1:44:48] on his war. We've already spent 25 billion dollars. Like that 25 billion, that would have kept all of [1:44:58] these hospitals I'm talking about, it could have really helped keep them open. And that's the issue [1:45:05] that we're talking about, is where are your priorities? Are your priorities pursuing a war in Iran, [1:45:12] or are your priorities making sure that we have health care for Americans? And that's the issue [1:45:21] that we are raising today. Now, Representative Sanchez, I am the last Democrat, I think, on the panel. Is there [1:45:28] anything else you want to clarify about anything that was discussed today? Yeah, I just want to mention [1:45:33] that, you know, there is one other issue that is really nasty that is in this bill, and that is, [1:45:39] it purports to try to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing government services. But many of [1:45:46] these government programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for. But this is the first time [1:45:52] that Congress is taking away senior citizens' Medicare benefits, because they are now making [1:45:58] naturalized citizens ineligible for the Medicare program. These are people that have worked and paid [1:46:06] into the system, some of them for 20 years or more. And because of the cuts, and because of the language [1:46:12] in the bill, they are now no longer eligible for a program that they paid into. And that is fundamentally, [1:46:18] just on a human level, wrong. It's immoral, and I don't think we should have a resolution lauding [1:46:25] all the great things in this bill, which is actually a really terrible bill. Well, thank you very much, [1:46:30] and with that I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Generally, he yields back to clarify a couple of [1:46:36] points. The name of the bill was changed by Senator Schumer by a motion on the floor of the Senate. It [1:46:43] became H.R. 1, the act, in order to make clarification for the public. It then, it was adopted by many on [1:46:52] the Republican side, the moniker of the working families and tax cuts, so that people could keep [1:46:59] track of what the bill was because there's so many H.R. 1s that won every term that floats around. [1:47:04] And so that was the clarification. In regard to some of the Medicaid language that happened, [1:47:10] and there's a lot of things moving parts because it was a big bill. What happened was there was, [1:47:18] and I can't speak to other states, but in Virginia, they previously, before Medicaid expansion, had not [1:47:23] had what is sometimes called a sick tax or a provider tax. Virginia created one to pay its portion of, [1:47:33] its 10 percent portion of Medicaid expansion, but of course, then the hospitals get reimbursed, [1:47:39] or the state gets reimbursed for the tax that the hospitals pay, and it gives it back to the hospitals. [1:47:45] Currently, in essence, making it so Virginia has never paid its 10 percent share. The tax went from, [1:47:51] allowed by the federal government to be reimbursed from 5.99 or roughly 6 percent to, if I remember [1:47:57] correctly, about 3.5 percent over a period of years by Senate action. And that's what many of the [1:48:04] outside groups have been reporting on that would cause hospitals to close. But that is not a certainty. [1:48:10] And further, if the states pick up, and again, I can't speak for any state, but the Commonwealth of [1:48:15] Virginia, if the state were to pick up its fair share that it agreed to when it did Medicaid expansion, [1:48:20] none of these hospitals would have that particular cut. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have [1:48:26] any reason to disagree with any of the comments I've just made? Absolutely not. All right. And with [1:48:30] that, I yield back, and I appreciate the panel for being here today, and we will take a brief recess [1:48:35] before the next panel. Ralph, I'm sorry. I missed you, Ralph. I'm sorry. He doesn't have any questions. [1:48:49] All right. We're just changing panels, so the recess will be about 30 seconds, apparently. [1:48:52] I now welcome our third panel, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, from the Committee on [1:50:54] Judiciary. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you to summarize your [1:50:59] statement in five minutes. Chairman Jordan, I welcome your testimony. Thank you. Thank you, [1:51:04] Madam Chair. The Judiciary Committee has conducted extensive oversight of the FISA program, and we've [1:51:10] seen a huge change from just a few years ago when Congress last reauthorized Section 702 in the [1:51:16] Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. That law contained 56 different reforms to the FISA [1:51:24] law, including Title I and 702, which is up, as we all know, for reauthorization now. Included new [1:51:30] training process, approval requirements before running a U.S. person query. There were audit requirements, [1:51:37] including audit requirements and accountability measures for those who misuse the program, [1:51:42] and enhanced reporting and transparency. In fact, we get some reports now on the number [1:51:46] of U.S. persons who were searched in the database every quarter. These reporting and transparency [1:51:53] requirements, such as allowing certain members of Congress and staff to attend foreign intelligence [1:51:58] court proceedings. And the results are good. In 2021, before RISA was enacted, the FBI reported conducting [1:52:05] nearly 3 million U.S. person queries. An audit of those queries found that 278,000 times they did not [1:52:14] comply with the rules. I think this is important. Just a few years ago, because of what we were [1:52:20] doing, requesting the inspector general to look at, we found that they were doing 3 million queries [1:52:26] in one year, and 278,000 times in that respective year, they didn't follow the rules. They didn't follow [1:52:33] their own rules. FBI agents ran queries on protesters, donors to congressional campaigns, public officials, [1:52:39] journalists, colleagues, and ex-girlfriends. But today, the story is totally different. Totally different. [1:52:46] In the year after we passed our law, last year, the FBI reported conducting just 9,089 U.S. person queries, [1:52:54] from 3 million to 9,000. Of those 9,000, 127 did not comply with the rules. And most of those 127 were [1:53:01] clerical errors, typo errors, when they were going through the process. 2026 is not 2024. Thanks to [1:53:08] RISA, improper queries have fallen from the recent high of 278,000 to 127. And due to the improved [1:53:15] reporting required by the law, Congress has more insight than ever into the program's operation. [1:53:21] Today, U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI are audited to ensure compliance with applicable [1:53:27] requirements and standard. The results of those audits and other information are provided to Congress on [1:53:32] an annual, semi-annual, and as I said earlier, even quarterly basis. We are also all aware of the [1:53:39] state of the world right now. Multiple recent ISIS-inspired attacks here in the United States, [1:53:45] military operations in both Venezuela and Iran, the 702 program is incredibly important for protecting [1:53:51] our national security and advancing our interests abroad. In light of the progress that has been made, [1:53:56] and the threats we face, we think a temporary short-term extension of the program makes sense [1:54:04] now. That does not mean our job is over. The Judiciary Committee will continue to conduct aggressive [1:54:09] oversight of FISA, just like we've done for the past five years, and we will continue to work on some [1:54:14] things that we think will be helpful in the future. But again, 2026 is not 2024, and a short-term, [1:54:21] clean extension of the 702 part of FISA law is an acceptable outcome for the situation that we find [1:54:28] ourselves in. I think it's interesting that we're talking—I'll finish with this, Madam Chair—that [1:54:33] we're talking months, not years. We're not talking a 10-year reauthorization. We're not talking a five-year [1:54:38] reauthorization. We're talking 18 months after 56 reforms that have definitely worked while we're facing [1:54:47] the threats that we face and while we're involved in the military conflicts that we're involved with. [1:54:51] Again, I would urge a yes vote for the legislation. With that, we'll yield back. [1:54:55] Thank you, Chairman Jordan. Ranking Member Raskin. [1:54:59] Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, and thank you, Mr. McGovern. I also want to thank my friend, [1:55:05] Chairman Jordan, who's really done more to educate me on FISA 702 than anybody. But I want to ask [1:55:13] colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing President Trump and Stephen Miller's so-called [1:55:18] Clean Extension of Section 702 of FISA. The Clean Extension is a dirty deal. The bill before us [1:55:25] today leaves the Trump administration in charge of policing its own abuses of this sweeping authority. [1:55:32] That is going to be unacceptable to the American people who understand how our privacy rights and [1:55:37] civil liberties are being trampled every day. FISA needs independent guardrails, and my colleagues on the [1:55:43] Intelligence Committee acknowledge as much. Simply put, we must reform FISA to protect our privacy and [1:55:50] civil liberties and ensure that Section 702 will not be used to spy illegally on Americans. Many of [1:55:57] you know that I voted in 2024 with most House Democrats and most House Republicans to reauthorize [1:56:03] Section 702 without warrant requirement. At the time, I was persuaded that the specific reforms adopted by the [1:56:09] Biden administration and codified in the 2024 reauthorization, as the chairman explains, would provide [1:56:16] sufficient safeguards against government abuse of the privacy rights and