H.R. 1028, the Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act

We're recess at any time pursuant to Committee Rule Two, House Rule Eleven, Clause Two. The Chairman may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. Now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming to lead us in the pleit.

To the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for

Thank the gentlelady for that. Um, soon to notice I call up uh H J Rez one thirty nine for purpose of mark up a move that the committee reported favorably to the house the clerk will report the bill.

H J Rez one

Out of objection the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mister Biggs, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today our national debt is more than thirty-eight trillion dollars and counting. For generations, Congress has chosen to max out our national credit card and leave the bill to the next generation, rather than have hard conversations about spending. Families across our nation have these hard conversations and balance their budgets. States do, and there's no reason that their federal leaders should not as well. Americans know that debt comes with strings attached. Every dollar we spend beyond our means today is a dollar. and change we must repay tomorrow. It's no different for government. The more America borrows, the more expensive every next borrowed dollar becomes. Indeed, annual federal spending on interest is now one of the largest line items we have. We spend more on interest than we do on our national defense. We spend more on interest than we do on Medicare. Republicans and Democrats may have different policy ideas and priorities, but surely we all can agree that a budget hamstrung by huge interest payments benefits nobody. Our fiscal trajectory is alarming and unsustainable. Higher than expected interest rates or other challenges could trigger a debt spiral. It's happened to other countries throughout history. It could happen to us. And without changes, the day of reckoning will come, and it will be ugly. Under the balanced budget amendment, spending cuts can be targeted and phased in over a longer period. In a crisis, they will be drastic and immediate. The balanced budget amendment will not merely beat back a future fiscal crisis, it will also reduce The enormous federal debt is currently driving up borrowing costs for all Americans. Mortgages, car payments and student loans are all more expensive because of Congress's irresponsibility. We saw the disastrous disastrous effects of budget busting deficit spending during the cata- catastrophic four years of Biden-Harris rule. With the eager support of Democrats in Congress and some Republicans, the Biden-Harris administration approved four point seven trillion dollars in new deficit spending. ultimately racking up eight point five trillion dollars in new national debt. And what did it get us? The worst inflation rate in forty years. When Biden and Harris took over in January, twenty twenty one, inflation was at just one point four percent per year. By the middle of their term, it was o- more than nine percent. Inflation is a tax on everyone, but we all know who it hurts the most. The poor, the working class, seniors on fixed incomes, and American families who saw their expenses with no similar increase in their salaries. This balanced budget amendment will limit Washington's ability to overspend and accelerate inflation by ensuring that future federal spending is funded by actual revenue not debt and money printing. Many of our friends will object, saying the balanced budget amendment will hurt national security, exacerbate financial crisis or prolong national disaster recovery by taking away Congress's ability to respond when tragedy strikes. This is untrue. And it is different than where it's been in past. In in t- uh twenty sixteen in the hundred, excuse me, in the hundred sixteenth Congress, John Tester, Senator from Montana, and uh, Ben McAdams, Representative from Utah, each introduced balanced budget amendments. We have seen in nineteen ninety-seven, for instance, a bipartisan effort on a balanced budget bill. People who Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia, and Sheila Jackson Lee, the Democrat from Texas. Vice President Al Gore was there, supported that. Frank Lottenberg, Democrat New Jersey, Charles Rangel, Democrat New York all joined, Steny Hoyer, Democrat from Maryland, all joined in signing and supporting that uh balanced budget bill on August fifth, nineteen ninety seven. In a true emergency, like funding for major natural disasters, Congress will be allowed uh uh issue additional expenditures with a two-thirds vote. A two-thirds vote in both chambers is a reasonable threshold for these emergency expenditures because it is the same threshold required by the Constitution for other extraordinary legislative acts by Congress. For instance, overriding a veto or the ratification of treaties. If Congress declares a war, that threshold is lowered to a simple majority. This balanced budget amendment will force Congress to kick the habit of spending money we don't have once and for all while still giving it the tools to respond nimbly to individual crises. But these ex- exceptions will not matter if the rule is not clear. The amendment does not allow Congress to fudge the numbers and rely on forecasts or other gimmicks which create loopholes that give Congress more leeway to spend recklessly. We can spend only what we take in, or in a true emergency, only specific additional amounts. The amendment does this in two ways. First, by clearly defining the criteria for calculating the receipt's side of the balance And second, by making it more difficult to further burden Americans with more taxes. First, the amendment would require Congress to calculate the previous three years' receipts adjusted for population and inflation. This forces Congress to deal with the facts, not fiscal fantasies. Second, the amendment constrains Congress's out-of-control spending by requiring a two-thirds vote to raise to raise taxes. This limit forces Congress to address runaway government spending by actually limiting spending, not by levying expensive and excessive taxes. Liberty and economic prosperity flourish when the federal government is limited. Finally, the amendment will take effect five years after ratification, giving Congress enough runway to make adjustments without shocking the systems. Forty-nine out of fifty states have balanced budget requirements. It's time the federal government joins them. I hope my colleagues on the other side of this aisle will join me in calling for a balanced budget amendment to get our fiscal house in order. Believe it or not, as I've said, there is a long history of Democrats supporting balanced budget amendments. I hope that's still the case today. We'll find out. Let's have a good and honest debate about this proposed amendment. I encourage everyone to support it. Mister Chairman, I have a few uh UCs if I can.

Gentlemen can uh state his request.

Yeah, a balanced budget amendment is in Dem- Democrats' interest.

Objection.

Uh, the American people want a balanced budget.

That objection.

And moderate House Dems back balanced budget.

Without objection.

Thank you. And as a close, before I yield back, I'll point out that just a few years ago the uh Blue Dog co-chair for communications said, "It's clearer than ever that the only way Congress will be able to produce a balanced budget is if it is required to do so by law." Washington Washington needs to have a serious bipartisan discussion about our nation's fiscal state. That's from from my friend from Southern California. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thanks for providing some much needed comic relief from all of the tragedy and pain surrounding us in America today by bringing forward, surely the funniest legislative initiative of the Congress, a Republican constitutional amendment to address a problem that Republicans created and that Republicans have systematically failed to address, even though they've got all of the necessary legislative tools at their disposal. I refer, of course, to gigantic runaway federal budget deficits that result from out of control Republican spending and stupendously reckless Republican tax cuts for billionaires and giant corporations. But there's no need to take my word for it, as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Our colleague, Mister Roy, at the House Rules Committee meeting preceding the vote on the so-called one big beautiful bill described it as " garbage" and pointed out the obvious. If we're gonna do tax policy, at least do have the courage and fortitude to do what you campaign on when you're talking about balancing our dang budget. That's right, Republicans control the House. Republicans control the Senate. Republicans control the White House. Republicans effectively control the Supreme Court, and yet they have not once balanced the federal budget or even tried to present a balanced budget for legislative consideration in this Congress. So to cover up for their pathetic capitulation to Donald Trump, who has six chapter eleven bankruptcies to his name, by the way, more bankruptcies and impeachments, although fewer bankruptcies, it's true, than criminal convictions, and to cover up for their unceasing giveaways to the Jeffrey Epstein and Elon Musk class of financial and sexual predators, they now wanna start finger-painting all over the US Constitution. That's right. They want us to use our Constitution to make them do what they claim they wanna do at a time when they already possess the complete power in government to do it. Oh, and in the process, they'll put our entire government for all time in a fiscal straitjacket, so truly responsible leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, won't have the flexibility to deal with real economic crises created by Republicans like Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, and Donald Trump. The simple truth is that we don't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget or have responsible fiscal policies. With one party control of the government and nonstop blather about the importance of balancing budget, Republicans could simply do it right now if they wanted to. But billionaire rip-off artists like Elon Musk or Peter Thiel or Donald Trump, they don't get rich off of balanced budgets. They get rich when the gangster state opens the spigots of taxpayer money in federal contracts and giveaways for billionaires in the high-flying rent-seeking corporate class. Republicans have run up historic corrupt deficits this Congress, and have never once submitted a single They may as well be introducing a constitutional amendment saying that federal agents shouldn't shoot American citizens in the face for exercising their first amendment rights or a constitutional amendment saying that federal agents shouldn't strip firearms from people lawfully carrying them under state law in the second amendment and then shoot them ten times for simply for disagreeing with Stephen Miller and the president we don't need a constitutional amendment to force the majority to do the right thing. That's hopeless. You don't need a constitutional amendment to comply with the law or to do the right thing. You just do it. History proves we don't need a constitutional amendment to budget responsibly. In the nineteen nineties, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, worked with a Republican-controlled Congress to eliminate the deficit completely. And the federal government ran a huge surplus for several years running without the aid of a contrived balanced budget constitutional amendment cooked up by some political consultant. Clinton bequeath to his successor, George W. Bush, a two hundred and thirty-six billion dollar federal surplus. But history shows that nearly every time a democratic administration has put our fiscal house in order, Republicans have taken it as an opportunity to pass more giant giveaways for corporations and billionaires, and blown massive holes in our budget. For example, the policies of President George W. Bush and his GOP Congress squandered the record federal budget surpluses of the Clinton years on and the staggeringly costly forever wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Two thousand seventeen, President Trump and the GOP Congress passed a so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a law that increased the federal deficit by an astounding one point nine trillion dollars. At the time, no president had ever added more money to our deficit. But then last year, the GOP passed the obscenely ugly profligate law, which will add an unprecedented and jaw-dropping four trillion dollars to the national debt because of its obscene giveaways to billionaires with the mega seal of approval. Of course, they paid for just a small fraction of this profligacy by stripping health insurance and food assistance from tens of millions of working class Americans who are now living with these Marie Antoinette policies that came out of the Trump White House. So, Mister Chairman, I will only support a constitutional amendment compelling Republicans to finally balance the budget if it also c- if it also compels them to stop throwing money at billionaires, to crack down on record corruption and profit-taking by their incorrigible president and to get and to get their private army in ice to start complying with the Constitution like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. Maybe we could even pass a constitutional amendment to compel President Trump to respect the Constitution. Let's have a hearing on that topic. I yield back.

Back, without objection, other opening statements, all other opening statements will be included in the record. Who seeks recognition?

Move to strike last word.

Gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.

You know, I'm all for balancing the budget, but I hate to tell Mister Biggs this isn't gonna work. The threshold for for spending out of balance is two thirds. And let me just go through I'd Two thirds is not a high enough threshold. That's sixty seven percent. Let me go through. some of the omnibus bills and the percentages by which they passed the House and the Senate. In twenty sixteen, an unbalanced budget passed by seventy-three percent in the House. In twenty seventeen, an unbalanced budget passed by seventy-one percent in the House. In twenty eighteen, an unbalanced budget passed with eighty-three percent of the vote in the Senate. In twenty nineteen, sixty-nine percent of the House voted for an unbalanced budget. In twenty twenty, sixty-eight Well, how can we get

So,

what would a two-thirds threshold do to stop this body or the other body from spending us into oblivion like we've been doing since twenty sixteen? I just don't see it.

That would, gentlemen, yield for your question.

I'll I certainly yield to the chairman.

Well, I, we just heard from the ranking member he blamed it all on Republicans. It sounds like Democrats were involved in those numbers as well. Is that right?

I think it's the uniparty. It's like you can you can the way we get budgets through the House and the Senate here is that when you don't have enough votes, you add more spending to it for somebody and then you develop a new constituency, a bigger constituency, and that's how you get to sixty percent in the Senate and fifty-one percent in the House, but you don't even need to get to that because we had, like I said, ninety-one percent of the House voted, there were only twenty-one people who didn't vote for the for the Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy, and Water, and Interior mini-buss. I w- I would yield.

What what what do you make of the example of what happened in the Clinton administration with the Democratic president and the Republican Congress, and the president was determined to come forward with balanced budgets, and there were record surpluses that took place for several years?

I, it, uh, I'm glad you asked that, I looked at your chart, I was very interested in it, you said Obama's budget, Biden's budget, Trump's budget. The Constitution gives us the power of the budget. We are the ones that spend the money, not the White House. house, the if you want a chart and you wanna sh- reflect accurately who is bankrupting this country, don't put the president's name on the chart, put the Congress, put who was the speaker of the house at that time. And I think what you'll find is Nancy Pelosi is responsible for over thirty percent of all the debt ever accumulated in this country today, when she was speaker.

Well

The, re- reclaiming my time, um, here's there's another problem that I have with this balanced budget, amendment, the constitutional amendment, in for any year in which there's a declaration of war, it doesn't apply. Oh my gosh, we'll be declaring war on Madagascar or some poor country uh people can't find on the map on after we pass the rules and elect a speaker, it'll be the third vote of every session of Congress to declare war. So we can get that little formality out of the way and start spending as much as we want. So that's a problem. I think, you know, I think the answer might be actually in the way that constitutional amendments are passed. You need what, three quarters of the states to agree? I think a a real balanced budget amendment, constitutional amendment, could require the states, three quarters of the states to say, you know what, there's enough of an emergency we're gonna let you guys in Washington spend, because you rightfully pointed out many states have balanced budget and forty-nine states and they stick you can't trust anybody up here, Republicans or Democrats, whether who's in the White House or who the speaker is. So, um, I mean, I applaud the effort, and I know this thing is super popular, but if you're at home listening, just remember every year we already pass a budget by more than two thirds. And when I say budget, I'm talking about an omnibus bill. It's not really a budget, it's just wanton spending and everything in one giant bill. It's always like a CR or an

Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from Austin's recogni- uh, j- oh, excuse me, gentleman from New York's recognized.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to any balanced budget amendment. Uh, the Congress is elected by the people to, among other things, enact a If the people prefer the budget be balanced, fine. If they vote for people who don't wanna balance the budget, also fine. But beyond that, we can balance the budget. And as was pointed out, when President Clinton was president, we had four years of balanced budgets because he wanted to do it. But what I also object to this amendment is it says any bill, section four, any bill to alleviate new tax or to increase the rate of any tax needs a two thirds vote of the whole number of each house. Two thirds not of those present in voting, but of the whole number. But that biases things. It takes a two thirds vote to increase the tax. But it it biases it against spending. We may wanna spend. The people may wanna spend money. They often do wanna spend money. And this says essentially that they can't spend money unless they get two thirds vote. It biases it. If it said you can't sp- you can't enact an appropriation without a two third vote it will be even worse but at least it will be balanced so this is an unbalanced amendment uh uh uh constitutional amendment because the people by majority vote cannot increase the tax now we have billionaires effectively paying no taxes paying tax rates lower than middle class people we ought to increase taxes on those billionaires but with this amendment we couldn't do it without a two thirds vote if we tax I mean under uh uh Trump we have several times twi nineteen seventeen uh nineteen seventeen, in twenty se- seventeen and uh earlier this year, uh last year rather, we passed huge bills that greatly increased the budget by doing what? By lowering taxes on billionaires. We wanna undo that. And it shouldn't take a two thirds vote to undo a tax or to raise taxes on billionaires, but a majority vote to in- to to relieve taxes on billionaires. It's introducing a bias into the Constitution, a pro-billionaire, anti-people bias, and it must be opposed for that and many other reasons. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from Washington is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I'm gonna have some amendments on the underlying bills that we're discussing later, but uh I'm moving to strike the last word, excuse me,

Gentlelady is recognized.

um but I wanna speak on the fact that we are completely distracting from the real issues that face our country in the Judiciary Committee. And I've been beating on this drum for some time. But let me be clear, this committee is supposed to be looking at the constitutional rights of Americans that are being violated across the country. There is supposed to be a bipartisan coalition on both sides that actually respects not having a surveillance state, that actually respects the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth the right to be free of illegal search and seizure. There is supposed to be a Congress that is committed and swears an oath to upholding the Constitution. But we're not talking about any of those things today. We're talking about a false, weird, ludicrous amendment around a balanced budget when it's structurally flawed. I'll have some amendments around that. It doesn't allow for you to, it requires a super majority, for you to raise taxes and actually bring in revenue. That's the other side of a balanced budget folks. There's spending and there's revenue. But this one says, no, you can't raise revenue. Why? Because this entire administration is about supporting the billionaires. And even former members of Congress on your side, who were some of the biggest MAGA supporters, have come out and said the whole thing. MAGA was a big lie. Because they're recognizing that the only people that are getting rich right now are this tiny group of people, including the President of the United States. So there's structural problems with this, some of which I agree with Mister Massillon, some of which I don't. There's the fundamental issue that this president, with your compliance, don't talk to me about Congress being responsible for authorization of funding. This Republican Party, for the most part, there are few people who have dissented, and I respect them, have put absolutely no controls on the President of the United States. There are a couple people that raise concerns every once in a while. They fold quickly. It's become a sport on our side to see how quickly people who originally raised concerns fold. That's what's happened. You've given over all authority of Congress and our Article One powers to the President. You don't You don't question him, you don't speak out against him, you don't stop anything that he's doing. And then on top of that, you stole from the taxpayers in your big bad betrayal bill to give a hundred and seventy-five billion dollars to ICE and CBP. And you know what ICE and CBP are doing across the country? Masked agents, dragging elderly people out of their cars, ICE and Border Patrol agents recklessly deploying chemical weapons in residential neighborhoods including by schools on kids, a two-year-old child left alone in a car in my district after ICE arrested his father, people exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest and being dragged out of the car, shot and murdered with no independent investigations, And in fact, the people who were supposed to conduct the independent investigations coming out and saying they did absolutely nothing wrong contrary to what every American across the country sees with their own eyes. The kidnapping and disappearance of five-year-old Liam Conejos Ramos who was used as bait to get his father, who by the way was in legal immigration proceedings here in the country. ICE designating detention cells specifically for Active duty service members having their parents arrested and deported, children as young as two years old detained in family detention camps, the highest number of detention deaths in two decades, with thirty-seven deaths just since Donald Trump took office. Immigration agents lawlessly ramming down doors without a judicial warrant. What is wrong with my colleagues on the other side. Are you going to allow this to continue while you try to distract us with some other cover-up some fake balanced budget amendment some bill that targets trans kids? Is that is that what you're coming to now? Because we've worked together on surveillance and privacy. But are you speaking out against the constitutional violations that are happening right now that you,

We're completing the mark-up we began a couple of weeks ago of what we're doing on uh the chair now recognizes

Good gentlemen. Mr. Chairman.

gentleman from Virginia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike last word.

