Markup on Gun Tax, Torts, Secret Service, BOP Hiring, Fees, Racketeers, Climate

We can get started.

Oh.

Committee will come to order without objection. The chair has authorized a clear recess at any time pursuant to committee rule two,

Thank you.

house rule eleven clause two. The chairman may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. for which a recorded vote is ordered. Now recognize the gentlelady from Florida to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

Good to see everyone back for Thank you. Mark up today, let's call up uh pursuant to notice I call up H R ninety five O three the officer Leslie Kolfet uh Kofelt excuse me uh US Secret Service Police Act for purposes of mark up and move the committee report it favorably to the house the clerk will report the bill.

H R nine five zero three to change the name of the

Objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair is uh recognized for an opening statement. H R ninety five O three renames the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division as the United States Secret Service Police. This name change will better reflect the law enforcement work that officers carry out on uh every day and better communicate their authorities to members of the public who may interact with them first established by President Harding, Ohioan, one of the many Uh, and known as the White House uh uh Police, um, the uniformed division's mission has expanded and evolved over its hundred and four year history. Today the division has more than thirteen hundred officers and is responsible for protecting the White House complex the Vice President's residence, the Treasury Department, and foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington DC area. They also have a number of specialized mission teams like K nine teams, emergency response teams, counter-snipers teams, Bill is named for Officer Leslie Kofelt, the only Secret Service officer agent who was who has died while protecting the president. In November nineteen fifty, Officer Kofelt was stationed outside of Blair House, the guest house located across Pennsylvania Avenue, where President Truman was staying during White House renovations. Two Puerto Rican nationalists, excuse me, attacked Officer Kofelt, hoping to break inside and assassinate President Truman. The officer was shot multiple times but managed to return fire and kill one of the would-be assassins. Unfortunately, uh, he later succumbed excuse me, to his injuries. Officer Kohfeldt is representative of the highest ideals of the Secret Service, whose men and women willingly place themselves in harm's way to protect our elected leaders. Um, just this past week I saw um Mr. Curran, head of the Secret Service, and talk told him we were bringing this bill up. I think they're very excited about the uh the this uh this name change and this legislation and I would urge all members to support the bill I would yield back and recognize the ranking member for an opening statement.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, uh and thank you for reminding us that Ohio is where presidents come from. And I wish you well on your journeys over the next uh eight weeks, uh as you criss-cross the country.

Thank you.

Uh, and I am pleased to support H R nine five O three, the Officer Leslie Kofelt, US Secret Service Police Act of twenty twenty six, bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Moskowitz, Rutherford, Guest and Case. The bill changes the name of the US Secret Service Uniformed Division to the United States Secret Service Police. The name matters because the men and women of the division, described in statute as a permanent police force, are sworn federal officers who carry firearms, make arrests, conduct investigations, and put their lines on the line every single day to protect the White House, the Vice President's residents, foreign diplomatic missions, and people who are occupying our nation's highest offices. Since its start in nineteen twenty-two, the division has grown in size, scope of Responsibility and Specialization. It operates specialized teams that support the agency's worldwide mission, including the Emergency Response Team, the Canine Explosive Detection Unit, the Hazardous Agent Mitigation Medical Emergency Response Team, and others. The proposed name change would better reflect the division's current role, and align with the duties that it performs. The mission of the division is no less essential than that of the Secret Service's Special agents, officers in the uniformed division are a critical line of defense for the executive branch and foreign dignitaries they deserve a title that commands the same respect as every other police force in America. The bill is also a long overdue tribute to a hero, it's named for Officer Leslie Kohfeldt, a member of the uniformed division who gave his life defending President Truman during the nineteen fifty assassination attempt at Blair House. Officer Kohfeldt died while engaging the attackers becoming the first and only member of the White House Police as it was as it was then known to be killed in the line of duty. We honor his sacrifice and the commitment of all the officers who have served in their ranks. This legislation would update the US Code across multiple titles to ensure consistency that's critical for operational clarity and professional recognition. We urge all our colleagues to support the bill and let us give the officers the recognition they've earned and let us honor the memory of Officer Coffel. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, gentleman yields back without objection all of the opening statements will be included in the record uh the chair is recognized to um offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute clerk report.

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 base text uh for the purposes of the amendment. This amendment makes a small change to the title of the bill and does not change the substance of the legislation. Who seeks recognition?

This is nine five O three. Let me know when you're ready. No.

Yeah, OK.

Yeah, I don't have a lot of time. I got this if I have time.

No, you're fine. We we're uh if you wanna if you l General A from George is recognized.

Thank you so much, Chairman Jordan. Uh, I am pleased to support H R ninety five O three, the officer Leslie Kofelt, US Service uh Secret Service Police Act, which would officially change the name of United States Secret Service, Uniformed Division to the United States Service Secret Service Police in order to better reflect the work of the brave agents and officers in its ranks. As my colleagues have noted, uh Officer Kofelt was shot and killed in the line of duty while protecting President Truman. To this day, he remains the only U. S. Secret Service officer or agent to die while protecting a president. That is a risk that officers and agents are willing to take when they join the Secret Service. And throughout the course of history, they have repeatedly shown their bravery. Take, for example, Secret Service Uniformed Division Officer Victor Gonzalez. He was stationed at a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton during the t- twenty twenty-six White House correspondence, association's annual dinner, when an armed suspect attempted to breach the security perimeter. Thanks to the quick action of Officer Gonzalez, the suspect was prevented from advancing toward the event. The women and men of the Secret Service protect patrol and secure facilities and venues across the nation and the entire world. And they operate specialized teams from the counter sniper team to the emergency response team and more. I am very proud to vote for this bipartisan bill to honor Officer Kohfeldt and to better align the agency's name with its role and duties. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

I I thank the uh gentlelady and thank her for her support of the legislation. The questions on adoption of the amendment and the nature of 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 and pin the chair the ayes have it. And the amendment in the nature of substitute adopted the question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. And the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Committee will stand at ease as we're waiting for one of our colleagues who is the sponsor of the next legislation. Pursuant to notice, I call up H R thirty-three forty-two, the Bureau of Prisons' Direct Higher Authority Act for purpose of mark-up move the committee report it favorably to the house, the clerk will report the bill.

H R three three four two.

Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Grothman, the uh uh sponsor of the legislation is recognized for an opening statement.