civil liberties of the people. [1:56:21] These reforms relied on internal watchdogs to keep the intelligence agencies in line and on the [1:56:27] administration to accurately report its own abuses to Congress and to the courts. But those reforms now [1:56:35] depend on Trump administration officials to respect the law, which is, I am afraid, oxymoronic, [1:56:43] if not just moronic. After returning to the White House, Donald Trump quickly removed the Office of [1:56:49] Internal Auditing, the internal watchdogs charged with verifying FBI's representations that the reforms are [1:56:57] actually being put into place. President Trump then illegally fired a majority of the members of the [1:57:04] the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which was set up as an independent body to guarantee the [1:57:12] privacy and civil liberties of the people in the operation of FISA. The Department of Justice then [1:57:18] reassigned other key compliance personnel. The FBI shut down its independent compliance office. The [1:57:28] administration's recent claim that FBI compliance exceeded 99% in both 2024 and 2025 might be true, [1:57:37] but the people charged with checking this claim are gone. And even 1% non-compliance, if they are to be [1:57:44] trusted, could mean that the data of thousands of American citizens has been illegally accessed and [1:57:50] compromised by the FBI. And the truth is that the FBI has no idea how many times its analysts have [1:57:56] accessed U.S. person information in the last year. As we speak, the intelligence community is using a [1:58:02] system that the FISA court itself has deemed unlawful and inconsistent with the statute. The details of [1:58:08] this case remain inexplicably classified, and the DOJ seems to be waiting until the last possible minute [1:58:15] to indicate whether the government will fix this problem or appeal the decision. But the point is that [1:58:21] the agencies appear to have constructed a way to work around the prior guardrails that we put in place, and [1:58:28] neither DOJ nor ODNI has any way to count how many times that workaround has actually been used. 99% [1:58:36] compliance, maybe, but only if you think the FBI has come up with a way to give us an accurate count, and only if [1:58:42] you trust Kash Patel to give us an honest self-assessment in the first place. Look, times have changed since [1:58:49] 2024. The watchdogs are gone. We cannot take at face value the representations of an administration [1:58:56] that routinely violates Americans constitutional rights, lies to federal judges, and defies court orders. [1:59:03] Those who argue for a blank check are telling the American people they can rely on Kash Patel to report to Congress [1:59:10] when the FBI abuses its 702 authorities. Can we really trust them to operate section 702 consistent with the law? [1:59:19] Without proper guardrails, [1:59:23] U.S. person information is ripe for abuse. It can and has been abused to spy on American citizens. In 2022, [1:59:30] the FISA court detailed an historical pattern of non-compliant inquiries, queries of the FBI. Improper searches swept in elected officials, [1:59:39] campaign donors, and Black Lives Matter protesters, among others. President Trump has made it clear he's in favor of mass surveillance. [1:59:46] His administration has built profiles in American citizens, demanded that AI companies assist the [1:59:52] government in mass surveillance, and paid Palantir hundreds of millions of dollars to build a mega [1:59:57] database of Americans' personal data. The president has made clear he sees FISA as a tool a president can [2:00:04] abuse to spy on his political opponents. How can we possibly trust him to operate section 702 consistent [2:00:11] with the law? Madam Chair, we've got time to get this right. Voting no on the clean reauthorization does [2:00:16] not mean 702 suddenly turns off in April. FISA allows existing certifications to continue past [2:00:23] the sunset, and the FISA court has certified 702 programs through March of next year. It's nonsensical [2:00:29] to think that the administration, which has gutted so many internal oversight functions, engaged in mass [2:00:35] surveillance, and daily violates people's rights, can be trusted to police itself with this sweeping [2:00:40] authority. Congress must enact strong guardrails on 702. Let's start by opposing a clean reauthorization. [2:00:47] I will vote no when this comes to the floor later this week. If it does, I encourage my colleagues to [2:00:52] do the same, and I thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Raskin. Mr. Jordan, [2:00:59] you want to respond to anything that Mr. Raskin has said? Well, my friend from Maryland talked [2:01:09] about all these abuses. All the abuses happened when Democrats were in the White House. I mean, [2:01:14] the numbers I gave you, the 278,000 times that didn't follow the rules, that was in the previous [2:01:18] administration. Go back to Title I. Go back to 2016. We all know what happened. We all know that the [2:01:25] Clinton campaign, the Democrat campaign, hired the law firm Perkins Coie, who hired the public [2:01:29] relations firm Fusion GPS, who hired a foreigner, Christopher Steele, who then wrote a document. [2:01:35] They gave the fancy name dossier that was used by the Obama administration, the Comey FBI, to go take [2:01:40] it to the FISA court. Again, this is Title I, but this was abuse. Took to the secret court, lied to the [2:01:48] court, got the warrant to go spy on the other party's campaign. That happened in American politics, [2:01:52] in American election. So, you know, you talk about times have changed. They have. We went from 278,000 [2:02:00] times. The 702 program was abused, where they didn't follow the rules to 127. I would argue [2:02:05] that's a result of the good work of the Congress. In the RISA Act we passed two years ago, they had [2:02:09] the 56 reform. So, yeah, times have changed. I think they've changed for much better. And that's [2:02:14] why I'm not opposed to a short-term 18-month extension. What is your response to Mr. Raskin saying [2:02:26] that we're not facing a deadline of April 20th, but that this can go on because we've heard this [2:02:39] today? If we reauthorize the rules. I've heard that argument. I think I never try to get in too [2:02:46] many debates with the constitutional law professor, Mr. Raskin, but you know that's going to get [2:02:51] challenged in court. If we don't reauthorize the law and there's no reauthorization of the 702 program [2:02:57] and the administration is simply banking on what the FISA court said when they approved the rules [2:03:03] presented to the FISA court, I think that's going to get challenged in court. We probably don't want [2:03:07] that when we're in the middle of two conflicts and we've had multiple terrorist attacks and threats [2:03:15] here on the homeland. So, I think that is a big concern and I would argue better to reauthorize, [2:03:20] much better to reauthorize. That's what the deadline is next Tuesday. So, I would argue we should do that [2:03:25] versus going to court and having the fight in the court. One more question. Can you expand on the [2:03:32] non-compliant queries conducted by the FBI that were discovered due to the accountability reforms [2:03:39] implemented from RISA? So, I think you're asking, now that we've passed the bill, there's been a handful, [2:03:48] most of those were just typos, different clerical mistakes in the process. They got to get approval [2:03:54] from someone. Maybe they didn't get the official sign off from someone before they did the query. [2:03:59] It could be those kind of things. So, it's relatively minor versus what we saw before [2:04:04] when they were doing searches of members of Congress. They were doing searches on donors, [2:04:08] on journalists, on Black Lives Matter people, on people who were here January 6th. [2:04:12] So, they were doing those kind of things, which I know the ranking member would agree. That is, [2:04:18] that's not how it works under our constitution. So, those are the concerns now. And even better now, [2:04:25] we have consequences. If you're a member, if you're an employee at the FBI and you engage in doing [2:04:33] things wrong, you can be held to account. And what are those penalties? [2:04:39] All the way up to termination. It could be, it could be termination. Now, so those are, [2:04:44] those are, you know, first, did you not follow it? There's, there could be marks on their record, [2:04:49] or it could be terminated if they're not following the rules that are getting approved by the court [2:04:52] before they, on the, on the front end. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. You bet. Mr. McGovern, [2:04:58] you're recognized. You know, I, I have a tough time believing this administration cares about [2:05:04] accountability. You know, I'm, I, I can't get over the fact that they pardoned everybody who attacked this [2:05:10] building on January 6th. I'll never get over that. They're beating up cops and with almost no [2:05:16] resistance from the Republicans here. And, you know, when you talk about short-term extensions, [2:05:21] I, right, we, we talk about short-term extensions, I think about a month, you know, or six weeks or [2:05:26] eight weeks. I don't think about a year and a half. That doesn't strike me as a short-term extension. [2:05:32] But before I get to my questions, Mr. Raskin, do you have anything you want to add? [2:05:37] Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Well, first of all, I take your point about a short-term extension [2:05:47] being something like a week. We talk about here for two weeks, but 18 months seems like a lot longer. [2:05:52] A year and a half. It seems like an attempt to entrench [2:05:56] this law without the protections that a lot of people on a bipartisan basis think we need. I guess, [2:06:02] you know, my reaction to Mr. Jordan, I think, reflects the whole reason why we need to have a [2:06:11] bill of rights and categorical rights. Because, you know, when your party's in, you kind of see no wrong. [2:06:18] And I'm not putting this on my friend, Mr. Jordan. I'm saying everybody, right? It's very easy. I mean, [2:06:23] go back to, you know, Jefferson and the Democrat Republicans versus the Federalists. When John Adams [2:06:31] was in, they could see everything wrong that Adams was doing with the Alien and Sedition Acts and [2:06:36] attacking people's civil liberties and privacy rights. And then when Jefferson was president, [2:06:41] the other side saw everything that they were doing wrong in terms of curtailing people's rights. [2:06:45] That's why we need the law, because the human mind is a fragile instrument. We see things [2:06:51] through our own perspective. And so, you know, I want to thank Mr. Jordan, who really educated me [2:06:56] a lot about what's really going on with FISA and 702 and why it's so important to have these [2:07:02] protections built into the process. And what we've gotten instead, as I pointed out, was a dismantling [2:07:07] of the Office of Internal Auditing, a sacking of, I think, every member but one of the Privacy [2:07:13] and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and then a transfer out of the personnel who are actually [2:07:17] looking at it. So that sets us up ripe for abuse. And that would be true regardless of who's [2:07:23] president. But especially, I would say, from my perspective, a president who has done so much [2:07:29] to trample the civil rights and civil liberties of law firms, lawyers, colleges, universities, [2:07:38] immigrants, citizens protesting in Minnesota. It just doesn't show the kind of sensitivity [2:07:44] to people's privacy rights and civil liberties rights that we need. [2:07:47] Mr. Jordan, let me ask you, I mean, we're the Rules Committee. I mean, [2:07:52] I think 25 amendments have been submitted to the committee. You know, the issue is, [2:07:59] you know, for this committee, you know, and obviously, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, [2:08:04] your voice matters here with the majority. I mean, do you support a full and open debate [2:08:14] on all those amendments? And specifically, do you support the Biggs Amendment number three, [2:08:19] the warrant requirement? Is that something you support? [2:08:21] I'm, I'm for, I mean, that's up to you guys to decide what, what amendments. [2:08:25] It's not really not up to us. That's a good combo that people do this all the time. [2:08:28] I thought that's how it works. The Rules Committee decides what rules, [2:08:31] how the rule works, and what amendments are made in order. [2:08:32] But, but, but do you support the Biggs Amendment number three? [2:08:35] I'm for, I'm for a clean, uh, reauthorization, as I said before, because, [2:08:39] you know, I understand you guys said clean short term is, is a shorter time period. But 18 months is one of the [2:08:45] shortest reauthorizations I've ever seen. [2:08:47] It's a year and a half. It's too long for me. But do you, the question I asked was not whether [2:08:51] a year and a half is too long or not. The question is, do you support the Biggs Amendment, [2:08:55] number three, uh, the warrant requirement? And, um, and, and you don't want to seem to answer that, [2:09:00] but I mean. [2:09:00] No, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm fine with the clean, as I said before, I'm fine with the clean. [2:09:03] Oh, so you do not support it. [2:09:04] Now, if, if, if the reforms that we put in place, if we find out there's abuse in the future, [2:09:08] we may have to come, we may have to relook at that thing. I, I get that. But I am satisfied with the [2:09:12] position we're in right now. So you do clean reauthorization is fine. All right. So you do not, [2:09:16] the chairman of the judiciary committee, uh, does not support the Biggs Amendment number. [2:09:20] As I've said multiple times, I'm fine with the clean reauthorization. [2:09:23] So, and I guess the question is, you know, clean extension or not. I mean, [2:09:28] would you at least support allowing the Biggs Amendment to get an up or down vote on the floor? [2:09:33] I mean, why can't, I mean, why can't we in the house decide this? Why, why, why, why is it up to you? [2:09:38] Well, I think you're going to get a chance later, later this evening. I mean, you get a chance to vote. [2:09:42] You guys are going to decide. Where? On the floor? [2:09:44] No, right here. You're going to decide what amendments are in order. [2:09:46] Yeah, I don't know how to vote, but I don't know. We have one, two, three, four compared to nine. [2:09:49] I mean, I could tell you how, how this is going to work. [2:09:51] Well, when you guys were in charge, I think it was nine to four, just the other way around. [2:09:54] That's how it works. And I would, I would vote to make the Biggs Amendment in order. [2:09:57] The question is, the question is, do you believe that we should have an up or down vote on this? [2:10:02] I leave, I leave that to the, the Congress and the House and the way it works. [2:10:07] I take that as a no. You know what I mean? You know, we all talk about democracy and, [2:10:11] you know, that, you know, this, that we're supposed to be a model for the rest of the world, [2:10:15] and we're supposed to debate important issues seriously and passionately. But again, you know, [2:10:21] under Republican leadership, this has become the most closed Congress in history. You know, [2:10:27] more bills go to the floor with no amendments in order. And on something like FISA, on issues of [2:10:32] warrants, on issues of privacy, I mean, people feel strongly about that. Not just people on the [2:10:37] Judiciary Committee. I understand. Not just people on the Rules Committee, [2:10:39] on the Intelligence Committee, but others feel strongly about it. And the idea that somehow [2:10:44] it's an imposition to ask that we debate and vote on it on the House floor, that everybody [2:10:49] has an opportunity, that that's just too much. Boy, this place is- I didn't use imposition. I didn't [2:10:54] use that word. Well, I mean, you're, you're basically saying no, Mr. Raskin. [2:10:58] But I think the House of Representatives should absolutely debate that, discuss it, [2:11:03] analyze it, and vote on it. And I think, you know, that that would be perfectly within our power [2:11:11] and rights and duty to send that forward. You know, it's interesting. A number of courts, [2:11:17] including the FISA court, have found that a search warrant requirement is not constitutionally required [2:11:22] in this context. The Supreme Court has not opined on it and analyzed the whole issue. But, you know, [2:11:32] I think this is something that Congress itself should be debating and trying to, trying to understand. [2:11:37] This is a time when people's civil liberties and people's civil rights really are under attack. And [2:11:43] I think that we should be debating. The critical thing is that one way or another, we, we need to have [2:11:48] judges involved before there are searches of American persons taking place. You know, [2:11:54] even if the courts are right that you don't need to have a warrant, at the very least, a judge has [2:11:59] got to be interposed between the FBI and just doing a search of Americans. [2:12:03] And going back to the Biggs Amendment, just for a second, I mean, correct me if my mind is failing me, [2:12:08] but we have voted on that previously, right? Yes, indeed. [2:12:13] And, and if I remember correctly, it was a high vote? Um, 212. Yeah. And, you know, um, [2:12:20] how did you vote on that? I voted for it. Yeah, you voted for it, but now you're against it. [2:12:23] Oh, it's, it's funny how things change because I think Mr. Raskin voted against it. I voted [2:12:27] against it and now I'm for it. So, and it, which might explain why we need it. I guess I'm the only [2:12:32] consistent. To the ranking member, I voted, I voted for it after we saw 278,000 abuses of the rules, [2:12:41] rules, their own rules. Now we have much less abuse, much problem, 127, most in color. So things [2:12:46] have changed for the better. And I'm saying short term, I can live with that. And if things get bad [2:12:50] again, I'll be right back here advocating for additional change. If I could address that, [2:12:54] I mean, I, you know, um, gullibility is not a quality I usually associate with Mr. Jordan, [2:13:01] but I don't know how he knows that the issues have been solved here. It seems like he's taking the, [2:13:07] the word of Kash Patel because all of the real monitors and watchdogs have been fired and [2:13:11] sacked and driven out of the building. I take the word of the Inspector General. [2:13:15] Um, well. Something we all agree with. Inspector Generals do the work in all these agencies. [2:13:18] If I can reclaim my time, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it was a tie vote [2:13:24] previously. It was. Um, and you know, it's clear, it's clear that people feel, have strong opinions [2:13:31] about this. Um, and it's clear that people have a lot of concerns. And I guess the, the issue is, [2:13:37] if you want to vote no on it this time, that's, that's your prerogative. But you can tell the [2:13:41] chairwoman right now that you think that the Biggs Amendment should be made in order and we [2:13:45] could have that debate. And I'm sure that it will be made in order. We could have that debate and we [2:13:49] could have that vote. I will vote for the Biggs Amendment. I did before. I want to do it again. [2:13:53] Um, but I mean, the, the idea that given, you know how tight that was in the, in the last go around, [2:14:00] why not, why not give people that same opportunity this time? Well, I, I don't know about the ranking [2:14:04] member, but I've, I've found that just because