Seven Bills on Records, Prosecution, CHILD, Chloe Cole, Fossil, Courts, Cloud

Committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare recess at any time pursuant to Committee Rule two, House Rule eleven, clause two. The chairman may postpone further proceeding today on the question of approving any measure in matter of adopting or an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. I now recognize the gentlelady from Florida mislead to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, one nation, under God, under God, indivisible, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. with the liberty and justice for all.

Presenting to notice I call up HR thirty one hundred for purpose of mark up the move that the committee reported favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill.

H R three one.

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mister Frey, for an open

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

Op- opening statement.

Opening statement first, if you could. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Child Protection Act, or NCPA, uh, just for background to kind of set the scene, created a framework for child-serving businesses and organizations to obtain fingerprint-based national criminal background checks from the FBI and state criminal history systems on their employees and volunteers. The NCPA was initially limited to businesses that employ individuals who work with children, but was later expanded in nineteen ninety-eight to include businesses that assist the elderly and other vulnerable populations. These organizations uh include child care centers, elder care facilities, and transportation services. Uh for example, Hopskip Drive is an organization that provides safe transportation for children uh through highly vetted caregivers. Many children do not have access to traditional school transportation, whether that's because they're in foster care, experiencing homelessness themselves, uh have specialized transportation needs or simply fall outside existing bus routes companies like Hopskip Drive help insure those children can still get to school and child care safely. However, under current federal law uh they can only request background checks for W two employees and unpaid volunteers and cannot directly request a background check for contractors. Until twenty eighteen individuals contracted by these organizations were authorized under the NCPA to directly request a national background check be conducted. However, the Child Safety Improvements Act of twenty eighteen inadvertantly removed that provision uh that covered contractors when it changed the statutory definition of the word " provider" and replaced it with " covered individual". So under the current federal law, contractors are not covered by the definition of a covered individual. Thus, companies like Hopskip Drive that utilize independent contractors must rely on school district partners to facilitate fingerprinting process. This bill would correct a critical oversight in the current law, ensuring that all individuals, businesses and organizations working with these vulnerable populations can request background checks not only for their employees and volunteers but also for the contractors and individuals they license or certify to provide unsupervised care for those populations. For many working families, transportation can be a missing link between available child care and the ability to stay in the workforce. This bill will help working families and connect them with the care that they need. I urge my colleagues to support this very common sense correction in the law. And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Rastner, from opening statement.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I uh strongly support this legislation. I wanna commend our colleagues, uh, Mr. Frey, uh, not for his promptness today, but for his hard work on the legislation and uh and Mr. Moskowitz for his uh devotion and leadership on this bill. It's a common sense, by-product, bipartisan fix to close a gap in federal law that puts vulnerable populations like children at risk right now under the National Child Production Act. Qualified entities that provide services to children, the elderly and disabled people can request background checks for their employees and volunteers but that authority does not extend to contractors or individuals that these organizations license or certify to provide care that means schools can request nationwide FBI fingerprint based background checks and potential teachers, but the same schools may not be able to request those checks for bus drivers who transport the students tutors who work one-on-one with students after school, or nurses and therapists contracted to provide medical or mental health care. And the problem goes beyond school. This limitation also affects child care centers, youth sport sports leagues after school programs, foster homes, and any business or organization that contracts with someone to care for the most vulnerable people in our communities. The Child Act, The bill explicitly includes contractors, volunteers, and individuals licensed or certified by a qualified entity. It would restore uniform, nationwide standards, and insure employers, contractors and other organizations of the tools they need to hire and work with qualified and thoroughly vetted candidates. We all know too well the crimes that can result when background checks fail. This bipartisan bill is a targeted technical fix that will make people who are placed in the care of others like children and senior citizens, safe.

Gentleman yields back without objection all of the opening statements will be included in the record and the chair now recognizes gentleman from South Carolina to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of amendment the chair now recognizes gentleman from South Carolina to explain the amendment.

Thank thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, This amendment simply adds a short title to the bill. It's not intended in any way to alter uh the important purpose of the bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back.

Gentleman is back. The gentleman from Florida does wish to speak. Does Mister Muskman?

If you want me to.

Well, I I've I just

It's been a while, it's been a while since we've had

uh It's been a while now, but the ranking ranking member said such nice things

a while.

about you on this bill with Mister Fry I thought you wanted to, but if you don't want to

I probably shouldn't say anything else then.

Okay. Who seeks recognition, anyone? The gentlelady from George is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, uh for decades the National Child Protection Act, or the NCPA, has provided a framework work for Nash for nationwide background checks of those who work with vulnerable members of our communities, however a change to the law in twenty eighteen has created a dangerous loophole. Although the Child Protection Improvement Act of twenty eighteen was passed with the best intentions it mistakenly narrowed the definition of whose backgrounds can be checked under the NCPA, excluding independent contractors, including those with unsupervised access to children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Unfortunately, this change has created a confusing and inconsistent pa- patchwork system where protections depend upon the state where the contractors work. Some states have very strong laws, while others rely on name-based checks or leave decisions to individual school districts or other ages. These inconsistencies put vulnerable people at unnecessary risk. Protective or, excuse me, proactive screening is our first and best line of defense for vulnerable populations, who often cannot advocate for themselves and they deserve consistent protection no matter where they live a child in Georgia, day care deserves the same level of safety as an elderly resident in a nursing home, in California. Moreover, nationwide checks make certain that a prospective hire's troubling past does not go undiscovered simply because they moved to a state with weaker screening requirements. Every person who works with or has unrestricted access to children, teens, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities should be strongly screened full stop. That includes school bus drivers, after-school tutors, nurses, transportation providers, physical therapists, and many others because we know that anyone at any point in time can pose a risk. Nationwide background checks are an indispensable screening tool. They are the gold standard in safety and reliability. H R thirty-one hundred, the Child Act, will allow businesses and organizations to once again rely on and request nationwide background checks for all personnel. working with vulnerable populations. This bill will provide consistency, accountability, and a peace of mind to our mothers and our fathers, sons and daughters who must place their loved ones in the care of others every day. This is not a partisan issue. Thank you, Jesus. It's a matter of fundamental safety. The gaps in the current background check system present a risk that we simply cannot afford. Thank you to Mister Moskowitz and to Mister Frey. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan common sense measure that will ensure proper and thorough vetting of every individual and trust it with the care of those who cannot protect themselves. HR thirty one hundred should be brought to the floor without delay. And I yield.

Delay yields back. Question occurs on adoption of the amendment in the nature of substitute. This will be followed by a vote uh on favor of reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. You pin the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of substitute is adopted. The question is on favor of reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no.

Asked to record both.

Uh, the ayes have it, and the gentleman uh from uh California has requested a recorded vote. The clerk, call the roll.

Mr. Jordan.

Yes.

Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. McClintock.

Vote.

Mr. McClintock votes aye. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany votes aye. Mr. Massey. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Mr. Klein. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Miss Hageman. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Hunt. Mister Frey. Aye. Mister Frey votes aye. Mister Keilly. Mister Grothman. Mister Nott. Aye. Think you can Mister Nott votes aye. Mister Harris. Mister Harris votes aye. Mister Onder. Mister Onder votes aye. Mister Schmidt. Mister Schmidt votes aye. Mister Gill. Mister Baumgartner. Mister Raskin. Mister Raskin votes aye. Mister Nadler. Miss Lofgren. Miss Lofgren votes aye, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlon. Mr. Naguse. Miss McBath. Miss McBath votes aye, Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes aye, Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes aye, Mr. Garcia. Miss Kamlager-Dove. Miss Kamlager-Dove votes aye, Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye, Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Mister Moore Mister Moore votes aye.

How how did you get recorded?

Uh how did uh who who you recorded?

Miss Lee, you have not been recorded.

Uh, I'll go, yes.

Miss Leith, Pennsylvania votes yes.

I'll put that in here.

Mister Biggs? Mister Biggs votes yes.

Wait, hold on.

We need a couple. We should have just did this one.

mr. chairman i have something to say

mr. kleinberg hi

Yeah, that looks fine. Two. Two.

Can you just see the animals in the background?

Mhm.

Gentleman from Illinois.

Mister Garcia votes aye.

There's nobody left.

So. it's it's pretty far

Yeah, we need to get rid of the

Love it.

I appreciate it.

and then it's closed, and it's too bad.

Is that gentleman from California?

It's so good, it's like that.

Mister Kylie votes aye.

Clerk will report. Clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman there are twenty three ayes and zeroes.

Without object uh the ayes have it and the bills ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to make views without objection. The bill will be reported as a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff's authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Precincts to notice I call up H R ninety one ninety one the National Fossil Act, for purpose of mark up a move with the committee reported favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill.

H R nine one nine one.

Not objection, the bill be considered as read an open floor amendment at any point, the chairs vow recognized for an opening statement. Uh, H R ninety one ninety one continues the tradition of Congress designating certain plants and animals with significant connection to the United States as national symbols nineteen ninety eight Congress designated the rose as the national floral emblem in twenty in two thousand and four Congress designated the oak tree as the national tree of the United States most recent Congress uh Congress designated the bald eagle, as the national bird. I figure that would have been done prior to twenty-four, but it was done in twenty-four. National Fossil Act would place the American Mastodon and T-rex on similar footing as the National Mammal Fossil and the National Dinosaur Fossil. These creatures have captured the imagination of Americans for generations, oftentimes on school trips when students visit the National History Museum just down the street here in our nation's capital. Our nation marks, as our nation marks its two hundred and fiftyth anniversary, this bill is a fitting way to recognize an important part of our national heritage and encourage future generations to explore all that our country has to offer. I urge and yield back and recognize the ranking member for his statement on T-rex and the mastodon.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, I enthusiastically support this legislation. Uh, the National Fossil Act would amend the US Code to designate the American mastodon as the national fossil mammal. This is an extinct relative of the modern elephant. Um.

Thought you were gonna make a joke there.

Well, I'm about to, Mister Chairman.

I thought something was coming.

Uh, Uh, it is the extinct relative of the modern elephant, which according to many analysts today faces extinction itself, at least in its political variety. Um, the bill would also designate as our national fossil dinosaur, the Tyrannosaurus rex, a creature that needs no introduction if you've got kids or you remember childhood yourself and as I learned during preparing for this mark-up both the Mastodon and the T-rex fossils have only been found in North America. Um, I love the T-rex, but I confess that I'm also partial to Maryland's state dinosaur, the Astrodon John Stony, which is a long-necked Brachiosaurid that proudly spends days munching on plants, and whose fossils were found in the suburbs of DC, likely in my district. Recent research suggests the T-rex descended from dinosaurs that crossed the land bridge from Asia, um, establishing that immigrants were making America great even before humans walked the earth. So, uh, um, as for the choice of the elephant ancestor, uh, mastodon as our national fossil, please accept our enthusiastic endorsement of this nomination as a gesture of bipartisanship, and not a prediction that the GOP is necessarily going the way of the mastodon. Um, it's my hope that by designating the fossils of these extinct creatures as national symbols it will inspire our fellow Americans to continue to investigate the natural world and natural history and to appreciate Through the application of the miracles of modern science, we have discovered that the Earth is indeed more than four billion years old, so old that it has been inhabited by organisms which in the case of dinosaurs evolved and died off millions of years before humanity even existed. Um, for these reasons, uh, Mister Chairman, um, I want to express strong support for this legislation which will be enthusiastically greeted by millions of children across America especially my T-rex loving nephew, Maddox.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Um, I turn now and recognize himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of substitute.

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered based text for the purpose of the amendment. This amendment updates the short title of the bill, makes no change in substance to the legislation. Anyone else wanna talk about TREX?

Mis- Mister Chairman, if I may.

Who is it? Who the the gentleman from Arizona is recognized as.

Uh thank you, thank you Mister Chairman. As someone who probably is the national fossil. Myself, I I I hate to be the damper on this. Um.

You're against T-rex?

Uh, I would not to want to face a T-rex, no. But um,

Yeah. Short arms.

I I I just can't help but think of of the myriad bills that we need to we need to go forward with. I get that, I get it, and it's all maybe done in good fun and good spirit but as a crusty fossil i can't i can't support this and i'll be voting no yield

gentleman yields back anyone else in the crusty fossils mood or the gentlelady from vermont

thank you so much i am i am neither crusty or a fossil uh i just wanna say as a former

i said mood i just just to be clear i would not i would not i would not in any way disparage the gentlelady from vermont

understood understood i i was not meaning to disparage either I think we are in a moment right now when people and - and specifically children and students across this country need to find some avenue into engaging with government. This is another way to do that. And I just wanna say Vermont has two official state fossils, one a terrestrial fossil, which is the Mount Holly woolly mammoth.

Thank you. Cross it.

The other is our marine fossil, the Charlotte whale. which was uncovered in eighteen forty nine when they were building a railroad in Charlotte, And then. Vermont,

Mm.

and they were in a farmer's field, and is a reminder of how Vermont was once underneath the inland sea. Yeah.

Exactly.

I go now. I yield back. Yeah.

Generally yields back, the gentleman from North Carolina.

Well, Mister Chairman, I wanna recognize uh the efforts of Representative Halchen and Representative Dingell for this important effort their leadership in taking the bull by the horns here. Maybe the the lizard by the tail would be a better metaphor.

Yeah.

And getting this bill here, but the legislation designates the American mastodon as our national fossil, mammal, and the Tyrannosaurus rex as our national fossil dinosaur, adding them to the likes of the bald eagle, the bison, the rose, and the oak tree as official symbols of the United States. And I echo the sentiment. Uh, just articulated that as we approach the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary recognizing these two great symbols is a fitting way to celebrate America's natural heritage and to spark the curiosity about science, geology geology and paleontology. Thank you. I'll yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, while I also agree that there are a myriad of other issues we should be debating, and trust me, we will get to those later on today, I also wanna say that I too will be supporting this. You know, Los Angeles, just north of my

Huh. Didn't know that.

And thousands of Angelenos go to the tar pits every single day, excited about science, and millions of international visitors come every single year to marvel at the science. And why not, why not recognize just a small sliver of bipartisanship with this bill? The irony is, it is about honoring science and data. I mean, that's how you learn about mammoths and find out that they were here, and celebrate the T-rex, and all of those good things. So I also enthusiastically support this bill uh and will be an aye.

appreciate uh general lay yields back any anyone else seek recognition question is on the adoption of the amendment nature of substitute this will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill all those in favor say aye aye those opposed no

no

opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is in in the in the nature of a substitute is adopted the question on favor of reporting the bill as amended all those in favor say aye aye those opposed no

aye no

The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be I will vote this. recorded about being requested, the uh uh clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan.

Yes.

Mister Jordan votes yes. Mister Issa. Mister Biggs.

No.

Mister Biggs votes no. Mister McClintock. Mister McClintock votes aye. Mister Tiffany.

Aye.

Mister Tiffany votes aye. Mister Massey.

Aye.

Mister Massey votes aye. Mister Roy. Mister Fitzgerald.

Aye.

Mister Fitzgerald votes aye. Mister Klein. Mister Gooden. Mister Van Drew. Mister Nels. Mister Moore. Miss Hageman. Miss Hageman votes aye. Miss Leah Florida. Miss Leah Florida votes aye. Mister Hunt. Mister Frey. Mister Keiley. Mister Keiley votes aye. Mister Grothman. Mister Nott. Mister Harris. Mister Harris votes aye. Mister Onder. Mr. Onder votes aye. Mr. Schmidt.

Aye.

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

Aye.

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

Aye.