I re- present Oxford, Wisconsin, where we have a wonderful federal prison, and I encourage all of my colleagues on the committee to tour their federal prisons. H R thirty three forty two, the uh uh uh Bureau of Prisons Direct Hire Authority Act is straightforward bill designed to help the Bureau of Prisons hire the staff they need to keep our federal prisons open. As soon as you tour one of these any facility you'll find out their big problem is they're not staffed enough. I'm proud to represent Bureau of Prisons employees who work at uh FCI Oxford and live in communities throughout Wisconsin's sixth congressional district. Um when I toured the facility the employees spoke with a The employees I spoke with made clear that staffing is their biggest challenge. For example, an applicant can spend more than a hundred days going through the Office of Personnel Management before the application even reaches the OP facility for consideration. And of course by then the applicants have taken a job at the state corrections, at the local county sheriffs, whatever. This existing bureaucratic approach to hiring exacerbates BOP's chronic staffing challenges, and we have seen real-world examples recently as a result. The bureau recently announced the closure of six federal prison facilities citing extreme staffing challenges. President Trump, BOP Director Marshall, and Republicans understand this issue. To help address the staffing issue, Congress gave BOP three billion dollars in additional funding. and the one big beautiful bill act to combat the agency's retention losses and hiring challenges. This is a strong first step, and I'd like to thank President Trump for his leadership. I hope other people don't vote against this bill cuz they just don't like the president. More work needs to be done. Congress stands ready to help. It should not take months to hire a qualified candidate, ready to do the job. Direct Higher Authority Act gives individual facilities the ability to direct hire for vacant positions until BOP staffing reaches sufficient levels. Cutting through unnecessary bureaucracy, this legislation was developed alongside BOP employees and is designed to strengthen the Bureau's workforce for years to come. Let's make sure our men and women in corrections have the tools and manpower they need to do their job effectively. I urge my colleagues to support HR thirty three forty two. And remember, the guys who work in the prisons want it. So we wanna make our correctional officers happy. And and the the management wanted it too. So unless we have a just ridiculous partisanship, we want these guys hired and it can't take forever to hire them or they'll get a job somewhere else in the interim which is what's happening now. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland for uh opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, we want to work with you to address the chronic under-staffing at the Bureau of Prisons. There is clearly a staffing shortage within the agency and both recruiting and retention have been challenging, particularly for facilities in distant and rural locations. But we've not had any opportunity to determine how the broad exclusion of civil and competitive service rules like the veterans' preference granted by this measure would even work at the agency or whether it's the appropriate solution to the staffing challenges. The Bureau's been plagued by a multitude of problems that interfere with the agency's ability to carry out its mission of protecting public safety by providing humane and secure incarceration, as well as opportunities for inmates to improve themselves and become productive citizens upon release. I expressed similar sentence sentiments in my opening statement at a hearing titled federal corrections in focus oversight of the Bureau of Prisons a year and a half ago. Although we had a good conversation with individuals across the spectrum uh about chronic understaffing and underfunding uh which have forced employees to work to the point of exhaustion, leading to burnout and low morale. the majority has not acted to respond to the problem. We have not had a regular oversight hearing with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons about solutions. We've not had the opportunity to ask the Director how he would implement and use the authority suggested in this bill, or whether he needs additional resources or other authorities to fully staff the Bureau. We don't even know how the Director is using the current direct hiring authority that BOP was granted by the OPM back in twenty twenty four. We don't know whether the director believes this bill is the solution for a BOP staffing issues. We don't know how he would implement direct hire authority across BOP, uh, to what facilities he would assert this authority or to what positions he would apply it. Here's what we do know. The most recent official staffing data we have for BOP shows that an employed twelve thousand three hundred correctional officers in twenty twenty four. BOP's website today shows eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty correctional officers in pay status as of August of this year. Just last year, Congress gave the Bureau of Prisons a supplemental appropriation of three billion dollars to address its staffing issues. We had to do this. because the administration created chaos at BOP, expecting it to fix its urgent staffing crisis on the same shoestring budget, canceling recruitment and retention-based incentives, and refusing to honor the collective bargaining agreement with federal unions, um, representing BOP's staff. Trump's actions triggered mass resignations among BOP employees who were already stretched too thin and yet here we are proposing to award this administration for its egregious mismanagement and bad behavior that have made the situation much worse. This should be called the " throwing good money after bad" act. Nearly a year after his emplo- appointment and after the BOP director had not yet come before the committee, my colleagues, including Ranking Member McBath and I sent a letter to the director. We expressed our concern about the ongoing staff shortages at BOP facilities which jeopardized the safety and security of both staff and inmates. In an effort to understand the director's plans, we asked for written responses to questions in the letter. We learned in a response that BOP had lost two hundred and seventy-six officers to DHS in twenty twenty five and during the historic Republican shutdown last year, BOP lost five hundred and twenty-five staff for reasons including working conditions and more competitive pay available elsewhere. Nowhere in BOP's response, however, was a request for more direct higher authority applied to all positions or for near total exemption from the rules of civil service hiring like the veterans' preference. Whether BOP even wants or needs the authority we're proposing to give them today remains perfectly unclear. So let's run through a sampling of what thirty three forty two would do. It would eliminate the legal requirement that BOP give hiring preferences to veterans. Think about that. Veterans make up less than ten percent of BOP's staff, well behind the average for other federal agencies. Our veterans have made great sacrifices to serve and to keep everybody safe. Giving them preference in r- in hiring is the right thing to do, and it's the law. This bill would break that promise. Trump and uh his supporters portrayed themselves as champions of veterans in the military while we can show it by rejecting this broad brush approach. The bill would also allow the BOP to turn back the clock on Congress's efforts to modernize federal hiring, exempting BOP from the Chance to Compete Act, which passed with significant bipartisan support two years ago. the law requires that agencies within the executive branch conform their hiring practices to twenty-first century standards, making government more responsive to the needs of the needs of the people that we serve, and more cost-efficient. Such extraordinary measures as being suggested here are all the more difficult to justify, at a time when BOP is giving special deluxe VIP room service special privilege treatment to Glane Maxwell, while employees blowing the whistle on all of this egregious favoritism are being summarily fired by the prison. An efficient, fully staffed BOP is essential. We have borne witness to the outrageous deadly consequences that flow from rushed standardless hiring under the administration. There are clear lessons to be learned from this history, people from people like Pam Bondi, Christy Noem, Pete Hegseth, who even a lot of Republicans want us to impeach now. And we've seen the dangers from mass unregulated hiring in ICE. We saw the the officer, ICE officer in Vermont, uh, who turns out had engaged in domestic violence against two of his wives and had thrown his daughter through a class table. But, uh, our colleagues appear to have learned nothing from this experience. This bill would bestow even greater hiring flexibility and lawlessness on BOP than ICE has. We should not allow the lawlessness to spread. We're twenty-four hours away from the end of this session, and we're left to guess whether BOP, um, even thinks about this bill. This is not how we should be legislating. Until we've heard from the director, appearing in a regular oversight hearing, we must let this let let this legislation go. While I must vote no on the measure before us today, we hope to work with you, Mister Chairman, on finding real solutions to the BOP's persistent staffing challenges. And I urge our colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.

Objection. All of the opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

An amendment at the desk.

Click a report.

Amendment and the nature of its substance.

Objection, the amendment nature is absolutely considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of the amendment the chair recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin to explain the amendment.

This amendment simply adds the year to the short title of the bill. It's not intended in any way to alter the ultimate uh the important purpose of this bill. I urge support for my amendment. And I yield back. After one more time urging my colleagues to tour their prison while they'll

Gentlemen.

find all of their local unions and local administration demands this bill.

Gentlemen yields back.

Mr. Chairman, could I just uh have a unanimous consent request?

Uh without uh gentlemen proceed.

This is from my union local president, uh David Dimas, AFGE, CPL thirty three. um, who uh writes in to oppose uh this legislation saying that it needs a lot more oversights and safeguards in study.

It's objection.

Who seeks recognition?

Who seeks recognition?

General Leidy from George is recognized.

General Leidy from George is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. BLP definitely has critical staffing needs that it urgently needs to address, and the problem is pervasive, it is persistent, it is serious, It's been spanning decades in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Understaffing at BOP facilities jeopardizes the health and the safety of the staff and also the inmates. It prevents BOP from fulfilling its duty to ensure the prisoners are prepared to return to their communities. And I must say, I personally have spent time with the previous uh Director of the Federal Board of Prisons as well as the present Director. However, while I am committed to supporting BOP's efforts to increase its ranks and perform its crucial mission, I cannot support H. R. thirty-three forty-two at this time. This bill would undermine the integrity of civil service hiring, which the Trump administration has often targeted without sufficient justification being presented to this committee. We are being asked to legislate based on nothing more than simply guesswork. Neither my subcommittee nor this committee has held an oversight hearing with the director of the Board of Prisons. The only information that we have about the status of staffing and hiring at the Board of Prisons is based on internet searches and one letter. PLP's chief of the Office of Legislative Affairs responded to our letter of inquiry that ranking member Raskin and I sent to Director Marshall along with Representative uh Crockett and Neguse, and the American people, they expect and they should receive an answer. They deserve that. This measure would allow the Trump administration to hire staff of all kinds. From correctional officers to doctors to nurses and counselors at prisons and other custodial facilities across the country with very, very few guardrails. In twenty twenty four, the Office of Personnel Management granted BLP direct higher authority to fulfill two thousand five hundred and one correctional officer positions nationwide. Under this statutory authority, BLP may hire applicants without having to consider some statutory and regulatory requirements related to civil service hiring. The bill before us today would exempt BOP from nearly all statutory civil service requirements. This administration would be constrained by just two civil service requirements across all positions. What would that mean? For starters, it would take away hiring preferences for but veterans, as has already been expressed. And their spouses, along with standards for equating military service and work experience, I do not understand how anybody thinks this is a good idea. Perhaps a hearing on direct hire authority, civil service hiring requirements under DOJ, or yes, BLP oversight with the director would have enlightened me. Civil service civil service promises that military service accounts, uh, service counts in the federal job market, that promise has stood, uh, for generations, and our veterans make up more than one quarter of the federal workforce overall, but less than eight percent of BLP employees. This insensitive proposal, I say, yes, it is insensitive because it would allow BLP to stop hiring veterans altogether. BLP would also not have to comply with the Chance to Comp- Compete Act, legislat- legislation that I voted for, along with every Republican member of this committee, including the sponsor of this bill. It makes no sense to exempt BLP from a law aimed at making our government op- operate far more efficiently. Why would we allow this when BLP has suffered under inadequate hiring practices for decades? I have committed myself to supporting BLP's mission. I have spent a lot of time on this kind of legislation. I became a member of Cong- Congress because of it, but I simply cannot support this bill. I'm happy to work across the aisle to help BLP with the staffing issues I've done many times before. I've helped craft the Federal Prison Oversight Act to ensure health and safety of everyone in our BLP facilities. That bill passed following several investigations in the Senate, discussions with officials from BLP, DOJ, and the Office of the Inspector General, and negotiations across several House and Senate committees. We have not come close to that kind of del- deliberation in this committee when it comes to this bill and it's for these reasons that I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We can do better than this. We must do better than this. And I yield.