I might suggest something to Chairman Fox doesn't [2:14:08] mean she's going to do it. She makes up her own mind. And I know the folks in North Carolina [2:14:12] understand that as well. Well, I mean, I, I, I would, I would say maybe the Speaker could, [2:14:16] could make the, the judgment. But every time he's asked by a, by a reporter about any question, [2:14:20] he says he knows, doesn't know anything about it. So I, I, I'm not sure whether he'd, he'd weigh in on [2:14:24] this or, or not. I'm just simply saying that this is an important matter to people. Um, quite frankly, [2:14:30] not just Democrats, but for a lot of Republicans. Um, and I know there are a lot of Republicans [2:14:36] that would vote for the Biggs Amendment. Um, including Mr. Biggs, who will, who would lead [2:14:39] the charge. But I mean, I know a lot of Republicans would. Well, this is, this is not like a, you know, [2:14:43] a side issue. And all, all I'm suggesting is that we ought to have a, here's a radical idea. [2:14:48] We ought to debate it and vote on it. Yeah. You know, and that's my recommendation. Clearly. [2:14:53] I'm not saying it's not an important matter. I think it is an important matter. It's why I, [2:14:56] that's why I've spent years, years reforming this program. And we have done a number of reforms [2:15:04] that all of us participated in getting done. And I think that has made a world of difference. [2:15:08] And for a short term, 18 month extension, at the point we find ourselves in America right now, [2:15:13] with conflicts going on overseas, with terrorist attacks on the country, I think this is important [2:15:18] because it's a foreign intelligence, foreign intelligence surveillance program. We need to [2:15:22] be listening to what foreigners might be up to, what they might try to do to our country. [2:15:26] If you're so convinced that everybody believes that this bill is perfect, then, you know, put the [2:15:30] Biggs Amendment on the floor and let people vote it down, if that's the, is that the case? That's all [2:15:35] I'm saying. Mr. Raskin? Well, wartime is the time when people's civil liberties and privacy rights [2:15:41] are most offended and most violated. So this would suggest the fact that we're in a war, [2:15:48] and indeed a war that was never declared by Congress, has never been authorized by Congress, [2:15:54] suggests to me that we need to zealously protect the civil liberties and civil rights of the people. [2:16:00] Let's vote on this stuff. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Ms. Fischbach, [2:16:05] you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, um, you know, there have been serious concerns about, [2:16:11] um, about the abuse of some of these things in the past, and I think you pointed out very, [2:16:17] um, very well that they were of the past administration. And there was, uh, numerous 56, [2:16:24] as I recall, um, in 2024. We did those reforms. They are taking place now, um, and I appreciate them. [2:16:31] There's the increased transparency, oversight, accountability. There's a lot going on there, [2:16:36] and very helpful, uh, reforms. And so I appreciate that. Um, and, and so I, I do support the, [2:16:43] the short-term clean extension, because I think it makes sense at this point. And, um, Mr. Chair, [2:16:48] I was just wondering if maybe, you know, you mentioned, uh, you kind of briefly mentioned, [2:16:53] you know, maybe some military actions going on, or military things going on. And, [2:16:57] can you speak about why, um, this extension is so important right now? And, and given the DHS, [2:17:04] uh, Democrat shutdown right now. And, um, so I'm wondering if you could maybe talk about the [2:17:10] importance of it with those things going on. No, great point. I mean, we, we can't necessarily say [2:17:14] this, can't talk about much in this room, but we've all been to the, to the briefings where we [2:17:18] hear from key people in the administration, the director of the CIA, the director of the FBI, [2:17:22] head of ODNI, uh, the chairman of the joint chiefs. And they all talk about how important this, [2:17:26] this program is. We want our government to listen to what bad guys are doing overseas. I always say [2:17:31] this is a foreign intelligence surveillance act, two sections, title one 702. So we want that to [2:17:36] happen. We are concerned about when, when American, when there's queries done on Americans. And that's [2:17:41] why we put the 56 reforms in, and we're going to continue to watch this, uh, as I said before. [2:17:46] But you have this environment that we're in, involved in Venezuela, it's military conflict in, [2:17:52] in Iran, the numerous threats we've had here and terrorist attacks we've had here in the United [2:17:57] States, you have all this going on. And oh, by the way, the Democrats have shut down part of DHS [2:18:03] for what 50, 58 days. So, um, I think that is that in that environment, I think that just underscores [2:18:10] what we've, what we've talked about already. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think given what you've [2:18:15] just mentioned, but the environment and situations we're in right now, this, and it's a short term, [2:18:21] 18 months, um, and making sure that we have this taken care of by April 20th, um, I think is [2:18:29] incredibly important. So I thank you for bringing it forward and I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, [2:18:34] Ms. Fishbach. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, for the last three [2:18:40] years, reforming FISA has been one of the rare areas of bipartisan agreement on the Judiciary Committee. [2:18:46] So I am a little disappointed to see Mr. Jordan's change of heart because he has been a steadfast [2:18:52] supporter of Americans fourth amendment rights. Um, for anyone not convinced about the need to [2:18:58] strengthen the fourth amendment and the need to reevaluate, uh, the laws governing intel collection, [2:19:04] right now under the Trump administration, we're seeing precisely the kinds of abuses that are made [2:19:09] possible when Congress gives up too much authority to the government, allowing it to survey its citizens. [2:19:15] We have seen under the authority of national security presidential memo seven, which was [2:19:21] issued last September, the Trump administration weaponizing the government to spy on and target [2:19:27] American citizens on the basis of their speech. They're surveilling protesters, um, who oppose the [2:19:33] administration policies. They're surveilling people who have beliefs that conservatives simply don't like. [2:19:39] These are the types of abuses that concern the drafters of the Bill of Rights. And I think they'd be horrified to see what's happening in America today. [2:19:47] Um, look, we all share concerns about our national security, particularly as the president has started a war in the Middle East without authorization and apparently without any clear goals or objectives. [2:19:59] Um, and we're also concerned about national security because for six weeks or more, um, our House Republican colleagues have refused to fund DHS. [2:20:09] They have rejected a unanimous, um, Senate bill that would have funded DHS. They have refused to take yes for an answer. So, yes, there are legitimate national security concerns. [2:20:22] During both the last FISA reauthorization and today, there are sensible reforms on the table to ensure that we continue to collect valuable intelligence while also preserving Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. [2:20:34] And so, those reforms should be allowed to vote. I oppose the bill as it is. I would ask the chair and the majority that as we consider the rule later today, we make in order the amendments that have been mentioned. [2:20:46] Mr. Biggs' number three amendment, which would have a warrant requirement, and his number four amendment, which would prevent the government from buying bulk data, again, without a warrant when targeting individuals. [2:20:58] Mr. Raskin, is there anything else you want to add? [2:21:01] Um, I thought you captured it nicely, Ms. Gallen. I would say it's easy to support oversight and scrutiny when the other team is in power. [2:21:09] And we passed all of those dozens of bipartisan reforms together when President Biden, uh, was in office and we began to make progress on an inherently vulnerable, um, context within, within FISA. [2:21:26] Um, but President Trump came in, dismantled the Office of Internal Auditing, dismantled the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, [2:21:34] ousted the critical monitors, um, clearly views it, um, as a place where there was political abuse before and thinks it's ripe as an instrument for political abuse. [2:21:46] And, um, you know, I'm willing to say that it is, uh, an instrument that we must protect against any president and any team that gets in. [2:21:58] And, and so, uh, but I would definitely oppose a clean, uh, reauthorization. [2:22:04] And I know that we can do a lot better than that. [2:22:06] And I know that we do have, in substance, significant majorities of the House of Representatives who support, [2:22:12] if not a search warrant requirement in every case, certainly substantial reform to what's taking place now. [2:22:20] Well, and we, we have seen the abuses in a variety of contexts. [2:22:25] And certainly, as members of the Judiciary Committee, we've seen, um, representatives of the administration be less than forthcoming [2:22:33] when asking for the information that we would need to see if these reforms have really taken effect. [2:22:38] So, thank you for your testimony, and I yield back. [2:22:40] Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. [2:22:43] Uh, Mr. Scott, you're recognized. [2:22:48] Thank you. [2:22:49] Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:22:50] And, uh, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Raskin, welcome