Miss Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlon. Mr. Nagoose. Miss McBath. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes aye. Mister Garcia.

I'm here.

Mister Garcia.

Yes.

Mister Garcia votes yes. Miss Kammlager-Dove. Miss Kammlager-Dove votes aye. Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Leo of Pennsylvania. Miss Leo of Pennsylvania votes aye. Mister Klein.

Mister Klein.

Mister Klein votes aye.

Mister Klein votes aye.

Mister Issa, you are not recorded. Mister Issa votes yes.

mister cohen you're not recorded

twenty three five sixteen fifteen twenty two four ah oh my

ah oh my god

mister cohen

mister cohen votes aye

um mr. gill

yeah

mr. gill that's yes Mister Chairman, there are twenty-two ayes and one no.

The ayes have it, the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and performing changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up H R seven eight three four, the Save Cloud Storage Act, for purpose of mark-up and move the committee report it favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill.

H R seven eight.

Without objection, the bill be considered as read

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for prioritizing this important piece of legislation. I also want to thank my bipartisan co-leads on this bill, Representatives Nott, Cohen and Deen, for their partnership. We are here to address a serious challenge facing law enforcement in the fight against on-line exploitation of children. In twenty twenty-four alone, Internet Crimes Against Children task forces conducted more than two hundred thousand investigations into child sexual exploitation. The volume of child sex or exploitation material continues to grow at an alarming rate, overwhelming investigators who are working tirelessly to identify victims and bring offenders to justice. Predators in the United States remain both a major consumer and host of live stream child sex abuse material. That is a horrific reality. And Congress has a duty to ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to identify and rescue victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and combat this evil. Many investigators are still forced to rely on outdated methods to store and preserve digital evidence. Thumb drives, external hard drives, and local servers that are costly, limited in capacity, and slow investigations where we cannot afford to have delays. The problem is not a lack of secure cloud technology, it's that current law exposes third-party vendors to potential liability for helping law enforcement securely store this highly sensitive evidence, making it harder for agencies to find trusted partners. The Safe Cloud Storage Act provides a targeted and safe solution. This legislation builds on the bipartisan Report Act, legislation introduced in the hundred eighteenth Congress. This committee advanced that bill and it was signed into law in twenty twenty four. The Report Act extended limited liability protection to vendors supporting the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Safe Cloud Storage Act extends those same protections to vetted law enforcement approved vendors that assist investigators in securely storing digital evidence. Just as importantly, this legislation includes strong limits. Liability protections do not apply in cases of intentional misconduct, negligence or malicious acts, and vendors must comply with rigorous cyber security standards consistent with the National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines, to ensure this evidence remains protected and secure. This is a narrow, practical bipartisan solution that gives law enforcement access to secure, modern technology while maintaining strong accountability and oversight. Ultimately, this bill is about helping investigators move cases faster, identify victims sooner, and bring predators to justice. Every day that we can save in an investigation is an opportunity to rescue a child from ongoing abuse. I urge my colleagues to support the Save Cloud Storage Act, and I yield back.

General Lady yields back. Uh, chairs recognize uh recognize the ranking.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very happy to support the bipartisan Safe Cloud Storage Act. Uh, I want to thank Ms. Lee for her hard work on it. For more than a decade, we've seen an exponential growth in the volume of child sexual abuse images and videos or CSAM and child obscenity material that offenders distribute and share online. Our law enforcement agencies have struggled to keep up. This legislation will allow cloud service providers to work with law enforcement to maintain and store relevant evidence in a safe and secure way. When CSAM or child obscenity is found online, reports are made to the Cyber Tip-line, a hotline operated by NCMEC, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which then routes the reports to the law enforcement agencies, which may be federal, state, local, or tribal. As the volume of this evidence of criminal conduct continues to grow, law enforcement has faced challenges in storing, transferring, and analyzing this very sensitive evidence. Outdated policies around cloud storage only compound the challenge, slowing crucial work and creating barriers for solving crimes and bringing perpetrators to justice. While Nikmik and the digital storage companies it contracts with are generally, uh, generally immune from liability for possession and transmission of these materials that would otherwise be criminal, that liability shield does not currently extend to companies contracting with law enforcement. Instead, many investigators are forced to rely on outdated physical storage tools like thumb drives, external hard drives, and on-premise servers. These tools, never designed to handle the scale of digital evidence that law enforcement is now forced to process are costly, limited in capacity, and significantly hamper investigations. These inefficiencies delay victim identification and allow offenders to remain at large longer and continue to victimize children. Cloud-based tools would give investigators, forensic examiners, and prosecutors the ability to effectively identify, categorize, and tag large volumes of files in minutes compared to human review, which can take hours or even days. By modernizing legal productions for secure cloud-based storage and processing of evidence related to child sex abuse and exploitation, the Safe Cloud Storage Act would allow law enforcement, investigators, and prosecutors access to better t- tools that are needed to pursue predators and protect our kids. Specifically, this legislation would allow approved third-party vendors to work with law enforcement to provide secure cloud-based storage of C sam and child obscenity material to police without the threat of incurring civil or criminal liability giving law enforcement the flexibility they need to manage, preserve, analyze, and share this critical evidence. These liability protections would of course not extend to vendor misconduct whether intentional, malicious or negligent. This legislation requires vendors that provide these services to law enforcement to notify DOJ within thirty days when they enter into contracts with law enforcement and also requires them to adhere to stringent cyber security and storage requirements. I want to thank our judiciary colleagues, Congressman Cohen, Congresswoman Lee and Congressman Nutt for their work on this bipartisan bill. I understand it's the result of extensive engagement with law enforcement with NCMEC and other stakeholders to prevent child abuse and exploitation while bringing all of our resources up to date. I urge my colleagues to support the Safe Cloud Storage Act. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back without objection. All of the opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes a general lady from Florida offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Clerk will report.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute would be considered as read and shall be considered based text for the purpose of amendment at the Gentlelady from Florida is recognized to explain the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment provides a rule of construction to clarify that the audit framework provided in the bill is directed at the third party vendors, contracted by law enforcement to store and handle CSAM. This change does nothing to alter the substance of the legislation. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Um

Gentleman from Tennessee.

Gentleman from Tennessee and then we'll go to uh Georgia and Vermont. Gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm

That one's recognized.

Thank you. Um appreciate your scheduling this bill for mark-up and it's uh uh a bill that I'm pleased cuz I've worked to combat child abuse and sexual exploitation throughout my career back to the alleged state senate days in Tennessee including providing resources for the victims and justices uh for the justice for the survivors. Over the years tackling these crimes has only gotten harder. New technologies allow perpetrators to make and disseminate child sexual abuse material uh a k a C Sam C S P C Sp Sam. uh almost instantaneously. Our law enforcement response has perennially underfunded and the global nature of these crimes makes enforcement difficult. Not just to this fierce, we see this in other places too. The perpetrators have been quicker to adopt and use new technology for their crimes, uh quicker than law enforcement has been able to stop them. Um the Safe Cloud Storage Act is a bill that I'm proud to co-lead with representatives Lee, Dean and Not. This bill provides specific and narrow safe harbor for child p- for cloud providers to hold CSAM. when contracted with law enforcement. Uh, possession of these images is illegal, so the simple bill by law enforcement cloud provides the whole of this content, and it will enable storage and sharing of this evidence. Just as importantly, it may open up new cloud-based forensic tools to identify victims and seek justice from perpetrators. And I would like to mention for those in the room and for those watching on C-SPAN, uh, the the song I sang was because it was a recording, and a recording is your song,

Yeah.

but it's also a liberty that people who are lame ducks have. Uh, you back the balance of our time.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I I just wanna uh lend my support to this important legislation. It is certainly obvious many of the places in which the maintaining of these uh this information is going to be added to by uh Congresswoman Lee's uh legislation. There are many areas left to do and this will be the first step toward it. Every day there are podcast and other communications done on the internet, where predators brag about their criminal violations. Uh, I'm well aware of one coming out of Thailand on a daily basis, that even though there is technically a law to apprehend, the uh the storage and maintenance of that of that information is currently not automated or in any way made to where the evidence is preserved. As such, some of the inf- information will be lost and later prosecution may be uh difficult or impossible. So, as we begin doing this, I wanna applaud the legislation because it is a down payment on the ability to track and retain global violators so that if they're Americans and they return to our soil they can be held accountable for their sex trafficking and sex vacations. uh both of which are prohibited under US law. And so I wanna thank all of the sponsors and yield back.

Gentleman yields back, the gentlelady from Vermont is

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Gentlelady is recognized.

I just wanna highlight something that um the ranking member alluded to in his opening statement. That between twenty thirteen and twenty twenty one the number of cyber tip-line reports of suspected child sexual exploitation received by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, as we're all talking about here, grew from approximately half a million to almost thirty million. And that is absolutely devastating. And I wanna thank Ms. Lee and Mr. Nott, and also the Democrats, uh, Representative Cohen and Madeleine Deen, I know that when you are a parent, as I am, this is your worst possible nightmare. And I'm glad that we are able to come together in a bipartisan manner and just say this this cannot continue, we have to use all the tools that we can. So, I yield back.

General lady yields back, the General lady from Wyoming.

Yes, thank you. I also support this bill. ISIS Homeland Security Investigations Un- Unit initiated six thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine child exploitation investigations, made four thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine child exploitation related arrests, and identified and assisted over seventeen hundred victims of child exploitation. As the volume of this evidence containing CSAM continues to grow, we face a very difficult challenge in where to store it, transfer it, et cetera. Many investigators still rely on outda- on an outdated physical storage tools, such as thumb drives, which are both costly and significantly slow down the investigations. Due to these challenges, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies rely on third-party cloud storage vendors to source CSTAM evidence in investigations. A limited number of vendors are willing to contract with law enforcement to store CSTAM due to the significant legal risks associated with possessing and maintaining the obscene and explicit material. This bill would permit law enforcement approved vendors who adhere to the requirements to provide secure cloud-based storage of CSAM without facing criminal or civil charges for engaging in authorized activities. I commend the authors of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it with that I yield back.

General Lea yields back. The General Leading from George is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I s um move to strike the last word.

General Lee is recognized.

Thank you, thank you. I speak in support of the Safe Cloud Storage Act, a bipartisan bill that will modernize how law enforcement actually handles all of our digi digital evidence of child sexual exploitation, and bring more predators to justice. This important measure will provide limited liability protections to law enforcement approved vendors that manage child sexual abuse material or CSAM and child Obscenity evidence for the purpose of conducting investigations. Advance advancements in technology have had clear benefits to our society. Today, we can keep in touch with our friends and our family, attend a seminar, or connect with business partners around the world in simply an instant. But there is also a darker, more dangerous side to better technology and greater connectivity. We have learned through our work on the crime subcommittee that ever-expanding connectivity has unfortunately led to a shocking increase in child sexual exploitation online, from distributing and exchanging CSAM and child obscenity to buying and selling children for sex. Every day, the Cyber Tip Line, a hotline that is actually operated by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or NCHMECH, receives hundreds of thousands of reports about these types of crimes. Since creation of the CyberL tip line in two thousand three, NCHMECH has responded to more than two hundred and twenty-six million reports relating to child sexual exploitation. The center processes these reports, which include countless images and videos, then sends them to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Two years ago, Congress passed the Report Act, which expanded mandatory reporting and modernized how NCMEC manages, processes, and stores CSAM and child obscenity,

Because

allowing the use of cloud-based services. In the year following this enactment, NCMEC processed nearly sixty-two million images and videos and other files that are related to child sexual exploitation. The Report Act was a great start, but Congress still has yet to improve how law enforcement is allowed to manage the same evidence as they investigate the reports and prosecute these cases. As law enforcement is inundated with vast amounts of digital evidence, they face challenges in storing, analyzing, and sharing it. within the bounds of our current federal law. Because they cannot use cloud-based services under the law, they must rely on outdated, burdensome technology they can't keep up with the magnitude of evidence that is generated in these cases. This bill will extend to law enforcement, approved vendors, the same liability protections afforded to NCMEC, allowing law enforcement to c- contract with cloud-based services to manage and evidence of CSAM and child obscenity obscenity more efficiently. This simple improvement means that law enforcement will be able to process evidence much faster build stronger cases rescue more victims sooner, and protect any potential victims. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Safe Cloud Storage Act. It's important legislation. I'm glad we're all agreeing, and I yield back.

Gently yields back, the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I echo the sentiments and I b uh I also wanna thank Representative Lee for leading this effort and I think that we can all agree that this is a scourge that's overtaking our country and our world and one one reason for the growth and prevalence of this type of crime are the rules and the laws that surround the production and the storage of evidence. And we cannot allow outdated procedures to hinder our abilities in fighting this crime. and making it easier to store, review, and access evidence with the specificity required in these types of prosecutions is imperative. And, you know, the last thing that our law enforcement professionals should be worried about are the logistics for safely storing or reviewing this type of evidence. And as anyone who has prosecuted cases realizes, efficient prosecution, efficient investigations, that is required to effectively battle uh, heinous crime. And the Safe Cloud Storage Act would make the lives of federal, state and local law enforcement easier by providing limited liability protections to approved data storage vendors hosting this evidence. And when law enforcement currently relies on technology and processes that were developed in the nineteen eighties, that makes it much harder at every level to fight this type of crime. Again, I appreciate Congresswoman Lee's efforts on this highly important

Chairman uh yields back. The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no. And you pin the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor aye. Aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably.

Chairman, can I ask for a recorded vote please?

For the vote being requested the clerk will call the r

Mr. Jordan.

Yes.

Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa.

Aye.

Mr. Issa votes aye. Mr. Biggs. Mr. McClintock.

Aye.

Mr. McClintock votes aye. Mr. Tiffany.

Aye.

Mr. Tiffany votes aye. Mr. Massey.

Aye.

Mr. Massey votes aye. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Mr. Klein.

Aye.

Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes aye. Miss Hageman. Miss Hageman votes aye. Miss Lee of Florida Florida. Miss Lee of Florida votes aye. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Frey. Mr. Kiley. Mr. Grothman.

Aye.

Mr. Grothman votes aye. Mr. Knott.

Aye.

Mr. Knott votes aye. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes aye. Mr. Onder.

Aye.

Mr. Onder votes aye. Mr. Schmidt.

Aye.

Mr. Schmidt votes aye. Mr. Gil.

Aye.

Mr. Gill votes aye. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Baumgartner votes aye. Mr. Raskin. Aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Nadler. Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlon. Mr. Nagoose. Miss McBath. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes aye. Mister Garcia. Mister Garcia votes aye. Miss Kamlager-Dove. Miss Kamlager-Dove votes aye. Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania votes aye.

That's right.

Good enough.

Clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman there are twenty four ayes and zero noes.

The ayes have it, the bill is ordered to be reported in favor to the house, members will have two days to submit views, without objection the bill will be reported as a single amendment in nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes pursuant to notice we call up hr sixty two six twenty five excuse me the local access to courts acts for purpose of mark up and move the committee reported favorably to the house Clerk will report the bill.

H R six two five.

Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mister Issa, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H R six twenty-five, although local in its nature, has a a considerable precedent that we believe needs to be considered for the current and future efficiency of our federal court. The Local Access to Courts Act ensures greater access in two particular cases uh which includes the communities of El Centro in California, in and near my district, and College Station in Texas. The Houston division uh of those the Houston division of the Southern District of Texas comprises thirteen counties larger than many states. Current law only authorizes division to hold court in Houston, approximately a hundred miles from College Station. The Southern District of Cal- California currently comprises Imperial County and San Diego County, my home. However, the court can only be held in the city of San Diego, again approximately a hundred miles from El Centro. Requiring residents of these communities to travel extended distance to courthouses placed places a burden on them, making it harder for them to access criminal and civil justice systems. The bill would authorize court to be held in College Station, Texas and El Centro, California, providing court locations are closer uh these court locations are closer for many individuals who need to travel to the courts particularly jurors. I would say that this is in fact one that I hope we see many more of uh because there are federal facilities and as all of us understand it is often less expensive for a magistrate or a judge to hold court near multiple court cases than the other way around. It is also one in which you can imagine being called to federal jury duty and being asked to drive one hundred miles each way each day uh on the possibility of being called. So on that in that case I urge my colleagues to support this narrow but important legislation and I yield back.

Everyone yields back. The ranking members recognized for an opening statement.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Um, I support H R six two five, which would amend title twenty to provide an additional place for holding court in the southern district of Texas, and in the southern district of California. The southern district of Texas spans forty-three Texas counties. The southern district of California includes San Diego County, the second most populated in California. Residents there have the same problem many people are experiencing across America. To get to the courthouse door, they have to travel long distances and wait in the backlog before having their day in court. The easiest way to alleviate the burdens on these residents is to add a courthouse. This change is cost free because there's an existing judicial facility available for the court to use making use of this existing facility would ensure that litigants, attorneys, witnesses and other court users would have greater access to the justice and to due process that our federal courts provide. The administrative body for the federal court system, the administrative office of the courts has endorsed the legislation. We have a lot to do to ensure Americans have equal access to our laws and our judiciary um so that they can trust that their disputes will be fairly adjudicated. This bill will not fix every problem, but it will take a small step to help over thirteen million Americans gain equal access to justice and I appreciate uh Subcommittee Chairman Issa and Representatives McCaugh and Ruiz for calling attention to this issue and for working on a bipartisan basis to actually get something done to improve the lives of the good people of Texas and California. I urge all our colleagues to support the bill. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk report.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read, and shall be considered base text. For the purpose of amendment, the gentleman from California is recognized to explain the amendment.

Amendment is simple and and and technical in nature and makes no underlying change to the bill.

Anyone seek recognition on the legislation from the gentleman from California. Uh the question then occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute this will be followed me by vote favorably reporting the bill all those in favor say aye those opposed no independent chair the ayes have it and the

Aye. Aye.

amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted the question is on reporting the bill as amended all those in favor say aye uh those opposed no the ayes

Aye.

have it and the bill is ordered to be reported for that reported vote being

Chairman could I have a recorded vote please?

requested the clerk will call the roll yes.

Yes.

Mr. Issa votes yes, Mr. Biggs. Mr. McClintock.

Aye.

Mr. McClintock votes aye, Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massey.

Aye.

Mr. Massey votes aye, Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald.

Aye.

Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye, Mr. Klein.

Aye.

Mr. Klein votes aye, Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Miss Hageman.

Aye.

Miss Hageman votes aye, Miss Leah Florida.

Aye.

Miss Leah Florida, votes aye. Mister Hunt. Mister Fry. Mister Keilly. Mister Keilly, votes aye. Mister Grothman.

Aye.

Mister Grothman, votes aye. Mister Nott. Mister Harris. Mister Harris, votes aye. Mister Onder. Mister Schmidt. Mister Schmidt, votes aye. Mister Gill. Mister Baumgartner.

Aye.

Mister Baumgartner, votes aye. Mister Raskin.

Aye.

Mister Raskin, votes aye. Mister Nadler. Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlon. Mr. Nagoose. Miss McBath. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes aye. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes aye. Miss Kamala Gurduev. Miss Kam Lager, dove, votes aye. Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman. Miss Co- Miss Miss Crockett. Miss Leah of Pennsylvania.

Aaron, how you doing?

Miss Leah of Pennsylvania, votes aye.

Yeah. Nice. I'm not recorded.

Mister Van Drou, you're not recorded.

I'm a yes.

Mister Van Drou, votes yes. Mister Moore.

Yes.

Mister Moore, votes yes. Mister Tiffany.

Aye.

Mister Tiffany, votes aye.

We need a couple.

Need one.

Need one. Yeah, I do see the clerk saying something interesting.

Mister Onder.

What about that? Yeah. Mister Onder,

Mister Onder, if it's aye.

if you could make your decision now, it's fine, It's still it's still true, so.

Clerk will report.

Mister Chairman, there are twenty-three ayes and zeroes noes.

With the ayes having, the bill is ordered to be reported forever to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in nature of a substitute. incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice I call up H R ninety ninety eight, the Congressional Records Protection Act for purposes of mark-up move the committee reported favorably the clerk will report the bill.

H R nine zero nine eight.

Not objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment and um we'll now start with opening statements. January twenty third, twenty twenty three, sixteen days. After Kevin McCarthy became Speaker of the House, Merrick Garland approved and Jack Smith issued a subpoena for two months of the speaker's private phone records. They know who the Speaker of the House called, who called him, how long the call lasted, and where it occurred. The executive branch knew who the speaker talked to before big votes. They knew who he called when he was whipping votes. They even knew when the speaker called his family. That's not only invasion of privacy, that's mapping a person's life. And to make matters worse, they kept it a secret, even misleading a judge to believe that the speaker was quote, a flight risk. You gotta be kidding me. The Biden-Harris Justice Department subpoenaed the private records of the third highest ranking official in the country, the leader of Republicans in the Congress, the guy second in line to the presidency. And it wasn't just the speaker. It was a bunch of us as well. They got my phone records, they got other Republican members, including some on our committee. And if that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will. But it's worse. It's worse than we thought, because yesterday we learned that not only did Smith's team get the toll records for over a dozen members, he also got content of text messages between forty-four members of Congress and White House officials, including Democrats. Forty-four officials. We just got a letter from the Justice Department yesterday. Normally when prosecutors receive messages involving members of Congress, they must go through a filter team to determine privilege. They didn't do that. When Smith's team received these text messages, they bypassed the filter team, Jack Smith's team got material they had no right to, messages that I believe were protected under the legislative privilege and the speech or debate clause. The Constitution speech or debate clause protects records relating to members' legislative duties from compelled disclosure. It is supposed to stop the executive branch from obtaining congressional records. It ensures that the representatives of we the people here in Congress can freely deliberate, can freely debate, on how to best represent the folks back home. The founders knew that if the executive branch could obtain members' records, it would have a serious chilling effect on members' ability to freely discuss difficult issues, to do the work we're supposed to do in the United States Congress. The Congressional Records Protection Act would protect this constitutional privilege. It protects every member of Congre- uh, Congress, Democrat and Republican, from a political fishing expedition. The bill creates a simple rule. Only if there's probable cause, that a member or congressional staffer committed a crime, could a prosecutor obtain their records. And it creates procedural safeguards to ensure that when members' records are seized, they can go to a court to vindicate their speech or debate rights. It strikes the right balance between accountability for bad actors and protection of genuine congressional discussion and debate. I wish this bill weren't necessary, but it's obvious that current law is not enough to prevent partisan prosecutors from spying on their political opposition. The Congressional Records Protection Act would change that. I wanna thank our colleague, Mister uh Mike Kelly, uh from Pennsylvania for introducing this important bill. And I'm also glad to be able to work with the ranking member. We spent a lot of time, the staff on both the majority and minority party, in getting this bill um in a position where we think everyone supports it. Um and I I appreciate the work of uh ranking member Raskin and his team and our colleagues. And I urge my colleagues to support it. This is just this is protecting the institution and uh something that we uh we need to get passed. With that, I would yield to the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much uh for yielding and also for working so closely with us on this significant legislation. I'm pleased we are able to reach agreement on an amendment that clarifies the exact intent and scope of this bill and when that amendment is adopted, I will be very proud to support and urge passage of the Congressional Records Production Act. We've got consensus across party lines that the federal government's power to sweep up large swaths of emails, phone records and other communications should be subject to rigorous limits and notice requirements especially in cases where the executive branch appears to be leaning on members of Congress and their staffs. Here on Capitol Hill, our communications often deal with the deliberative processes around lawmaking and investigations, sensitive information that's already protected by the speech or debate clause of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution is designed to prevent the executive branch from attempting to punish or intimidate members of Congress, as we execute our constitutional lawmaking functions. As I've stated before, in recent years, federal investigators have been overzealous in their use of subpoenas against members and staff. For example, we agree, that the collection of two years of your phone records was overly broad. I also think back to when the first Trump administration secretly collected data on not only two members of Congress but also forty-three congressional staffers including at least one of my own counsels and then obtained a nondisclosure order to keep the whole search under wraps for up to four years and I know you've opposed such uh broad and indiscriminate practices. I believe Democrats and Republicans agreed that these kinds of collections must have more transparency. We should not have to wait years to learn that our data was swept up by the executive branch. That's why last November this committee came together to pass the bipartisan NDO Fairness Act led by our colleagues Mister Fitzgerald and Mister Nadler. Except in limited circumstances where disclosure might lead to some immediate security risk, we deserve to know that the government has tried to access our communications. I agree with you, Mister Chairman, that we should do even more to protect our essential congressional and constitutional prerogatives. But as written, the bill before us today is a bit over broad. As proposed, I worry it could stymie a wide range of legitimate investigations that have nothing to do with our official legislative conduct. As I understand it, the base bill prevents every government agency at every level of government from seeking information about a member of Congress or staff unless they consent to the search, or they themselves are the target of a criminal investigation. And the investigating agency has established probable cause that a crime was committed or being committed. This kind of production goes far beyond our constitutionally protected rights. It would hamstring virtually all investigations related to members and staff, including investigations aimed at protecting us. For example, let's say FBI agents are investigating a network of foreign agents that's been surreptitiously trying to build a relationship with a member, to gain insider access, the members' records might be the best information available to help take down an international crime ring and the member's office against foreign espionage. But if the FBI has reason not to tell the member about the investigation, uh, they cannot ask for consent, and if they cannot prove that the member is likely to be committing a crime, they cannot obtain those records at all. That seems like a step too far. Fortunately, there's a good way to work around these problems in courts across the land when serious questions of privilege arise. Judges routinely appoint a special master to sort through the materials and make certain the government does not access materials In a moment I will offer an amendment that proposes we make use of a special master in situations like that. With that change in place, it will still be difficult for the executive branch to collect our communications, but in cases that were never meant to be protected by the speech or debate clause, it will not be impossible. In those cases, the government can ask the court to appoint a special master who will be charged with sorting through the evidence removing any material that properly relates to our official duties, and releasing only what non-privileged information remains to investigators. The special master will be bound by a court-approved NDA, of course, so the government will have no way to know what privileged materials are being denied. Members and staff will still receive notice that the government has sought our communications and still have the benefit of a thirty-day delay before the government can search them giving us a meaningful opportunity to challenge the collection, when investigators overstep their authority. With that amendment in place, we can put teeth into the speech or debate clause without blocking investigations that have nothing to do with our official work. I'm grateful to the chairman for his willingness to work with us this past month, to reach what I think is an excellent consensus solution. We are in agreement that the rights of our colleagues and our staff have been offended by both administrations of both parties in the executive branch for far too long I thank the chairman for his hard work I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Um, with objects to all of their opening statements,

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Not objection, the amendment in nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered based text for the purpose of amendment. The chairs uh recognize explaining the amem this amendment modifies the short title of the bill. It's not intended in any way to alter the important purpose of the legislation.

Okay.

Um, who seeks recognition?

Is the gentleman wanna ask an offer at some moment?

We'll take the amendment and then I'll come to Harriet, yeah. Uh, the general department is is uh recognized.

I have an amendment. Thank you, Chairman Jordan. I've got an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine.

Objection, and it'll be considered as read and the ranking members recognized to explain the amendment.

Um, the the as I said in my opening statement, Mister Chairman, that this is uh to help us prevent any unintended consequences that might follow, um, if we made it all but impossible for the government to get communications records on cases that have nothing to do with our official legislative conduct and are not covered by the speech and debate clause. The amendment would give the government an opportunity to ask a court to appoint a special master to review any communications records they might seek from members and staff. The special master would sort through them, remove any material properly covered by the speech or debate clause and remit the balance to investigators. Even as amended, this legislation will make it very difficult for bad faith actors in any administration to obtain legislative communication records. and impossible for them to do it in secret. Percentage of it. We still receive notice when the government tries to obtain our records, That's that's this. and we will still have the benefit of the thirty day delay before the government can access any materials that they do obtain. With this amendment in place, we'll have taken a very big step forward in protecting Congress against overzealous investigations and investigators without inadvertently harming state and local probes that have nothing to do with our official duties. I urge all colleagues to support the amendment, and once it's adopted, the underlying bill. I thank the chairman again. You're back.

Uh, I I wanna I wanna thank the gentleman and his team, as I said, my opening statement for working together. It's we like this amendment, this is good, and we think it is, as the ranking member indicated, the right balance. Frankly, I would just point out, based on the information we got from the Justice Department yesterday, this amendment is what Jack Smith should have done relative to text messages that he got of forty-four members including three Democrats in that, in that batch. Uh, they did not do that. They did not have the filter team go through and look at what may be privileged material, as the

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. Um, so I I strongly support this uh this amendment and would urge its adoption. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the we can take the amendment and then go to uh then go to Harry uh the question occurs on the amendment Sure. offered by the gentleman uh from Maryland all those in favor say aye aye,

Aye.

those opposed no. Opinions of chairs, the ayes have it, the amendment is now adopted and part of the legislation. The gentlelady from uh uh

The Constitution speech or debate clause states that for any speech or debate in either house, senators and representatives shall not be questioned in any other place. Just yesterday, Chairman Grassley and Chairman Johnson, as part of their ongoing Arctic frost oversight, revealed that special counsel Jack Smith's investigative team obtained and reviewed text messages from forty-four members of Congress including both Republicans and Democrats, according to documents provided to by the DOJ. Incredibly, according to the communication from the DOJ, quote, the special counsel's investigative team apparently bypassed the filter team and directly ac accessed these text messages end quote. This is the same filter team that the Biden-Harris DOJ established to evaluate records and prevent access to privileged materials obtained over the course of Jack Smith's investigation into both January sixth and the Mar-a-Lago documents case. In April, twenty twenty two, and prior to issuing the subpoena for Chairman Jordan's phone and email records for the period between August twenty twenty and January, twenty twenty one, Arctic Frost investigators contacted the DOJ's public in in integrity section or PIN for approval, which was subsequently given. PIN relied on an unorthodox interpretation, writing that the speech or debate clause arguably did not apply, as the subpoenas targeted personal cell phone accounts while also being On May first, twenty twenty two, the DOJ issued a subpoena for chairman Jordan for the period between January, twenty twenty and May, twenty twenty two, far broader than the initial PIN approved request. In January, twenty twenty three, Jack Smith's team issued a subpoena for his phone records for the period between November, twenty twenty and January, twenty twenty one, stating that it was necessary to obtain an exact record of President Trump and his calls to alleged co-conspirators around the time of January. A May twenty twenty-three memo by Smith's team later contradicted this initial explanation stating that the purpose of congressional toll records was to determine who quote " may have called these members as well as who the members called" end quote on the evening of January sixth. Additional subpoenas were approved in May twenty twenty-three. PIN acknowledged their creation of quote " litigation risk" end quote and highlighted judicial precedence that the speech or debate clauses bar on compelled disclosure is absolute. During this time Smith's team continued to rely on the argument that the speech or debate clause was inapplicable since the subpoena sought non-content records from a third party. Despite warnings internal to the DOJ and correspondence from AT_and_T, alluding to potential violations of the speech or debate clause, Jack Smith and his team continued to run roughshod over the constitutional protections of both members of Congress and their staff, making matters worse, Smith's team, by seeking nondisclosure order. or NDOs for each of its congressional toll record subpoenas, denied members of Congress the ability to exercise their rights. Smith conceded this point testifying that, quote, " inherent in getting an NDO is that people who might have arguments about why to quash a subpoena won't be able to make those arguments," end quote. Jack Smith was a horrifically corrupt individual and should be held accountable for what he did. Based on this series of events alone, reforms are clearly necessary to prevent this sort of weaponization from occurring ever again. With that, I yield back.