General Lea Yields back, gentleman from Arizona is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Bureau of Prisons cannot hire fast enough to keep its own officers safe, to keep the inmates safe, and to keep the public safe. Right now, nearly one fourth of all BOP employment positions are vacant. Think about that. Nearly twenty-five percent of all BOP employment positions are vacant. Every one of those vacancies means fewer officers watching more inmates, fewer medical personnel, fewer administrative personnel. And that constitutes a safety problem for the officers and staff who show up to work every day, and for the public that depends on the f- those facilities running safely, and for the inmates as well. One of the reasons they have trouble hiring is that because before BOP can bring on a single new corrections officer, it has to route that application through the Office of Personnel Management. And that process alone can add more than a hundred days, sometimes a half a year or even more, before a qualified candidate ever reports for duty. Very few people uh can stand sitting around waiting that length of time because they simply can't afford it economically. They can't endure and they end up taking a job somewhere else. State, whether it's state prisons, local police departments, other federal agencies, they're all competing for uh this these people and they are moving faster than Washington can. H. R. thirty-three forty-two fixes this the simple way. gives the director of the Bureau of Prison's direct higher authority to the ability to bring on qualified candidates including veterans without waiting. The, let me repeat that. The director can bring on qualified candidates, including veterans. BOP should not have to wait to hire the people it already knows it needs, and who have and have they've determined to be qualified. I have sat with VOP Director Marshall and with representatives of people who work in these facilities. The local unions indicate to me that they want more people hired. They're overworked, they're overstressed, they're in danger, they're in jeopardy. Many of them love working in the Bureau of Prisons but are considering leaving because the stress is too much and part of why this reason that we can't get more people hired, is because of the current process. These individuals are not divided on this issue. Management wants it and the officers want it. When the people running the agency and the people doing the hardest job inside it agree on a fix, Congress should listen. It is a rare case where everybody closest to the problem is already pointing to the same solution, and all we have to do is get out of the way and let them hire. Give the Bureau of Prisons the authority to hire its own people, pass H. R. thirty-three forty-two, and let's get our prisons staffed and our officers safe, and restore safety to the inmates and the public as well. I yield that.

Gentleman yields back.

Gentleman yields back. Jolene from California is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, you know I uh appreciate the discussion around this bill because um we don't talk about it enough uh I have been to the federal prisons I've been to federal prisons, I've been to the federal detention facilities, I've been to the state prisons, I've been to the county jails, I've been all up in all of these places. And you're right. Um, every single jurisdiction can do better, including especially the federal government. I've been listening to some of the comments, and absolutely it is important that you keep, uh, the folks that are in and around these federal prisons safe. The folks who are in there uh, the incarcerated people as well as the folks who are working in there, and yes, the vendors that come in and out and the community members that live in proximity. You know, I cannot support this bill, um, but I do support the intent I do think we should have a robust process when it comes to who you're hiring. I was thinking if you have a school and you need teachers, if you have a a small business and you need to hire people, you don't just say, okay, get me anybody off the street, you're still looking for folks who are trained, who are going to understand the organizational culture. and who will be able to be successful in those jobs. And so maybe it's not the process, maybe it's how the process is being implemented, and that doesn't always require legislation. Maybe people don't wanna stay in these prisons working there because maybe they don't like the pay, or maybe they don't like the leadership. Maybe they have questions about the integrity of the protocols that are coming down that they don't jive with, because sometimes those protocols are not keeping them safe. Maybe, instead of trying to fire all of these federal workers, like we did with Doge, like you did with Doge, you should probably have more people at the computers, have more people doing the research, have more people at the phones, to alleviate the stress that the folks that are actually walking the yard might feel. You know? There are, there has been an increase in suicides of folks who work in federal prisons. There has been an uptake in suicides. There has been an uptake in sexual assaults of both men and female employees working in these prisons. Why don't you address that? Because incarcerated people are being sexually assaulted and folks who are working in these prisons. There is a reason why they are stressed out, and it is not just because there are a lot of vacancies. We should be working to address the vacancies, but we should also be looking at the culture within these facilities to find out exactly why people are stressed and depressed and feeling unable to do their job successfully in these environments. So I would just ask that we have further real bipartisan conversations about how the prisons are run, about what kind of protocols are in place, about what kind of training and mental and psychological supports are available for the folks that are working in these facilities, what they are seeing every day, what they are being asked to do every day, if they are being hazed, how they are being supported, we should be having real conversations about that and then also having conversations about the culture within the facilities and the leadership. So, I can't support this bill because while I think the intent is good, there are just so many other questions that deserve some time and consideration um that don't seem to be in this particular piece of legislation and with that I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Who seeks recognition? Wisconsin. Gentleman from Wisconsin.

I got a unanimous request to submit two things. Uh, one uh from the website of the American Federation of Government Employees, Council of Prison Locals, uh statement in December of twenty twenty three, in favor of this legislation in twenty twenty three, and then a quote from the N-

Without objection.

and thank you. And then a quote um from again uh National President of council of prison locals as recently as two thousand twenty five in favor of this piece of legislation which is since they were gung-ho on this and brought it to me and were gung-ho in favor of it two twenty three and two twenty five the general belief just so you know among all republicans is the one things that's changed is we are just going with uh

With without objection.

Thank you.

Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from uh Maryland.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh I have some UC requests, um Newsmax, September fifteenth, twenty twenty six, ICE fires new hires after vetting red flags emerge.

Without objection.

Uh Uh this is Associated Press, February eleventh this year, several ICE agents were arrested in recent months, showing risks of misconduct.

Without objection.

uh Washington Post dot com September fifteen this year, ISIS quietly firing new hires for one recruit, it was devastating.

Without objection.

And July twenty fourth, twenty twenty six, dozens of ICE and CBP agents have abused women and children, Mother Jones.

Without objection.

Um and finally that Mister Chairman did uh I guess I would submit to legislation itself for the record, the there's language that's missing as to which title um hiring authority is being waived for. And so if I'm just suggest somebody clean that up because it's not clear w- what title is being referred to in section two A.

Without objection, so I'll put this part of the record already. Uh, who else seeks recognition? Seeing none, the question is on adoption of the amendment and the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a voice vote on reporting the bill. Or excuse me, by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

No.

In opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended.

Mm.

All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no.

No.

The ayes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. And Bruce will have two days to submit views uh re

I'd like to requ- request a recorded vote, Mr.

Recorded vote has been uh requested. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan. Mister Isow. mr. biggs

aye

mr. biggs votes aye mr. mclintock mr. tiffany mr. massey mr. roy

aye

mr. roy votes aye mr. fitzgerald mr. klein mr. gooden mr. van drew mr. nels mr. moore miss hageman miss leah florida miss leah florida votes aye mr. hunt Mr. Frey. Mr. Kiley. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Grothman votes aye. Mr. Nott. Mr. Harris. Mr. Onder. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.

No.

Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlon. Mr. Naguse. Miss McBath. Miss Ross. Miss Balint. Miss Balint votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Miss Grockett. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Mr. Jordan Mr. Jordan votes yes Mr. Naught

Yes

Mr. Naught votes yes Mr. Gill

Yes

Mr. Gill votes yes

Juneteenth from California.

Miss Lofgren? Miss Lofgren votes no. Mister Gooden? Mister Gooden votes yes. miss mcbath you are not recorded miss mcbath votes no Mr. Nadler.

Stay gone.

Mr. Nadler votes no.

Gentleman from California, Mister McClintock.

Mister McClintock.

Aye.

Mister McClintock, that's I.

Okay.

Mr. Baumgartner votes yes. Mister Harris, you are not recorded.

Yes.