to the Rules Committee. [2:22:55] Uh, when we're talking about 702, um, we are talking about terrorism, cartels, drug dealers. [2:23:08] Am I, is that a fair statement from both, would both of you agree with that? [2:23:11] Yep. [2:23:13] Terrorism, primarily. [2:23:14] Not, uh. [2:23:15] And so, I just, um, and, and most of our questions in the past have gotten around the conduct of the FBI. [2:23:24] Is that a fair statement? [2:23:25] Mm-hmm. [2:23:26] And, and today, after the reforms that the majority of us voted for, um, the FBI is prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime. [2:23:39] Right? [2:23:40] They can't just go looking for something to arrest somebody with. [2:23:42] And I'm, I'm thankful that we passed that. [2:23:45] And they can only access FISA 702 if the foreign, the Section 702 target, is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. [2:24:01] Is that accurate? [2:24:02] Yes. [2:24:04] So there already has to be a full investigation going before the FBI can use 702. [2:24:11] Yeah, they can't. [2:24:12] National security related investigation. [2:24:14] Right. [2:24:16] It can't just be some static situation where they go, oh, I'm going to search Austin Scott, which is things that happened in the past. [2:24:22] Absolutely, they happened in the past. [2:24:25] And, um, if they happened for me, by the way, I didn't set myself up. [2:24:29] No, I was just, there was an example. [2:24:30] I'm sorry. [2:24:31] Uh, it would have been a pretty boring search, I'm afraid. [2:24:35] Um, today, now, prior to what, the, the reforms we adopted, a third to a fourth of the agents that the FBI had access to the database, correct? [2:24:46] It was a huge number. [2:24:49] The, the, one estimate we heard in a briefing three years ago was potentially 10,000 agents could access the database. [2:24:55] It's, it's, it's less than, it's, it's 3,000 agents today, right? [2:25:00] Significantly smaller. [2:25:01] It's less than 6%. [2:25:02] Um, and they don't even have access to all of the database, correct? [2:25:08] Yes. [2:25:10] Um, my, my point is this. [2:25:17] We, everybody's agree, we all agree on that, Mr. Raskin? [2:25:22] Like every, has anything I said not been accurate? [2:25:24] Well, I'll just say this. [2:25:25] We don't know a lot about what's taking place right now. [2:25:28] So for example, when, when you talk about the reduction in the number of queries or who's got the right to do the queries, [2:25:34] there are other things that are not being defined as queries that are still taking place. [2:25:39] There are searches, there are reviews, there are other things that are happening. [2:25:43] And this is the problem with not having meaningful oversight. [2:25:46] I, I, um, that's a, I just want to get back to the, what we agree. [2:25:58] I, I hear you. [2:25:59] And if that's happening, then, then I expect Chairman Jordan would work with you to resolve that. [2:26:05] Right. [2:26:06] Is that, is that fair enough? [2:26:07] Very fair. [2:26:08] I, I mean, none, none of us want that. [2:26:10] None of us on this committee, the Intelligence Committee, or any other committee want them operating outside of the law. [2:26:16] But I, I, again, want to get back to, uh, the FBI is prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime. [2:26:22] The FBI can only access VISA 702 data if the foreign target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. [2:26:37] We're, we're talking about terrorism. [2:26:39] Forgive me, are you referring to a foreign target or an American citizen, a U.S. person? [2:26:44] They, they, they can only query if the foreign target, it, Mr. Jordan? [2:26:53] All that's right, but they could, they could query the American's name in the context of all that. [2:26:57] That's correct. [2:26:59] An ongoing, predicated investigation. [2:27:00] As I said before, what was happening prior was completely static situation, not the investigation. [2:27:05] I'm going to search a congressman. [2:27:06] I'm going to search donors. [2:27:07] I'm going to search journalists. [2:27:08] I'm going to search my ex-girlfriend. [2:27:10] That was the kind of baloney that was going on prior. [2:27:12] That's right. [2:27:14] I agree with you. [2:27:17] And, and, um, but there are times when a foreign target may be in communications with a U.S. citizen [2:27:24] that it would be necessary to move expeditiously to stop a terrorist attack inside the United States of America. [2:27:35] Is that a good thing? [2:27:36] Yes. [2:27:37] And, and there may be, they may want to move expeditiously on the American because the American may not know they're somehow engaged in something. [2:27:43] They may want to warn and give them a sort of a preemptive, like, hey, we need to let you know this. [2:27:48] Yes. [2:27:50] That, that's correct. [2:27:51] Uh, and I just, I just say this to say this, this, this is, uh, I, I, I listen as the point [2:27:56] was made that, you know, who voted for what last time. [2:27:59] This is an important tool for protecting American citizen security. [2:28:07] And I do think that RISA did a very good job of making sure that we balance the protection of American citizens, [2:28:23] stopping the abuses that we had seen in the past, and protecting Americans' constitutional rights. [2:28:30] And I do think that we need to, uh, have this vote on the extension, and then I expect that, that things will continue. [2:28:41] And if we see any abuses over the next 18 months, then I imagine the, the backlash from that would be pretty extreme for anybody at the FBI that did that. [2:28:51] And I will tell you, Mr. Askin, I think you would see Republicans, including this one, that if there were any abuses from the FBI, [2:28:59] lining up for very serious consequences to the people that abused the constitutional rights of any American citizen. [2:29:07] And so I'll just, Mr. Jordan, do you have anything else that you would like to say? [2:29:11] No, that was, that was well said. [2:29:12] I would just point out, and I, and I should have said this earlier, but I was, I was thinking about Title I and 702. [2:29:16] There are criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully disclosure of classified information and stuff related to 702. [2:29:21] So there are some criminal penalties we put in, in, in, in two years ago that I think are positive as well. [2:29:26] That, that's correct. [2:29:27] And, and I do think that there needs to be a review of the incident. [2:29:31] I do think that if you're, you know, if you're active in an investigation and you're moving fast and you do something a thousand times, [2:29:36] if you do something a thousand times, you're prone to make an error on one of them. [2:29:41] So as, as long as the agents are treated fairly, um, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm good with the consequences for anybody that, that knowingly and willingly abused it. [2:29:50] Madam Chair, I'm going to, um, yield at this stage. [2:29:55] Thank you both for being here. [2:29:58] Thank you. [2:29:59] Thank you, Mr. Scott. [2:30:00] Ms. Ledger Fernandez, you're recognized. [2:30:02] Thank you very much, uh, Madam Chair. [2:30:04] And, and as I'm sitting here and like investigating and understanding, like what this bill does, it, it strikes me, um, Chairman, um, do you think the federal government should be able to access and gather our medical records? [2:30:20] I think it's against the law right now. [2:30:23] I don't think so. [2:30:24] No, I don't, I'm no, I'm not for that. [2:30:25] And in general, do you, do you think that would be right that we'd have the federal government accessing and gathering and compiling, uh, our medical records, your medical records? [2:30:34] No, I, I, I don't like the federal government telling us what we can say, telling us what we can tweet, getting into our privacy. [2:30:41] I don't like that at all. [2:30:42] That's why we have the bill of rights. [2:30:43] Yeah, you don't, yeah, you don't like it at all. [2:30:44] But the reality is it's happening right now. [2:30:47] And, and that's because, uh, under this law, and I think it is an issue of what the law is, and that's our job, is to decide what the law is. [2:30:56] Right now we have the data brokers, uh, loophole, where the federal government is able to amass this information by buying it from others, right? [2:31:07] Am I correct in understanding of that, right? [2:31:09] Yeah, and that's why last Congress, and I think we're working on that bill, this Congress as well, out of our committee, uh, given the name Fourth Amendment's not for sale. [2:31:18] Any, anything that would require a warrant that would otherwise require a warrant from government, government can't just go buy that information. [2:31:24] And so we've, we've passed that before. [2:31:26] We'll look to pass it again. [2:31:27] I'm trying to forgive. [2:31:28] Yeah, but we don't, it's not in this clean, it's not in this reauthorization. [2:31:31] And I think that that's the problem, because we know that that's happened. [2:31:35] I, I think that, uh, the, the question is, uh, the, the statement made by, uh, uh, Mr. Scott was, if we've seen abuses, then we should do something about it. [2:31:45] But we've already seen these abuses. [2:31:47] Uh, you know, it's not hypothetical. [2:31:50] So, in one instance, data brokers sold private location data from around 600 Planned Parenthood locations across 48 states to an anti-abortion political group that used it to target misinformation to women. [2:32:04] Uh, and another example, Texas law enforcement exploited data broker footage for more than 83,000 automatic license plate reader cameras. [2:32:16] Uh, we have an instance in Georgia, uh, where, uh, data was gathered and then the, the law enforcement used it to prosecute a woman, uh, who had had a miscarriage. [2:32:30] And whether or not you agree with this particular subject, whether you're allowed to deal with miscarriages, you