Gentleman's recognized.

I I won't waste time responding to the uh lies, really, of the gentlelady from Virginia. washington when she uh claims that people who

so chairman you're undermining the the gentleman needs to take down his words what's a point of order you don't have a point of order in this i have a point of order

yes

it's amazing i have a point of order i request that the gentleman take down his words he is or withdraw them they're telling me to withdraw them but i would demand you take them down

and he will suspend

don't call me a liar

i will restate

do not call me a liar

i will restate

you better

the time the time belongs to the gentleman The gentlelady is not being truthful when she says that people are

Mister Chairman.

What?

peacefully protesting

Mister Chairman.

when they are interfering with ICE enforcement of the law.

The time t-

You can't impugn the intent of a member.

The time The the time belongs

You are misstating the facts.

The time belongs

Are you withdrawing?

No.

The time belongs to the gentleman from Virginia.

Do not withdraw.

I think he has said that he will re- he restated it and said that you weren't being truthful versus the word that was used prior. The time belongs to him. The gentleman from Virginia is right.

I wanna focus on the issue at hand, which is not weird, which is not ludicrous. When you are thirty five trillion dollars in debt, that's serious. In fact, that is the most serious issue facing the future of this country. We desperately have to address the fiscal imbalance that has been created by both parties, by both ends of the Pennsylvania Avenue over the last several decades. There i- and the gentleman who have spoken and the gentlelady who has spoken uh said it correctly in that we as a body have responsibility but we haven't been able to have exercised that self-control to address it and whether it's uh the Ways and Means Committee failing to address entitlements, appropriations failing to address deficit uh the regulatory state, uh across authorizing committees, we all have a responsibility to step up and do our part. Um the Republican study committee has in fact offered balanced budgets every year, balanced over ten years, balanced over seven years. Um so the ranking member was incorrect that there are not balanced budget proposals out there.

Uh will the gentleman yield for a quick question?

Yeah.

Uh but have any of those been brought

They have. In fact, um, i- i- it was the practice that when the president offered his budget, it was brought to the floor, the majority offered their budget, and then the RSC budget was actually offered for a vote. So, yes, that has happened in the past. It hasn't happened recently, unfortunately. I would like to see it brought to the floor.

Okay. Thank you. I wasn't aware that it ever happened.

It has. But, um, you know, we w- The train is off the tracks. And whether it's the people calling for an Article five Constitutional Convention or this committee taking action uh as is necessary to pass a constitutional amendment, there there must be action. And it may not be perfect. The gentleman from Kentucky points out some of the uh questions about the wording, but let's get it right. Let's spend the time here and do what's necessary to get this amendment right, so we can pass it. I think it is fiscally sound because it does require two to spend beyond balance or raise taxes. Um,

The gentleman yield.

uh, I yield.

Just as a uh as a point of curiosity, are you aware of what the combined net worth of every billionaire in the United States is?

Uh, I do not know that.

It's about seven trillion dollars to r- to so to respond to the other side, this is not a taxation issue as you were alluding to. This is fundamentally a spending issue. If you tax every billionaire at one hundred percent their net worth, it wouldn't dent the long-term trajectory of where we are.

I thank the gentleman. And uh I do think that uh it is to come time for us to take this important step because the interest on the debt is now thirteen percent of our budget, interest payments on the debt. It's more than we spend on Medicare, more than we spend on national defense. It's now the largest part of our budget. Um, so if for our children, for our future generations, for this country, uh, to con to lead, uh we have to take this action today. So I I'm look forward to supporting the amendment. Um I plan to I thank the gentleman for offering it, and uh I yield back.

Mr. Chairman?

Gentleman yields back.

Mr. Chairman?

General A from California is recognized.

Thank you, I move to uh strike last.

General A is recognized.

Um, I actually do agree that the accumulated national debt is a challenge for our country and something that does need to be dealt with. Um, the, uh, accumulated, uh, national debt that is now, especially with the Trump administration's move to weaken the dollar and make, um, uh, borrowing more, uh, challenging. Th- you know, this is something that does need our attention. I don't disagree with that. However, this amendment is a meaningless response to that. Even if this passes the House, it won't pass the even if it goes out to the states, this is not going to become a part of the constitution. And I think this, it's um pretty clear. Uh we've, I've been on this committee for a number of years. We've taken this up uh periodically, and it's, it's a lot of discussion. It goes ultimately nowhere. Uh I think we need to take a look not only at spending but also at taxation, uh the massive uh r- reductions in taxes on the wealthiest in this country, were completely unwarranted and did a lot uh to aggravate our debt situation. But take a look at in the big ugly uh bill. My calculation, it's about a hundred and ninety-one billion dollars that we allocated to immigration enforcement, allowing people dressed like they were going into Fallujah uh to attack people, break into cars, you know, drag

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I

I

I agree that this uh this amendment is is absurd. We could easily solve our balanced budget problems by simply repealing the taxes and the tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires enacted over the last ten years. But what is really the major problem in this country today is the fascism in our streets. The attacks on American citizens by masked hoodlums. If you were attacked by a masked person, you might think you were being kidnapped. You'd be just. to fight in shooting the person to protect yourself. But we see people being shot for what? For s- driving a car? We see people we see uh these g- the uh the ice goons uh break into people's homes without a warrant. We see them drag out a a man, an American citizen, in his underwear without even permitting it, in the s- in the snow without even permitting it to get dressed. This This is the major problem we have today, along with the attack on our elections. We saw last week, um, under Kristi Noem's direction or not Kristi Noem, under uh uh Tulsi Gabbard's direction, an assault on the election board in Fulton County, where they, they would be permitted if they wanted to, to copy the election results, but not to take them with them and God know and do God knows what with them. I fear that this is beginning of a tempest. by the Trump administration to rig the elections n- this year, to make the elections unfair by seizing in fifteen or sixteen democratic cities the election machinery, um and that would further the fascism we see in our streets. I think that is the major problem we facing this country today, the fascism in our streets and the nascent attempt by the Trump administration to rig the election. Because after all, the Trump administration refuses to admit that the two thousand twenty election was fair, when sixty two judges dismissed sixty two lawsuits attacking it, it was completely fair. The Trump administration keeps saying it's not unf- it that it was unfair, looking for evidence for it, which they're not gonna find. And they're gonna rig the they're gonna try to rig the election. Those are our major problems today. Um, and that's what we ought to be addressing, not this stupid amendment which is, uh, the general lady from California said is going nowhere and would be a bad thing even if it did.

Uh uh I reclaim my time and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.

The misinformation is just absolutely off the charts today. But in reality, it isn't about what are facts and what is what is actually going on in the United States, but it is to deflect attention from what is actually happening. Um, the gentlelady from Washington made a comment about people getting filthy rich. Yeah, that's exactly right. People are getting filthy rich, a chosen few in Minnesota, Maine, Ohio, Washington, Oregon and California, absolutely defrauding the taxpayer from one end to the other, stealing billions and billions of dollars from the taxpayers. Um, we have folks on the other side, they attack our legitimate businesses while defending rampant fraud. You know, the question that all you have to look at is, you ask the question, if eighty percent of the Somali community in Minnesota is on welfare, why do they need the child, the the hundreds of businesses of child care and for transporting people to various appointments. If they are on welfare, why in the world are they capable of sending millions of dollars every week back to Somalia? Uh, the fraud in this country is absolutely breaking the Federal Bank, and it is absolutely connected to the the deficit and the debt that we are running. It is critical that we get a hold of this spending, that we not only complete the investigation, and hold people accountable for the fraud that is taking place in these communities and these states but that we also look at what the federal government is doing and how we're spending the money how is that money getting to these groups and these organizations to commit the rampant fraud that we've seen that has been exposed over the last couple of weeks I think that it's fabulous that we're actually having the discussion we're talking about trying to control spending the other side is talking about taxing more and spending more that isn't the solution

Thank thanks uh thank the General Lady for yielding to me.

Thank you.

Thanks. Uh this this amendment I I find it intriguing that uh folks sitting across the aisle have said this is absurd, it is stupid, it is silly, it is a fool's errand. What they care about is spending more without any inhibition, without any constraint, without any reflection. It is a whole series of twenty-five years of uh national security advisers. from both parties who have said the number one existential threat to the United States of America is the out of control spending and the national debt and the growth in the national debt. When I was quoting an individual earlier, I was quoting our own our own colleague from California, Mister Correa, who said, "it's clearer than ever that the only way Congress will be able to produce a balanced budget, if it is required to do so by law." He said that. I think he's right. When my colleague from my side of the aisle says, " Well, this'll never work because, uh, routinely more than two thirds vote for unbalanced budgets." He's right. When the Democrats say, " Hey, the Republicans are at fault." I say both parties are at fault. Both parties are at fault. Both parties have been profligate and unwise, uh, stewards of the taxpayers' money. But it appears today it's just only one side that even wants to consider what to do and what to take a long-term view because the other side is like " Oh hey, whoa, we don't wanna talk about that." We will deflect any way we can just so we don't have to talk about the terrible, terrible trajectory we are on. And that's too bad. It's too bad. Because uh this this amendment would actually, I think, take us a long way down the road if we could get it passed to being a little bit more fiscally responsible. Even in the states where forty-nine out of fifty have the balanced budget amendments, you have states that manage to be profligate and uh uh mismanaged.

That's good.

I think if California, which has uh has a massive amount

That's unlimited from gold. Gold.

of structural

And I yield back. Thank you.

General, General Lady yields back, General Lady from California is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. I always feel like I've jumped onto the crazy caboose when I come into this committee. Um, the train is really off the tracks. The aim into that. Um, thirty five trillion dollars. In debt? Okay, let's talk about it. I was coming over here thinking to myself, why are my Republican colleagues wanting to talk about debt when they are actually the ones setting the American's people's dollars on fire? And the dollars are actually worth less and less. I started writing these things down, okay. These tariffs. these arbitrary tariffs that Donald Trump has placed on countries to actually bring them to the table to negotiate, the only thing those tariffs have done have made it more expensive at the grocery store, at the gas station, when your rent is due. I have run into not one single soul who has said, you know what, these tariffs have made my life better. Double down on these tariffs. I've not heard that. Raise your hand if you've heard it. How about this illegal, unlawful attack into Venezuela, and when we ask the people, okay, at any of the briefings how much this is costing the American people, everybody starts looking up into the sky and saying crazy things instead of answering the question. I ended up talking to some oil executives who said all this drama that we don't want to talk about in any of the committees This raid into Venezuela and stealing these tankers could cost the American people a hundred billion dollars. So our grandchildren will be footing the cost of this bill. That's debt. How about the seven hundred billion dollar cut to Medicaid and Medicare? Y'all were trying to cut WIC and SNAP for poor children. Children's health insurance. There is no Bible, gold or otherwise, that Make hungry poor children worse off. How about the hundreds of millions of dollars to change the name from Department of Defense to Department of War? How is that benefiting the American people? Million spend on whatever is going on at the Kennedy Center. Uh, uh, I mean, come on. Uh, let me see, Donald Trump wants to sue the DOJ cuz he needs more money, he needs more money. That's our taxpayer dollars. That's your constituents' taxpayer dollars. Reparations for the January Sixers. And all this drama with you all being complicit in this administration running roughshod over the administ- over the Constitution. So we have to go to court to fight for the constitutional rights. People say, " Well, why, wh- how is this even happening?" I don't know, y'all. I don't know why we have a president who doesn't like the Constitution. But we have to go to the courts and ask the judge to mandate that the president follow the constitution. And every time that happens, it costs taxpayer dollars. The DOJ is charging you to criminalize and prosecute you. All of that is adding to the debt. So no one, not no one, say don't ever say never, no, don't be hyperbolic. But Republicans are not saying, let's spend on the American people. But you are. They are saying it's okay to spend on Donald Trump. Fraud? How about selling our AI chips and national security to China for a twenty five percent commission? We don't know what's going on with him and the Saudis. Now they're on the board of this, I don't know, board of directors for whatever this man's got going on. I mean, American people aren't, where is their money? Most US subsidies. Companies receiving the most US subsidies. That's American dollars. Boeing, Intel, fifteen billion dollars subsidies to Boeing. Eight and a half billion dollars to Intel, seven and a half billion dollars to GM. The list goes on and on. This list don't say Jane Doe. This list don't say Joe Smith. The American people are not getting their fair share. And like I said last, I checked, when I talk to my constituents, they do want some You all are cutting Medicaid and Medicare, three fourths of the Medicaid enrollees are in your states. So this is hogwash. Hoo-wee, Mister Chair, it's hoo-wee that we're even talking about this. And my colleague is correct. The train is off the tracks of the crazy caboose. And with that, I yield back.

Young lady yields back. Gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I agree with everything my colleague This is insane. The deficit is insane and it's a great problem. But it's because of the fact that we have given money to the wealthiest in this country with the billionaire tax bill, and we put more money into ICE, making it the largest law enforcement agency in this country. ICE was given seventy-five billion dollars over four years in the big ugly bill. They get more money than the FBI, the DEA, the US Marshals and the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms multiplied by two every year. They are the largest by far, uh, law enforcement agency in our country. And what are they doing? They've killed two Americans. They've killed two Americans in Minneapolis. They've killed them, Miss Good and Mister Prete. They are dead forever. Why? Because people we hired and we paid large amounts of money to, just took their guns out and shot them. Shot him like Christy Gnome shot her dog. It is unbelievable what they've done and how they tried to emulate Cruella Gnome. You have a bad dog, you don't shoot it. You give it up for adoption. You take it to a shelter. But the ICE agents act like their head, who immediately came out and said these people were wrong, that they were terrorists. Stephen Miller said that he, that Mr. Prattie was an assassin. I think it was Mister Bongino said he was out to do massacres of of law enforcement officers and a major. He never got anywhere near his gun, his legal gun that he had in his holster in his backside. He never reached for it. And they were murdered. What are we turning America into? We've hired brown shirts to go out and harass our citizens. They don't even consider, they consider the s- protesters as the opposition. And they kill them. And they, when they're out there shooting off gas, gas, and and the community, tear gas. Why? If they're doing it their work, immigration work They should be working on immigration case. That's their authority. They're not supposed to be the police in the city of Minneapolis. And they're not doing it. immigration work when they're lined up and firing off their tear gas, and grabbing people in the streets. Why they're doing that is beyond me. When they grabbed those two ladies that Mister Pratty went to h- help, what were they doing? They were doing Minneapolis Saint Paul police work. They're not allowed to do that. And people come out like Stephen Miller and Cruella Noem and Donald Trump and Bon Gino, or Bon Vino or whatever his name is, and they criticize these people and defame them before they're even in the grave. We've got a messed up set of priorities in this country. But you know, Mister Nadler said something after, he says, " Why are we giving billionaires tax breaks?" Mister Nadler, did you forget the fact that the billionaires are gonna pay for the new ballroom at the White House? They've got the money to pay for the ballroom now. Trump created his own piggy bank. And they're happy to help him. The head of Amazon paid an outrageous amount of money, I think forty million dollars, to promote Melania, the movie. The most panned movie in history. Nobody liked it and nobody went to it. She's gonna pocket twenty-eight million dollars. You're talking about open and notorious unprosecuted corruption in our country. Twenty-eight million dollars to Melania, who was the producer of the movie that basically showed her shoes. That was the movie.

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Yes.

So, you you mentioned the bulldozing of the White House and the billionaires paying for the reconstruction. That, the Kennedy Center, uh, Donald Trump just announced is gonna be closed for two years because none of the artists and musicians will go there anymore. Because some uh graffiti artist working for Donald Trump slapped his name on it. It's called the Trump Kennedy Center, even though Congress never did that. What about all the money that's gonna be wasted over the next two years? They're talking about bulldozing the Kennedy Center.

Let me reclaim my time, cuz we're about out of time. You're exactly right, Mr. Raskin, and it pains me. John Kennedy inspired me to get into government. I lived through the assassination on television. It pains me to this day to hear about it. That building was built by Congress as a memorial to John Kennedy and assassinated Martha.

Gentleman yields back, the gentleman from California is recognized, Mister Clay.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. First of all, Mister Biggs, thanks for quoting me. I'm not quite sure where that came from, but you and I talk a lot. It's fine. But I actually wanted to say that I agree with Miss Hageman. All of us wanna go after fraud, waste and abuse. Well, let's just not go after the blue states. Some of the blue states are actually net donors to the federal government. California, for example, gives eighty to a hundred billion dollars every year in federal taxes, more than we get back on a national basis. So we also wanna see some of that money back and, frankly, we don't like fried waste and abuse. But, like Mr. Massey has said, if we really wanna get to the heart of this, both sides have to sit Get rid of father waste and abuse? Yes. Get rid of unwanted wars, these undeclared wars. These ventures, which I believe are not free, but very expensive since we are using some of the best military technology in the world. But let's sit down and figure this out, folks. Leaving our children with massive deaths, massive interest, interest on the dead is probably close to being our biggest expense now at the federal level. We wanna do this, let's do it right, and let's not talk about it. Again, we just funded ICE in a way that's unbelievable here. Why don't we cut back on that ICE funding? Send the money down to our public safety officers that all of us trust, that all of us know are trained to deal with local issues. My colleagues have talked about two Americans being killed by ICE. Those are the ones you know of. I'll tell you bunch of other stories in my district of people losing their eye, getting beat up, getting arrested for a couple of hours, getting arrested for a few days, American citizens breaking into their homes, no warrant. American citizens whose telephones are being tapped without any warrants. American citizens getting beat up. You don't hear about them because there's just too many stories and frankly, a lot

Would you yield please? You you're right, we need to go after fraud and abuse and it's wrong, and the lady from Wyoming brought it up. But you know, Trump has pardoned at least ten people who have committed frauds of over and a hundred million dollars convicted by juries and or pled guilty, and he's pardoned them. And he's pardoned those people who owe restitution to American citizens for the fraud in health care for fraud in housing for fraud in financial uh disputes. He's they don't have to pay their restitution back to the American people. It's in Ross El- Ulbricht's case, he owed a hundred and eighty-four million dollars in restitution of fines, wiped out by Donald Trump. pardoned. He was had an online marketplace used by drug dealers to traffic narcotics and opioids, sentenced to life in prison, but was pardoned by Donald Trump. Jason Galanis, serial fraudster and con man, sentenced to fifteen years in prison for his eighty million dollar fraud scheme against union pension funds and Native American tribes, pardoned. And his eighty-four million dollars in restitution he owed to union workers and Native Americans, eliminated. Paul Walczak, a tax criminal, withheld more than ten million dollars from paychecks conduct his lifestyle, lavish lifestyle. Sentenced to eighteen months in prison, four point four million in restitution, pardoned after his mother donated one million dollars to Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Todd and Julie Chrisley were granted pardons by Trump after their daughter spoke with the RNC and argued their parents were victims of political prosecution no they they m- they were not they were convicted by a jury and they ignored the fact that they were indicted during the first Trump administration. Trump pardoned fully.