Mister Harris beds, yes. Mister Liu, you are not recorded.

No.

Mister Liu votes no. Mr. Klein.

Yes.

Mr. Klein votes yes. Mister Kiley, you're not recorded. Mister Kiley, that's I.

How we doing?

mister fry you are not recorded mister fry that's aye

recorded

mister fitzgerald you are not recorded mister fitzgerald that's aye Miss Hageman, you are not recorded. Miss Hageman votes aye.

Clerk report.

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

The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill report is a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating all adoptive amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes pursuant to notice. I call up HR ninety eight thirty four no racketeers on our shores act for purposes of mark up and move the committee report it favorably to the house the clerk report the bill without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point the gentleman from the great state of Washington is recognized, mister Baumgartner, for his opening statement.

Thank you, mister chair. I appreciate the committee taking up H R nine eight three four, the No Racketeers on Our Shores Act. Our oversight has uncovered a serious and growing problem. Foreign officials using the machinery of foreign governments, investigations, fines, licensing decisions, tax assessments, and regulatory demands to single out American companies while shielding similarly situated domestic competitors. American companies should compete ag- uh abroad on the strength of their products and innovation, not against the tilted playing field imposed by foreign bureaucrats. We want fair competition and fierce competition, but it must be fair. The question is how the United States should respond when our companies are unfairly targeted, and is the existing tool kit of potential measures adequate? A domestic, a diplomatic demarche or bilateral engagement may be appropriate, and often it is. But those tools do not always impose a direct consequence on the individual official's responsible. At the other end of the spectrum in the tool kit is a formal trade dispute, or a section three O one process that can carry broad economic and diplomatic consequences. In essence, this bill creates a scalpel, uh, to deal with this issue. Bill creates a targeted r- rung between these two options. It gives our diplomats another tool to address discriminatory treatment before it es- escalates further. Foreign officials who personally weaponize government power to discriminate against Americans should not expect the privilege of entering or remaining in the United States. If you're unfairly targeting American companies, you shouldn't expect to be bringing your family to Disneyland. This bill is carefully drawn. It does not prevent foreign governments from enforcing legitimate laws or regulating American companies on equal terms. It applies only when an American person is subject to treatment more severe, more fraudulent, or less procedurally in favor than that imposed on a similarly situated non-American party. Access to the United States is not an entitlement for foreign officials who abuse state power. Our approach is modeled on the same basic approach of the No Censors on Our Shores Act, which responds to foreign officials who seek to censor Americans beyond their borders. And it reflects the principles already embodied in our immigration laws, denying visas to foreign officials and particularly severe violations of religious freedom. H. R. nine eight three four is a measured, practical response to a real problem, identified through this committee's oversight. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back, Mister Chair.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland for an opening statement.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Uh, I s- rise to strongly oppose this legislation at a time when we should be working on reining in the chaotic and profoundly costly and profligate trade war that President Trump is waging against our good neighbor and major trading partner, and close democratic ally Canada, this bill would give the administration yet another weapon to escalate its lawless and incoherent and arbitrary conflicts against Canada and other countries around the world instead of working to reduce the economic wreckage from President Trump's drive-by tariff wars Republicans are pushing strange legislation that would allow an administration official to decide that foreign government officials should not be allowed to set foot in the United States because that foreign official participated in enforcing a law that the administration unilaterally deems to be economically discriminatory. So it's not, it's not enough for them that there is a full-blown Canadian trade boycott against America, which is killing people throughout the northern tier of the country, and putting small businesses out of business. Now, um, they wanna specifically target foreign government officials with this new tool that will be um in the President Trump's tool kit just to unilaterally declare someone to be e- economically discriminatory. This is what the No Racketeers on Our Shores Act does. It's a bad idea intrinsically brought at a conveniently horrible time. We should be under no illusion about how this power will be used and abused and how much worse it will make an already vexed and wretched situation caused by the President's terrible trade policies. For years, President Trump, ever the victim, has attacked Canada for taking advantage of us. He's called the border between our countries an artificial line, and suggested that it should just be erased by him. He has threatened to use quote " economic force" to bring Canada into the United States as our fifty-first state. the first state that would be uh entered against its will. And he has demeaned its prime ministers by calling them future governors of the fifty-first state. Uh, and he imposed tariffs uh that have uh primarily hurt American citizens. Um, The tariffs are on us, not on the foreign government. Somebody please explain to Donald Trump that when he imposes a tariff on Canadian products that's paid for by American businesses and therefore American consumers. It's not paid for by the Canadian government or the Chinese government. Please, will someone educate him as to that fact? Um, so this is the context in which Republicans now want to hand the administration yet another tool to wield with uh standardless discretion. Canada is not a hostile foreign power. It is not an autocracy and kleptocracy like Russia, which is lorded over by the former head of the KGB, Vladimir Putin. Canada is not a communist dictatorship. like uh the kind run by Donald Trump's best buddy Kim Jong-un and President Xi, who he has praised in public more than two dozen times, the chair of the Chinese Communist Party. That's not what Canada is. Canada is one of our two or three largest trading partners in the world, a close democratic ally that has stood up with us against authoritarian enemies around the world. Our economies, our supply chains, and our people are deeply intertwined. In twenty twenty four, Canada was the single largest destination for U. S. exports and the third largest source of U. S. imports. And now they're boycotting us, Mr. Chairman. You go to the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, go to the Adirondacks in New York. go to the Boundary Waters, go to Vermont and talk to people, all they're talking about is the fact that the Canadians are boycotting us. Our closest trading partner are boycotting us because of the completely unstable, unpredictable, impetuous behavior of Donald Trump. For generations the American government has understood the disagreements with our allies should be resolved through diplomacy. trade negotiations in international law. If there is a real disagreement, but certainly we shouldn't be responding to figments of problems in the president's head to wage war against one of our closest allies, countries do enforce their own laws. Companies can challenge those laws. Governments can negotiate. That is international commerce. That's not racketeering. Yet here we are. So, um, the basis for punishment in this legislation, quote, " economic discrimination", invites now mass retaliation against America all over the world. After all, the president seems like he's playing bingo or pulling bingo numbers out of a bingo console, which is sometimes called a squirrel cage. That's what we call it in Maryland. Um. And it's like he's pulling numbers out and then they're applied to countries. So, anybody know what the the tariff is on Canada now? Fifty percent. But what's the tariff against China? Oppressing the Uighurs. Oppressing the Tibetans. Oppressing the Chinese people. That's twenty five percent. Well, what's the tariff against France? What they do recently. Something that Donald Trump didn't like, cuz now that's a two hundred percent tariff against them for alcohol. What's Saudi Arabia? I don't think there's any special tariff against Saudi Arabia, but I haven't checked their ratings this week. Um, so on the neologistic, in irrational terms of this legislation, all of this would be economic discrimination leveled by the president, and now that would set up our government officials from not being able to go to their countries. under the terms of this bizarre legislation. And we know this is part of a broader effort to shield some of America's big tech companies from accountability when other democracies enforce their generally applicable universal laws. We all see the consequences of unconstrained and ungoverned big tech senior citizens subjected to online scams, consumers victimized by fraud, children subjected to online abuse, and exposed to dangerous illegal content and so on. The EU has enacted what it believes are common sense on-line safety privacy and consumer production laws to address these problems and it's enforced them against all companies, including those that are American. I'm sorry, that's not discrimination. So, the the reason that governments uh are engaged in those kinds of actions is because they are acting in the interests of They're people. Um, and our president meantime is just handing out random arbitrary bizarre h- tariffs to different countries. So the last thing that we should be doing is now legislating a new concept of economic discrimination that's going to come back to haunt us. What we need now is not another unchecked unilateral presidential power in the field, but a fair and predictable economic foreign policy that does not malign and antagonize our closest allies in the world. Our Republican colleagues should not confuse differences in public policy approaches with criminal racketeering. Countries like Canada have been our ally, our neighbor, and one of our most important economic uh partners for generations, for centuries. The last thing we should do is give this president yet another tool to tear apart our fundamental economic and political relationships. I urge all of our colleagues to look at what's going on and to join us in opposing this legislation and yield back, Mister Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from um Washington is recognized for um Amendment n- the ANN, uh, a m- amendment nature substitute.

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

Click a report.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to

Without objection, the amendment nature substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base tax for the purposes of amendment. The gentleman is now recognized to explain the amendment.

Uh, this amendment updates the year and the title of the bill. The amendment is not intended in any way to alter the substance or important purpose of the bill. I have support for my appendant, uh, my amendment, and I yield back, and I also have somebody to enter into the record. May.

Uh, the gentleman is recognized for uh

Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I have a uh proclamation from President Obama uh dated July twenty fifth, two thousand eleven, presidential proclamation suspension of entry of aliens subject to United Nations Security Council travel bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act sanctions sanctions. I can't read it on record.

Objection.

Thank you.

Who seeks recognition?

Gentleman from New York.

Gentleman from New York is recognized.

Mister Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mister Chairman, this legislation is yet another example of how big tech is using its relationship with the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to get special treatment. As the President directed trade barriers with with foreign government countries and embraced tariffs on all sorts of consumer goods, raising prices for American consumers in the process. Big tech and major AI companies leveraged their relationships with the President and poured millions of dollars into his coffers to make sure that their products were carved out helping them prosper even as small businesses across the country struggled under inconsistent and burdensome tariff rules. We have also seen these companies push broad state preemption of key AI safety rules. to ensure that federal agencies could not enforce the law, the laws that Congress entrusted them with, and to make sure that foreign policy interests serve their in- foreign p- that foreign policies serve their interests before the interests of the American public. And now we have another giveaway to the big tech industry. This bill would give the executive branch broad discretion to block entry of or to deport any past, present, or future foreign government official who works to protect their own consumers, just for the doing their jobs. Under this bill's very broad definition of what constitute of what would constitute economic discrimination, just one person in Trump's executive branch could enact visa sanctions against any foreign government official who dares to attempt to regulate this powerful industry. In doing so, this bill would give the federal government another tool to further isolate the US from our allies and to undermine the enforcement of any foreign laws, even ones that are much like our own. For example, as justification for this bill, the majority pointed to a billion dollar fine levied by the European Union against Google for Google's anti-competitive practices in search and on their app marketplace as an example of economic discrimination. But Google's clearly anti-competitive actions that the EU that the EU sought to curb are exactly the same ones this committee documented in our two thousand twenty big tech report and which we worked to address through legislation. Just as in the EU, regulators and private plaintiffs in the US have also acted to investigate and to bring claims against Google for its monopolistic practices in searches and apps. But instead of building on this common ground and common goal to bring tech to hea- to bring big tech to heel to protect consumers in competition, this bill would enable the Trump administration to tell the world, only we get to enforce the law. Under this bill, no other country could enforce its own laws, levy a fine or tax, or even start an investigation into an American individual or company without fearing visa sanctions and deportation of their government officials from the US. This could have a dramatic impact on our relationship with countries around the world. It is dangerous to give any administration this power. But it is especially dangerous with this administration, which has already proven that it will that it will wield its power as a cudgel against friends and enemies alike, with no regard for the consequences. As a result, we are be- becoming more isolated, and our greatest allies have concluded that they can no longer depend on us. This will only leave us weaker in a more dangerous world. We should not give the Trump administration another tool with which to upset the international order that has kept us safe for decades. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and I yield back

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, I will.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Nettler. Um, I want to submit for the record an article from the uh from Reuters dot com called " Looking for Disney magic elsewhere, Canadians' lead declines in travel US". So maybe you don't care about Vermont or upstate New York or Michigan or Minnesota. Maybe you care about Florida. Look at look at this. Um, in twenty twenty four, last year the data was available. Canada was the top market for visitors to Orlando, home of Walt Disney World, with a record one point two million. Visitors, now it's they're seeing a dramatic drop in Canadians going to Disney World. They quoted one Canadian, Catherine Norris from Toronto, quote, "We're huge Disney lovers, but given the current political climate, we're not traveling anywhere in the US." She and her husband have booked a Disney vacation in Europe instead they're going to Euro Disney instead of to Disney World. Same thing in Disneyland. It's affecting even the hotels and motels um around US National Parks. Australia-based Intrepid Travel, which offers over three hundred US national tourist set bookings, are down forty-two percent for for twenty twenty six in general, with Canadian bookings plunging ninety-three percent. They're boycotting America right now. The gentleman jokes about, well, take your family somewhere else. You might think you're just addressing a government official. You're addressing their whole country. That's killing our businesses here. Right now that is taking place. You gotta vote no on this thing.

A yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Texas recognized.

Uh, thanks, Chairman.

Um, this, uh, legislation is, um, not as frightening as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making it out to be. Uh,

in general,

I'm certainly supportive of any legislation that, um, puts up some barriers to the massive flood of, frankly, anyone,

anyone at all.

who's been coming to the United States here for now, uh, as long as I can remember. Uh, we're watching our nation get absolutely bombarded without restriction, um, mostly because my colleagues on the left don't seem to mind, but I would have to acknowledge also because many on my side of the aisle are captured by Chamber of Commerce and people who wanna given to the cheap labor crowd and Wall Street Journal editorials. Fact of the matter is our country has been getting decimated for the better part of three to five decades with an absolutely abhorrent immigration policy. People on my side of the aisle complain about illegal immigration, yet feign some sort of actual strength on the issue while giving in to massive swarms of legal immigration, legal immigration that has been decimating our country for my entire lifetime. I wish we were taking up in addition to this bill, which I will vote for in support.

Um,

and by the way, I wanna uh thank the chairman for us moving through in July a bill to codify the Trump s- security measures that reflected a great deal of what we accomplished in H. R. Two and the previous Congress, uh, that would codify the absolute abomination that is the abuse of our asylum laws, our parole laws, catch and release, Flores, uh,

unaccompanied alien children,

And yet we have not moved it on the House floor.

And that is a mistake. Um,

and we had to force it through to get it through to committee in July.

And now,

uh, we're looking at, uh, this legislation again, which I support, but we should take up more aggressive litigation uh legislation. For example, uh, the, uh, Pause Act, which I introduced about a year ago.

uh,

which would freeze immigration until we end the many ways in which both legal and illegal immigration are absolutely destroying

our country. The PAUSE Act,

which is H. R. six two two five, would say, look, we're gonna freeze it until we address massive issues here in the United States, issues such as pleiler veto, the Supreme Court opinion that does not allow states to make decisions about whether or not they have to provide tax payer funded education for the children of those who come here illegally to the United States or dealing with, for example, the birthright citizenship issue, which still needs to be dealt with and that Congress should not run away from, simply because the court made up out of whole cloth something that does not exist in the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and which will itself, destroy our country. ending chain migration and diversity visa programs, limiting entries to spouses and unmarried minor children, and ending the practice of admitting extended family members instead of nuclear family members or being picked based on mere luck. That is the state of your immigration system, America, and it continues as we continue to have some five hundred thousand Chinese students allegedly coming to our country. uh prohibiting the entry of Sharia law adherents, Chinese Communist Party members,

known as suspected terrorists.

We are still importing people who adhere to Sharia law and have values that are distinctly abhorrent to the American values. Barring non-citizens from accessing means-tested federal programs like SNAP, SSI, TANF, Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, federal student loans and public housing, all of which still occurs, notwithstanding what is uh currently put out as the law or the policy. ending adjustment status of the H one B visas which have been abused to the detriment of not just uh Texas not just Dallas Fort Worth but our entire nation these are all things that have been abhorrently done to the people of the United States and we should address them so it is my belief that we should be pulling up more aggressive uh legislation like the pause act that we should be pulling up more aggressive legislation like, for example, designating Hamas affiliates affiliates in America Act, which would designate cares, a specially designated terrorist group, freezing its financial streams, which we have not pulled up and not considered or not put on the House floor. Why not?

That would be my question.

I appreciate the gentleman's legislation. I think it's one step of many that we need to take to try to limit the uh flow of people into this country who literally do not adhere to our values, share our values or support the interest of the United States of America. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The

Sure, sure.

I think I have the gentleman from Georgia and I'll come to Vermont. Uh, gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

Uh, thank you, I would remind you that uh immigration built this country, immigrants built this country. When the Europeans came to the country in sixteen O seven, they were immigrants. Um, but anyway, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to this bill. Trump and MAGA Republicans are always trying to put Elon Musk and big tech oligarchs like him in positions to make more money at our expense. That's not common sense, ladies and gentlemen. That's crazy. Trump has solicited, actually he has extorted, money from corporate leaders, and they happily give it in exchange for access and favors. Google contributed roughly twenty-five million dollars towards Trump's ballroom, while Microsoft gave around ten million dollars. Amazon gave roughly five million dollars, but that was after paying Melania Trump forty million dollars up front. for her blockbuster movie about herself and um Mark Zuckerberg and Meta gave more than ten million dollars. Big Tech has already used its cozy relationship with Trump

Yeah.

and MAGA Republicans to help their industry at our expense. And this bill is just one more example of that. Other countries have enacted laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers from big-text monopoly power, from mis- and disinformation, and from on-line hate and harassment. In some places, like the European Union, countries are working together to promote competition, privacy, platform accountability, AI safety, and on-line safety. Unsurprisingly, The tech bros don't like that. They don't like regulation. They would rather be able to operate unchecked, doing whatever makes them more money, no matter the consequences to everyday people. So MAGA Republicans are trying to help them make more money with this bill, which would chill law enforcement by foreign governments. further erode our relationship with other countries, and undermine global efforts to rein in anti-competitive, unlawful and dangerous conduct by large US companies. Because I care about the American people rather than the tech oligarchs, or I should say, broligarchs. I oppose this bill and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition. It's time we worked together with our allies to put guardrails on AI and to bring big tech bros accountable. And uh I'd be glad to yield to the ranking member if he's uh in need of anything.

Um, thank you very much, thank you for those uh thoughtful comments. uh, Congressman Johnson, I wanted to uh also introduce for the record um another uh article that we pulled up about how uh the president's uh lawless and selective trade wars are undermining the American people. Um, here's one uh comes from the Orlando Sentinel. Uh, " Oh Canada, Florida's Florida tourism numbers dip driven by Canadian backlash over trade policies. Um,

The objection.

and here's a another one from CNBC. Uh, nations reject Trump's arbitrary tariffs. This is from CNBC, um, from July twenty fourth. Uh, look,

The objection.

the the this legislation uh, tries to paste the label of economic discrimination on other countries, when that, alas, is a perfect description of what's taking place from the Oval Office, where the President wakes up and whimsically, randomly, arbitrarily just decides to slap fifty percent tariffs on Canada. Um, fifteen percent on this country, ten percent on that country. Of course, the the ones that are the real human rights violators, the authoritarian governments never seem to be the target of his ire. It's always the NATO countries, the free countries of the world who are trying to stop the Chinas and the Russias and the Saudi Arabia uh R- Arabian governments from uh imposing human rights violations on their people um so this is a uh a a dangerous uh, bill which would, uh, add to simply another arrow to the quiver that, uh, Donald Trump has or thinks he has, uh, to attack other countries. And I just don't know why we would, um, you know, feed more fuel to the fire. Thank you and I yield back to you.

Yeah, uh, uh, Mister Ranking Member, it's not common sense. It's crazy what they're trying to do. And with that, I yield back.

Gentlemen, I'll just back up, I just remind my my colleagues on the Democrat side that this is this bill is not about tariffs. This bill is about it simply says if you're a foreign official engaged in discriminating against an American company in your country, that you want a visa to come to United States, our State Department may say, no, we don't think we should do that. And I would just point you to the report that the committee released two months ago close for competition, South Korea's discriminatory attacks on American-owned business. And the company they went after is Coupang, a great American company, by the way, the second largest employer in the country of South Korea. And they harassed these guys forever, fined them, investigated them. They even said they're gonna arrest the CEO. And the and the people of South Korea love this company. They got like fi- five billion dollars in American goods and services that that happened in twenty last year alone a hundred different fulfillment centers that that distributed these five million goods last year so that's all this bill does that the the gentleman from Washington's bill is is plain and simple you wanna discriminate against American companies we think that's wrong and then you wanna come to our country we may say no Sorry, you don't get to come to the greatest country ever if you're sticking it to American companies in your nation. That's all it does. You guys can talk about tariffs and trump all you want, but that ain't what the bill's about. So, uh, I appreciate the guy, gentleman bringing it forward. Well, I'll leave it at that, and, well, I'll yield to the sponsor of the bill if he wants to add to what what I think is just good old-fashioned common sense.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I would just add that this bill makes tariffs less likely. Again, this is a scalpel in the toolbox, so you don't have to take somewhere between a demarche and action of three O two. So I understand the hysterics and political season and the silliness of uh, uh, of what's going on here in the in the committee, but if we could bring a modicum of seriousness to a serious issue, uh, this is not about Canadian tourists going to Disney World or, uh, any of this. This is about American companies being unfairly targeted and giving a new scalpel to make sure that, uh, our business and our economy i- is, is protected. So would like some seriousness here on the approach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, and I would just, I would just add, uh, I appreciate, uh, getting the gentlemen's work on this. Uh, with the example of coupons, they, the South Korean, the, the very people who were fining them, going after them, harassing them, everything else, also threatened to arrest. the CEO of the, he's afraid to go back to South Korea. Even though they're the second largest private sector employer in the country, doing all this stuff, the the people of South Korea love this business. They love what they can, go online and get these products, they love that. But South Korea's, no, no, we're gonna discriminate against the American company. All we're saying is if the guy at the Korean FTC who's going after, or the people who said they're gonna arrest the CEO of the company, if they wanna get a visa come to America, uh, Secretary Rubio and his team may say,

Yeah.

sorry. We think you can just stay home after what you've done to a great American company. That's what this bill does. That I would now recognize that I think the next in line is the gentlelady from Vermont.

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

Gentlelady's right.

So my colleague just said that we need to do away with the hysterics and the silliness here. And I can tell you, when you are a member that represents an entire state, you don't have the luxury of being in a bubble of information. You have to travel all over the state. You got to talk to businesses, um, the people who, uh, are on both sides of the aisle. And I can tell you, there is nothing hysterical or silly about this conversation that we're having on this side of the aisle, which is when you have a president who uses tariffs capriciously, you have businesses headed by Democrats, Republicans, Independents that are going down right now because of the way he is weaponizing our economy against our allies, our friends, some of our biggest trading partners. And when you peel back the curtain, when you talk to people in those quiet rooms, what they say is, this is asinine. Whether it's farmers who I was meeting with last week, whether it was small businesses who I was meeting with the week before, whether it's the tourist industry as my colleague, uh, the ranking member just laid out for you. We do not need to be giving this administration another tool to continue to alienate us on the world stage. And this is not just short-term damage. This is long-term damage, cuz these people are not gonna come back. They're finding other trading partners, they're finding other places to take their vacations, and it's not silly and it's not hysterical. And when you talk to Republicans back in Vermont who are trying to run their small businesses, they will say to you, " We have no idea what this president is doing." Mister ranking member, do you have anything else you'd like to add?

Well, well, I'd l- like to say, um, I, uh, appreciate being castigated for raising Disneyland and Disney World by the gentleman, but he was the one who introduced it. He said All this is about is saying to a foreign government official, no, you don't bring your children to Disneyland, you'll have to find somewhere else to go. So that got me thinking about Disneyland and Disney World and I looked it up. I could have looked up almost any business in the country. They are suffering because of all of these random trade attacks and trade battles and trade wars that are s- unspooling from the president's head. He imagines there's a foreign enemy like Canada, which is one of our closest democratic allies for centuries, and a critical trading partner certainly for the northern part of the country, but for other parts of the country, for foreign country all over America. And he's attacking them, slapping a fifty percent tariff on them, and now you, instead of us dealing with that problem, you're saying, oh, let's also tell them that he can tell the Prime Minister of Canada or other Canadian officials. that they can't come into our country, just deepening the problem. Thank you for yielding for a sec.

Thank you. And, you know, let's let's talk about silliness. Let's talk about the damage that this administration has done with their silliness. Do you know what Canadians are still talking about? What they're talking about, Kristi Noem going to the border in the Haskell library that sits on the border of the US and Canada. There's a line right down the middle of the library. And she spent her time when she was still in her position, going up to that library and making jokes about Canada being the fifty first state, passing over the line, " Ha ha ha, fifty first state, look at me, Canada's part of the US." That is silly. That's doing long-term damage. And we're still paying for that. Those communities that are communities that sit on the border, they have lost all confidence. in this government, and it's taking us over an economic cliff, and that is not silly, and that is not hysterical, that is the reality. Many of my small businesses in Vermont are not going to survive this moment, because you will not stand up to this president and this asinine to a Canadian tariff regime and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Seeing no other, the question is Uh, the chair recognizes r- r- for the purposes of the gentleman in Wisconsin, seek recognition.