know, I think we should. [2:32:39] I think women, health should be protected. [2:32:41] The law doesn't presently provide, and we're going to be addressing this. [2:32:45] And then this is my concern and ranking member Raskin, I mean, there need to be reforms, uh, now, right? [2:32:55] Because otherwise we're going to have 18 months without any reforms in card rails as I see this bill. [2:33:00] Is that correct? [2:33:01] This is a time of tremendous danger for people's civil liberties and their civil rights. [2:33:06] Um, and I, I know my friends across the aisle thought, uh, it was serious under president Biden. [2:33:13] Well, um, you know, that pales by contrast to what we're living through today in terms of the government weaponizing the justice department, prosecuting, [2:33:23] or trying to prosecute members of Congress, um, going after people identified by the president as his political foes, um, [2:33:34] and using the government in a completely partisan and subjective way. [2:33:40] And I just think there are vast millions of Americans, if not the vast majority of Americans, [2:33:47] who would not trust, uh, this government with our privacy rights and with our civil liberties like this? [2:33:53] We need to build the protections in. [2:33:55] And again, I say it with all due respect that this should be for all administrations, [2:34:01] but there are lots of people who feel it very intensely right now. [2:34:05] And we should not have the government spying on its citizens, its residents, and that's what's happening here. [2:34:12] Uh, and so it might be that this administration's actions sort of really tell you the abuses are happening, [2:34:21] so we should act now. [2:34:22] Right. [2:34:23] So that it then applies to all further administration. [2:34:26] Well, that's right. [2:34:27] And, you know, the, the problem with, well, let's take 18 months and then see what happens, [2:34:31] um, is a lot can happen in that time and we're not going to know what's happening. [2:34:35] I mean, you know, uh, Mr. Jordan, uh, had his, uh, phone records. [2:34:40] Um, they were, uh, revisited. [2:34:42] Or I don't know, reviewed by the government. [2:34:45] He didn't find out for several years. [2:34:46] I think that that was taking place. [2:34:48] So that was subject to a warrant, right? [2:34:50] That was subject. [2:34:51] That wasn't just, am I correct? [2:34:53] Well, there was a, I think there was a process there. [2:34:55] He'll explain exactly what happened. [2:34:56] But the point is that, um, and this has happened again on both sides, on all sides. [2:35:02] So I'm trying to lift it just one centimeter above the normal partisan contest we have here. [2:35:07] We need rules that are gonna bind to the government regardless of who's in power. [2:35:12] Um, and we've got the opportunity to say that a court, a judge, has got to look at, uh, any attempt by the FBI to query things of a private nature of U.S. persons, U.S. citizens. [2:35:29] Yeah, and I, I really liked it last time when we had, uh, uh, I told him I thought I was living in an alternate universe, uh, when we were pushing for affidavits. [2:35:40] And we were pushing for things to protect privacy. [2:35:44] And we had agreement across the aisle among certain of us. [2:35:48] And I wish we were back in that position and we weren't saying we have to do it now. [2:35:52] We pushed ourselves up to the deadline. [2:35:54] And not like a short extension, 18 months. [2:35:57] That's a long time where a lot of damage can be done to people's personal data. [2:36:02] But I will, unless there's something. [2:36:04] Well, just on that 18 month point. [2:36:06] I mean, it feels to me like, I don't know exactly where the 18 month, you know, time came from, but it seems to me like it's saying to the administration, [2:36:17] okay, you get 18 months more to do what you want to do and then we'll talk about what happens in the future. [2:36:24] In the meantime, there's no emergency, um, in terms of renewing this because the present certifications are going to be lasting for a long time. [2:36:32] So we've got time to work this out. [2:36:34] Well, uh, I did yield back and I do appreciate your smile because I, I mean, it just feels like you're in a different place than you were last time. [2:36:44] We'll, we'll point out that the examples you raised on the government purchasing material, most of those are outside of 702. [2:36:50] Most of those are law enforcement. [2:36:51] And we, so when we passed the bill last year, we worked with local law enforcement, where does it make sense for them to be able to purchase certain information, [2:36:58] but not others that would, that would, you know, we think violate the fourth amendment. [2:37:02] So, um, that is much broader than, than, than 702. [2:37:05] Yeah. Yeah. Well, the problem is, is that, you know, social security data was released. [2:37:09] I mean, this is an administration that has released so much private information about, uh, Americans that it is alarming and scary. [2:37:17] And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. [2:37:19] Thank you, Ms. Leisure Fernandez. [2:37:21] Mr. Griffith, you're recognized. [2:37:23] Thank you very much. [2:37:25] Uh, Chairman, uh, Jordan, is there anything else you wanted to add, uh, in response to prior? [2:37:30] I, I, I have to tell you, I, I'm really concerned. [2:37:35] I know it's 702. [2:37:38] Uh, I've been to the briefings in the previous administration when we were talking hundreds of thousands. [2:37:44] I've been here where we're talking about, I think your terminology was a handful and I think that's accurate. [2:37:50] So there's no question in my mind that this administration is doing what it's supposed to. [2:37:56] That said, I worry about civil liberties. [2:37:59] I've been a student of, uh, the Wilkesite rebellion and John Wilkes and the whole creation of our constitutional freedom from government intrusion. [2:38:10] And I'm very, very concerned and I, and unfortunately I'm finding myself drawn to arguments on both sides, uh, because it is a close call for me. [2:38:18] Uh, but, uh, what can you do to reassure me besides telling me that this administration is doing and it has been doing the right thing and will continue to do? [2:38:27] I hope what can you do to reassure those of us who are a little, little concerned, but, uh, I mean, why, why should it be clean when we could be looking at, uh, you know, [2:38:37] Yeah. [2:38:38] Micus, uh, in interventions and not on case by case, not on a case here and there, but on all cases, looking at, uh, perhaps, uh, you know, specialized warrants and then notification to people. [2:38:50] So they have a right to defend maybe not in the first instance, but certainly somewhere down the road where they can say, wait a minute, why did you take my property, my privacy and my information? [2:39:01] Um, I would just say maybe, maybe a few quick thoughts. [2:39:04] One is, you know, I know the Democrats are making a different argument, but we, we've been around Congress a while. [2:39:08] You've been around Congress a while. [2:39:09] Normally you reauthorize things for several years. [2:39:12] This is 18 months. [2:39:13] So, uh, while they might want to say that's a long time, I think that's relatively short time period. [2:39:19] Uh, remember the one we voted on two years ago with all the reforms was two years and we're just now starting to see all those reforms in the, in the, in the positive impact they've had. [2:39:26] So, uh, it, it short term, those reforms are there. [2:39:29] Second, um, I think, you know, the, the other side likes to criticize the current FBI director, but it was that FBI director who first gave us the information about all the abuses happening in Title I of Eisen. [2:39:40] He wrote the memorandum. [2:39:41] We don't know about what took place with the dossier, how a foreign authored document was laundered by one campaign to the FBI and then used as a basis to go spy on the other party's campaign. [2:39:54] That's crazy, but that happened. [2:39:55] And it was Kash Patel, Director Patel, who wrote that document and figured out what was going on. [2:40:00] And at the time we were told, oh, no, you guys are all crazy. [2:40:02] Well, it turned out to be all true. [2:40:03] And that was the beginning of it all. [2:40:05] So, uh, that, that's the guy you have now at the FBI who's, I mean, responsible for the reforms we have seen. [2:40:11] And then third, I would just say, like, there are good people in Congress like you and everyone else in this who, I, I think everyone's motives in here are genuinely, they're genuinely concerned about protecting the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment. [2:40:22] So you believe if we find out there are problems that we could get the votes at the end of the 18 months if need be? [2:40:27] No matter who's in charge. [2:40:28] I know the amount of work that we've done on judiciary. [2:40:32] And, and started off just a handful of this. [2:40:35] But what we've done and then how that is, as the gentlelady was, as Ms. Ledger Fernandez was talking about how we came together in a bipartisan way to get the 56 reforms and, and, and things we did last year. [2:40:46] Um, and how we almost, you know, the vote was 212-212. [2:40:50] Um, so I know that this Congress is committed to protecting American civil liberties. [2:40:55] But in the situation we're in, I don't think it's too much to say short term when the commander in chief, at a time we're in two military conflicts, uh, military operations, or a short term extension of something that we've reformed dramatically. [2:41:10] I don't think that's too much to ask. [2:41:12] And if there are additional problems in the next 18 months, by golly, we'll dig into it, and we'll address it in a bipartisan way and fix it. [2:41:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:41:21] I yield back. [2:41:22] Mr. Norman, you're