Mr. Chair, I yield the rest of my time.

Gentlelady from Bremen is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanna just connect a few dots here because we got to this place with ICE brutalizing Americans, intimidating immigrants, legal residents. We got here because of a massive fraud that continues to be perpetrated on the American people He continues to lie about losing the twenty twenty election, and so many of my colleagues on the other side continue to help him with that fraud. It is the intentional knowing use of deception and misrepresentation to gain political advantage. And there was this critical time after January sixth when a number of people on the other side realized that it was time to stop carrying the water on this massive fraud. And they made public statements about how it had gone too far, and Arubicon had been crossed, and we're done with this guy, and this is dangerous for the democracy. And then that all got rolled back and they decided, " You know what, we're gonna continue to perpetuate this massive fraud." And so many, I mean, this is the piece that I get asked about every time I'm back in Vermont. Last week I was there for uh, like all of you, for a district work week, had a massive um town hall, and I get asked afterwards, "How is it that our Republican members of Congress that are supposed to represent their continue to perpetuate this massive fraud on their own constituents that this president won an election when so many cases were dismissed. And in fact, Trump's own people said this was the safest,

Most.

most secure election in American history. His own people said that. So we sit here and we're asked to first forget all of that, that actually the reason why we're here and the reason why a hundred and seventy billion dollars were passed in the big beautiful bill this summer is because my colleagues on the other side refused to say no to this man. They refused to say no, even when they know that it is corroding the very fabric of our society and our government. Because Because when you prop up a lie like this year after year after year, then the American people can no longer trust their government at all. And that is what we saw after the deaths of Rene Good and Alex Pretty. We had people in the administration, before they even knew what happened, standing in front of cameras, continuing to lie. And people now say, we can't trust the government at all. This is what has been created. Because so many of you would not be honest about what happened and continue to not be honest about what happened. And I just cannot

What if she works the meeting?

pass over that.

The same thing.

Time belongs to the time belongs to the Well, the w- the gentleman had to give us your question.

This is my time.

Time belongs to the

This is my time.

Time belongs time belongs to the gentlelady. We had this little discussion earlier.

I have never said

Time belongs to the gentlelady from Vermont. You can, gentlelady can continue.

I I f- I find that there is Fragile. Fra- fragility. Fragility.

Yes.

That's that's what we're talking about here, and it often happens when I am talking. I have found. Have you found that?

Yes, ma'am.

I often find it happens when I am talking.

Yes, ma'am.

I see that the ranking member may have things to say,

I have a question for you.

and I I I'm happy to,

I I have a question for you.

yes.

I share your exasperation. After all

I mean, it's exasperation.

In twenty twenty. Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris by more than two million votes. We didn't lie about it.

Yes.

Nope.

We didn't prevaricate. We didn't fabricate. We didn't storm the Capitol.

We sure did not.

We didn't get people killed.

Nope.

We didn't drive Congress out of the chambers. We accepted. That's what it means to live in a democracy.

That's right.

But in twenty twenty, Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden by more than seven million votes.

Yeah, not just a handful, seven million.

Three of three of six to two thirty-two, and yet I share your exasperation that certain colleagues just won't correct him about it.

That's right. That's right. And and that until we deal with that fraud

yeah

until we deal with that we will continue to be on the wrong track

support

I yield back

gentleman yields back

have some uses mister chairman

gentleman from Arizona is recognized

yes victims shocked after Biden grants clemency to kids for cash judge and a fifty four million dollar embezzler uh two hundred million dollars to victims foregone because he was pardoned

without objection

Biden commutes roughly fifteen hundred sentences His pardon's thirty nine biggest single day active clemency, including to Babuba Hai Bab Patel, who ripped off sixty million dollars in fraud, didn't have to pay that back. North Dakota Judge blasted Biden for setting fraudsters' fee.

Object.

Um, here you had guys who defrauded farmers, grain brokers, to the tunes of tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars, and they didn't get that restitution back. Biden commutes sentences of two Illinois mega fraudsters who actually

That objection.

uh more than fifty four million dollars by one of them. The the there was no restitution back on that. And let's see what else I got. Oh, Biden's cleanliness list includes individuals who frauded taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That objection. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Question? No, sure.

I have an amendment to this.

Oh, gentlelady, as as the Reserve point of order. Point of order reserved by the gentleman from Arizona.

The pressure on the

Amendment two HJ res one three nine.

Now Jackson, the amendment will be considered as read, the gentlelady from Washington is recognized to explain her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, my amendment would remove the requirement of a supermajority vote to impose new taxes or raise existing taxes. And before I get to that, um, I just wanted to say that a budget is about choices, and I that we can make different choices, both about spending and about revenue, and on spending, defense spending in the budget that that is about to go through, I'm not voting for it, but the package that's about to go through is almost a trillion dollars. And Donald Trump's proposal for defense spending for unconstitutional wars that he alone can declare apparently, without any authorization from Congress, he's now proposing a one point five trillion dollar budget for twenty twenty seven for the defense department, most of which by the way goes to a very small number of private for-profit contractors. That budget, according to the committee for responsible budget, just released an analysis that said a one point five trillion dollar military budget would add five point eight trillion dollars to the debt over a decade. So there's lots of choices we can make on the spending side about what we do and don't spend on and I think there might be some inc- oh, some bipartisan agreement about places that we could cut. But I wanted to talk about the revenue side. This supermajority requirement to impose new taxes or raise existing taxes was the subject of discussion in a hearing that was held by the Constitution subcommittee, a few months ago. One of the witnesses described this requirement as, quote, " a one-way ratchet". Why did they say that? Because it requires a two-thirds vote for Congress to raise taxes on the healthiest Americans and corporations to make sure that they're paying their fair share, but it only requires a simple majority vote to cut their taxes or slash spending and critical benefits for working and middle class Americans. And I would just enter into the r- ask unanimous consent to enter into the record another article by CNBC on October third, twenty twenty five, titled " The Wealth of the Top One Percent" reaches a record fifty-two trillion dollars.

Objection.

That was actually from statistics from the Federal Reserve. So, not exactly the most liberal of entities, but real data that shows that the top one percent have now accumulated fifty-two trillion dollars of wealth. My colleagues on the other side have supported this one-way ratchet for decades. In his first term, President Trump followed Republican presidents, like George W. Bush, by passing steep tax cuts for billionaires. under the twenty seventeen tax scam. In fact, in twenty twenty three, Americans for Tax Fairness reported that the richest seven hundred and forty-eight Americans' wealth topped a record high, five trillion dollars up, seventy-seven percent since those tax cuts were passed. And the the debt caused by those Trump tax cuts were then used by Republicans as an excuse to cut services for the vast majority of Americans. Same thing happened last year in twenty second term. Instead of letting the tax cuts expire, Republicans made many of them permanent and then added on top of that the big bad betrayal bill that gives the wealthiest Americans five trillion dollars in tax giveaways these are all numbers in the trillions in the same breath. That bill slashed one point one trillion from Medicaid, food assistance, and other health programs that just help millions of families who are struggling to get by so the Republican proposal would make nearly impossible for Congress to reverse those tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, because it requires a two-third supermajority vote to quote " increase the rate of any tax". The last time that any party held a two-third supermajority in both chambers was in nineteen sixty seven. So even if Democrats regained control of the House this year, this proposal would essentially prohibit us from undoing the harms of the big bad betrayal bill and would cement those tax cuts for billionaires forever and ever. The proposal also requires the super majority vote to quote " levy a new tax", and that includes a federal wealth tax. Now last Congress I introduced legislation with Senator Elizabeth Warren establishing a tax on the top point zero five percent of Americans, requiring them to chip in just two cents for every dollar of wealth over fifty million dollars. Is anyone seriously gonna say that multimillionaires can't

Gentleman yields back, gentleman from New Jersey, recognize.

Okay.

i have um heard the same misinformation over and over again and i know we're squeezed for time so i wasn't gonna talk i can't help myself because i just

okay we always have to access that every single time

cannot let it go so let's talk about just a few things one uh tax cuts for the wealthiest billionaires and millionaires i don't know the guy that cuts my hair is not a billionaire the waitress or waiter when you go into the diner is not a millionaire or a a billionaire the

yeah

the folks that work in the casino industries and and work on tips are not millionaires or billionaires. The construction workers that I know, that when they work overtime, working their back off, and they have to decide whether it's even worth it worth it cuz they're not with their family, and now are gonna get a tax break, they're not millionaires or billionaires either. By the way, the young family that has just a new child, a new uh welcomed into this world, and is getting a tax cut, um the child tax credit, They're not millionaires or billionaires. Or guess what, folks? The people that have to go out and get car loans and now for the first time in many, many years are able to write off the interest that they're paying on the car loan. They're not millionaires and billionaires. Let's stop saying this. I mean, I know there's a certain political wisdom that you say something over and over, and over, and over again, people will believe it's true. And there may be some truth to that politically, but it's disingenuous And quite frankly, in this judiciary committee, which is a committee that should be full of good information, we just shouldn't do that. It's just not true. It's not right. It doesn't help anything. Second thing, in the big beautiful bill. We tried to make that out. And I, again, I have to give it to the other side. Politics, they're good at it. People are confused. It does all these things. Let's talk about the Medicaid just issue for one minute. So if you are disabled, you still get Medicaid the way. If you are a young family, if you've got children, you'd do. If you're a senior citizen, you'd do. Almost everybody does. But if you're single, young, healthy individual, and you can work, yeah, you've gotta work twenty hours a week. Guess what? Most Americans are working more than twenty hours a week. Or, if you don't wanna do that, you can volunteer. You can go to the Humane Society and pet dogs. Or, if you don't wanna do that, you can get on the computer and work increasing your education, get your GED or learn a trade or get your uh a college degree or whatever it is, to learn to be productive. All of these programs are to help people that are in need or people that need a hand up, but then you wanna make them part of productive society. So let's tell the truth. And that's why I'm speaking up now, because for the few folks out there in in the real world that listen to this, I don't want them to be misinformation. and the other side is misinforming them with that mister chairman i will yield

will you yield to me

yes i will yield to

i appreciate the gentleman yeah i just wanna echo what the gentleman said i think this is this is

yes

this um resolution from the gentleman from Arizona is exactly on target letting families keep more of their money is a good thing letting moms and dads spend their money on their kids their their family their goals their dreams is a good thing and making it tougher for government to take their money in the first place is a good thing as well and that's why i oppose the amendment support the

Mr. Chairman. And I have the j- do you have your time, Mr. Vendruth?

Uh.

Thank you, thank you. Uh, I I don't wanna belabor and answer everything that was said, but I would just say about this amendment, it's absurd, it's stupid, it's insane, it's silly, it's a fool's errand. That's what I would say about that. And then I'd also say this, one percent of the people in this c- uh, the top one percent of wealth in this country pays thirty-seven percent of all the federal income tax, uh federal taxes. Five per- the top five percent pays sixty-one percent of all the taxes paid in this country. The top ten percent pays seventy-two percent of the federal taxes paid in this country. That is the fact. You're back, mister Van Drew, you're t- back to you.

The jow- gentleman from New York is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister The gentleman from New Jersey makes the point, the valid point, that the people who cut his hair, the people who uh deliver the groceries are not millionaires and billionaires. Of course they're not. But there are millionaires and billionaires. Let me name five. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg. And they're not paying their fair share of taxes. Now, yes, I don't remember the statistics that Mister Biggs gave us, uh and I I'm sure but they're inadequate. The fact that the top uh two percent pays ten percent of the taxes or whatever the figure is doesn't mean they're paying their proper share that depends on how wealthy they are and clearly they're not paying their fair share. And and that's a judgment obviously but it's a judgment that should be subject to a majority vote. Why would we wanna say that a Congress that decided that Elon Musk wasn't paying enough taxes can't do that without a two-thirds vote. These are judgment quals. Billionaires should pay more taxes, my opinion. Mister Vanjoo may disagree. I don't know. But Mister Vanjoo's opinion and my opinion should both be subject to majority votes, not to two-thirds votes. Why would we tell the American people that they cannot, through their representatives in Congress, decide that Elon Musk is not paying enough taxes? that we should run huge budget deficits rather than increase Elon Musk's taxes. I I don't know why. And that's why I support the gentlelady's amendment and oppose uh the underlying amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I certainly will.

You know, the uh the gentleman from New York makes a a profound point. Everybody knows the rich get richer, everybody knows the poor get trampled, everybody knows the role that big money plays in Washington in Congress with uh our colleagues, but now they wanna make that the law. In fact, they wanna make it so lopsided that you need two thirds in order to raise taxes in a progressive direction. Um, our colleagues uh invite us to reflect on the fact that the wealthiest people pay most of the taxes, yet they also get um extraordinary benefits uh from the government and from the society. That's what taxation is all about. It's a statement that we live in a community and all of us participate in shouldering the burden. But there are people, the Jeffrey Epstein class, the Bezos class, the Donald Trump class, who view it all as a rip-off. Government is not an instrument for the common good. It's not an instrument of the public, uh, uh, uh, interest. Government's an instrument for private self enrichment for the guy who gets in, and his wife, and his family, and their corporations, and their friends.

Mm.

So, I'm happy to yield, but I just wanna say this.

Yeah.

That may be your public philosophy,

Fine.

but I'm sorry, it's not my time, I'll go, I'll get back to Nadler so he can get it to you. But I will say this, we're gonna have a referendum on this, your public philosophy that government is an instrument for private self enrichment for the guy who gets in, and his family, and they're making billions of dollars, literally billions of dollars in his first year in office, or our vision of government, which is it's gotta be an instrument for the common good of everybody.

Mr. Nadler, would you yield?

I yield back to Mr. Nadler.

Would not, Mr. Nadler, would you yield? would I will yield to the general public. Thank you. Um, I just wanted to say that we can have a discussion about how much is actually going to working people versus the millionaires and billionaires. I'll tell you, under the big bad betrayal bill, the average family earning less than fifty thousand would get about a buck a day in tax cuts which is completely overturned by how much more they have to pay for health care because Medicaid was slashed the tax credits were taken away, all the other ways in which their costs increased. Meanwhile, the average tax filer, earning million dollars or more a year would receive about ninety thousand dollars in tax breaks. So I think if you're gonna give crumbs to working people and tell them to be grateful for it, I think a lot of people are not gonna wanna do that. That's why that bill was so unpopular. But on top of that, we're saying, don't have a different threshold for looking at spending versus revenue. Why cement in a two-thirds threshold for anything that involves tax breaks for the wealthiest and making the wealthiest pay their fair share but then you're fine with just cutting spending for healthcare or energy assistance or housing or anything else that doesn't make sense so my amendment says let's at least make the thresholds the same because what you did in this current form of the bill is you said you need a super majority to raise taxes on billionaires who have already got uh five point uh sorry no that's the wrong one who have already got fifty two trillion of wealth. So why are you protecting them? That's the question I have for you. Why not actually champion working families?

Well, how about the the time of the time of the gentlelady has expired.

Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman uh yields back. Uh, so does the gentlelady and the gentleman, do they support making it tougher to raise taxes on the barber that cuts Mr. Banger's hair? Cuz that was his point.

Well, is that a do you want me to respond to that?

Sure. Sure.

Look, if you wanna have a real discussion about how to cut taxes for working people, and make sure that they can afford the expenses they they have currently,

I think

we should do that,

it was a yes or no,

but

but I had the simple answer,

well no, Mister Chairman

do you support making it more difficult to raise taxes on working class families, on small business owners, that was Mister Bender's point, that's the point of the bill, making it more difficult to raise the taxes on uh small business owners and families.

Mister Chairman, do you know that the recent New York Times Sienna poll says that sixty percent of Americans today cannot afford education? that fifty five percent can't afford housing.

So it sounds like you don't support raising taxes on those those families.

So I don't uh yes I I I believe

You wanna make it harder to raise taxes on those families.

I believe that we actually have to support the fundamental expenses

Okay.

that Americans need to absorb around housing,

Okay. I will yield, we we gotta go,

around healthcare.

we got we gotta go vote, but I will yield any time that I have to the gentleman uh from New Jersey on this.

I I thank the chairman. You know, over and over again, I've seen this, I'm a high tax state, New Jersey, I see it everywhere. there's this discussion of progressive tax, that the rich should pay their fair share, I agree, but you know who gets hit every time and go out into the street and talk to them? The middle class. We talk so much here, and we should, it's good, about the poor and about the very wealthy, the very poor and the very wealthy. The people that make everything happen in this country to a great degree, who work, the people that build your buildings, build your cars, fix your roads, I I can go through the list. They're middle class, hard worker, people and if you told them well with these progressive taxes we only increase the taxes on the wealthy uh we don't wanna hurt the middle class they're not gonna buy it because the middle class gets hit every single time whether they're middle middle upper middle or lower middle the working class people and i've said this before and i'm gonna be outspoken about the people at the very bottom are kinda getting helped maybe you have some points about the people at the very top but the people in the middle are working people who make this country go are getting screwed every time. With that, I yield back to the chairman.

Gentleman yields back. The committee will stand in recess. Um, we may wait until the second vote series. We'll just my my gut tells me it's probably what we're gonna do because there's a short time period between each vote series. Uh, with that, we stand in recess. Committee will come to order. Uh, the question before the committee is the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida

Washington.

Washington.

or Flora- Washington, excuse me. Wrong coast, wrong coast, yeah. The um,

Who's to check on?

the uh, the question is on the amendment, right?

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no, no. And the opinion of the chair, the no's have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. Roll call, this is the best way to get people here is to call the roll. Um the the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Jordan.

No.

Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. McClintock. Mr. Diffney. Mr. Massey. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein.

No.

Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Vendrew. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Mr. Kiley. Miss Hageman. Miss Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Grothman.

Oh.

Mr. Grothman votes no. Mr. Nott. Mr. Harris. Mr. Onder. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.

Aye.

Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Nadler. Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Miss Jayapal votes aye. Mr. Correa. Miss Ganlin.

Aye.

Miss Ganlin votes aye. Mr. Neguse. Miss McBath. Miss Ross.

Aye.

Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant.

Aye.

Miss Ballant votes aye. Mr. Garcia. Miss Kammager-Duff.

Aye.

Miss Kammager-Duff votes aye. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett.

Uh.

Mr. Frey, you're not recorded.

Uh.

Mr. Frey votes no.

gentleman from new york

hello yeah yeah

aye

mister niler votes aye

mmm i think that was good i think that was good i'm not recorded yeah yep

miss crackett you're not recorded

and like yes yes so we have to have a separate this is still three to go later

miss crackett votes yes

so i have a few more thing for you do you have notes on the other copy that you want on here we have to decide on what we're doing yeah yeah do you want me to turn them over yeah and then we can just do something like that and we can do that and then we can back it out gentlelady from florida

misley

oh my

misley votes no oh my god

gentleman from missouri

votes no

mr. ander votes no

i think it's okay gentleman from texas

mr. gooden votes no mr. gooden

Clint Hossman, go. Jim.

Mr. McLintock votes now.

Thanks. Hey um. Can you set your It's not too late. If you're if you're gonna be here, Andy, for this, I just I'm about to change out in the middle of the meeting. Yeah, that's right. So.

Uh, I'm gonna go um, I'm gonna get the ice lawyer back.

The clerk will report.

Clerk will report.

Mister Chairman, there are eight ayes and nine noes.

The amendment fails. Uh who seeks recognition?

Jenely from

Jenely from uh Pennsylvania.

Um, Mr. Chair, I have two amendments at the desk.

Let's do one at a time.

No no no no. With with

I was going to request unanimous consent to offer them on block.

Without objection, that'll be considered

Without objection.

Mm-hmm.

the clerical report.

Clerical re- re- report. Re- excuse me, read.

Mr. Chair,

General Lader reserves a point of order.

I don't even know. It's like, Thank you. this may be the first time that there's been two minutes after this. But, but I think it's done. Yeah. So what point did you have to count on? Yeah, the

Clerk will read the amendment.

Amendment two H J res one three nine.

Consider the uh

Without objection, yes.

Without objection, the the amendments are considered as read.

General Andy is recognized, yes.

Uh, General Andy is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair. For decades, Republican presidents and members of Congress have talked big game about fiscal responsibility, all while enacting policies that have exploded the federal deficit and the national debt. If Republicans wanted a balanced budget, they'd balance the budget, no constitutional amendment needed. But Republicans have only paid lip service to that goal. Instead, we have a legacy of fifty years of DC Republicans doubling down on the debunked failed orthodoxy of trickle-down economics, a legacy of handing out huge tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy to help corporations and billionaires avoid paying their fair share at the expense of hard-working Americans, eroding the government's tax base while gutting funding for health care and food assistance, and exacerbating the greatest income equality since the Gilded Age and the era of robber barons, instead of working to build a prosperous economy where everyone can get ahead. Republicans are now using a deficit problem that they helped to create to revive an idea to amend the constitution that would force Congress to balance the budget on the backs of working and middle class families. Their balanced budget amendment would force cuts to social security and Medicare, programs that are the foundation of our government's promise to help folks with disability. and seniors age with dignity. This amendment would essentially make it unconstitutional for Social Security and Medicare to draw down their reserves. The decisions that we make about taxes, spending, and budgets are, or should be, decisions about values, who we're fighting for, what kind of a country we are or want to be, and the future we're trying to create for our children. But this balanced budget constitutional amendment betrays the values Americans have long stood for, So, my amendments would exempt the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds from the calculation of total expenditures and receipts, ensuring that this misguided proposal won't prevent people from receiving their hard-earned benefits. I hope my colleagues support my amendment and agree that our government should serve all Americans and not just the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of everyone else. I yield back.

General Lady yields. Who else seeks recognition?

gentle uh gentleman from wisconsin mr. growthman is recognized

yeah you guys always say something wrong so i'll give you a tutorial for just a second the republicans do not believe in trickle-down economics we believe in the laugher curve and it should be obvious that if you decrease the tax rate from whatever thirty percent to twenty five percent or sixty percent to forty percent then it affects decisions

Will the gentleman yield?

Y- he's,

Thank you. My colleague uh from Wisconsin, I I think you're right, it's the Laffer curve, but I don't think uh the Laffer curve has ever resulted in reductions in expenditures, and reductions in deficit. On the contrary, it's actually exploded our national deficit.

You're back, Mister Grothman. Mister Grothman, time is yours.

Sure. Well, i- it's just obvious. Regardless, that if the government taxes you at sixty percent you're gonna work less hard or you're gonna play with the taxable income in a way you wouldn't if the government taxed you at twenty percent right now it's more obvious when you have a percentage that's much higher i think it was john kennedy who cut the marginal rate from ninety percent to seventy percent why would you declare any income if your taxed it's at ninety percent but it's true of any percent The same thing, by the way, is true of welfare payments, right? If you take away people's welfare payments if they work harder, they don't work as hard. So, it's just the effect you're always gonna have when you then the government takes more money, the more income you declare. You can say it's not enough to make up for the the loss in revenue, but you can't say it's non-existent. It's just obvious. Thank you very much.

Gentlemen,

Who's to strike the last

Who's to strike the last

Who's to strike the last word?

German's recognized.

Thank you. Mister Speaker, I I'm sorry, Mister Chairman. Um I g- always refer to the laughter curve as the laughter curve, because it has been proven wrong for the last sixty years, seventy years. It is not obvious that you're gonna work harder, uh, if you have a lower tax rate. Um The gentleman just said that, um, we uh that uh under Kennedy the tax rate was reduced from I think he said from ninety to seventy percent. I don't recall a an economic catastrophe during the Eisenhower administration because of the ninety percent tax rate. Um people do not work harder because of having nothing to do with their tax rate. Um I don't think anybody in this room would work harder or less hard at the uh at the job uh depending on the tax rate. we haven't gotten raises in years, so our uh uh pay in terms of inflation has gone down. Does that mean that the people in this room don't work hard at their jobs?

Good one.

Um, so Laffer curve is is nonsense, has been proven to be nonsense for decades, and uh I support uh wholeheartedly the uh amendment uh offered by the General Lady. I yield back. Oh.

Gentlemen.

Yield, I'm sorry, yield to the gentleman

I said gentleman yields to the lady from Pennsylvania,

from Pennsylvania.

Miss Scanlon.

Thank you. Um, you know, I I understand the laugher curve. It suggests lower tax rates can increase government revenue. It's criticized for lacking any empirical un- uh evidence. It oversimplifies behavior. And it certainly promotes inequality, which was one of the major issues we're trying to addre address. In practice, it's been shown over and over again that tax cuts often fail. to generate enough growth to pay for themselves, leading to higher deficits and reduced public services, again, what we're trying to address here. Um, so I guess I would just also add in there you know, I think our colleague from Wisconsin said, you know, it it's obvious that this happens this way. I'd introduce an article or I'd seek unanimous consent to um, introduce an article from the Cato Institute, resist the allure of laugher-curve logic, from november of twenty twenty three

without objection

with

without objection

hey thank you and i would yield back to mister nadler

with the general lady i'd i'd ask the general lady is it not true that the cato institute is a very conservative institution

it is

and they and they uh put out this article about how ridiculous the laughter curve is

they certainly offer a an empirically based critique

uh i yield back

thank you

gentleman from new york

Who else seeks recognition? Seeing none, the question is before us is the adoption of the amendments offered by Miss Scanlon. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed no.

No, no.

Aye, uh appears that the no's have it.

Who's voting?

A row a row a roll call vote has been requested. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Jordan. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Tiffany.

Yes.

Mr. Massey. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald.

No.

Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Mr. Klein.

Yeah.

Mr. Gooden.

No.

Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Mr. Kiley. Mr. Kiley votes no. Miss Hageman. Miss Lee.

No.

misley votes no mr. hunt mister fry

no

mister fry votes no mister growthman mister nott mister harris mister harris votes no mister onder

no

mister onder votes no mister schmidt mister gill mister baumgartner mister raskin

yes

mister raskin votes aye mister nadler mister nadler votes aye Miss Lofgren. Mister Cohen. Mister Johnson. Mister Swellwell. Mister Liu. Miss Jayapal.

Uh, aye.

Miss Jayapal votes aye. Mister Correa.

Aye.

Mister Correa votes aye. Miss Ganlin.

Aye.

Miss Ganlin votes aye. Mister Neguse. Miss McBath. Miss Ross.

Aye.

Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes aye. Mister Garcia. Miss Kamager-Dove. Miss K. Magritte votes aye, Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes aye.

Miss Bob, no.

Mister McClintock votes no.

Not recorded.

Mister Van Drew, you're not recorded.

No.

Mister Van Drew votes no. Mister Jordan.

No.

Mister Jordan votes no.

No.

Mister Issa, you're not recorded.

Oh, I can do that.

Mister Issa votes no.

I don't remember.

Mister Not, you are not recorded.

No.

Mister not votes no

Circle record

Mister chairman there are

report.

nine ayes and thirteen noes

The amendment fails. Who else seeks recognition?

General Leidy from California.

General Leidy from California.

Yes. Clerk will

Clerk will r- uh read the amendment.

Sir Andrew. Can you reserve a point of order, please? Do you want a point of order?

So, I'm gonna reserve as a point of order.

Amendment two H J res one three nine.

Without objection, the d- amendment will be deemed as read. Uh, the gentlelady is recognized to explain the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chair, this amendment simply reaffirms a basic constitutional principle, that the president cannot claim that an extra judicial killing or an overseas military campaign amounts to a declaration of war without explicit authorization from Congress. That clarity is essential because while Republicans and President Trump have prioritized cutting Medicaid, Medicare, health care tax credits, and even public media, they are perfectly comfortable wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on reckless unilateral foreign actions. And my question is, are your taxpayers getting their money's worth from all of these unilateral foreign actions that are costing us? We have seen this pattern repeatedly. The administration has invaded and taken over Venezuela, floated spending up to six billion dollars to effectively buy Greenland, threatened unilateral military action in Mexico, and threatened to topple governments in colombia and cuba and none of this comes with serious some would even say any congressional debate clear authorization or honest accounting of the cost of these unauthorized military interventions to taxpayers once again i have to ask are your taxpayers getting their money's worth from all of these unilateral actions that are costing them none of this comes with serious dare I say any congressional debate, clear authorization, or honest accounting of the cost to taxpayers. And if this majority truly wants to talk about balancing the budget, a good place to start is reining in the president's unchecked military ambitions and fiscally absurd foreign policy fantasies. We went from declarations of being a president of peace to a butcher, butcher up our constitution and our economy. Someone hungry for riches, hungry for your power as a congressperson, your power of the purse, your power of oversight, and your power to authorize war. Those actions should be subject to the same scrutiny and limits that Republicans are eager to impose on programs that keep Americans healthy and alive. You know, you don't seem to want, this is how grotesque it's gotten, you don't wanna have a five year old child have access to SNAP benefits. And when we're fighting for that, then there becomes some debate about like requiring five year olds debating if they should have work requirements to have a part-time job, for getting a benefit, to have fresh food. But no one says a hoot about what is going on in Venezuela, how much it is costing. How come none of that has received any congressional oversight or even authority? So this amendment draws a clear line. Congress decides when we go to war and taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll executive overreach while their health care is on the chopping block. And with that, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Does the gentleman Committee will suspend. Commi- committee will suspend for a moment.

Well, Mister Chair, I forgot to add. I would accru ask everyone support the bills.

We're we're we're in susp- we're we're in suspension just a sec, then I'll get back to you after we come back.

Okay. Definitely not. Is that my bill? Why did I sign it? Oh, I didn't know I had to sign it. Oh well. Mm-hmm.

It's a good one. All right. So, we just have to sit there and have a chat, and then we can go to the table and talk about it. Yeah, yeah, it's fun. Yeah, we're all just how many how many republicans were we against it twenty five hmm how many republicans how many republicans

It was twenty one on both sides.

Democrats crossed, twenty one Democ- Republicans crossed.

Mmm.

Mmm. Oh, this is exactly what I'm trying to do, I'm not good at this. And I'm gonna say, you know, what's on the list, I'm gonna say, it's not something to say, but you guys are probably gonna take so long on knowing what it is, it's not gonna be as helpful. I think you say I'm gonna say it right. It's whatever.

Thank you. Come on, I'll play everything.

Oh, here's my card.

There's no mad at that. There's no mad at that.

Where is my card? Mm. Bec, you can always ask us,

Becca,

any company that has a

I I don't know what you're consuming, but I want a pound of it.

Can you pass it on, Bec? Can you pass it on, Bec?

Yeah, pass it on, will you?

Can you pass it on? It's just the aura of Kamala, I mean, it's like

Hey.

Sydney. I think it's

That's the LA effect.

Sydney. the LA. Is it LA?

Your mic, sorry, your mic is on, just so I know.

Uh, chair's prepar uh prepared

Yeah.

to rule. This gentleman, excuse me. We're we're we're back in. Mister Vendrew, do you insist upon your point of order?

I do, Mister Chairman.

The gentleman is recognized.

The gentlewoman's amendment would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us and therefore violates House Rule sixteen, Clause seven. I yield back.

Sponsor of the amendment wish to be heard on the point of order?

Yes, sir, Mister Chair.

You are r- you are recognized.

Thank you. The fact that it took you all so long to come up with that means that there is some legitimacy to this amendment. And I'm just reiterating and clarifying that in fact no entity other than Congress has the authority to um authorize expenditures. It's Congress that has the power of the purse, just like it is Congress that has the power to declare war. So I'm just clarifying that. I'm reaffirming it, I'm restating it, it really shouldn't be a thing, you look it up in the constitution so i'm objecting i'm repealing

will will the general lady yield

yes

yeah i i like your argument very much and it seems to me the the way i'm thinking about this is in two parts one is since this is a constitutional amendment almost anything would be relevant because we're writing a constitutional amendment from a tabula rasa but in any event the general lady's language is very specifically related to the particular point of uh a declaration of war and it's

Amen, King.

You'll be okay. Wow.

AK. constitutional scholar thank you for clarifying that for all of us here today

generally you still control the the time

i have so many things in my head that i wanna say but i'm going to regulate all of them and just

will will you yield one more section

that i object yes i will

well just you know just to further my first point which i agree is a little bit philosophical but if you look at the fourteenth amendment for example there are so many different parts to the fourteenth amendment Uh, it goes on for a couple of different pages.

Mm.

That's a constitutional amendment,

Mm.

and it's helping to build the constitutional infrastructure. But again, this doesn't roam remotely so far as,

Yeah.

for example, punishing states by reducing their congressional representation if they disenfranchise part of the population.

Mm.

This is goes right to the point of a declaration of war.

Right. Thank you so much for saying that. I mean, I I don't think I'm suggesting anything novel, right? I'm just sort of reaffirming a principle of Congress, of the constitution that we have the authority to declare war on i would think that everyone would wanna be on record uh especially for their constituents as saying i was voted to represent my constituents here which uh which means the power to declare war the power of the purse the power for oversight and i take those jobs roles responsibilities seriously and i will if need be periodically affirm those to my constituents and that's all

gentlelady yields back

i am prepared to

i am prepared to rule

you guys have i think like four yeah yeah i did yeah and yeah

you guys haven't ruled yet

yeah i haven't ruled yet but i am prepared to rule pursuant to house rule sixteen clause seven the gentlelady's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purpose test therefore it is not germane it is out of order who seeks recognition Yep. The uh

Come back up.

the ruling of the chair of the abuse,

And I move to table.

the motion to table has been made.

The question is on the table.

The question is on the motion to table.

Who's in favor of the table?

All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed, no.

No.

I disappear to have it, do have it, so ordered. The roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan. Mister Issa.

Yes.

yes

mr. isa votes yes mr. biggs

aye

mr. biggs votes aye mr. mcclintock

votes aye

mr. mcclintock votes aye mr. tiffany mr. massey mr. roy

Mr.

mr. fitzgerald

aye

mr. fitzgerald votes aye mr. klein

aye

mr. klein votes aye mr. gooden mr. gooden votes aye mr. van drew

yes yes

mr. van drew votes yes mr. nels mr. moore mr. keiley miss hageman Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Hunt. Mister Frye.

Aye.

Mister Frye votes aye. Mister Grothman. Mister Grothman votes aye. Mister Nott. Mister Harris.

Aye.

Mister Harris votes aye. Mister Onder.

Aye.

Mister Onder votes aye. Mister Schmidt. Mister Gill. Mister Baumgartner. Mister Raskin.

No.

Mister Raskin votes no. Mister Nadler. Mister Nadler votes no. Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal.

No.

Miss Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa. Mr. Correa votes no. Miss Ganlin. Miss Ganlin votes no. Mr. Nguyes. Miss McBath. Miss Ross. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes no. Mr. Garcia. Miss Kamlager-Dove. Miss Kamlager-Dove votes Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett.

No.

Miss Crockett votes no. Mr. Jordan.

Yes.

Mr. Jordan votes yes. Miss Hageman.

Yes.

Miss Hageman votes yes. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ross votes no.

Clerk will report.

No, Mister Grothman.

Oh, Mister Grothman, sorry.

Mister Oh, man. After the end of the meeting.

Okay. The uh uh ruling of the of the chair is sustained.

Okay. Okay.

We're gonna

I'm gonna close that.

Who else seeks recognition? Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grofman.

Yeah, I'd like to submit for the record a report from the budget committee entitled Democrats' narrative falls flat in face of facts tax cut and jobs act yields historic government receipts.