Uh, generally yields back. Gentleman from Kentucky, recognize.

I plan to support the legislation, but um I think it's kind of weak. I don't see the penalties or the accountability in here for somebody if they violate uh this new law that we're putting in. And the other thing that bothers me a little bit is we're talking about subpoena, subpoena, subpoena this, subpoena that. Where's the word warrant? We should be issuing warrants. Uh that's what the fourth amendment requires, not

Oh.

a a subpoena. And um to Mister Raskin's point, I think um it's dangerous to give them this kind of access and to say that some special master can serve as a gatekeeper. instead of a warrant and a court. Um, just make them get a warrant if they wanna go after stuff that could could have somebody's personal information in there. And finally, I'm a little bit troubled that we are acquiescing to the third party doctrine that you don't need a warrant if this material resides somewhere else, AT&T, National Archives, wherever the the text messages are. if somebody, if a third party is holding them, there's a flawed uh judicial interpretation that dates back to things before they're even text messages, that you don't have a right to privacy if a third party holds those um records. So as um I support this, I think it's a step in the right direction, I wish it had more teeth, I wish we didn't uh go ahead and concede the third party doctrine, I d- I wish we didn't concede that you don't need a warrant to spy on whether they're congressmen or not. And um I appreciate this and the timeliness as one of the forty-four, was it? Members of Congress?

Yep.

Who were effectively spied on here, um whose personal texts were collected in violation of the speech or debate. Um I don't know which of my texts exactly were collected yet, but I'm told I can go over and see what they were. Um but I can almost assure you they have a if if it's me talking to somebody at the White House, there is a nexus that has to do with my legislative responsibilities here.

Of course.

Otherwise, nobody at the White House would be taking my call. Uh, if I were just a regular citizen, you know, asking about going to lunch or something, uh, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows would not be texting with me. So, um, anyways, appreciate the legislation. I wish you had a little more teeth and, uh, a yield back.

Uh, gentlemen yield back. Um, gentleman from, gentleman from New York is recognized.

I'm listening.

Um, thank you, Mister Chairman. You know, this is a issue that has been continually misrepresented by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. There there is as as much as we are talking about this bill and t- o- solely talking about meta-data, not talking about the substance of any conversations, and retrospectively, not prospectively, that is not spying. So we need to stop using the language, uh, the inflammatory language, that obtaining metadata of calls made from one number to another without the substance, that happened in the past, is spying. It is not spying. So, let's dispatch with that. Second, this is not, this is a standard investigative protocol to confirm and corroborate other evidence. If you don't engage in criminal activity, then you will not need to be the subject of a subpoena w- that would corroborate and confirm other evidence of wrongdoing. The only way these uh these phone records can be used is just to simply show that there was a call from X time to Y time between A phone number and B phone number. The only utility that that has is uh as confirmation. It is not in and of itself can't be used as evidence of wrongdoing. So, it is not a situation where, in this case, the special counsel uh went on some sort of um mission, fishing expedition, to try to find uh inculpatory evidence that could be subject to speech and debate clause, or could not be. Um, the fact of a phone call is not speech or debate. It is just the existence of an actual call, which is only useful again as confirmation and corroboration. So, to continue to say that the special counsel, uh, who legitimately, justifiably, and with extensive evidence indicted a conspiracy to overturn an election, which is a crime, uh, somehow misused his power because he happened to touch upon members of this body who may or may not have been involved in that conspiracy is not his fault. He is doing his job as he's supposed to do. It is the people who were engaged in whatever that conduct was, whether it was criminal or not, remains to be seen and certainly nobody in this body was charged, and I'm not saying there is any reason for anybody to be charged. But th- if you, if we are gonna say that members of Congress have absolute immunity from being investigated by the Department of Justice, wh- what, I mean, that's insane. Like, think about where the slippery slope goes with that. Essentially, you're saying, well, You you cannot be investigated for anything. I mean, this case, we're talking about toll records, but it could be insider trading, it could be uh corruption. Well, you can't you can't subpoena phone records if there's a grand jury investigation that's absurd. The you we can't we can't be the uh leading uh arbiters of proper conduct. We c- we cannot restore the reputation of this body. by exempting ourselves from investigation for wrongdoing. So let's not blame the investigator who was appropriately doing his job, who followed the law, whether the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement should apply or not. I I think my colleague from Kentucky was talking about text messages, which of course is substantive conversation, is a separate conversation, but it doesn't apply to toll records. So let's not get on our soapbox and act as if our privacy has been uh impeded when there are literal uh the existence of phone calls uh was subpoenaed by a prosecutor who had far more than probable cause to pursue this investigation. I yield back.

Je- I mean, it's back, I would just say that we're not saying that members of Congress can't be investigated. In fact, we specifically say, explicitly say in the bill that they can. investigation, you can go get their toll records. Regarding the toll records, I could I could debate I could debate that with

But uh Mister Chairman

with the with the fine gentleman from New York. But I think what Mister Massey was referencing was what we learned yesterday, that actual content was obtained by the special counsel when they had subpoenaed records from White House personnel. They got text messages between White House personnel and forty-four members of the United States Congress both Republican and Democrat, both Senator and Representative. They got that information and they did not run it through a filter team. So our our concern is with that as well. And if you remember, Jack Smith sat right at that table and told us, we did not get anyone's content, it was only the phone records that you were referencing in your remarks. That's not accurate. Cuz they did get content. And we now know cuz the Justice Department told us yesterday that they did. So that is also a concern, I think that's what Mister Massey was getting at at his at his comments. I think we have struck the right balance in this bill working closely with the m- with the minority. to come up with the language of the amendment we just adopted, I think I think strikes the right balance. But I think you were focusing on t- total records, Mister Goldman, Mister Massey was focused on that somewhat, but mostly on the what what we learned yesterday about forty-four members of Congress actually having their text messages received by Jack Smith's team without it going through any filter, no magistrate as we set up in this bill, to look at that look at that issue. And I'll let the gentleman respond, sure.

Let me ask a question. Yeah. Um The the text messages, how were they obtained?

They're they were obtained from White House personnel. They they didn't subpoena members of Congress,

But no,

but they got

but there wasn't, I mean, you y- you can't subpoena for the substance of text records. You have to get a search warrant.

They got a warrant, right.

So did they get a warrant or was it consensual?

No, no, no. They I think it was a subpoena in the National Archives.

Oh, that's right. No, excuse me. That's exactly right. They went to NARA. That's right.

Okay.

We we'll we'll get we'll

But that's, I agree with you, that is an entirely separate issue.

Okay. And we will we will get

Um May I just ask another question just about this bill? If if it is if you're a target of investigation, uh do you have to be notified that you are a target? Um With the uh uh under this bill? investi- not with with you have to be notified when process is served unless an exception is made.

Yeah, when when it it right, if when the process is served on you, then you have to be notified, of course.

Well, process is served on a third party. you have to be does the target of the investigation have to be notified? Because if the target of an investigation has to be notified, if there are any investigative steps

Right.

that will eviscerate many investigations that just make once people learn about it um covert becomes overt, and there are a lot of investigative steps that are essential to be covert.

You If right, and as I said earlier, if you're the target, of course not, but if you're not the target, you have to be notified. Or both member and staff, it would have to be a notification.

But if the if you are the target of investigation, you do not need to be notified. Okay, thank you.

That's again, that's what we worked out

Understood.

alongside working together.

I'm I'm catching up here. Thank you.

Okay, that's fine. Uh, the gentleman from Arizona.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Kentucky and gentlelady from Wyoming. Uh, forty-four members of Congress had their private text messages read by Jack Smith's investigators. Those text messages were related to the speech and debate clause. Those text messages, um, there was no predicate for them for the search. And I know that because I have seen the file. Uh, specifically regarding one of the - one of those forty-four, and I'm talking about myself. And the FBI office in Dallas said there was no predicate for this uh this action. We're not talking forty-four suspects, not forty-four criminals, but elected representatives of the American people. The Department of Justice built a filter team for exactly this purpose, to stop investigators from reading privileged communications. But Smith and his team ignored that. They went straight through that. They read our texts directly with no filter, no check, and no oversight. And when Jack Smith under oath in December. He was to ask directly whether his team read the content of members' text messages, and he said no. Now we know the truth. Either he lied or in the unlike it was an unlikely scenario someone on his team didn't disclose to him that they had read those messages. Either way, the American people deserve an answer and they deserve one now. This was not exclusively directed at one party. It was bipartisan weaponization against Democrats and Republicans. Cory Booker, Adam Smith, Karen Bass, Josh Gottheimer. Jackson Smith didn't care what party you belonged to, he wanted your data, then here data, and here's the kicker. After vacuuming up the private communications of forty-four sitting members of Congress, did he indict any of them? No, he only indicted one person, Donald J. Trump. It's not a prosecution, that was a witch hunt. These the speech and debate clause exists to prevent just that type of thing. Its roots goes back to i- its roots go back to England and the UK. When in sixteen eighty nine the parliament won the right to legislate without the crown reading their mail or coming for their heads. And while today the the UK treats free speech like a relic of the past, our founders knew that how knew how vital this protection was. Founding father James Wilson called this protection " indispensably necessary" So a representative could do his job with firmness and success without looking over his shoulder at the executive branch. As America marks its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, it is worth remembering that this safeguard predates the country itself. That's how fundamental that protection is meant to be. But Jack Smith trampled on it. Let's clea- be clear about what the bill does and doesn't do. It doesn't give any member immunity. If you commit a crime, a judge can still determine that there is probable cause. for Di- Department of Justice to investigate you, issue a warrant to - to uh seize records, et cetera. But what this bill does is simple. It says the executive branch cannot scour a lawmaker's communications in secret without notice, without a check. It has four guardrails. One, a judge must certify probable cause before the government can even pursue a member's records. Not a prosecutor acting alone, but a judge. Two, the member gets notified when it happens. Before or at the same time. Not buried for years like it was under Jack Smith. Three, a thirty day pause before the government can review anything it collected giving the member time to go to court and assert the privilege. And four, no fishing. This time it was forty four members, mostly Republicans and a few Democrats. Tomorrow under a different administration, it could be a different list entirely. This is not about protecting elected officials, it's about protecting the Constitution from bureaucrats. who have subpoena power. I urge every member of this committee to vote yes on this. And while I think, uh, w- along with my friend from Kentucky, that there's no not enough teeth here, and there needs to be, uh, closer adherence to the to the, uh, constitutional requirement for a warrant when substance is being taken, I will vote yes on this and I'll yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman yields back. Um the question occurs And the The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the na the amended amendment in the nature of a substitute. Uh all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. Painting the chair, the ayes have it. Um The question now occurs on ad adopting the amendment

The celebration. On on

I'm Favorably reporting the Favorably reporting the bill uh as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. Penny, the chair, the ayes have it. I'd like a roll call. Is there a roll call? Roll call being requested. Uh, the clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan.

Yes.

Mister Jordan votes yes.

Yes.

Mister Issa. Mister Biggs.

Aye.

Mister Biggs votes aye. Mister McClintock.

Aye.

Mister McClintock votes aye. Mister Tiffany. mr. massey

aye

mr. massey votes aye mr. roy

aye

mr. roy votes aye mr. fitzgerald

aye

mr. fitzgerald votes aye mr. klein

aye

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

yes

mr. van drew votes yes mr. nels mr. moore mr. moore votes aye miss hageman miss leah florida miss leah florida votes aye mr. hunt

that's good

mr. fried

go ahead

mr. kiley mr. growthman mr. not mr. harris

aye

mr. harris votes aye mr. ander mr. schmidt mr. schmidt votes aye mr. gill mr. baumgartner mr. raskin

aye

mr. raskin votes aye mr. nadler miss lovgen Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlon. Mr. Nguz. Miss McBath. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes aye. Mr. Garcia. Miss Kamlager-Duff.

Aye.

Miss Kamlager-Duff votes aye. Mr. Moskowitz. mr. goldman

nay okay

mr. goldman votes nay miss crockett miss liah of pennsylvania

aye

miss liah of pennsylvania votes aye mr. garcia you're not recorded mr. garcia votes no Mister Garcia votes aye. mr. onder vote time mr. onder votes aye mr. growthman aye mr. growthman votes aye good

mr. apel you're not recorded

Mr. Arboleda, yes. Mr. Ki- Mr. Kiley votes aye. Mister Chairman, there are twenty-two ayes and one no.

The ayes have it and the bills order to be reported in favor to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment, the nature of a substitute, incorporating all adopted amendments, and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Um, just for just for all members' notice, the committee will be in recess for no more than ten minutes. We'll be we'll be right back. We have two other bills on the agenda that we wanna get to. But we I just wanna take a short break and uh majority needs a conference for just a just a second. So with that the committee stands in recess.

We have recess.

That was a congressional ten minutes. Committee will come to order.