recognized. [2:41:26] Thank both of you for coming. [2:41:29] Congressman Jordan, you know, we've all seen the issues you had with unlawful investigations, unlawful, violating every right that you had, Scott Perry the same way. [2:41:41] Do you really think, one of, one, is, are there consequences, uh, moving forward for those who violate, that are on the books, that are immediate, that, I know the, the numbers that can access files, queries, are limited. [2:41:58] But what keeps them in, in check with, with all the tools they have available? [2:42:05] One, Congress is watching, much closer now, Congress is watching what they do. [2:42:09] So we get the reports about what happened, how many searches, who did it. [2:42:13] We get them quarterly now. [2:42:15] Uh, second, when it comes to Title I, we can go in and, like, we have certain people cleared from their committee, certain lawyers on our committee staff who can go in there, we can go in there. [2:42:25] So there's just much greater access, accountability, process involved. [2:42:29] And if someone's violating those processes, there, there are penalties that they're subject to, both on the Title I side and on the 702 side. [2:42:37] Um, but if we find out, as I just said, if we find out in the future there were abuses and we need to enhance those criminal penalties, okay. [2:42:44] Because we're talking about people's liberties here. [2:42:46] But, as I've said now several times, I think the framework we're in, short-term extension, makes sense. [2:42:52] Well, everywhere I, everywhere I go, people want consequences. [2:42:55] Not long, drawn out. [2:42:56] Not hearing. [2:42:57] Hearings from. [2:42:58] I said, you know, you have all these hearings. [2:43:00] You get, you know, ones on the, on the stand get scorched. [2:43:06] But there's no, there's no consequences. [2:43:10] Only the, the, well, it's, it's funny you say that, because that's the number one question I get as I'm traveling around the country. [2:43:15] It's like, and you were, you were more diplomatic about the way you said it, but most people just look at me like, hey Jordan, when is someone going to jail? [2:43:23] Correct. [2:43:24] And, and I'm like, we can't prosecute anyone. [2:43:26] All we can do is do the oversight and, and propose legislation, pass legislation and, and, and go from there. [2:43:32] And we can do referrals if we think so, if some of that's warranted, which we've done a handful of those where we thought it was legitimately warranted. [2:43:37] Um, but yeah, the, the one guy who was held, uh, somewhat responsible is Kevin Kleinhans is the guy who lied to the court back and took a document, changed the meaning of it on email. [2:43:49] He was, he, he lied to the court and he did have some consequences that he faced criminal penalties that he faced for lying to the court clear back in 2016 when they, when they went to the vice court. [2:43:58] Okay. [2:44:00] Thank you. [2:44:01] Mr. Norman, would you yield us? [2:44:02] Oh yeah. [2:44:04] Mr. Chairman, you went over fairly quickly. [2:44:07] The oversight that occurs by the committee and by Congress. [2:44:13] Mm-hm. [2:44:14] Would you mind going over that again? [2:44:16] I think a little more slowly because I, I think that's a very important part of the reforms that were done. [2:44:27] And I think it would. [2:44:28] Yeah. [2:44:29] I just want to make sure. [2:44:30] Be good for all of our members to hear what you said. [2:44:34] Mr. Raskin has implied that there isn't any oversight going on. [2:44:39] And I think it would be helpful. [2:44:41] The role of Congress in the oversight, particularly. [2:44:45] Okay. [2:44:47] So on the front end to do the search, there's certain protocols and processes in place that have to be approved. [2:44:52] It can just be one person, 10,000 agents just, you know, hitting the system. [2:44:56] It has to be searched, first of all, within all the framework of what Representative Scott talked about in that kind of investigation that's going on. [2:45:04] Then there's process in place. [2:45:06] You've got to get sign off from certain superiors and others in the FBI before you can do the search or the, or the query. [2:45:12] So those approval requirements, there's training on the front end, process and approval requirements on the front end. [2:45:18] And then there's, then there's accountability where they can give, they have to give us the reports what's going on. [2:45:23] And we have the ability to go in and talk to them, both on the Title I and on, and on 7-2. [2:45:29] So the reporting, the transparency, the training in the process and the approval up front before you can do the searches, [2:45:35] all that was in these multiple reforms we did two years ago to the bill. [2:45:40] And to clarify, you said we have the ability. [2:45:45] Is that indeed being done? [2:45:49] Yeah. [2:45:51] The oversight is being done. [2:45:52] It isn't just that you have the ability to do it, but your staff. [2:45:57] Information comes to us. [2:45:58] We can send staff into, particularly on the Title I side, we can send staff into the VISA court. [2:46:05] And so all that is now. [2:46:08] And these, in the reports, I remember we had the debate in the committee, in the markup in committee a couple of years ago. [2:46:14] I think we had an annual report requirement and that was, that was no, we had a member offer the amendment. [2:46:19] And it was agreed on in a bipartisan way to, to shorten that timeframe to semi-annual and quarterly reports that we get. [2:46:26] Thank you, Mr. Norman, for yielding. [2:46:31] You yield back. [2:46:32] Mr. Jack, you're recognized. [2:46:35] Mr. Chairman, I just was hoping you could, for the record and also for my own, [2:46:41] knowledge sake, you mentioned some of the reforms that were adopted back in, I think, 2024. [2:46:45] Yeah. [2:46:46] I think they were pretty expansive as it relates to protecting the rights of Americans and could potentially assuage concerns of some of our colleagues. [2:46:53] So I would welcome you walking through some of those reforms for myself and others. [2:46:57] Yeah. [2:46:58] It's like, as I said, as I said before, and sometimes it's easier to tell the story because I don't know if you were in here, Representative, when, during the opening statements, but to look at the numbers. [2:47:10] So initially, a few years ago, there were upwards of 10,000 FBI agents who could search the database. [2:47:19] We know from the IG and the reports we got that that process was abused in major ways, where they were looking at members of Congress, donors, journalists. [2:47:34] I always use the example, ex-girlfriends they were looking at, which is not part of any investigation arising from actual foreign intelligence that they got while surveilling a foreigner. [2:47:45] So the number who can actually query the system much smaller today, the abuses that took place or the number of queries actually done in 2021 were 3 million. [2:47:57] Now it's, it's down to last year, 9,000. [2:48:01] And the number of abuses when it was 3 million in 2021 was 278,000 times. [2:48:07] They didn't follow their rules. [2:48:08] And we think, and now, now it's that, that number is 127, but most of those were some of the clerical things, as I was talking about the process. [2:48:15] You have to go on the front end. [2:48:16] Maybe someone didn't get approval of both the people he asked to get approval of before he searched the database. [2:48:21] Got only one sign off. [2:48:23] Those kind of things were the, were that number. [2:48:25] So we think all the front end process, front end approval, limited number who can do it. [2:48:33] All those things are protections. [2:48:34] And then if there are people who are messing up, still not following the rules. [2:48:38] And again, the rules get taken to the FISA court. [2:48:40] They get approved by the court itself. [2:48:42] Here's how you're going to conduct searches on the 702 program. [2:48:45] If there are abuses, then there are consequences, including some criminal, but consequences, [2:48:51] termination, and other things for the agents who didn't follow the rules. [2:48:55] Thank you. [2:48:57] I yield back. [2:48:59] Thank you. [2:49:00] Thank you, Mr. Jack. [2:49:01] Mr. Neguse, you're recognized. [2:49:05] Well, thank you, Madam Chair. [2:49:07] I appreciate that. [2:49:08] And I certainly wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member and the chairman of my committee. [2:49:16] Chairman Jordan, I suspect ranking member McGovern has already asked you this question. [2:49:21] But I will just preface by saying, I thought I'd seen everything in the House of Representatives, [2:49:28] but I never thought I'd see the day that Jim Jordan would be championing a clean, quote, unquote, reauthorization of FISA. [2:49:35] That was not on my bingo list. [2:49:37] Different program today. [2:49:38] What was that? [2:49:39] Different program today. [2:49:40] Different party, it sounds like. [2:49:41] No, no, no. [2:49:42] Different president. [2:49:43] Totally different situation today. [2:49:45] One question I guess I've been struggling with is, why 18 months? [2:49:50] Clearly, there's a lot of consternation about FISA. [2:49:53] There's a real desire by a lot of your members, members on the Republican side, members on the Democratic side, [2:49:58] ranking member Rasker and others, about potential changes that ought to be made. [2:50:02] I just wonder, why are we landing on 18 months? [2:50:04] Why not 12 months? [2:50:05] Why not 14 months? [2:50:06] Why not a shorter timeframe for the reauthorization? [2:50:10] I don't know that happened. [2:50:11] This is pretty long. [2:50:12] Well, I actually think it's pretty short, because most of the time we reauthorize things for five years, six years, seven years, eight years. [2:50:16] How long is the National Defense Authorization Act reauthorization? [2:50:19] Well, that's an annual thing, of