Without objection.

Without objection.

Thank you.

Please, and

Who else seeks recognition? Question before you. Oh. The question is on favorably reporting the joint resolution. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no. Ayes to have it. Joint resolution is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Four. Close now, yes.

Can we, yes. Can we have a recorded vote on this?

Recorded vote has been requested. Clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan. Mister Issa. Mister Biggs.

Aye.

Mister Biggs votes aye. Mister McClintock. Mister McClintock votes aye. Mister Tiffany. Mister Massey. Mister Roy. Mister Roy votes aye. Mister Fitzgerald. Mister Fitzgerald votes aye. Mister Clunton.

Aye.

Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes aye. Mr. Vandrieu.

Yes.

Mr. Vandrieu votes yes. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Mr. Kiley. Miss Hageman.

Aye.

Miss Hageman votes aye. Miss Lee.

Aye.

Miss Lee votes aye. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry.

Aye.

Mr. Fry votes aye. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Grothman votes aye. Mr. Nott. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes aye, Mr. Onder. Mr. Onder votes aye, Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt votes aye, Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.

Yes.

Mr. Raskin votes no, Mr. Nadler.

No.

Mr. Nadler votes no, Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen.

No.

Mr. Cohen votes no, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Miss Jayapal.

No. No.

Mr. Correa votes no. Miss Scanlon?

No.

Miss Scanlon votes no. Mr. Neguse? Miss McBath? Miss Ross?

No.

Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballant?

No.

Miss Ballant votes no. Mr. Garcia? Miss Kim Lagerdoef?

No.

Miss Kim Lagerdoef votes no. Mr. Moskowitz? Mr. Goldman? Miss Crockett?

No.

Miss Crockett votes no. Mr. Jordan?

Yes.

Mr. Jordan votes yes.

Clerical report.

Uh, hold on.

Hold it, excuse me one second. That was the gentleman from California, Mr. Isilvo.

Yes.

Mr. Isilvo, it's yes.

Record report.

Mr. Chairman, there are sixteen ayes and ten noes.

The ayes have it and the joint resolution is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Proceed to notice I call up H R ten twenty eight, the protection of women in Olympic and amateur sports act for purposes of R Cup, a move that the committee report is favorably, a move the committee

H R one zero two eight.

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chair, uh the bill we are here to discuss today is H R ten twenty eight, the protection of women in in Olympic and amateur sports acts. The purpose of this legislation is simple, it modifies eligibility requirements for amateur sports governing organizations. Specifically, this bill adds clear definitions of men and women in the Ted Stephens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. It further states that biological men cannot participate in competitions designated for women and girls. Ensuring equal rights for women has been a long and hard-fought battle. Today, two historic cases are before the Supreme Court regarding keeping men out of women's sports. As the United States prepares to host the Summer Olympics in twenty twenty eight, it is important to ensure that female athletes are properly protected from male athletes masquerading as women. Thankfully, President Trump made protecting women's rights a day-one priority. On February fifth, twenty twenty-five, President Trump signed an executive order titled " Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports". This exec- executive order prohibits males from competing on women's and girls' sports teams. The order was met with swift support from both the National Collegi Collegiate Athletic or the NCAA and the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee, or USOPC, immediately and they both immediately updated its policy to limit women's sports teams to athletes who are female. I applaud President Trump for these efforts. Throughout the Biden administration, we witnessed absolutely egregious examples of men increasingly intruding into protected spaces for women. Look no further than the tragic of Peyton McNabb. In twenty twenty two, Peyton, now an independent women's voice ambassador, was a volleyball player competing at her high school in North Carolina. A man playing on the opposite girls' team spiked the ball into her head, and I would urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to watch the video, to see what they are advocating for when they fight us against keeping men out of women's sports. Peyton was knocked unconscious and is still dealing with long-lasting injuries from this incident, including General Lady yields back. The General Lady yields back. The Chair The Chair

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Uh, as everybody knows, authoritarianism vilifies and scapegoats minorities. This distracts the majority from the fact that the people in charge of the state aren't doing anything for the majority either. So we're here today to debate another bill targeting Maga's favorite scapegoat, the tiny group of Americans in the transgender community. The bill before us this time, the so-called protection of women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act purports to protect women and girls by conditioning the certification of an amateur sports organization by the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee or US OPC as a national governing body for a given sport on such organization's agreement to prohibit transgender women and girls from participating in an amateur athletic competition. Notably, the bill does not prohibit transgender male athletes from competing on sports teams or in competitions d- designated for men or boys. President Trump has put a target on the back to the transgender community ever since he came back into office. One of the first executive orders he issued declared that the government would only recognize two sexes, male and female, which of course doesn't seem like a very devastating reputation of transgender people who may agree that these are the categories even if they have been misclassified between them. Uh, two weeks after that, Trump issued another executive order to prevent transgender women and girls in women's sports at every level of competition, uh contradicting the Biden policy, which was to leave the decision to particular levels of scholastic supports in particular institutions. This legislation today is a solution in search of a problem. Its supporters have failed to point to any evidence that transgender women as a group consistently outperform cisgender women in women's sporting events in fact a twenty twenty four study concluded that transgender women actually have several physical disadvantages when competing with cisgender women. The International Olympic Committee has also permitted transgender athletes to compete since two thousand and three, that's twenty-three years ago, but the US has only sent one transgender woman to compete. This bill is obviously unnecessary, dangerous, and deliberately cruel. What it will do is harm all women and girls in a number of different ways, including by subjecting them to unfairness. over what their real gender might be. This is not a hypothetical concern. There are lots of examples of people accusing cisgender girls and women of being transgender and then arguing that they should be forced to prove their gender in order to compete in a sport and twenty twenty four a Utah State school board member falsely suggested in a Facebook post that a girl playing on the high school basketball team was transgender the girl immediately became the target of threats. harassment. The school board member later tried to defend herself by saying that the girl had a larger physical build, which was what made her speculate falsely about the girl's gender identity. I hope everyone can still summon up some sense of shock that adults are publicly speculating about the gender identity of children. Why? Well, in this case because a girl's body did not fit this adult's stereotype conception of what a teenage girl is supposed to do. This bill could be even more dangerous than that, though. If women and girls have to prove their gender in order to compete in a sport, which would be the new law, we are inviting sports officials to become essentially gender detectives and gender judges, thus potentially subjecting girls to invasive and completely unnecessary exams, simply in order to be able to exercise their right to participate in sports. That in turn heightens the risks of making athletes more vulnerable, to sexual predators. I'm sure the Larry Nassers and Richard Strausses of the world would welcome a bill like HR ten twenty eight because they would seemingly be given another excuse to sexually abuse athletes under the guise of enforcing the new ideology and confirming the person's federally government approved assigned gender the type of categorical ban that HR ten twenty eight mandates wouldn't just affect elite Olympic athletes. The bill imposes is a blanket ban on amateur competition and many of those amateur athletes who participate in an organized sport are young people take USA swimming. In twenty twenty four the average age of their members was twelve and a half years old. Given that more than half of all states have already banned trans women and girls from scholastic sports, this bill would deny trans youth the last avenue to athletic participation still available to them uh still available to them along with the social and academic and health benefits. benefits that organized sports provide young people. Furthermore, national governing bodies, which are certified by the US OPC to govern and manage all aspects of an individual sport are much better suited to determining who should be eligible to compete. These bodies are also best positioned to determine the right balance between inclusion and safety based on the dynamics of their different sports. For example, the qualification skills and risks involved in a sport like rugby, which allows transgender men to compete without restriction in the male category, but requires transgender women to have certain testosterone levels in order to compete are obviously much different than the qualification skills and risks involved in table tennis ping pong which has no documented policy on the participation of transgender athletes and yet this bill prop- uh would override all of the policies adopted at the scholastic and team level currently determined by national governing bodies sport by and replace them with a one size fits all, federally imposed, nationwide ban that may appeal and pander to a certain narrow political base, but has no basis in fact, performance outcomes, or basic human decency in regard for the health of young people. Finally, in addition to being dangerous and unnecessary, the bill does nothing to address the actual problems facing women and girls in amateur sports, according to a report by the Women's Sports Foundation, The real barriers that women and girls continue to face in amateur sports include lack of financial resources, continuing bias against girls' participation, a paucity of female leaders and other role models, a relative lack of media coverage devoted to women's sports, and continuing workplace sex discrimination and gender-based pay inequality for female coaches. In a letter opposing a bill last Congress that was substantively identical to H. R. ten twenty-eight the Women's Sports Foundation and the National Women's Law "This legislation does not provide any assistance with issues that all girls and women in sports face and instead invites dangerous stereotypes and sex discrimination based on misinformation it should not become law." If my colleagues genuinely wanted to strengthen women and girls' participation in sports, we would take steps to address the real barriers to opportunity instead of coming in like King Kong and crushing decisions at the right level. Instead of making headway,

The gentleman yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a

With not objection, the amendment and the nature of the substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the general lady from Wyoming to explain the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment simply makes a small change to the short title, but it does nothing to alter the substance of the bill. With that, I yield back.

General lady yields back. Is there any discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute?

She's got an amendment.

Uh, uh, lady from uh, General Lady

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report the amendment.

Sorry, can you reserve a point of order, I think it's a bit of a disadvantage. Reserved point of order.

I reserve a point of order.

Mister Van Drew uh reserves a point of order.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R one zero two eight offered by Miss Jaya Paul.

Without objection, the amendment in the nature uh amendment uh will be considered as read and shall be considered and and shall now be considered.

No.

General Lady from Washington is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be very clear that the guidance of international athletic institutions has long recognized categorical bans are unnecessary to achieve fairness. So you have to ask ourselves, why are we spending time in the Judiciary Committee yet again to take up this issue? We've already concluded from the last debate that Republicans don't seem to want to do anything about accountability for ICE officers who shoot and kill citizens or hold ICE and Border Patrol agents accountable for violating the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution, or investigate why the Department of Justice is still enacting a massive cover-up of the powerful pedophiles in Jeffrey Epstein's ring, and refusing to even investigate the people who are all over the Epstein files, including Donald Trump, by the way, who was in there five thousand times, over five thousand times, named. Instead, we're gonna spend our time going to the same playbook of targeting a tiny group of transgender Americans in the name of protecting women and girls. Now that's rich too, because if we really wanted to protect women and girls, why does the majority keep voting against paid family and medical leave? Why did Republicans cut Medicaid funding that pays for sixty percent of births in Speaker Mike Johnson's home state of Louisiana? Why do Republicans keep trying to pass national abortion bans and even ban women from just accessing contraceptives. Is the priority of women and girls really on this bill? Or on building a life where women get the support and help that they need to take care of their families and actually make decisions about their own bodies? I don't believe for a second that this is about preventing women uh protecting women and girls nor do I believe that this bill is necessary. Following President Trump's executive orders, the US Olympic and Paralympic committee has already effectively banned transgender women from competing in women's sports. Republicans are wasting this committee's time because they have no answers to the real problems that Americans face on everything from higher prices on their groceries, on their health care, to the unprovoked violence we're seeing unfold in slow motion before our very eyes. So my amendment would simply require a report on how this bill would affect all female athletes since categorical bans on trans women harm all women. And I want to be clear that women's organizations across the country, including the Women's Sports Foundation, have denounced categorical bans on trans athletes for promoting fear, dangerous stereotypes, unfair scrutiny on high-performing female athletes and sex discrimination based on misinformation. So once again, don't tell me the bill is to protect women and girls. It actually does the opposite. We talk about this every time there's one of these bills. How are you going to enforce this ban? How do you verify a girl or a woman's quote " reproductive anatomy"? In states with these bans, we've already seen shameful treatment of cisgender and transgender athletes alike. In Utah, a school board member falsely claimed a high school basketball athlete was transgender, simply because of her quote " larger physical build", which led to relentless harassment, bullying, and even threats of violence. And in Florida during a school-led investigation into a transgender volleyball player, students were asked to describe the child physically, and even asked if they had seen the child undress. Is that what you wanna bring into your states? Into your schools, into your communities? We've already seen horrific sexual abuse against girls and women in sports. If a woman or young girl, if your daughter doesn't look feminine enough, should she subject to examination? What's next? You all gonna decide which kids can play with each other on the playground? Let's remember that only one percent of the US population identifies as transgender. That's right, one percent. The idea that this small, already marginalized group of people is gonna prevent women from having athletic opportunities is simply absurd. And the constant slate of bills that attack transgender people puts them in the crosshairs of really dangerous and hateful behavior that can lead to death and suicide. There are real problems that face fem- male athletes around lack of financial resources and vulnerability to abuse and wage gaps but that's not what

to speak on the amendment. uh thank you mister chairman. uh thank you mister chairman. for the past fifty years title nine has been an for the past fifty years,

uh

title nine has been an unqualified success, dramatically increasing participation in girls and women's sports at both the secondary and collegiate level. But in recent years, by allowing men identifying as women to dominate many events in women's sports, men have stolen over four hundred and ninety thousand dollars of prize money from women in professional sports and over nine one thousand nine hundred and forty-one gold medals. This is about fundamental fairness. Males have a greater lung capacity larger hearts, more densi- more bone density and dramatically more muscle mass, all of which give them an enormous competitive advantage over women. Champion Olympic sprinter, Allison Felix, to give one example, her lifetime best time in the four hundred meters was forty-nine point two six seconds. Think about this for a second. Allison trained dozens of hours per week for years, and her hard work and dedication her the title of the fastest woman in the world at the four hundred meter distance. But in twenty seventeen alone, fifteen thousand high school and young adult males outperformed that time, fifteen thousand. My Democrat colleagues may deny that men have an advantage over women, that boys have an advantage over girls, but it's just a biologic reality. Another example, swimmer Will, a. k. Leah Thomas, ranked four hundred and sixty-second in the nation as a man only to steal the NCAA five hundred meter freestyle championship as a pretend woman. To accept men in women's sports is to end women's sports. I thank the chairman for bringing this bill up for a vote today, before the Winter Olympics kicks off on Friday. We're sending a strong signal to those aspiring women athletes around the world who deserve access to fair competition. And the United States is no longer going to tolerate the ideological driven cruelty that destroys the sports that those women love. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Miss Ross?

Um, not on the amendment. We can vote on the amendment. I'll I'll speak on the underlying bill.

Okay.

The general lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes.

bill but still the amendment attempts to change the substance and structure of the bill in a way that's not beneficial so i will do that. I believe the other side, I I really sincerely I just think you're so off base here, I really do believe if you talk to most Americans, Democrats, Republicans and independents, they find this to be wrong. What do they find to be wrong? Biological men in women's sports. Doctor Ronder expressed it well and I associate with his remarks. It's It leaves women vulnerable. It's unfair. It's unsafe. It's wrong. Um, you know, I have a rule when people ask me about certain issues dealing with transgender issues and the whole host of things that come up now. And I mean this, I don't care what people do in their bedroom, I don't. That's up to them, their partner, their partners, God, whatever. That's not for me to say. But don't force it on our children. children and our young people and don't make me pay for it." Those two rules, I wish we could stick to there. Um, the, you know, I I know somebody on that side, I'm sorry, I don't remember who said that we were appealing to a narrow political base. I don't think so. I think what they're doing by having men in women's sports uh is so unfair that they are appealing to a very narrow base. Nobody is saying that somebody gotta go around and you know put people through all kinds of physical exams quite frankly those folks that are transgender are usually proud of it usually declare it and you know even in some cases where they're gonna be in locker rooms and they're gonna be showering with folks it's gonna be quite evident and i don't think i have to describe the difference i think we all know biology and know the difference between a biological man and a biological woman um So it's not about investigations, it's not about ostracizing anybody. I mean, you've really gotta feel badly, s- seriously, for a woman who has worked for years to compete at whatever level, whether it is in their high school, their college, they make it to the Olympics, wherever it would be, and their hopes and their dreams, which all of us in a bipartisan way have worked to make sure that women have equal access, equal ability to do well in sports as well as in everything in life. And you dash their dreams because a good number of sports, it just isn't fair. It does, it doesn't work. It's not right. Um, and I, and I don't mean these people are weird, so somebody's gonna try to misinterpret it, but forcing it into women's sports is weird. And it's wrong. And people don't like it. And if you talk to folks, that are have families and have daughters particularly, they're upset about it and they don't like it. So I I don't s- support the amendment and I don't support the underlying bill,

Mister Van Drus, would you

yes.

Mister, would you yield for a question?

Yes, I will.

Um, the amendment that I have is actually just an amendment that requires an annual report that details the impact of categorical bans on cisgender female athletes. So I'm wondering, given that we have a lot of conflicting information about how this would actually be enforced, what would actually happen, whether people would have questions asked of them simply for not looking a certain way what the examination process would be. I'm wondering if you would be willing to accept the amendment, which is simply about a report, so that we can have better information.

You know, respectfully, I don't know that we need a report. Just another level of bureaucracy, more complication, this is not a big deal i mean i think it's if this was the law of the land and it existed everywhere we quite frankly wouldn't have a problem because people would know if you're a guy you're not gonna compete in wrestling and boxing and racing and so many how do you know how do you know other areas with biological men and i i think that would be the end of it we existed that way for many years you can discuss other issues if somebody is trying to get a job or whatever uh you know you could get into that but on this no i think that we just well clearly have a definition Physically, biologically, of a man and a woman. And there's no doubt, you know, some people can argue that women are a whole lot smarter. I wouldn't disagree with that. But there's no doubt physically, in many ways, most women, uh, when it comes to physical endeavors, have a different biology than men do. It's not that complicated. We really are making something so damn complicated that just doesn't have to be. Leave families alone. Leave these girls alone. Let's just go on and have.

Gentlemen,

I yield

his time has expired,

I yield back.

is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Keiling.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, the um representative from Washington indicated that we're only talking about a tiny number of athletes here. Uh, so I wanted to share um with you how actually this odd obsession with opening the female division to both males and females, uh, has negatively impacted uh all of the athletes. uh in a portion of my district. Uh I represent uh in my congressional district a school district known as Tahoe, Truckee, uh Unified. And this uh the schools in this district uh sit are in California, but they're close uh to the Nevada border. And for decades they have competed in sports in Nevada uh instead of California, and the reason for that is that in Nevada sports like uh soccer and tennis are spring sports, uh whereas in California winter sports and in this very snowy area it's very hard to play these sports uh in the winter so they have competed in nevada to allow their student athletes those opportunities until this year the state of california just ordered this district to no longer compete in nevada saying they must compete in california and what is the reason for that because nevada does not allow biological males to compete in female athletics so what this means is that for students who play those sports, soccer, tennis, uh which are winter sports in California but spring sports in Nevada, they may not be able to play at all, all of the athletes, not some tiny fraction of them. Uh and even if they are able to field teams, during the winter months they'll be forced to go over uh what's called the Donner Pass, which is very treacherous to travel through uh during snow storms. And so the safety of these students is gonna be put at risk. This makes absolutely no sense at all. but it goes to show you that what is driving these policies is not any concern for anyone's rights or well-being. Uh, it is some sort of warped ideology that doesn't seem to care about the well-being or rights of any students whatsoever. So I think that this bill is entirely appropriate. We need to work on assuring that our institutions, our athletic institutions at every level, the Olympic level, the the uh the uh the collegiate level, uh, as well as

The chairman yields back, so further discussion on the amendment. Ms. Hagman. Oh, Mister Roy.

I thank the chair, and I'll try to be brief in the interest of time. Um, look, you know, I've I've heard questions that are being raised about the inability to make these determinations or how difficult they'll be. Some colleagues have mentioned the invasiveness. Uh, I mean, look, in college sports or any of us who play college sports, you have to do all sorts of tests, uh, lots of drug tests and so forth. You can have, you know, cheek swabs that can, uh, do a lot of what is necessary for making determinations of of biological sex. The fact of the matter here is we simply just want to protect our girls. That's all we're trying to do. And by the way, this is not a Right? The IOC is considering this for a reason. Now they're hedging back and forth because they're indoctrinated with a bunch of frankly radical leftists in their organizational structure, but they recognize the reality of what we're actually dealing with here, which is that we're tired of watching our little girls getting a volleyball slammed in their face or getting tackled by somebody who's actually a dude. Like, that's the actual thing that we're actually concerned about. And so, you know, look, the the the the reality here is this is not about trying to give a middle finger to President Trump, uh, you know, by opposing this, it's, this is about giving a middle finger to the little girls out there, like my daughter, who wanna be able to play sports and not play sports with a guy. That's it. This is not about, you know, it's really the party of women, equality, all this stuff. And look, you wanna talk about abortion? We can have that debate. We have it round and around. We wanna protect little girls who are not yet born. So we can have that debate all day long. But that's a debate we have had repeatedly. But what we're saying here is, is we want to ensure that our little girls can engage

You bet,

Mm.

cuz I'm just going to briefly speak on the amendment. The over the top rhetoric put forth in support of this amendment I think gives up the game. The fact is that all you need to do to determine sex is a cheek swap. If you're an XX or an XY, you're either a boy or a girl, it's that simple. This isn't complicated. It's not like we haven't known what women and men were for not just a matter of years, but decades and centuries and thousands of years before that. The fact that we're having this conversation and this debate just absolutely epitomizes the left's ongoing effort to rewrite the English language in order to change the debate and destroy civil order. Cisgender is a made-up word. Cisgender is a that means nothing. Do not call me cisgender. I am a woman. You, this gentleman sitting next to me, he is a man. That's who he, That is what our title is. That is what we have been described throughout history. We're not, this bill does nothing to prohibit men from competing in men's sports. I will repeat, this bill does nothing to prohibit men from competing in men's sports, it does prohibit men from competing in women's sports. It is that simple. All we have to do is look at what happened during the Paris Olympics where we watched a dude beat the hell out of a woman in a boxing match and we have people on the other side of the aisle who actually believe that that is okay that man is not a woman he has been tested repeatedly that is a man and he will not be allowed to compete against women in the future because he is a man we do not want men We do not want men in women's soccer, or volleyball, or basketball, or rugby, or swimming, or any other athletic competition. This isn't difficult. All you need to do it for any kind of determination for sex is a cheek swab. The fact that you guys are talking about doing these inspections of people and the fact that the boxing association used to do that, that's sick. That is sick. This isn't competition. complicated and the fact that you're trying to make it complicated gives up the game. We wanna protect women and girls. It's that simple. That's what this bill does. This amendment means nothing. It does nothing to protect women. It does nothing to protect women athletics. That is the reason why every person in this room, especially the women, should vote against it. I yield back.

Gentleman from Texas yields back. Uh further discussion on the amendment. Uh Miss Crockett.

Okay, so I

I didn't know where I was.

Yes.

I was confused. I've asked a couple of questions. Are we on the Jayapal amendment? Okay, I just wanna make sure I'm on the right one, though. That talks about commits to submitting annual reports. Is this the one that starts off that way? To the corporation that include for each calendar year or maybe we should have let this one read Madam Clerk cuz I cuz it seemed like we confused. A report describing the impact of prohibiting a person whose sex is male from participating in an amateur, athlete- amateur, meaning not necessarily little kids on a playground. OK, wanna be clear. Uh, amateur athletic competition that is designated for females, women, or girls or the participation of females, women, or girls in that amateur athletic competition. So are we are we talking about a report? So I I still I listen. Now, maybe maybe it's cuz the clerk didn't read the whole thing, and that's. It's not her fault she was told that was fine. I don't understand why and where my colleagues are going on everything else. And now they wanna be the protectors of girls and women. I didn't hear them screaming this when Renee Goode was killed in the middle of the street in Minneapolis. I didn't hear any protection for Renee Goode, a US citizen that was killed by the same people that the vast majority of you just voted to give more money to. I didn't hear the same thing. In fact, it was a lot of crickets, it c- it, including, specifically including the women, as we were just lectured about what we need to do as women when it came down to the Epstein files. I I heard crickets. In fact, we could not get any signatures onto that discharge petition to the extent that we shut down the entire house and there was no business that was conducted in this entire country on behalf of our constituents but let me be clear the Republicans are going to protect girls and women because that's what this is all about. It's it's it's not about the report cuz the amendment says it's about a report. Like,

The general lady yield for a question? Well, thank you, Miss Crockett, for those trenchant remarks. Well, thank you, Miss Crockett, for those trenching remarks. You know, You know, our our friend and colleague from New Jersey started by saying, our our friend and colleague Our friend from New Jersey started by saying, what do most Americans think of as wrong? So he wants to ground people's approach to this bill on moral intuition. Well, what do you think the moral intuition of Americans is today about shooting Americans in the face for exercising their First Amendment rights, or stripping them of their lawful gun and then shooting them ten times? You think the vast majority of Americans reject that?

Oh, I I know they do.

You think that's why Donald Trump says he's gonna de-escalate and they're trying to get out of Minneapolis because the whole country rejects the bloody violent authoritarianism on display there

Oh, absolutely.

against women and girls and men and boys.

Yeah, and I can also uh remind my colleagues they feel so, so, so deeply about the children, the the same children that they don't want to have six dollars a day to eat and snap benefits, but I know that they care so deeply about children cuz as myself and Joaquin Castro traveled to the Dilley facility in Texas where they kidnapped a five-year-old out of Minneapolis, and took him. I I don't remember any of my Republican colleagues going to check on the people that, the people in the children, the children, maybe don't talk about their parents, but the children that are currently incarcerated. You know, after we left Dilley, I made it clear that as someone who has practiced criminal defense, I have been in actual prisons, I have been in jails. This was the first time that I've been in a facility that doesn't even offer educational opportunities. So you're snatching kids away from their schools? Sometimes I do have a bill if y'all care about schools and and care about the hospitals and care about the churches. I do have I have a bill for that if y'all want to, you know, sign up. But nevertheless, these children are being kidnapped and then they are being thrown into a place that now has a measles outbreak. They are not being given adequate care whatsoever, and the children don't even have access to education. In this country, even somebody who is a convicted felon can go and get a degree. And these kids, Their education has been stunted because this administration, with the complicity of each of you on that side, who refuse to acknowledge what is wrong, because I agree, some things shouldn't be right or left, they should be right or wrong. So if we wanna talk about the amendment, because I think you don't wanna report because the reports will reveal what most of y'all don't wanna actually admit, which is that when it comes down to trans people in sports, on the collegiate level, we have ten in this country. Y'all wanna sit up here and write bills as relates to literally ten collegiate athletes. That's all we have that are trans. Yet we have hundreds of people, thousands of people that are being incarcerated every single day, and we are h- in subjecting our communities to abuse and being terrorized. But no, no, no. Let's focus on the ten trans kids.

General lady's time has expired. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Sure.

uh mister uh believe the gentleman has already spoken on this amendment

i have a unanimous request as a consent request

gentlemen is recognized for your analysis

uh without objection i'd like to introduce new research reveals shocking number of gold medals uh trans-identifying males have stolen from female athletes

without objection is there further discussion on the amendment mister raskin

yeah i moved to strike the last word just to speak on the amendment

gentleman is recognized under the five minute rule

uh thank you very kindly and i i was the the unaware of the case that the general lady miss hagman referred to from uh the Olympic boxing gold competition. Uh, it refers to an Algerian boxer, um, whose name is Imani Khalif, and she won a gold medal Friday at the Paris Olympics. Um, emerging a champion from a tumultuous run at the games where she endured intense scrutiny in the ring, and l- online abuse from around the world over misconceptions about her womanhood. She is what some uh a cis gendered woman. Others object to that. She's what I guess Miss Hagman would call a real woman or a biological woman. But in any case, uh Miss Hagman seems to have fallen for the uh kind of uh mass mob outcry and bias that led to people describing her as transgender and cheating another woman, rightfully, out of uh her title. um how are we actually gonna deal with this problem now it seemed very quickly several people including uh mister roy and uh uh the author herself said well just use a cheek swab which isn't anywhere in the bill it doesn't appear anywhere in the uh the bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute what that says is that female means an individual who has had will have or would have um but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical the reproductive system that produces, transports and utilizes eggs for fertilization. OK, and then a similar one for the male. So, uh, we're not inventing the problem of how you're gonna enforce this new rule that's never existed before that you wanna impose. This is taking place where people, uh, as some members of the committee have just done, have mistaken somebody else's gender identity, challenged it, and then demanded that they prove that that they really are as soon as I finish I'm happy to yield,

Will you yield?

and then prove that they are what they really say they are. So that's a serious problem that you've gotta deal with if you're gonna impose this new gender ideology on the US Olympic Committee, which is already dealing with this problem, and again sorting out different sports according to uh different processes and balancing factors they they're taking into account. Some of the decisions that they make about basketball or rugby or soccer are different from the ones they're making about badminton or ping pong but you guys wanna impose one categorical rule on all of it and have the federal government override that entire process without even thinking through the problem of how you're gonna prove that somebody is really x or y um when somebody comes to to challenge them so again i i'm not an expert in this field at all i would like to proceed on the basis of common sense and Fairness to uh the girls who compete in sports, as my girls have done, as well as fairness to the daughters of other families who compete in sports who are transgender, who also wanna have the same kinds of opportunities to be part of a team, and play in part of the community, and don't present some kind of lethal physical threat to other people. And the one thing that I object to, and I understand it's a complicated issue, but I don't understand why some of our colleagues continue to insist on calling transgender women or transgender girls, men or boys. Well, not according to them, they're not men. Not according to them, they're not boys. And in America, uh, I think we have the freedom of expression and the freedom of identity. We get to decide what they are. The government doesn't decide that somebody is white or black or Christian or Jewish, or male or female. It's up to the people, our selfishness.

Uh, the gentleman that you're referring to in the that was in the boxing competition in Paris has been determined to have XY chromosomes from a twenty twenty three test and in fact mark my words I doubt that you will ever see him enter the ring again with women that person is a man I yield back.

All right, well apparently that's disputed and that that's the the road

Gentlemen, this time is expired. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Mister Chairman.

Mister Nadler.

Mister Chairman, the uh I agree with everything that the uh ranking members said, but let me add very clearly. There is now a scientific consensus of something that no one used to be believe to be true. There is now a scientific consensus that there are more than two sexes. And that transgender people are a different sex. And by not r- by refusing to admit that, we are committing uh or causing them um um great injury. And there is a scientific consensus on this, and uh that that's all that need to be said. Everything else is irrelevant. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. So, further discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the General Lady from Washington. Those in favor of the amendment say aye. Those opposed say no. No. The no's appear to have it.

No.

And the amendment is a roll call has been requested.

Roll call.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan.

No.

Mister Jordan votes no. Mister ISA. Mister Biggs.

No.

Mister Biggs votes no. Mister McClintock.

No.

Mister McClintock votes no. Mister Tiffany. Mister Massey.

No.

Mister Massey votes no. Mister Roy. Mister Fitzgerald. Mister Klein. Mister Gooden. Mister Vandrieu.

No.

Mister Vandrieu votes no. Mister Nels. Mister Moore. Mister Kiley. Miss Hageman.

No.

Miss Hageman votes no. Miss Lee. Mister Hunt. Mister Fry. Mister Grothman.

No.

Mister Grothman votes no. Mister Knott. Mister Harris. Mister Harris votes no. Mister Onder.

No.

Mister Onder votes no. Mister Schmidt. Mister Gill. Mister Baumgartner. Mister Raskin.

Uh aye.

Mister Raskin votes aye. Mister Nadler.

Aye.

Mister Nadler votes aye. Mister Lofgren. Mister Cohen. Mister Johnson. Mister Swalwell. Mister Liu. Mister Jayapal. Mister Jayapal votes aye. Mister Correa. Mister Correa votes aye. Miss Ganlin. Miss Ganlin, that's aye. Mister Nguz. Miss McBath. Miss Ross. Miss Ross, that's aye. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant, that's aye. Mister Garcia. Miss Kammager-Dove. Miss Kammager-Dove, that's aye. Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett, that's aye.

Uh, is Mr. Kalman recorded?

Mister Kiley, you're not recorded.

No.

Mister Kiley, that's no.

Ready?

Clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, there are nine ayes and ten noes.

Vote being nine in the affirmative and ten in the negative, the amendment is not agreed to. Is there any further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Mm-hmm. General Lady.

Um, thank you, I move to strike the last word.

General Leidy is recognized under the five minute rule.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Yet again, this committee is wasting its time on this bill, when we could be addressing actual issues that greatly affect athlete safety and sexual abuse. And you know, there, the Energy and Commerce Committee actually has had some amazing hearings on this issue. Have we? No. Unfortunately, thirty-one former NC State student-athletes have signed on to a lawsuit in my district, alleging that the university did not do enough to protect them from being sexually abused by its former director of sports medicine. And we all know from the prodigious amount of reporting that at least a hundred and seventy-seven former Ohio State student-athletes came forward alleging sexual abuse by a team doctor that took place over two decades. We shouldn't forget that sexual abuse of athletes also includes male athletes. And that was the case both at NC State and Ohio State. And I have had victims of sexual abuse in amateur sports in my office, telling me how harrowing their experiences have been and that Congress has not done. enough. In two thousand and seventeen, Congress did act and created an organization that investigates abuse in sports, creating reporting processes and providing some training to prevent abuses. This organization was immediately overwhelmed with reports and has struggled. Last Congress, I introduced a bipartisan bill, the Safer Sports for Athletes Act, that would improve the investigative process and ensure that national governing bodies for sports get the information they need to keep predators out of sports. I plan on reintroducing this bill very soon with my Republican colleagues. And I would hope that members of this committee would sign on to the bill and that this committee in addition to the Energy and Commerce Committee could have on what is really threatening amateur athletes, both women and men in sports. I've met with these victims on multiple occasions and listened to their stories. I've had male athletes cry in my office. This isn't a political game. It's about the lives and safety of young athletes and our responsibility to deal with rampant problems and protect these athletes' futures. If this committee truly cared about protecting athletes and not just having a charade, we would focus on what we saw happen both at NC State and Ohio State and in Michigan, and so many other places. But instead, we're wasting time on the latest culture war obsession, rather than protecting the next generation. I urge this committee to actually start focusing on some serious issues that affect most communities in America. I want to protect amateur athletes. Help me do it. And please, please have this committee put its focus where it belongs. I yield back.

General Lady yields back. Further discussion on the amendment nature substitute, Mister Biggs.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I have two daughters that played collegiate sports and would have been shocked, they would have been shocked, I would have been shocked if biologi- biological men had played college fast pitch softball with them. Biological men have no place in women's sports, period. That's not a partisan argument. It's a matter of fairness, safety and basic justice for the women and girls who have sacrificed everything to compete at the highest levels. For more than fifty years, Title IX has protected equal opportunity in education and athletics. It opened doors for generations of women who trained, competed and excelled because the law recognized a simple truth. Biological differences matter. And women deserve a level playing field. Yet today those protections are being eroded, not by science, not by fairness, but by an ideology that insists biological sex is irrelevant, that women are merely identities, not a reality rooted in biology. Ignoring biological differences does not make them disappear. It only harms the very athletes title nine was written to protect. It forces women and girls to surrender their privacy, their safety and their opportunities, and the consequences are real. In Arizo- Zar- in Arizona alone, trans-identifying males captured seventy-eight women's gold medals last year, along with silver, bronzes and countless stolen dreams. These are not abstract numbers. They represent young women who trained for years only to lose to competitors with undeniable physical advantages. These are not small differences, they are decisive ones. In my home state of Arizona we have many brave athletes uh who have spoken out. Marshe Smith, a fifteen time All-American swimmer and co-founder of Icons Women put it plainly, quote, "Women and girls need clear, durable protections in law that they can rely on. Our daughters deserve to train, compete, and win on a fair playing field." Close quote. She's right. Kaylee Ray, an NCAA volleyball standout forfeited a match rather than compete against a male Shana Glazier, a USA cycling champion, lost a race to a male competitor. Lauren Bondley, a USA triathlon athlete. All of these brave women have courageously stood up and called out and exposed these injustices. And another brave action from Arizona women athletes was a twenty twenty-two letter to the NCAA from University of Arizona swimmers about Leah Thomas which made the betrayal unmistakable. They stated a simple truth, quote, "We feel we are witnessing irrevocable damage to a sport that has transformed our own

Without objection.

Yeah.

New research reveals shocking number of gold medals trans-identifying males have stolen from female athletes.

Without objection.

New York Time Poll finds almost eighty percent of Americans oppose men in women's sports.

Without objection.

How do

Without objection.

A piece called " The Transgender Movement's Harm to Women".

Without objection.

Riley Gaines fires back at Senator Dick Durbin for bowing to trans activists.

Without objection.

And a letter from W- concerned women for America dated January thirteenth, twenty twenty six.

Without objection.

"We must act, and this why I'm pleased to cosponsor H R ten twenty eight, the protection of women in the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, defines female and male based on biological not identity, not ideology, and requires amateur sports governing bodies to preserve female comp- competitions for biological females. HR ten twenty eight ends the confusion and ends the loopholes. And it ends the unfairness that has robbed women of medals, scholarships and opportunities. Girls deserve to compete on a fair field, not against biological males who identify as girls, not against athletes with inherent physical advantages, and not in a system that sacrifices women's rights to appease political It's time to stand up for biology, stand up for fairness, stand up for our daughters, our sisters, and every woman who has ever stepped onto a field, a court, a track, or a bill, or a pool. I support the bill. Please protect women's sports. Restore the integrity of competition for generations to come. And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Is there further discussion?

Uh, I don't know if there's a, you know, general lady from the

Oh. General Lady from Brevon is recognized.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chair.

Clerical report.

My amendment would

And the Reserva Reserves a point of order.

Reserves a point of order.

Amendment

My amendment would all

No, General uh Lady will suspend, Clerical report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R one zero two eight offered by Miss Ballant. Page two, line ten.

Without objection the amendment in the nature sub- uh pardon me without objection,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment would alter the bill text to prohibit sweeping bans on trans girls and women participating in girls and women's sports. This bill mandates that a person's eligibility to participate in sports be determined by their reproductive system, not by their chromosomes, as my colleagues on the other side are arguing now. That's not what the bill says.

Mm.

The bill says, based on the reproductive And this is not just adults. This is kids too. With this bill, Republicans are saying that they want teachers and coaches to essentially become gender police. They think it's appropriate to interrogate young girls when they decide they don't look feminine enough, or when they think a girl's a little too good at track, or if their shoulders are too broad. And this isn't theoretical. It's already happening. We have instances of this already happening. And it opens the door to abuse by bad actors. Other people have talked about this and this is a strong concern that I have, especially child abusers. And as the release of the Epstein files has revealed, there are unfortunately a lot of very powerful, wealthy men who will abuse girls and even more powerful men and women who will cover for those abusers. This bill requires that participation standards for youth should be the same as for the Olympics, which is of course the highest level of competition in the world and this makes no sense. People can disagree and we can disagree on what rules are most appropriate for competitive sports at the highest levels. But I would hope that we could agree that young kids should not be banned from simply participating in sports teams with their friends. And Republicans want to make this about the Olympics, but the real impact of this bill is actually on youth sports. Nearly ninety-eight percent of USA swimming's two thousand twenty-four members were under the age of nineteen. More than two thirds of USA hockey members were uh were youth players. Under this bill, these young people could be subjected to physical exams to check on their gender. It's your own bill. You wrote it. You you put reproductive uh your reproductive system in there, not chromosomes. And so that's the perfect climate. for a Larry Nassar, for a Richard Strauss at Ohio State, for Jeffrey Upstein, and it does put our children at risk. And H. R. ten twenty-eight does nothing to protect women in sports. It ignores the real problems that do exist in women's and girls' sports, as other people have already said, but I gotta just say it, unequal pay, lack of resources, lack of accountability for sexual misconduct and assault. Women's sports will have a massive gender pay gap. The average NBA player makes almost eighty times more than their WNBA counterports. And instead of putting more money towards women's sports, this bill will force sports organizations to pay for costly and invasive screening procedures, or they risk losing their certification. Instead of doing something about these very real problems that we're hearing about today, this bill is once again, unfortunately, about fear-mongering. It will continue to incite bullies and violence against innocent people, and it will cause mental anguish for children who just want to participate in sports and their families. My amendment centers the bill on a theme I hope we can all agree on, which is sports are for everyone. And the International Olympic Committee has said as much, stating that, quote, " For athletes participating in sports up to the start of puberty, the committee feels strongly fairness should prioritize inclusion and participation. We all know sports teaches teamwork, discipline, and how to have fun. They provide a way for us to connect with other people, to be in community with other people. And we can't teach these values to our kids while we're intentionally excluding people. So I asked my colleagues to support my amendment to change the language in this bill so that it prohibits a categorical ban on trans women participating in sports. And I just wanna say, like my colleague from Washington, I'm tired too. I'm tired of these bills. I'm tired of people being scapegoated for all the problems in society. And I just wanna just say, trans people are not responsible for the fact that you can't afford housing in this country, or you can't afford education or health care. They're not responsible for the tariff regime that is driving up the costs of all the goods. Once again, we're here using our time to pick on a very small minority of people in this country who just wanna live. And I just wanna also say most recent Fox News poll shows by twenty-two points, the American public trusts Democrats more to deal with transgender issues than Republicans, and I yield back.

I don't know, ladies, time has expired, there's a further discussion on the amendment. Mister Bandrew.

You know, just quickly, I don't wanna take a lot of time here. Um, the gentlelady said she's tired. So are we. I'm just tired of an issue where women are the victims. I mean, uh, I'm gonna say something that I said before once over was a different subject that was similar issue, though. We're never worried about or, uh, the folks on the other side don't seem worried about the victims. Speak to the women that have been unfairly treated because they can't compete against a biological male or have been hurt. or have lost their dreams or haven't been able to continue to compete at a higher level because of what's happened it doesn't matter that it's not hundreds of thousands or millions of them it matters even if there's one of them this is like a no brainer nobody wants to hurt anybody nobody is ostracizing anybody no and if they are they shouldn't nobody is picking on anyone it's very simple women young ladies girls, whether they high school or college should be able to compete with other women in women's sports. And if a it's unfa- and again, nobody's saying that you have to go in a locker room or bathroom. Some of them may be in there and it may be quite evident that they are not biological women, that they're biological males, but you can, if it was necessary, check, but usually it isn't. They announce it and they're proud of it and that's fine. I don't wanna hurt them. Nobody on this side of the aisle wants to Nobody wants to do damage. Nobody wants to go after them. Just leave our women and girls alone. Let them have fun. Let them compete and let them fulfill their dreams. It's unfair. You're making an unfair competition. I don't know how else I it just isn't that complicated. And honest to God, I didn't see the poll, but I gotta tell you, if you go out into any soccer field, any baseball field, any basketball court, just talk to young girls, women,

Mr. Vanjire, would you yield for question?

uh, they're - Sure, I will. I - I - I think that may be important.

No, and I - I - I -

I will yield, yes.

Uh, uh, legitimately. Do you not believe that the conclusion of this bill may be that girls who are participating, they are girls, okay?

Mm.

This bill doesn't create that.

This bill doesn't create that. Do I think it happens in many ways?

Do I think it happens? In many ways.

I mean,

I mean,

let me just I'm gonna reclaim I'm gonna I'm gonna reclaim I'm gonna no,

let me just I'm gonna reclaim

I said we don't want to do that. You don't wanna do that.

That's not the purpose. I'm gonna reclaim my time. That's unfortunately human nature. Sometimes it's base, sometimes it's wrong. Nobody should go through that, whatever they are, whatever color, whatever sexual, I don't care. As I said in the beginning of this conversation, I don't care what you are, what you do in your bedroom. Don't force it on me. Don't force it on my kids. Don't make me pay for it. That's all that we're basically asking here. Just fairness. What aren't, is anybody on the other side gonna say, man, and i really feel sorry for this girl who worked so hard and should have won but she didn't because she was competing against somebody that normally she wouldn't have. Do we feel bad for her? Are we sorry for her? Or are we worried about her rights, her family's rights? I I I don't hear that. I'm I'm so and I'm gonna wrap this up, tired of us so focused on such uh uh um small group of people that nobody wants to bother, that nobody wants to hurt. But we shouldn't young women either let's just everybody leave everybody alone and do what you're supposed to i don't care what sex you think i think biologically people are either male or female what you think you are to going back to the uh ranking member i mean you can declare yourself anything you know and i'm not trying to be flip i'm not there are people we've heard it we've read it it is factual that there are some people in schools now that say they're a dog or a cat and even wanna go to the bathroom

Gentleman yields back for the discussion, Miss Kamlager-Duff.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chair. I I wanna support um my colleague's amendment. I wanna s- actually also support uh my colleague from North Carolina, her amendment as well, and I associate myself with both of their

Can't she just go and use her phone?

remarks.

Oh, I have a shift.

Uh, both of you from Vermont and North Carolina. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um. Yeah. Well, let's talk about privacy and protection and safety. Uh, for the record, I do wanna protect, um, our athletes, I wanna protect our boy athletes, I wanna protect our girl athletes, I wanna protect our girls. Um, the president of the NCAA, and I know this was shared earlier, did tell Congress that there are less than ten, less than ten, and not all of them are transgender women, there are less than ten of the more than five hundred thousand NCAA athletes that this bill and these kinds of bills would be targeting. That is a small number. That is a small number to be using up so much of this committee's time. when there are legitimate issues that are actually impacting someone's livelihood and their ability to be alive and to live safely. If we are gonna talk about keeping predators um out of our sports, I mean, the biggest predator is the NCAA mafia that is so focused on the bodies of our athletes and making revenue. getting more and more money, scholarship's not a priority, their mental health isn't a priority, their physical health isn't a priority. Why don't we talk about how to rein that entity in? But we don't. We don't. Why don't we talk about, yes, the pedophiles who have preyed on our young athletes, our boy athletes and our girl athletes. Larry Nassar was a name that was brought up. Where is the horror and outrage and shock over what that individual did? At one point we were debating a bill where adults would be responsible for checking the genitalia of young kids, like to make a determination of who was a boy or who was a girl, and I'm sorry, no one here, no one here who is a parent or is a godparent or an uncle or an aunt child would be okay hearing some story of some rando who's now been authorized to check the genitalia of their child because they just wanna make sure of something. Get outta here, get outta here. Go straight to jail. And if you're talking about, well, the women are the victims, the girls are the victims, let's fight for them. Yeah, okay, there's a list of young girls in those Epstein files. There is a young child, a minor, okay, in her journal, documentation of exploitation, sexual abuse, rape, and forced abortion, a survivor of Epstein. We're not talking about her. tranche, not the full, not the full, not the full release of the files. An eleven or twelve or thirteen year old girl, naked, tied up, spread with her legs open, on a man's knee, being burned with a magnifying glass. No one is sharing any over that, I see your face, exactly, that was my face too. Disgusting, egregious, horrific, a child. If that was your child. And you have a DOJ that is putting the names of these women out there to be attacked and abused and vilified. And no one has any outrage. But you're gonna go up and on. and have all this drama about a transgender person. Most people, real talk, have never even met a transgender person. It's like a boogeyman, like talk about fight for these girls that are in these files that were abused, burned up, raped. I yield back.

General Lady's time has expired for further discussion, Miss Hagman.

Just very briefly. Just very briefly. I think that the Epstein files have now been mentioned upwards of twenty times during the course of this mark-up today when what we're focusing on is whether we'd need to adopt a law to prevent men from participating in women's athletics. Uh, one person even made the accusation that there is this whole slew of powerful men who have been covering for Jeffrey Epstein and their abusers. Uh, well, you wanna know who actually ran cover for Epstein? Who actually, uh, covered for the abuser? Do you wanna know? who actually protected Jeffrey Epstein? Well, her name is Stacey Plaskett, and she is a Democrat representative from the Virgin Island. So if you wanna go in and look at the Epstein files, why don't you go ahead and do a world word search for Stacey Plaskett, representative from the Virgin Islands, the woman who was Jeffrey Epstein's fixer. So if you wanna talk about powerful men covering for Epstein, I think Stacey Plaskett has something as well to answer for being Jeffrey Epstein's fixer. So I would start on that side of the aisle to determine what kind of work she was doing for Mister Epstein because we know that she was his fixer and her name is in the, in the Epstein files repeatedly. So I think that what we really need to focus on here is the bill at hand, which is whether men should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I think we need to get back and kind of focus what we're talking about here, and that's what it is. If you wanna talk about Epstein, I think the first person we need to go to is Stacey Plaskett. If you wanna talk about the issue at hand, let's focus on this. With that, I yield back.

General Lady yields back. Further discussion? Mister Raskin.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. Um, and I I rise in support of the the General Lady's amendment. Uh, let me just respond immediately to what we just heard. Donald Trump was, by Jeffrey Omebstein's own account, Jeffrey Epstein's closest

Absolutely, absolutely.

Oh, you don't accept any of the photographic

I think that there's absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.

Did have you ever seen a photograph of Jeffrey?

Who was who was your attorney?

I'm reclaiming my time,

Who was Epstein's attorney?

Ms. Hagman, reclaiming my time, Ms. Hagman.

Who was Epstein's attorney?

I I'm reclaiming my time.

Committee will come,

Have

the committee will come to order,

I'm very happy

Mr. Raskin controls the time, Mr. Raskin.

There are tons of photographs of Jeffrey.

What's the last date of the month?

There's lots of video evidence of it. They were best friends for more than a decade. OK, there, you you will find a lot of stuff out. If you are hinging your case on the idea that Donald Trump didn't know Jeffrey Epstein, you are in for a very serious public collapse, if that's your argument. As this comes forward.

You nail that one. That's my argument.

You cannot compare Don-

My argument is about Stacey Plaskett.

I- i- excuse me, I'd like my time restored, okay?

Committee will be in order, Mister Raskin controls the time and he has not yielded. Mister Raskin.

Stacey Plaskett is barely a comma in the encyclopedia of Donald Trump's complicity and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and his international human, sex trafficking ring. Okay, and if you don't understand that and you don't believe it, then you've not done familiarize yourself with the evidence, Miss Hageman. I'm sorry. And I know that your predecessor in office, Miss Chaney, would have done that. She was scrupulous and she was studious, and she took the facts seriously, and she was not an ideologue who just fell for a cult leader. Okay? Now, back to the matter at hand. Presently, the Olympic committee has already made the decision, I think, in more than half of the sports. So it's already decided decided, for example, that with respect to boxing, with respect to rugby, with respect to swimming, with respect to tennis, and with respect to volleyball, as I understand it, that all of these are limited to the sex assigned at birth. That's already been decided. So, we are intervening now as the United States Congress to make a decision about a miscellaneous category of a handful of other sports which have not even been mentioned by our which appear to still be open to transgender athletes. Here are the ones that I see them are skateboarding, skiing and snowboarding, um, table tennis, ping pong, um, and you, and ultimate frisbee. Now, um, perhaps someone over there can explain why when American citizens are being shot in the face by federal agents, And the entire heartland of the country is in an uproar because of Donald Trump's private paramilitary army that nobody on the other side seems to wanna talk about. We should be talking about whether or not transgender girls or women should be able to participate in ultimate frisbee competitions. Because that's really what we're talking about today. But they sure would much rather be talking about that than anything else. They don't wanna talk about what's really in the Epstein files. I I'm surpri- I'm stunned, I'm astonished, I'm flabbergasted by Ms. Hagerman who seems to go way beyond anything else I've heard from other Republicans. She seems to be in open denial that Donald Trump and Melania Trump had anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein. That's astonishing to me. I think she's uh setting herself for a huge public relations fall by going that far. Oh, here's some photographs, Ms. Hagerman. How do you see about those? Do you think those are created by artificial intelligence? You got any problem with any of those pictures of your hero with Jeffrey Epstein, his closest friend for more than a decade? Thank you for bringing forth the photographic evidence. Keep that up for a while. Apparently some people haven't seen those pictures. They're very happy to talk about Stacey Plaskett, the non-voting delegate from the Virgin Islands, or Bill Clinton. And anybody who was involved in any crime should be punished for it. Whether they're Democrat, Republican, or Independent, I'll say it right now. Will Miss Hageman, the very distinguished general lady from Wyoming, say that? Will she say that Republicans should be punished for their crimes if they were complicit in a billion dollar international child sex trafficking ring? I don't think so. I don't think she'll say it, not if it's Donald Trump. It's all about Donald Trump following him off into a path of oblivion. I yield back.

Gentleman's time has expired. There's no further discussion. Mister Moore.

I yield to the general lady from Wyoming.

Just very briefly, it clearly hit a nerve, didn't I, Mister Raskin?

Oh, very much so, because you don't tell the truth.

I think that I think that it's very obvious.

And that hits a huge curve.

It's been a ge- I think that it's very obvious.

Miss Hagerman controls, hold on.

I think it's very obvious.

They're gonna interrupt her the same number of times she interrupted me,

Miss Hagerman controls the time and is not yielding.

Mister Chairman.

Miss Ha- Mister Chairman, hold on. The the the the ranking member just accused the gentlelady of of lying. And I and I don't

Never use that word. Never use that word.

He said, didn't tell, didn't he say about not telling the truth? Oh, okay. The committee will be in order. Mister

That was the standard established earlier today, Mister Roy. You weren't here.

The committee will be in order. Does Mister Roy make a point of order?

Ma- may I ask, may I inquire as to whether the gentleman with the ranking member accused the General Lady of not telling the truth? I heard something to that effect that I might have misheard.

Um, i- if the General Lady was denying that Donald Trump knew Jeffrey Epstein, that would not be a truth that I could endorse in the world of objective reality.

So, because this is my time, I never

Oh.

Everybody, everybody calm down here, okay?

I I

I never made that claim.

The committee will be in order.

The committee will be in order.

Those are my members, Mr. Breitbart, her colleagues,

I would remind members to direct their comments to the chair.

and myself. Gentlelady's in order.

Uh the uh gentleman will continue in order.

Also

The gentlelady will continue in order.

Oh pardon me, gentlelady will continue in order.

Thank you. Uh the point of this is that nobody has made that claim, yet in order to try to deflect attention from the fact that Stacey Plaskett was Jeffrey, F.'s, the ranking member has become hysterical over the fact that there are published photographs of Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein.

You get them up again.

Nobody on this side has ever claimed otherwise or that they did not know each other. They absolutely did. But Donald Trump was not the attorney or the fixer for Jeffrey Epstein. Stacey Plaskett was. So the point that I am making is when you have accusations being made by the other side, about powerful men covering up for Jeffrey Epstein, I think the very first person you need to look to is Stacey Plaskett, a powerful woman via New York and the Virgin Islands. That was the point. That doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump. That has to do with whether Stacey Plaskett is associated with with, uh, Jeffrey Epstein, and she clearly is, as is shown by the records. So if you are concerned about powerful people covering up, for Jeffrey Epstein, perhaps you need to visit with Stacey Plaskett first. That was the point, Mister Raskin, and uh, I don't think there's anything further to say. I yield back.

Uh, I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion?

Mister Chairman.

Uh, gentlelady from Washington has recognized this.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, wow, there's a lot to say here. Uh, the gentlelady from Wyoming said that she doesn't understand why we brought up the Epstein

Mm.

The reason we brought up the Epstein files is because you all keep telling us that we don't care about women and girls.

Yep.

That statement has been made over and over and over and over again. So let me ask a little simple question, though there's not very many of you over there on that side. How many of you signed the discharge petition to bring the Epstein transparency act to the floor. Anybody over there, cuz Mister Massey's not there, he did, he led that, I give him tons of credit for that. Did anybody sign that discharge petition?

No.

Don't see a single hand being raised. How about on our side? M- members, how many of us signed the discharge petition to bring the Epstein transparency act to the floor? Yeah, every single person on this side. We wanted to investigate every single pedophile and pedophile protector that was in that Epstein ring and you have the temerity over there to tell us that somehow we don't care about women and girls have you spent any time with those survivors?

No, I don't have any idea.

Because we have, right, ladies, we have

Yeah, we have. Yeah. Yeah, I have.

all of us, gentlemen as well. Oh, I see that there are so many ladies on the and there's one lady on the Republican side, I don't know what it is about your party that doesn't seem to wanna have women run over there in your party. But let me tell you something, we spent a lot of time with these survivors. And the way they are being treated right now is stunningly disrespectful. Todd Blanch is out there saying, " There's nothing to investigate." Did you see that? He said, " There's nothing to investigate." I'm not even gonna try to run an investigation. So you all wanna know why we keep bringing up Epstein? Because there is a massive cover-up of the Epstein files and everybody involved, and you have the temerity to suggest that we are the party that doesn't care about women and girls? Give me a frickin' break.

Mm.

That's point number one I wanna make.

Mm.

Point number two I'd like to make.

More.

You keep talking about protecting our kids. You talk about your little girls, I've got a little girl, I've got, I've had kids, they're grown now. Um, we wanna protect our kids too. And trans people are literally one percent of the population. But you know how many bills have been passed in the last year targeting trans people? Seven hundred and forty-five anti-trans bills passed in state legislate introduced in state legislatures across the country. And you think that that doesn't affect trans people and the trans community? You got Mister Van Drew over there saying, oh we just, we don't wanna be in anyone's business, we're not trying to hurt anybody, we just wanna protect our girls. Let me tell you something. Trans people are being attacked across the country. And if you don't know that, you should study the statistics because the statistics are very, very clear. There has been double-digit increases in violence against trans people since you all started introducing these bills across the country. Fifty-two percent of all anti-LGBTQ incidents in the last year were directed towards trans people. And those of us that actually know and have trans people in our families know exactly what that means for them. They're carrying mace around, they're afraid of what's gonna happen to them, they feel like they're not allowed to be who they are, and they're one percent of the population, they don't understand why you are obsessed with them. Point number three I wanna make. You talk about all these things as if they're settled. You know, you say like, oh there's so much evidence that shows that women are biologically inferior in strength and therefore blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. None of this is settled. In twenty twenty four there was a study funded in part by the IOC and published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine that concluded that transgender a women athletes may actually have several physical disadvantages when competing with cisgender women and I'm gonna use that word again, cisgender women. Cisgender, I'm gonna say it again and again so you get The gentlelady's time has expired. Is there further discussion? Um, gentleman from Georgia.

Thank you. I yield uh uh a minute to the gentlelady from Washington.

Fantastic. Thank you, because I wanted to just say, look, I am, I said this before. I am just so tired of the way that you target trans people in this country. I don't think you

Abe.

I I don't know if you've talked to a trans person, I don't know if you have family members who are trans, but it puts people in very real danger. It heightens people's fears of trans people. There's nothing to fear from trans people, just get to know some. This is what happened with gay marriage early on, with marriage equality. were like, " Oh my God, can't possibly uh tolerate marriage equality." But then guess what?

Is this what I remember?

You started to realize that we're all just people, but don't try to tell us that you're protecting women and girls and that you're not harming trans people. Because A, you're not protecting women and girls, and none of you signed that discharge petition for the Epstein files to bring those files out into the open and B, you're harming trans people.

period, with things that are not science. So just don't delude yourselves. Thank you, Mister Johnson, I yield to you.

Thank you, and I yield uh to the gentle lady, uh Rep. Ballant.

Uh, just briefly, and I I can't believe I actually have to say this on the record, but because Mister Van Drew, uh, my colleague from New Jersey weighed it weighed into this, I just wanna be really clear that he spent his time continuing to spread a rumor that has been debunked over and over and over again, there were never litter boxes in schools, there were never kids dressed as dogs or cats using litter boxes, and yet he spends our time in judiciary bringing up once again a hoax, and you just need to look at um Education Week that put out uh an article about this, litter boxes in schools, how a disruptive and demeaning hoax frustrated school leaders across this country. That was yet another instance of people trying to use a um a hoax to once again go after LGBTQ people in schools. It was if we allow LGBTQ people to be themselves, what will be next? It will be people dressed as cats and dogs using litter boxes. And so it never happened. It's not And I can't believe that here in the Judiciary Committee of the United States House, I have to make that clear. And, uh, Mister Johnson, thank you so much. I yield back to you.

Thank you. I can't believe I just walked into the Judiciary Committee meeting. Welcome to our life. And this is a, uh, mark-up of two bills. We've been at it all day on one bill and looks like we're gonna spend half the night on a protection of women. an Olympic and amateur sports bill. How ridiculous at this point in time with our democracy crumbling, with prices going through the roof, and uh with the Epstein files still having uh not been fully accounted for, and we are considering this legislation here, uh, Which is by the way gonna give men the authority to determine whether or not a female or anyone is female or uh cisgender, go look it up, it's real, um or whatever they decide that the person is. I mean it's gonna be a man's decision. Uh I mean we're taking ourselves backwards to the caveman era. um, it's it's just really ridiculous that I have walked into this hearing at this particular time.

False.

I'm uh

That's false.

Gosh. I yield back. I have nothing left.

Gentlemen, you're

I will I I'll yield the balance.

Well, I just did the the the gentlelady's remarks uh uh refuting the most recent cat dog fallacy, which I wasn't aware of, uh brings to mind uh a fascinating article I read last night by Professor Tim Snyder, who's from Ohio, and he was recalling how during the camp uh, Vice President J. D. Vance and Donald Trump were promoting the absolute lie that, uh, there were Haitian Americans in Springfield, Ohio, eating dogs and cats, as well as eating, uh, pigeons and other birds. Well, uh, all of it appears, according to Professor Snyder, to be a set-up for an attempt to try to displace the entire Haitian American population, which has now been subject to termination of temp- of,

Gentleman's gentleman's time has expired. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Vermont. Those in favor of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. No. The no's appear to have it.

No, I just really don't.

A recou recorded vote is requested. Uh.

Mister Jordan. Mister Issa. Mister Biggs. Mister Biggs.

No.

Mister Biggs votes no. Mister McClintock.

No. No.

Mister McClintock votes no. Mister Tiffany. Mister Massey. Mister Roy.

No. No.

Mister Roy votes no. Mister Fitzgerald. Mister Klein. Mister Gooden. Mister Van Drew.

No.

Mister Van Drew votes no. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore.

No.

Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Keiley. Miss Hageman. Miss Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Frey. Mr. Grothman.

No.

Mr. Grothman votes no. Mr. Knott. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Onder. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill votes no. No, Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.

Aye.

Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Nadler. Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson.

Yes.

Mr. Johnson votes yes. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Liu.

Mm.

Miss Jayapal.

Yes.

Miss Jayapal votes yes. Mr. Correa.

Yes.

Mr. Correa votes yes. Miss Ganlin.

Yes.

Miss Ganlin votes yes. Mr. Nagus. Miss McBath. Miss Ross.

Aye.

Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant.

Aye.

Miss Ballant votes aye. Mister Garcia. Miss Kim Lagerdoe.

Aye.

Miss Kim Lagerdoe votes aye. Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes aye.

Oh, oh, sorry.

Mister Massey, you're not recorded.

No.

Mister Massey,

Oh, we're not recorded?

Mister Kiley, you're not recorded.

No.

Mister Kiley, that's no.

Oracle report.

Mister Chairman, there are nine ayes and ten noes.

The uh vote being nine in the affirmative and ten in the negative, the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion? Uh generally uh Miss Scanlon is recognized.

I have been amended at the desk.

Clerk will report.

Clerk will report.

Mister Van Drew. Mister Van Drew.

Mister Van Drew reserves a point of order. So report of what, uh

Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to H R one zero two eight, offered by Miss Scanlon.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Look, it's clear that the underlying bill here today is not about supporting and protecting women. It's about fear-mongering because the majority thinks they can score political points by attacking transgender folks. The proposal prescribes a one-size-fits-all ban that applies across all sports and all athletes whether an Caribbean or a youth sports club member. So it's a bill that would present prevent trans girls and women of all ages, and all levels, from participating in sports. Now, several of our colleagues have characterized title nine as having been written to protect women and girls which is a false but completely on-brand rewriting of history by today's Republican party. When I was growing up, title nine was brand new, but it was clear that the local law's purpose was to make everyone welcomed and included in sports. Starting with the introduction to that provision, no person shall on the basis of sex be discriminated against. So women and girls were not being allowed to participate in sports, and Title Nine was to help them, uh, be included. That should extend to our transgender neighbors and allow them to participate in sports as well. But, This bill you know, look, whether in school or elsewhere, we can't retreat from the policies that promote all inclusion of all Americans in athletics, in employment, in academics, in our military, in any other aspect of our civics civic life. But that's what this bill is written is about. It's about exclusion. And as my colleague, Ms. Ross, has said, there are real issues facing female athletes that we could be talking about today, but as usual, our Republican colleagues have missed the mark, whether where's the discussion of legitimate barriers like lack of resources, vulnerability to abuse, bias, and wage gaps. This builds part of a pattern for our Republican colleagues who are too willing to disregard Americans' fundamental rights and freedoms, in order to meddle in other people's personal medical decisions, blatantly caring about some rights and some freedoms for some people rather than those that all Americans should enjoy. Course, we can't talk about women's equality or fema- for female athletes or anyone else without talking about access to reproductive health care. And since this bill from our Republican colleagues purports to define women by their reproductive systems, I think it only makes sense that we should talk about reproductive health care here today, the very thing that extreme anti-abortion lawmakers want to take away. That's why my amendment to this bill would prohibit amateur sports organizations from discriminating against women for being pregnant or accessing reproductive health care including abortion contraception or IVF. This includes not only athletes but the coaches, administrators and staff on these organizations. Since the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v Wade, states across the country have moved to restrict access to Including banning abortion care, IVF, and certain forms of contraception, and the consequences have been devastating. Providers have been forced to relocate and close their doors. American women have found themselves in dangerous situations with their health, their livelihood, even their lives impacted. In the face of that reality, we need to make sure that athletes and staff working at those organizations aren't discriminated against for access

General Lady yields back. The gentleman from New Jersey withdraws his point of order. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the General Lady from Pennsylvania. Those in favor say aye.

Aye. No.

No. The no's appear to have it. A roll call is requested. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan. Mister Issa. Mister Biggs. Mister McClintock.

No.

Mister McClintock votes no. Mister Tiffany. Mister Massey.

No. No.

Mister Massey votes no. Mister Roy.

No.

Mister Roy votes no. Mister Fitzgerald. Mister Klein. Mister Gooden. Mr. Vendrieu

No.

Mr. Vendrieu votes no. Mr. Nels Mr. Moore Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kiley

No.

Mr. Kiley votes no. Miss Hageman Miss Lee Mr. Hunt Mr. Frye Mr. Grothman

No.

Mr. Grothman votes no. Mr. Nott Mr. Harris

No.

Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Onder Mr. Schmidt Mr. Gibbs Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.

Aye.

Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Nadler.

Aye.

Mr. Nadler votes aye. Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Miss Jayapal votes aye. Mr. Correa.

Aye.

Mr. Correa votes aye. Miss Scanlon. Miss Scanlon votes aye. Mr. Nguyes.

Aye.

Miss Ross.

Aye.

Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant.

Aye.

Miss Ballant votes aye. Mister Garcia. Miss Kamlager-Dove.

Aye.

Miss Kamlager-Dove votes aye. Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman. Miss Crockett.

Aye.

Miss Crockett votes aye.

I agree.

Uh, Mister Biggs, you're not recorded.

No.

Mister Biggs votes no. Mister Jordan.

No.

Mister Jordan votes no. Mister Onder.

I'm not recorded.

You're not recorded. Mr. Onderowitz, no. Mr. Gale, you're not recorded. Mr. Gale, that's no.

Clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, there are ten ayes and twelve noes.

The vote being ten in the affirmative and twelve in the negative, the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the amendment in the nation?

But I've just got a few UC requests,

Mister Raskin.

Mr. Chairman, if that's okay.

Mister Raskin.

Um, let's see, the first one is a a letter led by the National Women's Law Center and joined by other women's rights groups, strongly opposing HR ten twenty eight.

Without objection.

Uh, I also ask you now as consent to enter the record a letter signed by thirty one civil rights organizations strongly opposing

Without objection.

HR t- ten twenty eight. And then finally, uh, this one is from Politico. Trump admitted furor over Epstein directs Bondi to investigate the

Without objection.

Great.

Seeing, is there further discussion on the amendment and the nature of substitute?

Question is.

Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment and the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no.

No.

No.

No. No.

Deputy Chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment and the nature of a substitute is adopted.

No.

I would have also said that this is an independent of the state,

It would be like a roll call vote.

On the on the amendment and the nature of a substitute?

Oh no.

and so on.

Whatever.

The amendment in the nature of substitute is adopted. The question is now unfavorably reporting the bill is amended. Those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No. No.

The ayes have it. And the bill

We have a recorded vote on that bill.

A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Jordan. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs.

Aye.

Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. McClintock.

Aye.

Mr. McClintock votes aye. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massey. Mr. Massey votes aye. Mr. Roy.

Aye.

Mr. Roy votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Vandrieu.

Yes.

Mr. Vandrieu votes yes. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kiley. Miss Hageman. Miss Lee. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Frey. Mr. Grothman.

Aye.

Mr. Grothman votes aye. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes aye. Mr. Onder.

Aye.

Mr. Onder votes aye. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.

No.

Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler.

No.

Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson.

No.

Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Miss Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa.

No.

Mr. Correa votes no. Miss Scanlon. Miss Scanlon votes no. Mr. Nguz. Miss McBath. Miss Ross.

No.

Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballant.

No.

Miss Ballant votes no. Mr. Garcia. Miss Kamlager-Dove.

No.

Miss Kamlager-Dove votes no. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett.

No.

Miss Crockett votes no. Mr. Kiley, you're not recorded. Mr. Kiley votes aye.

We're short of money.

That was fun. We were short of money.

Well.

That was disgusting. Very good.

We're short of money. Way to hang tough. Way to hang tough. No, here you go.

Think of this place.

Do we have to go all the way up to the top of the building?

Mister Fitzgerald, you're not recorded. Mister Fitzgerald, that's aye.

Welcome.

Good job.

I've been there. I've been to everybody's post-man. Just kidding. Oh, very funny. Wait, who's Very funny. Very funny. What? Very funny.

What? That's just funny. I mean, it's just funny. Yeah. Okay. But that would be a season. I think we could be more serious there. I think we can do a little bit. Yeah, that's not a good idea, but it's it's another client. Well, it's probably because they're, it's like they're too slow, right? It's actually might be that recording, but it's not. You know, it's like, how many people are to be in charge of these MCs, and how many way are they to be in charge of that? And how many are they to be in charge of that? I think they have everything. Oh, oh damn it, I can't put that down. How many, how many more do we need? Two. Oh, two more. My kingdom for a quorum. Yeah. Think it's It's fine, we'll give it to you, point. Yeah, I'm not sure but um they do not try to get them free joy you should maybe some enjoy um you guys shot me in the face you know i think because i've been offering that's interesting so you know i mean i can go to that place and get a i could be like i could be like a ticket block about what we have to offer just chill fun yeah yeah yeah k thank you Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. It's, you know, so we, we changed our uh, the sponsor name, that our, you know, school boards, they're called World War Two. You know, so we're going to launch our own, our own brand, so it's like, you know, we don't have to work on the, like, the, you know, that's, you know, the, you know, the, that's, you know, our brand name, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our,

Hmm.

I don't know.

Yeah. Um, I take the ball. I can't play. Almost.

i i think it would probably be just well they do it they are like do the speech i i would do it yeah yeah i mean of course uh mmm i think t. c. is very popular in india so carly would be on the line to get to yeah yeah yeah yeah um

mr. jordan Mr. Jordan votes yes

Short one.

mr. naff

Yes.

Yes or not, that's yes.

yeah because look at the i already made a video about it but i'm not gonna make a video about it today because i'm so busy today so i'm the guy yeah i'm the guy hello not my fault

mister schmidt you are not recorded mister schmidt votes aye

ok

mr. Nils

yes

mr. Nils votes yes

fifteen times fifteen times is it quite still

No, he's been held.

Okay, the clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, there are fifteen ayes and ten noes.

The ayes have it and the bills ordered to be reported a favor to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical changes that concludes the business committee's business for this meeting. The meeting is adjourned. That's almost that's almost redundant.