Uh the the committee will come to order. Um. Soon to notice a call up, house resolution thirteen ninety four for purpose of mark up move that the committee reported favorable to the house.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, your subcommittee on immigration integrity,

Mm. Mm. Mm.

security and enforcement has held four hearings now probing the policies of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. These policies are to shield criminal illegal aliens from deportation. and instead release them back into our communities. This has nothing to do with general immigration enforcement. These policies specifically obstruct the removal of illegal aliens who have committed other crimes are in custody, and instead of turning them over to ICE for deportation as the law requires, they instead turn them loose in our communities. The tragedies that ensue are heartbreaking. In one of our hearings we heard from the mother of Stephanie Minter, murdered by an illegal alien with dozens of prior arrests, each time returned into the community by Fairfax County officials. Their excuse was that despite an eighty-three million dollar annual budget for the county sheriff, they didn't have the funds available to pick up the phone and inform ICE they had custody of an illegal alien so that alien could be deported. To them, Stephanie's life wasn't worth the cost of a phone call. The murderer's multiple releases were enabled by a far-left prosecutor who crafts sweetheart deals for illegal aliens so that they can avoid immigration consequences for their criminality. Most recently, we heard from the mother of Sheridan Gorman. In March of this year, Sheridan, an eighteen year old freshman at Loyola University, uh went to Chicago Park with friends to watch the Northern Lights. She was shot in the back of the head by an illegal alien from Venezuela. who was allowed into this country by the Biden administration. Within months of that illegal alien's release at the border, he was arrested for shoplifting. Now, he should have been turned over to authorities for deportation then. Instead, Chicago's sanctuary law released him back into the community where he had no legal right to be and Sheridan Gorman is dead as a result. These mounting and entirely preventable atrocities were made possible in part by prosecutors who boast that they make their charging decisions based on the defendant's immigration consequences. Here's how Fairfax Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descanso boasted on his campaign web page. He said, quote, " If two people commit the same crime, but only one's punishment includes deportation, that's a perversion of justice and not a reflection of the values of Fairfax County." End quote. That means he'll charge an alien with a lesser crime than a citizen would be charged, in order to avoid triggering immigration consequences for that alien. Now that is the true perversion of justice, and it's now prompted investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Uh, in Philadelphia, Pro Crime Prosecutor Larry Krasner has admitted that quote "low level and nonviolent crimes should not lead to deportation or necessarily risk one's immigration status" unquote. In Colorado, the Boulder County District Attorney's office even permits consideration of in cases involving violent offenses, vehicular mans uh uh vehicular uh uh fatalities uh and sex crimes. And in Queens, the district attorney's office has even employed a quote " immigration specialist" to help dangerous foreign nationals avoid immigration consequences for their criminal offenses. And here's the ultimate irony. When a criminal's in custody and turned over to ICE, that's done safely, securely, and without incident. But when that criminal is released back into neighborhoods, squads of officers must be deployed, force must often be used, and the consequences can be deadly to ICE officers, to accomplices, to bystanders, and to the targets themselves. In those cases where arrests were necessitated because sanctuaries released these criminals, we'd have fewer such incidents. You cannot lament these deaths while defending the policies that caused them. Unless, of course, your alternative is to stop enforcing immigration laws altogether and return to the Biden days of open wide borders. I applaud our colleague Nikola Loda for his resolution that rightly calls out these absurd policies. This is as simple as it gets. The resolution states the obvious and self-evident truth that crimes committed by illegal alien criminals should be fully prosecuted. It condemns how families are re-victimized by prosecutors who give special

Gentlemen, yield is back. Gentlemen, yield is back. Appreciate the gentlemen's work and opening statement. I appreciate the gentlemen's work and opening statement. The uh, gentlemen, uh, ranking members recognized for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I must oppose this resolution, I'm only counting twenty more legislative days in session before the twenty twenty-six midterm elections in November. So this purely non-binding advisory, hortatory resolution about state and local prosecution policies seems to me to be a striking confession that the majority is now running on empty and has no actual plans or concrete proposals to make life better for anyone in America. With the sand running rapidly down the hourglass on this disappearing, supine and collaborationist Congress, you'd think the majority would be spending our precious remaining days scrambling to address the pressing issues of the day that they've ignored, marking up legislation that might actually make a difference in the lives of the American people. At a time when the price of groceries, health care, premiums and rent has soared to an all-time high, when Trump's ruinous illegal tariffs have driven countless businesses into bankruptcy, but when the president declares that he loves inflation and spends no time thinking about the financial condition of the American people, you might think the majority would be trying to do something to distance themselves from the disastrous presidency and lethargy of Donald Trump, to actually improve life for our people. And yet, the discipline is fierce around here, and so here we go again, with a divisive rhetorical exercise because what the American American people apparently really need right now is another non-binding, hoarditory, symbolic resolution from the House distorting and second-guessing local prosecution policies. Meantime, back in the reality-based world, there are five million Americans who no longer have health insurance because the GOP failed to enact any legislation to prevent premiums from skyrocketing after passage of their Big Beautiful Bill, which is so unpopular now they tried to change its name. Alas for them, the words of the new title of the Big Beautiful Bill, the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, never actually appeared in the bill. And just in the last week, ICE agents have killed two people in their cars, two fathers who were driving to work, who according to ICE's own statements were not even the target of their enforcement actions. Meantime, Republican members of Congress have been threatening to hold the House floor hostage until the Senate passes their bill to disenfranchise voters the Save Mega Act. How foolish and demeaning is it for Congress to be running around condemning local governments for the choices they and their voters have made? If you wanna change the way local prosecutors operate, move to those jurisdictions and run for state's attorney. But I suspect you won't get too far, at least in the case of the reviled Fairfax County, Virginia, because the people who live there are not buying what the majority is selling. A few weeks ago the majority hauled in the prosecutor and the sheriff from Fairfax, because the majority disfavors the county's policies. Okay, that's fine. But there was a line out the door of Fairfax County residents who'd come to support their local officials against this kangaroo legislative court. Our job in Congress is not to give Yelp reviews for state and local laws and policies. If you really wanna influence public policy, and Fairfax go go run for office there or go testify in their legislative chambers. This is Congress. We're supposed to be focused on federal policy, enacting federal laws, and working to make life better for all Americans. This is a job which we are elected to do but which the majority is simply not doing. This Congress, under GOP leadership, now has a disapproval rating of eighty-six percent, a startling and terrifying all-time high. Eighty-six percent. It means more than eight out of ten Americans disapprove of the chaotic and subservient performance of Speaker Johnson. With bills, excuse me, not binding resolutions like this, it's no mystery why under this majority, the Congress has abdicated its authority for oversight, for appropriations, and even for declaring war. As an outgoing member of this committee put it, if Donald Trump says jump three feet high, and scratch your head, we all jump three feet high and scratch our head. Well, um, they've been doing a lot of those three feet jumps and engaging in a lot of head-scratching behavior. At the behest of the president, congressional Republicans have blocked our exercise of constitutionally mandated authority to approve or disapprove tariffs. They were silent as the administration illegally impounded congressionally appropriated funds for many programs. They watched with indifference as the president bombed fishing boats in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and Iran. They did nothing as the president, his family, and his robber baron friends grifted off the American people through absurd no-bid contracts and corrupt crypto deals. They forked over a whopping two hundred and forty billion dollars of our tax dollars for the Department of Homeland Security and then sat on their hands as DHS agents killed three American citizens in cold blood three immigrants and a record of fifty-three people have died in immigration detention, many due to abuse and medical neglect. Now as November looms large, and as their moves to try to undermine elections and pay off insurrectionists are being blocked by federal judges across the land they're desperately casting a bout for someone to blame for the problems they have themselves caused. And today it seems the blame is landing on state and local prosecutors and once again everybody's favorite whipping post, so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. It is the it is the Trump administration that is stymieing state and local prosecutors and making everybody less safe. They deport witnesses and victims in the middle of trials, allowing perpetrators to walk free. They deport perpetrators before trial, robbing their victims of restitution, compensation and closure. When their agents kill people like Rene Good, Alex Paretti and Lorenzo Salgada Araujo, instead of working towards justice and to process, they obstruct state and local investigations and bar investigators from accessing the evidence. But of course, we don't wanna talk about that. We wanna talk about how terrible immigrants are and claim that Democrats care more about criminal aliens than American citizens. But what Republicans fail to grasp is that for an undocumented immigrant, it does not matter what kind of crime they would be charged with, they are deportable immediately. by dint of their lack of legal status. Republicans see a grand conspiracy around charging decisions when undocumented people are involved when it is actually just the day-to-day reality of prosecuting cases sometimes you have enough evidence to build a strong case, and win a conviction, and sometimes you don't. Well, why do I think that this is just political theater? We haven't heard a word uh from a single Republican on this committee denouncing Ken Paxton. for the sweetheart deal he offered to Adam Hoffman, who molested a six year old boy. Ken Paxton's team cut a deal where this guy would serve one day in jail. The judge in the case extended the sentence to sixty days, but that was the best he could do with the deal that Ken Paxton's prosecutors cut. In the end, Hoffman was released early, serving only twenty nine days for this grievous, outrageous crime. But we've never heard a peep out of anyone here about that decision, or the local policies that permitted Paxton to make such an unforgivable deal. Every choice that we make in individual cases has consequences. And I would hope the majority of us would weigh the bef- the potential consequences before approving a policy. I fear that President Trump has never undertaken that rigorous deliberative process given how obvious the negative consequences are of his decisions. Take, for example, his infamous mass pardon. of the January sixth insurrectionists. Nearly one hundred of the January sixth rioters who were part in all mass without regard to their individual crimes, their individual criminal histories, whether they had paid restitution or not to their victims or to the government, and whether they were properly rehabilitated and ready to go back to society. N- nearly a hundred of all these people pardon all mass have gone back to their communities and have since criminally re-offended they have molested children they've beaten up their spouses, they've even killed people, none of which would have happened but for the President's pardons and commutation of their sentences. Similarly, thirteen American service members and thousands of civilians would still be alive and our treasury would not have burned through a hundred and thirty-five billion dollars if not for the President's illegal war with Iran. Look, this hortatory, non-binding, advisory, uh, recommending resolution changes no public policy and advances no public interest. And this one, Mister Chairman, I'm afraid to say, is a waste of time. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back without objection. All of the opening statements will be included in the record. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Arizona is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every person who commits a crime should be held accountable. Every American deserves equal protection under those laws. That should not be controversial. That should be the floor, not the ceiling, of what we expect from our justice system. But for too long, activist prosecutors and the radical left in sanctuary jurisdictions have substituted political ideology for the rule of law. Let's be honest about what that ideology is about. It isn't about justice. It's not about fairness. It's not about mercy. It's a radical worldview that treats an illegal alien's immigration status as more deserving of protection than an American citizen's safety. Some across the aisle may try to call it compassion or fairness, but that's not what it is. It's a suicidal empathy that cares more about shielding a criminal from consequences than protecting the community they have harmed. When prosecutors provide special treatment to foreign nationals, they don't afford to American si- that they don't afford to American citizens, they don't just bend the rules. They abandoned the principle of equal justice under law entirely, and innocent people pay for it. For instance, Fairfax County, Virginia, Mister S- uh uh Prosecutor Steve Discano bragged on his own campaign website that he would take immigration consequences into account wherever possible. His office built a formal sliding scale policy that puts illegal aliens at the front of the line for leniency. The result was a trail of American victims. Illegal alien Abdul Jala racked up more than forty charges. Nearly all dropped by Descano's office before Jala murdered Stephanie Minter this past February. Police warned Descano's office repeatedly that Jala was a ticking time bomb. They ignored it and Stephanie Minter is dead. This isn't an isolated case. In Boulder County, Colorado, prosecutors openly consider immigration consequences, even in cases involving violent crime, vehicular fatalities, and aggravated sexual assault. When prosecutors drop charges, they cut sweet-heart deals and refuse with law enforcement. They're not merely soft on crime. They're complicit in the next victim. I've sat across from angel families. I just wrote letters to seven angel families this very morning. I've listened to mothers and fathers describe losing a child to a criminal alien who never should have been free. They should have been locked up or deported and instead were walking the streets because a prosecutor decided that immigration status mattered more than public safety. Their message was always the same. These tragedies were preventable, every single one of them. These policies are not just morally indefensible. They are against the law. When prosecutors refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities or manipulate charges and pleas to shield foreign nationals from the consequences, they've earned they're not administering justice. They are obstructing justice. The first duty of government is to protect its own citizens. It's not optional and it does not bend to ideology. It begins with enforcing the law equally, holding every criminal accountable regardless of immigration status, and ending, once and for all, any policy that puts a person who broke our immigration laws ahead of the citizens he now lives among. H. Res. thirteen ninety-four affirms these fundamental principles. It condemns prosecution policies that create unequal justice. It supports the prosecutors who still faithfully enforce the law without regard to politics. It recognizes the Department of Justice's efforts to investigate ju- jurisdictions They may be violating the civil rights of American citizens by putting foreign nationals first. American citizens come first. That's not radical. That's the basic bargain of citizenship. And this Congress should say so clearly.

Will the gentleman yield?

I w- I will yield to the gentleman from California.

Uh, uh, just like to make two quick points, first, the the ranking member condemns a resolution calling on local prosecutors to apply the law equally and without favor. He complains there is no force of law to this resolution. Well, the fact is this committee has passed bill after bill that does use the force of law to protect public safety from sanctuary policies, every one of them over the bitter and vociferous opposition of the ranking member and every Democrat on this committee. Uh, the ranking member uh tells us that criminal aliens should not be deported before they can be punished. Well, we agree completely with that. But the problem is, and the fact is, that these woke sanctuary

Thank you.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Chairman, I have two UC requests.

Thank you.

One is entitled "The Commonwealth's Attorney has a very holistic role." In Mm. interview with Virginia candidate Parisa Degani-Tafti. And also, um, two, ah, two others, illegal immigrant accomplice gets five years for murder in sweetheart deal with progressive Virginia DA. And Virginia dims split on DOJ prub of sorrows back DA, accused of giving sweetheart deals to illegal aliens. And Biden administration's predator release puts Virginia's sanctuary policies back in the spotlight. Yield back.

That objection and the gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Washington is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. what is happening under Trump's immigration militia across this country is horrific, absolutely horrific. In just the last eight days, ICE officers shot and killed two people, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Yohan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine, just like they did with Rene Good, Alex Prettie, Marmar Martinez, Julio Sosa-Salas. In all of these cases, DHS claimed that Lor- Lorenzo was trying to attack law enforcement when he was shot. And just like these other cases, contradictory evidence has emerged showing that DHS representatives made false statements and DHS agents acted inappropriately. In the case of Mister Guerrero, DHS does not even allege that the officer feared for his life or his safety. Instead, DHS claims he merely attempted to flee from a vehicle and then a nice officer shot him out of concern for quote " public safety". And again, there's video that contradicts much of this. DHS agents have shot and killed six people only during immigration enforcement action since the beginning of the second Trump administration. There have been fifty-three deaths in detention since Trump came into office. Sixty thousand immigrants across this country are incarcerated every single night in private for-profit detention facilities. And in the cases of these last two individuals and the families they left behind, our hearts should cry out. Mister Salgado Araujo's US citizen children heard their father's last words crying for help before he was killed on social media. That's how they found out he was dead. Mister Guerrero's wife and three-year-old daughter are left in complete trauma and terror. And all of this has been driven by supercharged enforcement from the White House, enabled by my Republican colleagues. Two hundred and ten billion dollars to ICE and CBP just since Trump came into office. A hundred and forty billion last year in the big bad betrayal bill. Another seventy billion just now that Republicans passed, party line vote. even though there was a hundred billion left from before. And all of this while saying that there's no money for health care or for the things that are making Americans hurt across the country, rising gas prices, grocery prices, all of those things. In addition, the arbitrary White House deportation quotas have resulted in veteran agents who should know better shooting and killing Americans. Mister Chairman, we are failing the American people. every single day that we refuse to hold any oversight hearings in this committee, or demand independent investigations into these deaths, this should not be partisan. But it is partisan. Apparently my Republican colleagues don't have time to rein in DHS's violent actions in our communities but they can make time to take up a non-binding resolution that targets local prosecutions and their policies as part of the never-ending attacks on sanctuary jurisdictions. This resolution is not how we should be spending our time in this committee. It is another way to distract from all the things that are actually happening. US citizens, immigrants who are here with work authorization, people being targeted in their communities, being terrorized to come out of their houses. And we're certainly not talking about issues like President Trump's illegal war of choice on Iran. This war has been so disastrous that for the first time in history, Both the House and the Senate passed a war powers resolution, asserting that Congress alone has the power to declare war. Waged with no imminent threat, no end game, this war has killed thirteen US service members, injured many more, killed thousands of civilians in Iran and Lebanon, displaced millions more, and wasted, wasted billions in US taxpayer dollars. This committee has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to conduct oversight on this clear breach of the Constitution. There are many things we could be holding hearings on, and the ranking member went through many of these, so I won't again. But I will say, if Republicans wanna focus on immigration, let's conduct oversight over DHS agents' involvement in fatal shootings and the Trump administration's many abuses of authority from dismantling the immigration system to trampling our constitutional rights, and destroying our country, our families, and our economy. Let's talk about the story of Wendy Hernandez Reyes, a single mother whom ICE deported without her three year old US citizen child, Orlin, despite her pleas to take her son with her. Orlin was murdered by the abusive uncle that he ended up being placed with when Wendy was deported. This is just outrageous. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and I yield back.

The lady yields back. Western uh

Uh, if no one else, I'll uh move to strike the last word.

Yellow for New Yorkers recognized.

Um, I I think there's a lot more agreement than disagreement in this issue. Because I would be hard-pressed to find anyone on this side of the aisle, I'll speak for myself alone, who does not believe that uh those who have convicted deportable offense, uh, uh, those who have committed through a conviction deportable offenses should be removed from this country. Um, that I, I don't think is, is in dispute. What is the, what is problematic here is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using anecdotal stories that are horrific. and are not supported by anyone on this side of the aisle, um, nor have they ever been, as b- using these few examples to try to create the rule. But they are the exception by leaps and bounds. And if we are talking about who is actually committing crime in this country, it is generally not undocumented immigrants, certainly not at the same rate as US born citizens. US born citizens are more than two times more likely than undocumented immigrants to be arrested for violent crimes, two and a half times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over four times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. So it is not the data just doesn't support this idea that anybody is choosing undocumented immigrants over American citizens. And why my colleague from Washington and the ranking member, um, are so correct in identifying the flaw in this resolution and in this argument is that even if you, on the other side, my colleagues, are are correct, nobody is, in this administration is going after the worst of the worst. You're not you, I shouldn't say, DHS ICE is not going after the convicted criminals. You are picking out a few examples that are sensationalized and trying to extrapolate. But the reality is that ninety-two percent of detainees in a Wall Street Journal study from September twenty-first through January seventh, ninety-two percent had no criminal convictions. And that doesn't even break it down by serious criminal convictions that would be deportable under - removable under the INA. So, if this administration were actually going after the worst of the worst as they promised and as they continued to say, then we would be having a very different discussion. But nobody is prioritizing un- uh criminally convicted, undocumented uh immigrants over American citizens. That's absurd. They they should be caught, they should be prosecuted, they should be deported. That we all agree on. So you're you are finding a solution in search of a problem here. And when you layer on the top of that, that this ICE dragnet is killing Americans, is killing undocumented immigrants, is actually responsible for far more crime and death and assault and brutality than any undocumented immigrant's combined are you're missing the forest through the trees. But it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Even if you want to continue to maintain that these anecdotal stories are are the rule, you can also conduct oversight over ice. That is part of our jurisdiction here. Why why do you not care about Alex Preddy or Rene Good or people who are the the last uh two the two uh people who were killed in the last week. Why do the Republicans not care and feel like we should conduct oversight? I applaud the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mister Garbarino, for demanding a briefing. But why is this committee not doing anything to conduct oversight over this mass dragnet of two hundred and fifty billion dollars? And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Question is unfavorably reporting the resolution. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

No.

Uh, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the resolution is

We're gonna record it.

ref- recorded vote being requested, the clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan.

Oh, oh, I'm sorry.

Yes.

Mister Jordan.

Oh, no, no, no, hang on, hang on, hang on.

Mister Garcia.

I'm gonna back up. Mr. Garcia had to ask and I d- I totally forgot. I apologize to the gentleman from Illinois. Um, we'll just move back a little bit and we'll The gentleman's recognized for his five minutes, and then we'll go to calling the question.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose this resolution, which is just another cheap attempt by Republicans to scapegoat immigrants and distract from the failures to address issues facing our countries. We're in a nationwide affordability crisis. What have Republicans done? Tax cuts for billionaires and wealthy corporations. Our constituents are sick and tired of endless war, what have Republicans done? Launched a regime change operation and occupation in Venezuela, and launched a cruel, illegal, devastating war in Iran that Trump has lost control of. Our constituents want basic health care without taking on crushing medical debt. What have Republicans done? Gutted Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, driving up premiums and causing people's deaths from lack of medical care. The American people overwhelmingly support immigration. What have the Rep- Republicans done? Send over two hundred billion dollars to a bunch of mass stormtroopers at ICE and CBP to terrorize our communities. It's back in the news. It's astonishing to me that Republicans wanna bring this garbage up in this committee. This week alone, ice has caused the deaths of three people, the shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Joan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine and caused the man in Florida to get hit by a tractor trailer. These deaths are on top of the Renee Nicole Gooden, Alex Paredes in Minneapolis, Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez in Chicago in my district, and dozens of others in ice custody over the last year and a half. These Republicans love to talk about big government. Don't tread on me. What hypocrisy. All they've done is send tax dollars to mass lawless death squads that are murdering citizens and non-citizens with impunity and racially profiling on steroids immigrant communities. This resolution is a joke. No matter how hard they try, Republicans cannot get around the fact that local jurisdictions are not required to cooperate in immigration enforcement without a warrant. That's due process. And the fact that they cannot commandeer our law enforcement officers to carry out their terror on our streets. This latest effort suggests that Republicans are running out of steam. You think prosecutors are the problem? A disproportionate amount of federal prosecutions are of low level immigration cases. State and local prosecutions prosecute people for violent offenses regardless of their immigration status. This is a pathetic stunt that reveals the total failure of Republicans to do anything to make life better for working families. The public knows it, and no matter how hard they try, no matter how many terrible anti-immigrant bills we mark up in this committee, including whatever nonsense they come up with next week, the public supports immigration and opposes the lawless murders by ICE. It's time to rid ourselves of DHS terror by dismantling this rogue agency and rebuilding the immigration enforcement from the ground up. And if Republicans want to talk about holding criminals accountable, they should start with those ICE agents who have committed these atrocities, cabinet officials, and if necessary, the president himself. I yield back.

General Yields backs a further discussion on the amendment.

General Lady from Vermont.

General Lady from Vermont is recognized.

Thank you. I move to strike the last word.

General Lady, right.

General Lady is recognized under the five-minute rule.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. Um I wanna talk for a moment about how there seems to be a different way that we talk about these cases depending on what community these folks live in. So, looking at this horrific situation in Maine, Johan Sebastian Guerrero, who was not the subject of the arrest warrant, he was legally authorized to work. He did everything right. He had the status. He is now dead. His child is now gonna grow up without their father. He was a beloved member of the community, a hardworking person who had the correct status to be there and to be working. And you have a situation at the same time where even in Deep Red, Montana, in a town, I hope I'm pronouncing it right, Freud, Montana, you have a beloved community member there, Roberto Orozco, Ramirez, I believe his name is, beloved community member, he is an auto shop owner, he's a little league coach, father of four, and he came here illegally without status. He um then was uh returned back to his home country and then was the subject of felony charges because he had illegal re-entry. So this little deep red town of Montana rallied around Roberto Orozco Ramirez. And, according to his neighbors, they were outraged that agents staked out his house, harassed his children. One of his neighbors said, quote, " I personally don't believe that's right. Them four boys are American citizens." Americans understand that the majority of the people here who are living and working in their communities, even if they have status that is not in line with our current immigration laws, these people understand that the vast majority of these people are hard-working people. And we were all sold this lie that this administration needed to supersize the ICE budget they were going after the worst of the worst. And as my colleague from New York just pointed out, you've got ninety-two percent of the people in custody right now, who haven't been convicted of any crime. So the residents of Freud, Montana, in a deep red district, understand that this person has become a beloved member of the community and they did everything that they could to rally around him. And in fact, uh, the federal government dropped the felony charges on illegal re-entry. And so we have this discussion that always breaks down along party lines here, that somehow Democrats only care about immigrants, and that we are somehow uh outrageous in our wanting to protect people on American soil who are living and working and contributing. And yet silence from the other side when you have a similar kind of behavior happening, in a deeply Republican district because these people have gotten to know this person as a human being and that's what's at the center of this. So I am still waiting to hear my colleagues speak out specifically about the case in Maine where he did everything right and he was still gunned down and he was not even the subject of the arrest warrant. Where is the outrage about that? We get silence even when we give you the case that you all say that you want, people need to do things by the book, he did everything by the book, and now he's dead and his child does not have a father. I would like a little bit more self-reflection in this moment about where we are as a committee, as a nation, and acknowledge that most Americans understand that they've gotten to know these immigrants and understand that the vast majority are contributing to their communities and I yield back.

General lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the resolution? Seeing none, the question is on favor well, the general lady is recognized.

I see. I just walked in. Um You know, I I'm actually kind of speechless. We've had, I don't know how many killings, but I do know that it is a record number of killings. And instead of trying to make sure that we do our job, which is to conduct the oversight, in fact, our colleague who was trying to conduct oversight at the Dilley facility, because she wanted to make sure that people weren't dying in that facility, in New Jersey, is now facing seventeen years in prison somehow for doing her job. Why is it that we can't, just come to DC and do what we were elected to do, which is to make sure that these federal officers are protecting and serving. Instead, the only thing that's happening is that people are being taunted, they are being tracked, and they are being killed. And as I look at my colleague, I don't know if you've had anything to say. But as a Texan, I would hope that we could come together as Texans, and denounce what just took place in Houston, Texas. How about we focus on making sure that this agency that has a record amount of dollars now, not because the Democrats were trying to send them more money, because we didn't want to reward their bad behavior, but instead of us doing our jobs and conducting oversight as it relates to federal officers, you guys decide to waste our time in the American people's tax dollars. With this nonsense, how about we do our part and try to start saving some lives? I'll yield.

Channel eighty yields back for further discussion. Seeing none, the question is on the uh favorably reporting the resolution. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no.

No.

No. We don't.

Uh, depending the chair, the ayes have it.

We'd ask for a recorded vote.

A recorded vote's requested, the clerk will call the roll.

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

Aye.

Mr. McClintock votes aye.

Mm-hmm.

Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massey. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Miss Hageman. Miss Leah Florida.

Yes.

Miss Leah Florida votes yes. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Freib. Mr. Keiley. Mr. Grithman. Mr. Nott. Mr. Harris. Mister Onder.

Aye.

Mister Onder votes aye. Mister Schmidt.

Aye.

Mister Gill. Mister Baumgartner. Mister Raskin.

No. No.

Mister Raskin votes no. Mister Nadler. Miss Lofgren. Mister Cohen. Mister Johnson. Mister Liu. Mister Jayapal. Mister Jayapal votes no. Mister Correa. Mr. Correa votes no. Miss Scanlon. Mr. Naguse. Miss McBath. Miss Miss Ross. Scand- Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett, no. Miss Crockett votes no. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Miss Leah Pennsylvania votes no. Mister Issa

Oh, we're recorded.

you are not recorded.

Yes.

Mister Issa votes yes.

Aye.

Mister Jordan

Yes.

Mister Jordan votes yes. Mister Biggs.

Aye.

Mister Biggs votes aye. Mister Moore. Mister Moore votes aye. Miss Hageman.

Aye.

Miss Hageman votes aye. Mister Fitzgerald.

Aye.

Mister Fitzgerald votes aye.

mr. grothman

yes

mr. grothman votes yes miss k mel agert of you are not recorded

Is Kim Lager da vets now?

mr. schmidt you're not recorded mr. schmidt votes aye

Mr. Tiffany? Mr. Tiffany, outside.

Clerk will report.

Mister Chairman, there are fourteen ayes and nine noes.

Vote being fourteen affirmative and nine in the negative. The resolution is ordered to be reported uh favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up H R seventy six fifty one, the Chloe Cole act of twenty twenty six for purposes of mark-up and move the committee report it favorably to the house. Clerk will report the bill.

H R seven six five one, to provide a private right of action.

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any time. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mister Onder, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, we are here today to talk about one of the most consequential issues facing our children. Children too young to purchase a cigarette or drive a car are being coerced into adults in positions of authority to undergo life-altering harmful, so-called gender procedures without fully understanding the effects of these procedures on their long-term health and lives. This is especially tragic because the evidence shows that if left alone and supported these children sixty-one to ninety-eight percent of the time will identify with their biologic sex after puberty activists are exploiting these children they're s- these children are suffering they are often depressed, anxious, on the autism spectrum, or are victims of abuse. These activists coerce desperate parents by asserting that if their daughter does not undergo go transgender medical procedures she will commit suicide. They cynically ask the question, would you rather have a live son or a dead daughter? There is little to no evidence that chemically and surgically mutilating children does anything to treat their actual underlying mental health struggles. In fact, the best study to date, in my view, is published in by Finnish researchers in the journal Acta Pediatrica, which shows quite the opposite. that serious mental disorders get dramatically worse after transgender procedures. Today we may hear weak appeals to authority. We should remember that the so-called Dutch protocol has been thoroughly debunked. Activists rammed through its self-interested guidelines at the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society without meaningful input from their members. Dissenting voices were silenced. But in February, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, then the AMA, revised their positions on the surgical mutilation stating that such procedures should be delayed until at least nineteen years of age. My profession and society at large need to take a hard look in the mirror and remind ourselves of the ancient principle of medicine primum non nocere, first do no harm. The United States needs urgently to join progressive Western countries, such as the UK, Sweden, Finland and Norway in protecting children as twenty-six states have also done. This legislation i- is the the so legislation that is the subject of today's market but is named for that brave advocate Chloe Cole who testified before this committee in twenty twenty-three when she was just nineteen years old. Chloe is one of a growing number of young people who were wronged by adults who were supposed to protect her. She was rushed into sex-rejecting procedures, first puberty blockers, then testosterone. Starting at age twelve, she suffered a double mastectomy at age fifteen only to deeply regret it by age s- Now she suffers a multitude of health complications. And Chloe testified that she was never suicidal until after she was subjected to sex-rejecting procedures. Chloe's story is unfortunate but not unique. De- de-transitioners across the country report a multitude of crippling health issues as a result of chemical castration and surgery, including increased a- levels of anxiety and depression. The victims of sex-rejecting procedures also suffer surgical complications blood clots, bone and endocrine disorders, and fertility issues, victims of these procedures become lifelong patients. Doctors and hospitals must be held accountable for harming children. History and the American people are on the side of protecting children, which is why upon taking office, President Trump acted swiftly through executive order to enact protections against the mutilation of children including directing the Department of Justice to draft and transmit this bill to Congress. I'm proud to work with both Chloe and the DOJ on this legislation, and I'm and I'm grateful to de-transitioners like Chloe, who have bravely shared their stories so other children will not be harmed. The Chloe Cole Act simply allows minors who are harmed by sex-rejecting procedures and their parents to hold clinics and doctors accountable for the harm they caused. It provides for strict liability and appropriately long statute of limitations and damages, including the costs of de-transition. The embrace of sex-rejecting procedures on children is now recognized in multiple countries and in multiple systematic reviews as " the emperor that has no clothes." Congress must act now. Protecting children should not be a partisan issues issue. I urge all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to support this bill. And I yield back.

Chairman, he goes back, the chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mister Raskin, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Um, we all know that authoritarians vilify and scapegoat minorities. It's a great way to distract from corruption, self-enrichment, villainy, and incompetence. Now in America, inflation has hit a three-year high. Gas prices remain crushingly high, and Trump's disastrous and illegal war with Iran has cost taxpayers a hundred and thirty-two billion dollars, and counting. But the failed president, who has already added more than two trillion dollars to our national debt, and the tag-along Congress have given up on advancing any policy solutions to the huge ditches that they've dug for our economy. It's a lot easier just to follow the authoritarian playbook. With just twenty-one session days left before November, the House majority pulls out of its bag of tricks another hopeless bill targeting MAGA's favorite scapegoat the tiny group of Americans in the transgender community. Here, to be fair, they're only following the directions of their leader, who lost the Strait of Hormuz for safe and free international commerce, but created the Strait of Warm Uze in Washington, D. C., turning blue-water green and the whole executive branch of government into a swamp of corruption and murky waste. Trump told Republicans earlier this year to make targeting the transgender community a central focus of the midterm elections. not health care, not housing, not bringing down inflation, not climate change, targeting the transgender community for disparagement and ridicule. Does the White House not understand that everybody gets this cruel game? Even though the GOP has already passed a bill to criminalize doctors for providing gender affirming care, now they're back with H. R. seven six five one, which creates a federal private right of action to allow federal civil lawsuits against medical providers, doctors, and facilities for providing gender affirming care to minors, even the most common kinds of gender affirming care, which have nothing to do with surgery and everything to do with counseling, therapy, and non-invasive treatment. By subjecting providers and facilities to federal civil liability and litigation without regard to the established standards of care in their states, this bill makes a mockery of federalism, to effectively impose a national ban on gender affirming care for minors with potentially devastating mental, emotional, psychological and medical consequences for vulnerable young people who need our support not demonization and ostracism. I've received visits from constituents whose children are transgender, in which they have told me that they are literally considering leaving America, this country, our country, because Donald Trump and his allies have been waging this campaign to make the country unsafe for them. President Trump has attacked the transgender community ever since he got back in office. One of the first executive orders issued directed agency and department heads to take whatever steps possible to end gender affirming care. Even after a judge blocked enforcement of that order, many federal agencies continued to take steps to implement it. The FBI even posted an Orwellian tweet urging its followers to report hospitals, clinics and practitioners who provide gender affirming care to minors. The president has also purged government websites of any reference to transgender people essentially disappearing hundreds of thousands of Americans. He's issued an executive order directing that Americans serving honorably in the armed forces be summarily discharged for being transgender. He has threatened to defund schools, that support trans students, and he's trying to bully schools into banning trans girls from playing sports with other girls, even if there's no objection and even if the school agrees to it. He has ordered transgender women incarcerated in women's facilities to be immediately transferred out and placed in male facilities, putting their safety in jeopardy. The list goes on. Because my colleagues clearly weren't paying attention the last time we debated an anti-transgender bill, All major medical associations agree that evidence-based, gender-affirming care is necessary and in some instances, life-saving for transgender youth. And while my colleagues will once again tell you that there are young people across the country being mutilated by malicious doctors that's not true. Like all medical care, gender-affirming care is tailored to the age and unique needs of individual patients in consultation. with medical doctors, mental health professionals, and of course, in the case of youth seeking care, their parents. Before puberty, no medical treatment is even recommended. The majority of medical experts agree that the standards of care for minors almost never require surgery. A recent study from the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health confirmed that US surgeons are following these guidelines and largely not performing gender affirming care that includes any surgery on minors. H R seven six five one, however, threatens to leave gender dysphoria completely untreated by subjecting providers to legal live liability, even for prescribing medications and hormone treatments, according to state law, putting young people at risk for depression, anxiety and suicide. Gender dysphoria is a medical problem. Studies show that the number of transgender people who revert back to living as their sex assigned at birth is rare. In the largest ever survey of transgender Americans, just nine percent reported that they'd gone back to living their sex assigned at birth. Of those nine percent, their main reason was not they said that they regretted their choice to transition, but rather it was simply too hard and they faced too much hate and discrimination trying to live as their true selves. So here's the key thing. In the rare instances where a doctor where a medical professional deviates from the well-established medical standards standards of care, state laws already provide a remedy for those patients. For example, just earlier this year, a jury in New York awarded a young woman two million dollars in damages for a double mastectomy she received as a teenager as part of gender affirming care that she was undergoing. The plaintiff in the case accused her medical providers of failing to obtain her adequate consent. about the risks of the surgery before she agreed to undergo the procedure, and she further claimed that the doctors deviated from the standards of care governing gender-affirming treatment in her state. The namesake of this bill has a pending lawsuit against her medical providers with a trial set for later next year. No one has explained why the states do not have the expertise to guarantee that the rights of patients and families are being protected under their laws. Meantime, on the federal issues actually affecting children across America, that can actually do something, the GOP today um is basically doing nothing nearly a year after Republicans passed the big ugly law with false promises that cuts to snap would not affect vulnerable people. We now know that at least seven hundred and seventy-six thousand children have lost access to food assistance. A stunning one point five million children have lost their health insurance over the same period. And yet we're doing nothing about this other than piling on to the criminal law that the majority already passed to throw in now a civil right of action. This administration has fired all seventeen members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices which provides recommendations for immunization schedules in our country. They've dropped the number of recommended childhood vaccines as a measles outbreak ravages huge regions of the country, and they've abandoned a long-running FDA proposal to ban people under eighteen from using tanning beds, which are a serious threat to minors, hundreds of thousands of them across the country, many of whom do not understand the risks associated with tanning. That would be a a far better investment of our time and energy at this point, then again uh re- retreading the road that the majority already went down by criminalizing uh transgender care. H R seven six five one does nothing to help American kids. It ignores science and interferes with decision making that should remain between the patient, his or her family, and their health care providers, not politicians, much less those of us who come to Washington in Congress. This legislation is just another occasion to demean and scapegoat people and distract all Americans from the real harms being visited on kids because of the disastrous policies of this administration. I urge our colleagues to rethink this, oppose this legislation, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back without objection. All other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Missouri to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment in the nature of this of the of

Clerk will clerk will report the amendment.

Yes.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR seven.

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and should be considered based text for purposes of amendment the chair now recognizes a gentleman from Missouri to explain the amendment.

Uh thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment makes uh simple technical changes and does not alter the underlying uh import of the bill.

Gentleman yields back. Is there any discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? General Lady from Washington is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I move to s- uh strike the last word.

General Lady is recognized under the five-minute rule.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill. It is remarkable to me that as gas and grocery prices go up because of this continued illegal war in Iran as Americans pay tens of thousands of dollars for health care because Republicans destroyed any semblance of health care with their big bad betrayal bill and cuts to the A C. subsidies, as Donald Trump enriched himself last year to the tune of two point two billion dollars while fleecing Americans of their hard-earned money, what are we spending time on? Once again, on targeting young trans people who make up less than one half of one percent of the population. I would ask the majority, why are you spending so much time manufacturing a culture war targeting a group of young people who make up less than one half of one percent of the population. Is it perhaps because you want to fearmonger about them so that you distract people from the daily troubles that they have of keeping a roof over their head and paying for their health care and groceries? Is it because you literally have no productive proposals to make life better for the American people? Is it because you wanna distract attention away, once again, from the fact that ICE just killed two people in Texas and in Maine because Republicans refused to host hold them accountable and are spending a hundred and seventy billion dollars on these agencies instead of Americans' health care? Or maybe you're trying to distract from Donald Trump refusing to sign into law the most significant bipartisan bill in a generation to invest in housing. Yes, you heard me right. It was passed into law by big bipartisan majorities in both the House and but Donald Trump refused to sign the bill because he says affordability is a quote " hoax". Tell that to the American people who are struggling to afford rent or buy a home. Let me be very clear. Trans people have always and will always exist. Republicans will try to negate the urgency of gender affirming care by cherry picking extreme examples of people, who regret care. A review of gender affirming care for transgender youth conducted by the Utah legislature found that quote "there is virtually no regret associated with receiving treatments." And that is why nearly every major medical association recognizes the importance of gender affirming care for young trans people and have standards in place to ensure that this care can be provided responsibly. What is true is that for most trans youth, care simply comes in the form of puberty pausing medications after close consultation with youth their parents and their medical providers. These medications have been prescribed safely for both non-transgender and transgender children for decades. Trans patients use them at exactly the same doses and for exactly the same outcomes as their non- transgender counterparts. Now just an hour ago, the secretary of forever wars, Pete Hagseth, said that they are going to provide hormone therapy for male service members who don't have enough testosterone. This, by the way, is gender affirming care. And by the way, male members of this committee, watch what you vote for. Do you really want the government getting into your business, taking your testosterone levels, and determining whether or not you have enough testosterone? Are you male enough to be in Congress? That is the question. Now to go from the absurd to the very, very, very serious. In the past year, forty percent of transgender and non-binary young people seriously considered attempting Instead of shaming and targeting them for seeking the care they need, as Republicans constantly do, let us provide support to them. This bill is so extreme that even mental health professionals could face legal action for talking to trans youth about the options they have available to live an authentic life. To Americans who are frustrated, you are right to be frustrated. to trans people who are listening. You have every right to be fully who you are. Your freedom is not a threat to anyone else's, and we will stand up and never throw you under the bus. I yield back.

Uh, General and Sli- uh, General, ladies, the time has expired. Uh, further discussion, Ms. Hagman.

Despite being considered this so-called gold standard when it comes to the efficacy of what some people refer to as gender-affirming a twenty twenty-three study found that the research behind the Dutch studies was deeply flawed. Only the cases with the most positive outcomes were included in the results, with those cases in which adverse events occurred or unsec unsuccessful outcomes arose were dropped from the study. Altering the gender dysphoria questionnaire, which was used as a scoring method following the treatment, was done to artificially exhibit a post-surgical drop in gender dysphoria scores. Concurrent psychotherapy made it impossible to separate the effects of this intervention from those of hormones and surgery. The reported success of the Dutch studies has never been replicated, with attempts to do so having repeatedly failed. Democrats like to look to Europe for examples on public policy. In December twenty twenty four, the UK indefinitely banned new prescriptions of puberty blockers to address minors gender's dysphoria, citing previous findings from the CAST review, which evaluated the scientific Findings in the CAST review include, quote, while a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions or for children and their families to make informed choices, end quote. Furthermore, quote, the rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear. with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown." In March twenty twenty three, a Norwegian healthcare investigation board report report stated quote, "The knowledge base, especially research-based knowledge for gender affirming treatment, hormonal and surgical is deficient and the long-term effects are little known. This is particularly true for the teenage population where the stability of their gender incongruence is also not known." Earlier this year the American Society of Plastic Surgeons issued a position statement on g- on gender surgery for children and adolescents, concluding that there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents. As such, they recommend that surgeons delay gender-related breast or chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient

General Lady yields back. Is there further discussion? Miss Kamala, it's your job.

Thank you. I um I oppose this bill. I think it is a dangerous bill, uh, baked in ignorance and hate and fear, and another opportunity to engage in a culture war debate, rather than to investigate what the people are seeing with their own eyes, on television and in the news every single day. Uh, to the trans community, your freedom is not a threat. Your existence is not a threat. And I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be talking about what the rest of America is talking about. We should talk about children. I wanna talk about one child in particular. I wanna talk about Juan Guerrero's child. Mister Guerrero was twenty-six years old. He was authorized to work in the United States. He was getting up in the morning. to go to work. He got in his car, his three-year-old daughter was in the car with him. She was in her pajamas. And he was shot through the windshield of his own car by ICE agents. He was pulled out of the car, handcuffed, while bleeding out in front of his three-year-old child. This was not some high fast car pursuit. It wasn't something you see in some Netflix movie. This was not some crazy shootout. There was no illicit activity involved. It was a drive-by shooting. It was an execution done by an ICE agent. Questions are now emerging if this person even received adequate training. The sad reality is that this child no longer has a father. And there was another murder similar to this in Houston, Texas. Another father also killed. The other sad reality is that neither of those two men, neither of those two fathers were even the people that were named in the warrants. That's why I call it a killing. That's why I call it an execution. Now we are having a culture war debate about transgender children. Let's talk about the fact that legitimate law enforcement, where body cameras. No body cameras on these ICE agents. Let's talk about the fact that ICE now wants to investigate itself. Are you kidding me? Where are the claims, the calls, the yells from both sides of this committee about demanding an independent investigation, a transparent investigation into these two murders and all of the others that have happened since this rogue ICE agency has been flush with taxpayer dollars to kill taxpayers. You wanna talk about medically necessary treatment? I have a constituent, Mister Perez, in Atalanto detention facility in California. He has not received medical treatment. The secretary McMullin, Marquane, Marquane Mullins said, " Oh, folks that are in these detention centers, they are visited by a doctor. They get medical treatment every two weeks." Well, my constituent was shot in the arm by an ICE agent because he was documenting what was going on in his community. He now has a flesh wound. His arm may be amputated. He was given Bengay and vitamin D for a gunshot wound into his That's not medical treatment, and you wanna talk about these kids? I'm so glad these kids have parents and family members who love them, who are standing in the gap fighting for them. Our transgender boys and girls, while members of Congress are trying to erase them and turn them into pariahs in this country. We can have a bipartisan conversation about some dinosaurs. We need to have a bipartisan investigation about ice. and the killings that are happening out of that agency that seem to be sanctioned by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And with that I yield back.

General, general, ladies, time has expired, uh, further discussion, Mister Ronderer.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle profoundly misunderstand this bill. Uh, they accused us of somehow targeting transgender youth. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are protecting these vulnerable children. And we're protecting from their families, from the kind of cynical manipulation that's embodied in the statement " would you rather have a live son or a dead daughter?" But if gender denying treatments are half as wonderful as my Democrat colleagues seem to think they are, then they should have no problem with this bill either, because all this bill does is give those, gives those parents and their families the opportunity to sue for damages if they are harmed, and if there are no damages, no lawsuit. Now uh uh now Representative Raskin uh cited some information about low rates of of dissistance, uh tr- uh uh transgender identifying individuals um returning to identify with their bio- to with their biological sex. That is based on a study in the uh published in the Journal pediatrics with early transition, transition of children, social transition of children age six to seven and then looking at them five years later. Um and and not surprisingly if you start brainwashing a child at age five, at age ten he or she might continue to accept the subject matter of that brainwashing. The st- these the eleven studies that I cited earlier were on average seventy-five to ninety-eight percent twenty-eight percent of children who identify as transgender before puberty, after puberty identify as their biologic sex, the sex God made them, that is that is the children who are not aggressively transitioned. Yes, once the one once the transgender industrial complex gets a hold of these poor children, heaven knows how poor their their outcomes will be. Uh, one of my colleagues referred to puberty blockers as non-invasive and another Remember, the idea of giving puberty blockers to prepubescent children is to stop puberty. By the way, these are the same drugs that courts have ruled are not constitutional, that they are cruel and unusual punishment for rapists. These are chemical castration drugs. But the plan when starting one of these poor children, children who need psychological support and counseling, When you put those kids on puberty blockers, the plan is then to change them to wrong sex hormones later on. And that course of therapy results in it - results in issues with fertility, sexual health, bone development, urogynecologic complications, metabolic and cardiac complications. Finally, uh, a couple of, uh, members of the other side, uh, uh, on the other side of the aisle said that counseling would be outlawed. That is not true at all. This refers to quote " covered interventions" as defined and spelled out very clearly in this bill which means puberty blockers, wrong sex hormones and surgery. So I look, I b- I don't believe this should be a partisan issue. I think we should all be on the same side of this issue. I think not a short time ago you probably would be hard-pressed to find a single Democrat who would embrace the idea that a child that is too young to buy a beer can somehow consent many times against the wishes of their parents and in some states against the knowledge of their parents to irreversible medical and surgical treatments. So um mis- uh uh Mr. Chairman I um I thank you, I urge all my members to support this ANS and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, further discussion, Ms. Crockett.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it seems like we are, um, at a point where we have a solution in search of a problem. Unfortunately for the American people, when they send us to DC, they want us to solve problems. And so while I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, claiming that this is about protecting children, let's talk about the fact that children are not protected in so many ways right now. We can talk about gun violence, which I'll never want to talk about. because our kids are being killed and frankly, if you look at the numbers, if I was to ask you and you decided you wanted to be honest about whether or not more children are killed in their schools because of gun violence versus children dying because of issues like this, if you tell the truth, you'll know that gun violence is killing our children. You'd also understand the importance of making investments into things such as mental health. And when we look at the actual numbers as it relates to mental health and what these types of bills do to our children, let me give you some facts, because I don't want to operate on feelings, I wanna operate on facts. Trans youth face some of the highest suicide risk of any other youth groups in this country. Nearly half of trans and non-binary young people seriously consider attempting suicide each year. The actual number is forty-six percent, but I don't see y'all trying to propose anything to make sure that we can assist these children. Suicide actual attempts. We know that a study showed that one in five trans or non-binary youth have attempted suicide just in the past year over their lifetimes. Up to forty percent of transgender individuals report suicide attempts. In states that passed laws banning gender affirming care, saw suicide attempts by transgender youth increased by up to seventy-two percent. So if you want to protect children and youth, maybe consider what is actually happening happening. You are absolutely not protecting their mental health, and you're absolutely not providing mental health resources, cuz we know that Republicans hate to put money into mental health, but they blame every travesty that we see on mental health. We also know that measles, which unfortunately have started to kill children in this country because it's back on the rise, y'all haven't decided to have a hearing or pass a bill to make sure that we could eradicate measles which was eradicated before the Republicans got back in control. TB is up. Whooping cough is up. Listen. Pramila asked earlier, why are we doing this? I can tell you, we're doing this because the midterms are coming. And you don't want to talk about the actual problems. Because you guys are the ones that have caused the vast majority of the problems that we're dealing right now. If some people don't want to talk about measles or whooping cough, we can just talk about the fact that the vast majority of the country right now is scared to eat lettuce because they believe they may start pooping and can't stop. Now, I didn't even know that this existed. But this is where we are. We are at the point that y'all are so careless with who it is that runs the CDC, and y'all are so reckless that from our farmers and ranchers not knowing whether or not their cattle is going to survive or literally people saying, " I can't eat the berries and and the salad," because I may not be able to get off the toilet. I think it's it's actually very symbolic of kind of how most Americans feel. We are in a very, um, pooing, uh, place right now in this country. In all seriousness, though, we got a lot of things that we could be solving, and I can guarantee you if you go knock a door right now and ask your constituents whether or not they want to be concerned about Ebola, which has come back around again, or whether they want to be concerned about the fact because of Elon and his recklessness as it relates to USAID. We know that there is an increase in HIV globally right now. I can tell you that there are some medical conditions that people care about in this moment. The fact that cancer research dollars have been cut. There's a lot that we could be doing, and I would really want to engage in a real

Uh, gentlemen, he yields back. He yields back. Uh. Uh.

That's.

gentleman from Arizona is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, just uh just to point out that TB, measles and whooping cough, those are coming back as communicable diseases at a high rate. Why? Because under the previous administration, twenty million illegal aliens crossed this country. Many were sick, many were ill, yeah, check it out. Don't be dumb. It's real. Okay, the radical left's gender ideology experiment on America's children.

Maybe it'll be in order. "The Lord of the Time" belongs to the gentleman from Arizona. You had your five minutes, or if you haven't, I'll make sure you get it, but the gentleman's uh controls the time.

Sure is fun when they don't like to hear the truth, isn't it? Radical left's gender ideology experiment on America's children has gone too far. It's time we held them accountable. For your so-called gender specialists and activist clinics have pushed dangerous puberty blockers cross-sex hormones and mutilating surgeries on children, in the name of affirmation. They told parents it was life-saving care. They told the public it was settled science. They didn't tell the truth. This bill is personal. It's named for Chloe Cole, a brave young woman who was rushed into this destructive path as a minor by gender specialists promoting affirmation at all cost. She suffered permanent harm and now she's fighting back, and so are we. The Chloe Cole Act gives victims and their parents a real private right of action to sue the doctors, hospitals, and clinics that performed or facilitated these experimental interventions on minors. It covers the full arsenal of so-called gender affirming care. The bill is crystal clear. Sex is biological, immutable, and determined at conception. The bill draws a hard line, no more chemical castration and surgical mutilation of minors. It isn't about adults making choices. This is about protecting innocent children from barbaric irreversible procedures pushed by a radical gender cult. This ideological butchery stops here. As a cosponsor of the Chloe Cole Act, I stand with Chloe and every de-transitioner demanding accountability. Protect our children, stop this madness, and deliver accountability for the victims. Mister Chairman, I have several UCs. Mister Chairman, I have several UC requests.

Gentlemen's recognized.

Thank you. This is uh an article called " What I suffered being transgender." I'm suing the people who did this to me.

Objection.

UCLA student, Sue's doctors, says she was fast-tracked for gender transition at age twelve.

Without objection.

Article by Chloe Cole, the medical system pushed transgender surgery on kids. Now it's facing legal justice.

Without objection.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from Vermont is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So how did we get here?

Where is this?

That we are we are sitting here once again talking about these these issues when a Fox News poll recently showed that fewer than one percent of folks polled said that, quote, " wokeness" or transgender issues was the most important issue that we should be focused on right now. Fewer than one percent. And yet here we are, again, having a hearing targeting trans Americans. Uh, so again, how did we get here? This was a - it's a concerted, targeted strategy by the Republican Party when they realized they had lost the battle over equal rights for gay Americans.

Hmm.

And so you can look at an Atlantic article dating back to twenty twenty one, quote, the Republican Party finds a new group to demonize. That was of April twenty twenty one. And you had another article, New York Times, April twenty twenty three, how it campaigned against transgender rights, mobilized conservatives. So they realized they had been losing support on their demonization campaign of gay and lesbian Americans, so they needed a new enemy. And they landed on transgender Americans who make up a very, very small percentage of the American population. So, you know, five years later, here we are. And I was on this committee when Ms. Cole came in, and I can say what I said at the time, which is I have a lot of compassion for anyone who feels like they were not served by her - her medical doctors. And as was pointed out, she actually has a court date, which is how it should be. She has a court date to bring her case before the courts to find out if in fact she was ill-served and whether her medical malpractice claim will go forward. So there's already a mechanism here. So it's difficult in light of that, and I - I respect you, Mister Onder, and I - I believe your heart is in the right place. You come from a medical background. So this is not personal. But it's very difficult to sit here, now, four years in for me, when I have constituents who are transgender, I have parents who come to me, and they say, " Why is it that so much attention is being taken up by the medical care that we want for our children. And why is it in this moment that Congress feels like it should be intervening? And of course, I think this is a continuation of the Republican Party's push also to restrict women's ability to get the full reproductive care that they need and deserve. But let's put that aside. We are coming off of a year when a trillion dollars was cut from health care. And I can't travel to any hospital, FQHC, clinic in my district, and even my own hometown of Little Brattleboro, Vermont, we are facing the closing of our birthing center. And this is happening in rural communities across this country. We have a medical crisis right now. And it was caused by decisions made just about a year ago by this administration to ram through cuts to Medicaid and to not extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies, which I might point out, we could fully pay for when compared to the amount of money that has been sped, spent already on this ill-conceived war in Iran. and illegal, thank you.

Mister Chairman.

So it is it's still my time, sir. So it is incredibly frustrating when I just came off of a week at home talking to people in my medical community. They are not talking to me about this. They are saying, how am I gonna keep my hospital open? How am I gonna continue to give care to the folks in my rural area? And here we are again And, as I said, Chloe Cole has an avenue to get redress. And I feel compassion for her and her family. But I am deeply troubled that we can't have a real substantive discussion about how we deliver medical care to rural America. And this isn't gonna do it. And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Missouri is recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous rec- uh, consent request.

Gentlemen uh can proceed.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first is from Ruska et al., uh Acta Pediatrica, July twenty twenty six, psychiatric morbidity among adolescents and young adults who cont contacted specialized gender identity services in Finland, nineteen ninety six to twenty nineteen, a registered study.

Objection.

Uh the second is reassessing the Trevor Project suicide attempt findings uh J- uh June twenty twenty six from the Society of Evidence-based gender uh medicine uh refuting the seventy two percent cited earlier uh per statistics cited earlier by him yeah thank you.

Without objection.

Next is uh the uh American Academy of Pediatrics February twenty twenty six position statement on gender surgery for children and adolescents.

Without objection.

And then uh finally first major medical organization comes out against trans surgeries for minors national review uh February twenty twenty six.

Without objection.

Mister Chair, I've a use of.

General Lady's recommends.

Thank you. Uh, Mister Chair, I ask you now for his consent to include in the record a letter from over a hundred and seventy civil rights, health equity and gender justice advocates opposing the Chloe Cole Act.

Oh, my God. Without objection.

Thank you.

Uh, general lady from Texas, you're not supposed to say that. That's cool. The general lady from Texas.

Uh, Mister Chair, I have a number of UCs to correct the record.

General Lady's recommends.

Uh, this one is from Newsweek, July tenth, twenty twenty six. Trump's

c. d. c. stop monitoring explosive diarrhea parasite before outbreak.

Objection.

Um, this one is from the Texas Tribune. It is August twenty six, twenty twenty five, as measles exploded, West Texas officials looked to c. d. c. scientists, that was the Trump administration, no one answered.

No.

Objection.

The next one, c. d. c. scientists, this is from the Washington Post, Texas measles outbreak response hurt by funding cuts, Also, Trump administration. The CDC is struggling to respond to the measles outbreak in Texas. The US has reported more than seven hundred cases in twenty five states.

Objection.

And I got a lot more of these, but I'ma let make this one the last one. USA Today on July fourteenth, twenty twenty six, RFK's CDC, that's Trump's guy, cut back on parasite monitor monitoring. Then an outbreak expired. That's about the explosive diarrhea as well.

So.

With objection.

Oops.

Gentleman from uh Maryland's recogni ranking members' recogni

May thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh three UC requests, one is uh a statement from a hundred and fifteen civil rights and healthcare access and LGBTQ rights organizations, opposing of the legislation.

Ab Objection.

Um a uh a statement from the Human Rights Campaign, again urging opposition.

Objection.

And finally, this is um uh, excerpts from statements from more than thirty different major medical associations and world health authorities, supporting uh gender affirming care for young people.

Objection. Question occurs on the adoption of the amend

Five minutes for Mr. Eskin.

Yeah. I'm uh, yeah, if I could see five minutes, that's okay.

Of course, of course.

I I wanna thank you kindly.

Everyone's recognized.

Um, so, uh, first I wanted to pick up on what the distinguished gentleman from Texas was talking about with respect to gun violence. Gun violence is now the number one cause of death for children under seventeen years old or seventeen and under in the country. It is the leading cause of death in the country, and we've got jurisdiction over that. And this is the nth hearing we've had on different attempts to uh micromanage what the states do in regulating uh medical practice relating to transgender kids. And we're not dealing with an issue directly under our jurisdiction that is causing trauma in everybody's state uh and everybody's district, uh which is the the the slaughter of young people uh by gun violence. America is in a class by itself because of our extremely permissive and lax uh gun laws, and I would yield the next four minutes to uh to my friend from California.

Well, thank you, Michael, remember, uh you actually um brought up a good point about what this committee has jurisdiction over. Um and in uh relation to this bill, we know that the DOJ has issued a flurry of subpoenas to hospitals across the country, trying to obtain the medical records of transgender youth who have received gender affirming care so they are investigating these hospitals. And I was just wondering, because um you have so much more information, ranking member, do you know if the The DOJ is investigating this billion dollar mining deal with Kazakhstan between Trump uh and then Trump's kids and the Commerce Secretary's kids, I mean, are they spending important time investigating this?

I'm I'm aware of no such investigation, intent to doubt it, based on your description of the characters involved.

Yeah, I didn't I didn't think so, and yet they're chasing down medical records of private citizens and hospitals on this terror. I was also wondering if you'd heard whether or not the DOJ was investigating the potential pay-to-play scheme hatched possibly in BIS and Commerce Department, uh between UAE, United Arab Emirates, and World Liberty Financial, which is also an entity that is co-owned by Trump's son. This is a multi-hundred million dollar deal about AI being sold to ua do you know if the doj is investigating that

i've heard of no such investigation

i didn't think so either and then lastly since we keep bringing up this man uh the secretary of health and human services um i was wondering had you heard whether or not the doj had opened up an investigation into the allegations that a cabinet secretary has been meddling in elections

hmm

no i've not heard about that one either

well

so no i had neither and i was there are so many things that the DOJ could be investigating, legitimate issues that are hurting Americans, that are putting us and our national security at risk. And I am just wondering why the DOJ does not come before us to shed light on whether or not they are investigating into these potentially illegal, wildly problematic Schemes.

Well, th- th- you ask a a tough question and hold them to the high test of actually wanting them to engage in positive uh progress for the country, I'd be happy if they just ceased uh all of their projects that are undermining the rule of law. I mean, we we have hundreds of federal judges across the country who have been denouncing the Department of Justice for lying in court for withholding or misstating, or distorting evidence and for failing to comply with court orders. And we just saw from the Southern District of Florida this week, uh, Judge Williams, uh, finding, uh, finding lawyers, uh, guilty of Rule eleven violations and holding them, uh, for sanctions, uh, because of their concocted fraudulent settlement in Trump versus Trump, where he sued the government for ten billion dollars and then they engaged

Well, thank you, ranking member, for answering my questions. I yield you back your time.

You bet. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. The question occurs on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed p meet by a vote on favorably reporting the legislation. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no.

Oops.

Nay. No. Nay, nay, nay.

And

Nay.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

No.

Um The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Recorded.

Yes, I have it.

Recorded. Uh, according to what being requested, the clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan.

Yes.

Mister Jordan votes yes. Mister Issa. Mister Biggs. Mister Biggs votes aye. Mister McClintock. Mister McClintock votes aye. Mister Tiffany. Mister Massey. Mister Roy. Mister Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Bandrew. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Miss Hageman.

Aye.

Miss Hageman votes aye. Miss Leah Florida. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Frey. Mr. Keiley. Mr. Grothen.

Aye.

Mr. Grothen votes aye. Mr. Nott. Mister Harris. Mister Onder. Mister Onder votes aye. Mister Schmidt. Mister Gill. Mister Baumgartner. Mister Raskin.

No.

Mister Raskin votes no. Mister Nadler.

Where was it?

Miss Lofgren.

Oh.

Mister Cohen. Mister Johnson. Mister Liu. Miss Jayapal. Miss Jayapal votes no, Mr. Correa.

No.

Mr. Correa votes no, Miss Scanlon, Mr. Nagus, Miss McBath, Miss Ross, Miss Ballant, Miss Ballant votes no, Mr. Garcia.

No.

Mr. Garcia votes no, Miss Kamlager-Dove, Miss Kamlager-Dove votes no, Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett, Miss Crockett votes no, Miss Leah of Pennsylvania.

Yeah, that's a lot of votes.

mister more you're not recorded mr. moreyboats yes

I'm not recorded

mr. royer you're not recorded

ah

mr. royer boats aye

no sorry

gonna be here one army

Mr. Klein.

Aye. Aye.

Mr. Klein votes aye. Misleaf, Pennsylvania.

Yeah.

Misleaf, Pennsylvania votes now.

Mister Schmidt, you are not recorded. I thought they were either. Mister Schmidt votes aye. Mister Fry, you're not recorded. Mister Fry, that's I.

Mr. Mr. Harris. Yes. Mr. Harris votes yes. Yes. Mr. Kiley votes aye.

Oh, yeah.

Mister Baumgartner?

Yes.

Mister Baumgartner votes yes.

Uh, one thing is a big um, yeah, aye. Aye.

Mister Fitzgerald votes aye.

Clerk will report.

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

Uh, the ayes have it. The bill's ordered to be reported in 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 and conforming changes to c- That concludes the committee's business for this meeting. The meeting is adjourned.