Just strike the last word.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Um, yeah, I just want to come back to - to the bill itself, I guess. I - it - it's unbelievable to me, the escalation in uh the discussion here this morning. But um, I - I mean, I think as chairman of the antitrust committee - subcommittee, you know, we've - I - I just had a meeting a half an hour ago in my office. where Amazon came in and said they're being subject to all of these attacks, uh, uh, pick your country in the EU because not only are they trying to carve out their own space for, uh, similar platforms in Europe, duh, this is happening right before our face, and w- and we're not smart enough to grasp exactly what's going on apparently. And and on the on a secondary tier, we heard again and again and again arbitrary fines. Uh, concocting all of these new types of structures to go after American platforms. And and and that has spilled over into retail. So the idea that we're just operating as kind of this independent entity, and that, you know, everything that President Trump says and everything that comes out of the White House is absolutely the cause of this, I I think you're just being naive. This has been going on for decades now and has continued to escalate as we start to see specific types of industries Guess what? Do very well. American corporations are leading the way. The debate we're having about AI right now. I mean, the reason we're having this discussion is because once again, it's American corporations that are innovating. It's American corporations that are at the forefront of this technology that quite honestly, we're in a full-blown competition with China on. And yet we have Y- y- you've you've taken the bait. This discussion about Canada, it it's just amazing to me the level uh and and the amount of uh print it's it's garnering right now on front pages. It's just it's just amazing to me. So once again, I listen, the no the no racketeering on our shores act um i- i- it's not it's not the the center of any of this discussion that's happened here this morning. This this is something that I think it's gonna take us a while to kinda work through some of these things, but let's not get too overheated on the topic, because guess what? I I I think at at the end of the day, Canada's gonna Canada's gonna be okay and the US is gonna be okay when it comes to uh the amount of trade that's going back and forth, and I yield back.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I won't take a full separate five minutes on this because I I think we've talked it out pretty well and I'd like to go to the next bill, which is mine. However However, I think it's important to understand that everyone in this room, on both sides of the aisle, understands that there have been non-tariff trade barriers that have gotten in the way of many of our constituent companies, and that even if there's a lot of rhetoric about tariffs and who they're hurting. Let's bear in mind that America has not used non-tariff trade barriers. We have not used unfair regulations. We have been much more of a fair player. And the comments on Europe that the gentlemen of Wisconsin made are exactly right. When you try to sell into Europe, there, they will come out with new rules and regulations that their own company's produced, that you've never seen, and then they take immediate effect. So, uh, I know that we're not gonna settle the dispute about whether tariffs are an effective way or even immigration control are effective way to retaliate for things like the unfair and just despicable, uh, targeting of coupon by the South Korean government and otherwise ally that we have had a free trade agreement with that in fact we ship to them, the very energy they need for their economy. So, I thank the gentleman for uh for yielding time and uh, I will hope that and the gentleman yields back.

I yield back, Chairman.

I now recognize the gentlelady, Miss Ross, for, I assume, to strike the last word. The the gentlelady is is recognized.

Yes, Mister, yeah, yes, Mister Chairman, to strike the last word. Um, I before I'm I'm going to yield some time to the ranking member. Um, I also wanna just talk about the bill I know you've been criticizing us for talking about trade which by the way is on the mind of all of our constituents whether they're paying higher costs for goods and services or whether their businesses might be going under because they can't get what they need or the prices have gone through the roof I I too had a round table on this issue with everybody from um people who make bread to the plumbing heating and cooling people but i also wanna point out that this bill i think is overly broad inartfully drafted and only one person is taking credit for it so if you guys love it so much how come nobody signed on to it in your entire conference It hasn't been vetted. It's not it's not serious. And yet again, the Judiciary Committee is here doing unserious things while our constituents are suffering from real economic uncertainty, and our businesses are. And this bill would only contribute to it. And with that, I will yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member, Mister Raskin.

Uh, thank you very much, uh, Ms. Ross. I appreciate that. Um, okay, first of all, the gentleman from Wisconsin says it's amazing to him that the president's trade war on Canada is causing so much discussion and so much print being spilled across the country and well maybe you're not listening to your constituents because the rest of us are hearing from our constituents who are farmers and small businesses who are being socked Uh, first with the increased prices that Donald Trump is imposing through tariffs, because tariffs are, of course, a tax on us. They're a tax on our businesses.

Huh?

Somebody's got to explain that to the president. It's not a tax on a foreign government or a foreign business it's a tax on our people who are importing it. But then, when our people then have to go to Canada, as I've heard from one of my constituents, to buy certain kinds of agricultural equipment, now they're, they're hitting us. They're slapping us back with a tariff on us. Right? So we're having to pay a higher price to bring that in to the country. So this this is like a serious problem that people are talking about. If you go to Michigan, if you go to Minnesota, I thought if you go to Wisconsin, I mean, Maryland does two billion dollars of uh, trade every year with Canada. But I think in Michigan and in Minnesota, we're talking about six, seven, eight billion dollars a year. So this goes right to the economy of the heartland. So if you're amazed, people are talking about it now, you're gonna be astonished at the results on November third from the states that have been hit by all of these problems. Now, as to the South Korea thing, I wanna introduce for the record a headline South Korea finds coup paying four hundred and eight million dollars over the biggest data leak in the country's history. Now, for all I know

Not without objection, so ordered.

I know nothing about this. Maybe that's an act of an act that constitutes uh an unfair trade practice, okay? There's a way of dealing with that in the law. This is not the first time people have claimed that this or that country is discriminated against.

Will the gentleman yield?

I I will in just one second. But I what I wanna say is You, that's what section three three eight is about. That exists today in the law. It empowers the president to impose duties on imports from a foreign country to offset any burden or disadvantage arising from that country's discrimination against or unequal imposition on the commerce of the United States. So if, if there is economic trade discrimination taking place, we can deal with that today. But what our colleagues are proposing to do, and I invite, you know, any answer to this, but is to create yet another opportunity for the president to say, yeah, and not only is it that we're going to impose trade tariffs on all of Canada, fifty percent, so nobody wants to go to Disneyland or Disney World anymore, now we also wanna be able to name the government officials who we don't want coming to Disneyland or Disney World if they ever would think about doing that again and that just seems ridiculous what we should be doing in this committee if we wanna get involved in trade is we should be trying to de-escalate what the president has unleashed against our allies again this is not targeted against China or Saudi Arabia or authoritarian governments it's targeted against countries like Canada and I'm happy to yield my remaining twenty seconds

Well, thank you. The commite- you said you didn't know anything about the situation with coup paying. Uh, this committee did a very good report on it. Did the ranking member read the report?

The report on

On coupon.

uh, on coupon? No, I've not read that report. So I gotta check that out.

Right. You should read it.

Okay. But in any event, you should read the trade laws which allow for us to retaliate in a situation like that. And why is that not happening?

The gentleman's time has expired. For what purposes does a gentleman from Jersey seek recognition?

Just uh, uh, I'm this is gonna be quick because we gotta move on.

The gentleman's recognized to strike the last word.

I strike the last word. Um, let me just say this, there is a reason, and I get what the other side is saying a little bit. There are some issues with the tariffs, there are some concerns, totally understand it, uh, but there's a reason all this has come about because for decades United States of America was at the short end of the stick. For decades we were not being treated fairly. For decades we weren't in the lead, we've been taken advantage of, and it's been shown over and over and over again.

With the general idea.

I mean it w- not not yet. Uh, w- I really do believe in America first. Now, one of the reasons that we have the problems that we have with the tariffs, because we wanna really encourage to buy American goods, American-made goods, et cetera, It's cuz we don't make a lot of things anymore, and we don't make a lot of things because of all the bad deals that were struck over the decades it wasn't conducive to producing American products in America, so we bought everything from everywhere else and we're taken advantage of. That's the point of all this, and I really m- wanna associate myself with the uh remarks of mister for shillel from wisconsin this is gonna be ok we're gonna work this out it's some tough negotiation and i get it and i understand the tourism industry that's the majority of my district or at least a significant part of my district is tourism uh and actually had their best year ever by the way but with that being said i will in a second

the gentleman yo

Um, with that being said, there is a reason we are where we are and we shouldn't let this happen again. America first, American strong, America produces, that's what all of this is about. We're tired of being at the weak end of every deal. Now, I didn't, who was asking me to yield?

I was.

Yeah, I I will, yes.

Erd- oh, thank you, I thank the gentlemen for yielding. That uh enclosure by the uh the ranking member on Coupon, I just want to point out one thing. The facts of the investigation which this committee uh took out itself and when you read it you'll realize it. Start off with that headline being deceptive, and I'm gonna make the record clear. Coupon was was hacked by an internal employee, a Chinese citizen. who took it for some reason that we're not sure of, and fled the country to mainland China. Goopon, in cooperation with the South Korean government, did everything, including recover the s- the notebook from a lake where the individual admitted he had thrown it. They got it. They then diagnosed it, pulled out the drive, and determined that there were thousands, not millions, of names on it. To the extent possible, both sides agree that that was all that was taken, was a list that this individual thought would be valuable. There is no evidence that any of those have been used in any way so whatsoever, and yet the South Korean government, even with the facts in their own possession, continues to promote these kinds of headline articles implying that every single customer of this great company operating in South Korea delivering to almost every home in South Korea millions and millions that that represents the hack. Yes, the database was one of the largest there was. But the laptop that took a a small portion of the database and fled to China and was recovered does not represent anything close to what they want. And I will tell you, they are threatening criminal sanctions. I have had the foreign minister from South Korea and others there, and they've made it clear that they simply think that he's gotten too arrogant, a Korean American who in fact started and built this great company that the Koreans love. So, the facts on that particular one do not fit within the three three eight standard. They do not fit within the normal response. This is the persecution of an American company, not in a normal economic way, but using lawfare, using their ability and their ability to set send false facts, to do so. So I would hope that as we're looking at the legitimate discussion on the other parts of the issues, that we look at this company and realize that it's not quite the same as applying European standards, that I object to, in South Korea, to create a non-tariff trade barrier. It is in fact going after an individual for the arrogance of being a former Korean citizen, if you will, who made made a success by creating what we uh would effectively call Amazon of South Korea. And he is the market leader, and they object to it, and they're trying to destroy the company and destroy the man. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Have you played once, Don? And then you'll laugh.

The gentleman yields back.

Uh. I've not used my five minutes yet.

And what would you like to use it for?

To move to strike the last word.

The gentleman is recognized to move to strike last word.

I'd like to repair some of uh the damage being done by the the last uh blistering comments of your colleagues. Uh, let's see, uh, the the the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey uh makes the argument we often hear from New Jer- from uh the president from the Oval Office, which is All this is about is rectifying the damage done by all these horrible bad deals done by the immediately prior presidents. For example, one of them is Donald Trump. And I'm gonna introduce for the record an article titled, Trump Blasts His Own Trade Deal with Canada. Who made these decisions? He said, that's from Yahoo dot com, March eleven, twenty twenty five. uh, Politico dot com, Trump now hates his own trade deal, but he'll have a hard time killing it. That's from Politico, June thirtieth, twenty twenty six. If we could submit those. In other words, there's this sweeping broadside attack on US trade law,

Without objection.

mo- most of which was negotiated by Donald Trump himself over the last decade. And and he declared at the time, of course, the greatest trade deal ever signed, and now it's the worst trade deal ever signed.

Will the gentleman yield?

Uh, the not just yet, I'll I'll come back to you because I I'm still in a fit of peak about the fact that I asked Mister Van Drew to yield, but I got squeezed out there. But if I've got some time, I promise to come back there.

In the air.

So yeah, I got you. Um, so um, all right, so l let's start with that. Um, Canada is now the target and the victim of Donald Trump's uh, inscrutable, impenetrable fury. We don't know where it comes from. I'm not sure he's told anybody where it comes from. Maybe he doesn't like the Prime Minister for whatever reason. He thinks the Prime Minister is getting too smart or is too good-looking or something. But in any event, he's slapped fifty percent tariffs on the people of Canada. Okay, here, let me tell you about Canada. All right? It's been one of our top two trading partners f- in the United States for decades. The two countries share a long history of supply chain integration, including especially in the automotive and textile industries and the energy sector. In twenty twenty four, the Canada, check this out, was the top destination of US exports. The the gentleman uh professes his concern for manufacturing in America. Well, how are we going to manufacture in America if Canada starts boycotting us, which they have? I don't know, we I haven't heard that word used by anybody on that side of the aisle. Are you aware that Canadians are involved in a full-blown boycott against American businesses because of what the president is doing? All right, so that was the top destination for US exports. Two years ago, Canada was. Oh, really? And the third largest source of US imports. We need their stuff. Canada exported over three quarters of its goods to the US and imported almost half of its goods from the US. Uh, we're talking about automobiles, machinery, energy products, over thirty billion dollars in agricultural products that we have exported to them, including cereals, pasta, bakery goods, fresh vegetables and fruit, and ethanol. Canada's leading exports to us are energy products, automobiles, together with over forty billion dollars in farm goods, including baked goods, cereals, pastas, vegetable oils, beef and beef products, processed fruit and vegetables, and fresh vegetables. Now maybe you guys don't care about that. But i- if you have any real interest in Adam Smith and the wealth of nations, the whole theory is you have a comparative advantage. And there are certain things that we make that they don't make, and they make that we don't make, and then we trade with each other. as liberal democracies do, we have free trade with each other. And Donald Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing, a whole thing upsetting the apple cart that he built with Canada in his first term, just wrecking the whole thing because for some reason something's going on in his head that has gotten him upset about it. And now, instead of investigating that and saying, do we have a rational trade policy taking place? Or are we hurting our own people, our workers, our consumers, our small businesses and big businesses? Maybe your ears peek up at that, right? Maybe big businesses are being hurt. No, we don't do any of that. Instead, what we say is let's not just drive off the whole Canadian population from going to Disney World, or Disneyland or other American destinations to the Jersey Shore or Ocean City in Maryland, not only are we gonna drive off the whole population, we're gonna say we're gonna let the president personalize this and to just denominate particular public officials whose families can't go to Disney World or Disneyland assuming they wanted to. But so, uh, th- I mean, there is something meaningless about the legislation. I concede that point. But it's also an insult and an affront, both to the intelligence of the American people, as if we don't understand what's going on, but also to foreign countries. And I yield back to you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry I didn't have time to turn it over to you.

Gentleman yields back. The question is on adoption of the amendment and 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.

Any opposed?

No.

Perhaps one. Um, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of substitute is adopted. The question is, on favorably reporting the bill as amended, all those in favor say aye? Aye. Any opposed?

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably

And I'm seeking a recorded vote in the interest of showing the public who's for free trade.

to the house to the a- to the house members. We'll we'll have two dollar days to submit a without a oops. And then the clerk, uh, a recorded vote has been requested, the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Jordan.

yes

mister jordan votes yes mister isa

yes

mister isa votes yes mister biggs mister biggs votes aye mister mary-clintock mister mary-clintock votes aye mister tiffany mister massey mister roy

aye

mister roy votes aye mister fishgerald

aye

mister fishgerald votes aye mister klein mister goodin mister van drew

yes

mister van drew votes yes mister nels mister moore Miss Hageman. Miss Lee Florida. Mister Hunt. Mister Fry. Mister Keilly. Mister Grossman. Mister Knott. Mister Harris. Mister Onder. Mister Schmidt. Mister Gill. Mister Baumgartner. Mister Baumgartner votes aye. Baumgartner. Mister Raskin.

No.

Mister Raskin votes no. Mister Nadler. miss lofgren mister cohen mister johnson

no

mister johnson votes no mister liu miss jaya Paul mister korea miss scanlon mister neguse miss mcbath miss ross

no

miss ross votes no miss ballant miss ballant votes no mister garcia Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Moskowitz.

Miss Yeah.

Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Miss Jayapal. Miss Jayapal votes no. Mr. Moore.

Yes.

Mr. Moore votes yes. Miss Lee of Florida.

Yes.

Miss Lee of Florida votes yes.

Yes.

miss ganlin miss ganlin votes now mister klein mister klein votes yes mister schmidt you are not recorded mister schmidt that's i Mister Grothman.

Yes.

Mister Grothman votes yes. Mister Onder.

Vote aye.

Mister Onder votes aye. mister fry you're not recorded mister fry about time uh mister

young lady from pennsylvania

miss leave pennsylvania you are not recorded miss leave uh pennsylvania votes no

Clerk will report.

Mister Chairman, there are fifteen ayes and eight noes. The meeting's being recorded.

Thanks, sir.

The ayes have it and the bills ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating all adopted amendments. Staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. This concludes uh the committee business for the meeting. The meeting is adjourned.