course. [2:50:20] Well, that's an annual deal, right? [2:50:21] Yeah. [2:50:22] So I don't know. [2:50:23] You're describing this issue? [2:50:24] Would you describe it? [2:50:25] Compared to a lot of other things we've done around. [2:50:27] And certainly this FISA law, I remember when I first got to Congress, it was a lot longer [2:50:31] than 18 months. [2:50:32] I don't know what it was. [2:50:33] I think it was four years, five years, maybe 10 for some of it. [2:50:36] And Title I, I don't know that we, I don't think that is up for reauthorization. [2:50:40] We changed Title I when we had to do the reauthorization for 702. [2:50:44] We changed aspects of Title I to protect Americans' liberty. [2:50:47] But yeah, these are normally much longer. [2:50:49] I think maybe even like 10 before. [2:50:51] So I think 18 months, relatively speaking, is short. [2:50:53] I guess I would query whether or not, and I don't know if ranking member asked me if [2:50:59] you thought about this, but it just, it strikes me that a reauthorization that aligned with [2:51:04] the expiration that's been outlined in the court ruling, right? [2:51:08] Which I guess is next March, I guess? [2:51:11] March 27th, yeah. [2:51:12] Yeah. [2:51:13] It doesn't, I don't quite understand why we wouldn't just time the reauthorizations [2:51:17] to perhaps mimic that schedule. [2:51:19] Well, it's not time… [2:51:20] And I suspect that that would… [2:51:21] I don't know. [2:51:22] I actually do not know that. [2:51:25] I don't know if the ranking member does either, but it's, I don't know why the [2:51:28] court does it when they do it. [2:51:29] They reauthorize it for a year. [2:51:30] That's run suit because they did it on March 27th. [2:51:32] So it must go to March 27th next year. [2:51:34] And of course, right now the timeline we're on is April 20th. [2:51:37] Yeah. [2:51:38] So I don't know, I don't know why it doesn't, they don't say that. [2:51:42] Fair enough. [2:51:43] Well, I, I mean, based on some public reporting, it suggests that there's some members of your [2:51:48] conference that are on their way to the White House to have a conversation with the [2:51:51] President about this particular legislation. [2:51:54] And maybe if they're checking their phones and, or they're watching this debate, I would [2:51:58] just say to them and, and throw this idea into the atmosphere that 18 months is awfully [2:52:03] long and it's, I would, would think eminently reasonable to suggest a shorter timeline, [2:52:08] perhaps an annualized one. [2:52:10] But in any event, I know we, you all have had a fulsome debate on this. [2:52:13] Ranking member McGovern? [2:52:14] Well, I wouldn't. [2:52:15] No, I just, it's going to be a long night. [2:52:16] Okay. [2:52:17] Got it. [2:52:18] Got it. [2:52:19] I will, I will stop there. [2:52:20] I will yield back to the chairwoman. [2:52:21] Oh, that's amazing. [2:52:22] Thank you, Mr. Neguse. [2:52:23] Mr. Langworthy, you're recognized. [2:52:25] Um, I, I think, I agree we've had a, a full debate here. [2:52:29] Uh, I don't have any additional questions, but, uh, thank you both for coming. [2:52:33] Okay. [2:52:37] Thank you. [2:52:38] Well, everybody's heard the, the, um, bells for voting. [2:52:45] I believe Mr. Himes, do you wish to speak? [2:52:48] Okay. [2:52:49] Well, I would say that our witnesses are excused. [2:52:54] If there's no further, um, questions of our witnesses, then you're excused. [2:53:01] And we'll recognize Mr. Himes. [2:53:03] I'm going to, we're. [2:53:09] Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:53:10] I'll, uh, I know we're under time pressure, so I'll be quick here. [2:53:13] Um, uh, I'm pleased to be. [2:53:15] Hold on just a second. [2:53:16] So we can hear you. [2:53:17] Hey, Jim. [2:53:19] Go ahead. [2:53:21] So I'm pleased to be here to testify in favor of my amendment to the FISA 702 reauthorization legislation [2:53:26] the House intends to consider tomorrow. [2:53:28] I'll begin by saying that it is critical, critical that we reauthorize FISA 702. [2:53:34] It is our most important intelligence authority, and it is used every day by professionals across [2:53:39] the intelligence community to keep Americans safe and advance our national security. [2:53:44] There is simply no alternative to section in 702 and allowing it to expire would be devastating. [2:53:50] Under Joe Biden, the president's advisory board said that allowing this authority to expire would be [2:53:57] the worst intelligence failure of our era. [2:54:00] I want my colleagues to contemplate what those words mean. [2:54:03] If we have an up or down vote on reauthorization tomorrow, I will vote to reauthorize because [2:54:08] it is truly that important. [2:54:10] With that said, I'm disappointed in the process, or lack thereof, that we have undertaken during [2:54:15] this reauthorization. [2:54:16] Two years ago, when Congress last considered reauthorizing 702, there were numerous hearings, [2:54:21] months of classified briefings, markups, and a healthy debate on the floor about reauthorization, [2:54:26] including amendments. [2:54:28] We've had nearly none of that this time around, and I think that's unfortunate. [2:54:31] And while I have had productive conversations with Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Raskin, [2:54:35] and many other members, we're nonetheless looking at a clean reauthorization rather than a serious [2:54:39] debate about reforms. [2:54:41] I offered my amendment to show that there is another way. [2:54:45] This amendment would address what has long been the most controversial aspect of Section [2:54:50] 702, the FBI's authority to query 702 databases, the 702 database, with selectors for a U.S. [2:54:57] person. [2:54:58] This amendment would create a judicial process whereby the DOJ would request FISA court permission [2:55:04] to review content returned by U.S. person queries while including exceptions for certain types [2:55:10] of queries and exigent circumstances. [2:55:13] This deals with the problem with a full Fourth Amendment warrant, which is that if you have [2:55:18] to show probable cause to a judge and get a Fourth Amendment warrant, all defensive queries [2:55:23] go away. [2:55:24] What's a defensive query? [2:55:26] Terrorists are talking about Jim Himes. [2:55:28] Is that because Jim Himes is a terrorist? [2:55:30] Maybe, and if so, you've got evidence, get a warrant. [2:55:32] But maybe they're targeting Jim Himes. [2:55:34] That's a defensive query that goes away with a full-blown Biggs Amendment, Fourth Amendment requirement. [2:55:41] So this amendment is designed to allow the FBI to conduct the queries of lawfully collected [2:55:49] foreign intelligence that they need to conduct and defend Americans against threats. [2:55:54] But by putting the FISA court in the process, rather than simply approvals and reviews at [2:55:58] the FBI and DOJ, and I'll remind my colleagues that this is the most heavily overseen collection [2:56:04] program they are overseen by all three branches of government. [2:56:07] This will increase the confidence that queries are done only for proper and compliant foreign [2:56:12] intelligence purposes. [2:56:13] The hour is getting late, but there's still a path forward for Congress to consider bipartisan [2:56:17] reforms. [2:56:18] I think this amendment would actually result in a much larger yes vote on FISA reauthorization, [2:56:23] and that will increase the confidence that these powers cannot be misused. [2:56:27] I hope the House takes the opportunity to make this amendment in order and have a real debate [2:56:32] on reform. [2:56:33] Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:56:34] Mr. Ranking Member, I yield back. [2:56:36] Thank you, Mr. Himes. [2:56:37] I don't have any questions. [2:56:39] Mr. Scott. [2:56:40] I don't have any questions. [2:56:42] I will say this about Mr. Himes. [2:56:44] He's a member of the committee I serve with. [2:56:47] He's certainly diligent, intelligent, and I appreciate him and working with him on HIPC. [2:56:59] That's all. [2:57:00] That's it. [2:57:02] I think you're the ranking member, correct? [2:57:04] Please keep talking, Mr. Scott, will I? [2:57:07] I'm the ranking member of the committee. [2:57:08] Your fee is going up. [2:57:09] Thank you. [2:57:10] I should have acknowledged that when you sat down. [2:57:13] I apologize, but as you were speaking, I realized that. [2:57:17] Mr. McGovern. [2:57:18] I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his leadership. [2:57:21] Mr. Norman, you've yielded back, okay? [2:57:25] Mrs. Scanlon, Mr. Ngoose, Ms. Ledger-Fernander. [2:57:31] No, thank you, and thank you for pointing out that there really should have been more debate. [2:57:36] I remember learning so much during last time, and it really is sad that we're going to move [2:57:42] this forward for reauthorization. [2:57:44] Maybe. [2:57:45] We don't know what's really going to happen without that debate and without those amendments, [2:57:49] so thank you for raising that. [2:57:50] And if I may, just with Ms. Ledger-Fernandes, I very much appreciate you bringing up the purchase [2:57:56] of commercially available data by any government entity. [2:57:59] That's a really important thing that this Congress should be debating, but it's really [2:58:03] important that my colleagues understand that that's a really important debate that has absolutely [2:58:08] nothing to do with FISA 702. [2:58:10] FISA 702 does not authorize any purchase of any commercially available data. [2:58:14] Are you okay? [2:58:16] Thank you. [2:58:17] Mr. Himes, there's no one else to ask you any questions, I believe. [2:58:21] You're excused. [2:58:22] Thank you. [2:58:23] Is there anyone else seeking to testify on HR 6409, HR 6387, HR 6398, HR 1156, or HR 8035? [2:58:41] Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. [2:58:46] Without objection, the committee stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair.