H.J. Res. 142 – Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C.

[Gavel sounds.] Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. I sincerely apologize for keeping everybody waiting, but the Speaker came by for an impromptu meeting, and we wanted to have that meeting with him. So...

He's been doing that a lot lately.

Well, we appreciate his paying attention to the Rules Committee. But I am sorry for keeping people waiting. As you all know, I like to be on time. I value everybody's time. Now, back to the script. Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider five separate measures: the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, H.J. Res. 142, H.R. 4090, and House Reports 119-468 and 119-469, two reports accompanying resolutions recommending that the House find former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress. Before we get into the substance of today's meeting, I'll touch on a few points. First, I thank everyone who spent their time traveling back to D.C. The weather has not been very kind as of late. It's impacted many. Our work this week is very important, and we all know that to be true. What's more, we all know that our country is facing many challenges right now. I had the good fortune to have some time this weekend to read articles focused on our 250th anniversary and obstacles that were overcome to establish our great country. On a day-to-day basis, we often focus on the negative and don't put our successes in perspective. But the truth is that we need a balanced perspective. Regarding the unfortunate incidents that took place in Minneapolis recently, let me just say that violence of any kind is deeply abhorrent to me, and any death that occurs leaves a deep impression on our hearts. One can agree with that sentiment regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. Right now, people have a lot of very strong feelings, and it's my hope that the palpable tension within the nation's public squares will be calmed and that we can be models for that. These are deeply concerning incidents that are worthy of an independent investigation in addition to the ongoing investigation by the administration. Next, a word about the appropriations measure before us. The House passed its last tranche of appropriations bills and sent them to the legislative body that sits opposite us. And to the surprise of absolutely no one, the Senate decided in turn to engage in a game of legislative hot potato. The House did not, for even a moment during the appropriations process, flirt with the possibility of a government shutdown. But that's what the Senate decided to do. Now we're back here caught in a malaise of deja vu because, quote, "the world's greatest deliberative body," end quote, decided to torpedo the process without fail as it tends to do. To describe this as disappointing would be an understatement. This process should have been over and done with by now. There's much more business that we need to attend to, and a delay like this keeps us from completing more work. Moving on to the remaining items on today's agenda. H.J. Res. 142, a Congressional Review Act resolution, provides for congressional disapproval of the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. A mouthful. Last year, the Council of the District of Columbia passed its own legislative measure to decouple its own tax code from specific provisions within the Working Families Tax Cut. That measure would do more harm than good. The Council's approach would rob D.C. residents of new tax cuts, thereby increasing taxes on families, seniors, and small businesses within the District. By passing this disapproval resolution, we can strike down Democrat-imposed tax hikes in the District that are punishing its citizens while other Americans are granted the tax cuts. This is hypocritical in light of other demands that the D.C. Council makes. House Report 119-468 and House Report 119-469 are two bipartisan reports accompanying contempt of Congress resolutions for Bill and Hillary Clinton from the Oversight Committee. Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to comply with duly issued bipartisan subpoenas that compel their respective depositions to the Oversight Committee in relation to the committee's ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. They've impeded Congress's investigations and failed to comply with duly issued subpoenas, subpoenas which were voted for unanimously in one of the Oversight subcommittees. As Chairman Comer said previously, we're proceeding with these contempt resolutions to demonstrate to the American people that justice is applied equally to everyone, regardless of position, pedigree, or presumed prestige. Finally, we turn to H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act, legislation that would codify provisions of certain executive orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources. H.R. 4090 would require the Department of the Interior, in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, to identify priority mining projects on federal lands that can be immediately approved and take all necessary and appropriate steps to expedite these projects. Further, it targets legal and regulatory bottlenecks that impede domestic mining by directing the Department of the Interior to oversee a series of actions related to reviewing such roadblocks on the state and local levels as well as recommending changes to current law to streamline domestic mining. We have another busy day here at the Rules Committee, and as always, I look forward to the spirited discussions that we will have. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern. Any comments he wishes to make?

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And we have a lot of bills that are going to be put into one rule, so my opening might be just a little bit longer than normal. But before I begin today, this is our first meeting since two federal officers shot and killed an American citizen, a VA ICU nurse, Alex Preddy. Alex was exercising his First Amendment right by filming federal agents on a public street. He was also exercising his Second Amendment right as a law-abiding gun owner in legal possession of his firearm. And for the outrageous crime of helping a woman get off the ground after she had been pushed over, he was punished with death, shot and killed by his own government. Now, I'd like to ask for a moment of silence for him and the other victims of government violence in Minneapolis, including Renee Good, who was also shot and killed a few weeks ago.

Without objection. [Moment of silence.]

Madam Chair, let me first address the government funding package which was added to our agenda over the weekend. And let me be crystal clear: I will be voting no on this funding package. I refuse to send another cent to Stephen Miller or Kristi Noem. They are undermining our Constitution, and the department they run is murdering American citizens in the streets. She ought to be impeached, and he ought to be fired. I think their words and actions are disgusting. I just checked social media. Neither one of them has retracted or apologized for smearing Alex Preddy or slandering him as a domestic terrorist or an assassin there to massacre law enforcement. Those were lies. Lies that were whipped up and spread by people in positions of authority who immediately sought to exploit the murder of a federal employee for their own partisan politics. And I refuse to fund such a lawless, out-of-control agency. I will not vote for business as usual while masked agents break into people's homes without a judicial warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Just last week, a United States District Court judge said that ICE, and I quote, "likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence," end quote. That is inexcusable. And I have heard the argument that ICE already has plenty of money, why not just vote for a two-week CR? Well, I'm not voting to fund this agency for two seconds, let alone two weeks. They are terrorizing our communities and acting like they're above the law. That is my red line, and I think it should be the red line for all of us. And by the way, I also don't support the massive glut of unlimited military funding in the rest of the package either. Why on earth are we giving more to the so-called Department of War when the so-called President of Peace is threatening to use money that we're appropriating to invade allies, bomb Venezuela, and break the law? We're giving Pete Hegseth more money than he asked for. I mean, really? Pete Hegseth, the guy who leaked classified secrets on Signal? The guy who's illegally bombing boats in the Caribbean and committing war crimes while he's doing it? So, I was a no two weeks ago, and now I'm a hell no. And on top of all of that, we now get to the Republican attempt to shift blame away from Trump's connections to Jeffrey Epstein and pretend like they are in favor of transparency when, in fact, they are not. People can go back and rewatch the tapes. Republicans on this committee voted nine times, nine times against releasing the files. Nine times they voted to keep the files hidden. And we all know why. It was Trump himself who said that he would release the files, but then he changed his tune the second he won. In fact, we had to go around Republican leadership and this committee in Congress just to get a vote on a bill that he reluctantly signed into law. Now, none of that is a surprise because, according to our president, Epstein was, quote, "a terrific guy" and "a lot of fun to be around." Trump said it was because Epstein liked women on the younger side. I mean, and Jeffrey Epstein loved him back. "I was Donald Trump's closest friend." That's what he said. He let his closest friend fly on his private jet at least eight times that we know of. We also know the spa at Mar-a-Lago sent teenage girls to Epstein's mansion for house calls. And we know because Donald Trump confessed to us that Epstein stole a 16-year-old girl from Mar-a-Lago and then trafficked her to a succession of perverted, disgusting old men who sexually abused her. Epstein wrote in an email, and I quote, "Trump knew of it and came to my house many times during that period," end quote. Wow. I mean, let that sink in. And it wasn't just Donald Trump. His Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, went to Epstein's Rape Island. His former top advisor, Elon Musk, tried to go to Rape Island. And his top confidant, Steve Bannon, planned to go to the Rape Island. And when Jeffrey Epstein died in jail under what most Americans think were mysterious circumstances, guess who was president? Donald Trump. And of course, let's not forget about Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's accomplice, who Trump moved from a maximum security cell to a country club prison where she gets to take yoga classes and relax outside all day. I mean, for the record, she's serving 20 years for helping Epstein molest and rape children. Trump said in an interview about Maxwell, quote, "I wish her well. I wish her well." So I get it. This administration is collapsing under the weight of their ever-expanding ties to a global child rape ring. And rather than do the right thing, Republicans are trying to change the subject. But please, please do not insult America's intelligence by trying to make this conversation about the Clintons. First of all, the Clintons have publicly called for the government to release all, all the Epstein files, unlike Donald Trump, who said he would release them all but then he backtracked. There's millions more documents that have still not been released. And if the logic here is that anyone with ties to Epstein should answer questions about what they knew, I'm all for it. The Clintons want to cooperate. They sent written declarations of what they knew, and they were negotiating to testify under oath. When will President Trump testify? His name appears 5,361 times in the documents released so far. 5,361 times. Democrats want answers from everyone, including and up to the current President of the United States. And that seems to be the biggest difference between you guys and us. We weren't afraid of where these files lead. You are. And if you're afraid of where the files lead, you're not standing with the survivors. You're defending the pedophiles. And why is this White House still, still covering up the truth? Why aren't Republicans demanding answers from Pam Bondi about the client list? She said it was on her desk. Remember that? And why has the administration not yet released all the draft indictments or the FBI's victim and witness statements, which criminally implicate specific individuals? Why isn't Chairman Comer demanding answers from FBI Director Kash Patel, who said under oath that, quote, "there is no credible information that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked minors," end quote. Why aren't they subpoenaing Mar-a-Lago, Trump's, you know, documents which appear directly linked to Epstein's trafficking ring? And why, after over a year of broken promises and after a federal law required that all files be posted a month ago, why are we still waiting? If they have nothing to hide, if everything is on the up and up, why is this administration acting guilty? Why are they exposing the names of victims, which they are specifically not allowed to do so, instead of the names of the men who raped and abused them? Here's what their attorney said in response to the latest release, and I quote: "There is no conceivable degree of institutional incompetence sufficient to explain the scale, consistency, and persistence of the failures that occurred." Madam Chair, we should listen to the victims. And here's what the victims say, and I quote: "Once again, survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected." The victims go on to say, and I quote: "The public still does not have the full truth about who enabled Epstein, who participated in his exploitation, and who has been shielded for years. It is time to demand transparency and accountability from anyone who was involved in or has knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, no matter their political party, up to and including the current President of the United States who is in these files up to his eyeballs." And Madam Chair, we are also considering today another crummy bill to try to strip the District of Columbia of even more autonomy. I am tired of the constant attacks on the residents of the District of Columbia. They pay taxes, their sons and daughters serve in our military, and they don't have a vote in this Congress. It is shameful. And on top of all of that, this Republican-led Congress tries to micromanage their budgets and their lives. It is wrong. And we're also going to be debating a bill that helps mining CEOs rewrite the very environmental regulations which help constrain their actions. More giveaways to polluters while Republicans do nothing to lower prices. I'm voting no on all of these things, and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel: Chairman Cole, former chairman of this committee, and Ranking Member DeLauro from the Committee on Appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Cole, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the Rules Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. While the moment certainly feels familiar, the issues before us remain critically important. Let me start with a simple reminder: legislating is challenging by design. The path here may have been different than expected, but our responsibility is the same: to fund the government and keep it working for the nation. Members are already acquainted with the legislation at hand. The underlying package was assembled and passed by the House two weeks ago and represents the final six FY 2026 appropriations measures. It has now been sent back with a Senate amendment that fully funds five divisions for the year and places the remaining division, the Department of Homeland Security, under a two-week continuing resolution. To underscore the scope of funding before us, today's full-year bills cover the Department of Defense, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and many agencies related to each of these departments. Funding these missions is not optional. It's part of our Article I duties, and we must see the work through. Two weeks ago, the House and Senate struck a bipartisan and bicameral deal to move forward on our remaining appropriations bills for fiscal year 2026. As I knew we would, the House acted expeditiously and appropriately and approved these negotiated bills before leaving for our scheduled district work period. Now, however, the Senate has altered the deal. I acknowledge the frustrations of this situation, and I share in those sentiments. Trust me, I speak from direct experience. But our obligation is not to our feelings; it's to the American people. Getting 90 percent of something is better than 100 percent of nothing. I still believe the best and most appropriate course of action was for the Senate to approve the six-bill package as we negotiated it. The Senate, however, has chosen a different path. And so we are left here in the House with a classic Hobson's choice: we can take the amended bill, or we can leave it. My view is that we should take it. Today's bill will close out five of our remaining six appropriations bills for FY 2026, including our two largest measures covering Defense and the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments. It will also include a two-week continuing resolution for our sixth and final bill, the Department of Homeland Security, which will give some time for additional negotiations on that measure. President Trump has directly engaged Democrats in good-faith conversations while making clear that holding the government or the American people hostage is wrong. I'm confident that once these discussions are completed, the final outcome will closely mirror the measure Chairman Amodei negotiated and the House passed two weeks ago. A comprehensive bill that, unlike this stopgap, funded ICE body-worn cameras and de-escalation training, delivered a pay raise for our Coast Guard and our air traffic controllers, granted funding to support firefighters and first responders, strengthened disaster preparedness, and enhanced efforts to combat fentanyl. So today is Groundhog Day, both literally and figuratively. But doing the right thing for the American people never gets old. I thank each of you for your time, and I urge all members to support this bipartisan package, and I look forward to answering your questions later today.

Thank you, Mr. Cole. Ranking Member DeLauro, you're recognized.

Good afternoon and say thank you to you, Chairman Foxx, and Ranking Member McGovern and the members of the Rules Committee. Appreciate the opportunity to testify today alongside my friend, Chairman Cole. The five full-year funding bills before us today are strong bipartisan compromises, and I am pleased those remain intact. The House cleared these bills last month with strong bipartisan votes, and I look forward to seeing these bills become law. They reject the Trump administration's efforts to eviscerate public services, reversing a $163 billion in domestic spending cuts proposed by the president. They protect important Democratic priorities, national priorities, and they reassert Congress's power of the purse. What is different between what the House and Senate have cleared is the duration of funding provided for the Department of Homeland Security. Instead of providing funding through the end of September, the measure before us extends funding for 10 days to allow for tough negotiators and tough negotiations to produce an agreement on binding and enforceable measures that protect our communities. They protect our communities from being terrorized and ensure accountability for any abuses. I opposed the bill that came out of the House because it simply endorsed a continuation of ICE policies, a rogue, lawless agency. We need to take these next 10 days to work to radically reform ICE. That means provisions to require judicial warrants, prohibit U.S. citizens from being detained or deported, strengthen oversight and reconciliation funds, mandate the use of body-worn cameras, and establish an enforceable code of conduct. That means masks off, badges on, real accountability for the egregious abuses that we have seen. The killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good have shocked the conscience of this nation. Renee had just dropped her six-year-old son off at school and was on her way home. She had her dog in the back seat of her car. She told the agent recording her, and I quote, "I'm not mad at you," end quote, before turning the steering wheel away from him. He shot her three times in the chest and head, including through the open driver-side window as her car passed by him. After video emerged of the killing, the Trump administration accused her of domestic terrorism. Instead of investigating her death, they investigated her life. In October of last year, Stephen Miller asserted that these agents have, quote, "absolute immunity," end quote. Following Renee's death, the Department of Homeland Security shared Miller's remarks again, just to make sure that everyone got the message. Let me give you a reminder that during the first Trump administration, Stephen Miller, who's an unelected bureaucrat, was the architect of the family separation policy. And today, there are a number of those children who were separated who have yet to be reunited with their families. Two and a half weeks later, Alex Preddy was assaulted by several masked federal agents, pepper-sprayed, pistol-whipped, and then shot 10 times in broad daylight. His only crime was that he was recording the officers on his phone. Video circulating after the killing showed an officer clapping and cheering excitedly as Preddy was shot dead. He was not there to hurt anyone. He was helping a woman who had been thrown to the pavement, unprovoked, by the same agents who would murder him moments later. The Trump administration proclaimed that he too was a domestic terrorist, that he was an assassin, that he intended to gun down federal officers. None of those smears contain an ounce of truth. He was not a terrorist. He was a nurse at a VA hospital who was trying to protect his community from unlawful abuses by Customs and Border Protection. He had no criminal record. He has not been charged with any crime. After sustained public outcry, the Department of Justice announced the Civil Rights Division has opened an investigation into his killing. This has to stop. There must be accountability, not only for those officers who killed Alex Preddy and Renee Good, but for all those who have been beaten, harassed, intimidated, and unlawfully detained law-abiding citizens and residents who were simply going about their lives when the agents crossed their path. I will support this package, which secures funding for the five bipartisan bills which fund the Department of Defense, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Labor and Education, State and Treasury for the rest of this fiscal year, which extends funding at current levels for DHS for 10 days. What does that do? That gives us time, and it gives us leverage to secure the protections that we need for our communities. For if we do not do that, we will not be able to bring the kinds of pressure that is necessary to make sure that ICE does not continue to terrorize our communities. The American people are demanding these protections. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. DeLauro. I'm going to defer my questions until later. Mrs. Fischbach is recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate you both being here. And I think, Mr. Cole, you said it felt like deja vu. So, but very quickly, I think you mentioned in your opening statement that there was an agreement. This was all agreed because when we left, right, it was our understanding, we voted, we passed it out, we understood that the Senate was all set up and it was going to be done.

Well, that's correct, Mrs. Fischbach. That's, your statement's correct. There was an agreement with the Senate. The bills had been negotiated in a bipartisan fashion. We sent, tried to work closely with our Democratic colleagues, both the House and the Senate, to send it to them in the manner in which they requested. And my friend, the ranking member, requested one thing, wanted a separate vote on that bill. We worked hard to secure that vote. And you were kind enough on this committee to give us that opportunity. And then, look, I've been arguing all along we should have been doing this earlier in smaller packages. I just think that's a better way to proceed. But the Senate wanted six in one bill. And so they got what they asked for. And then they decided the situation in, I'm not going to speak for them, but obviously what happened in Minnesota impacted the deliberations of the Senate, and they changed the deal. That was not done in consultation. They basically broke one out. That was a direct negotiation as I understand it. ...between the President and the minority leader in the United States Senate. Procedurally, that requires us then to look at the packages again. But there's no substantive disagreement on the five bills that we've negotiated in either chamber. I mean, they've passed the Senate and if we take them up on the floor and pass them here, those will become law. As my friend the ranking member said, the remaining one is a two-week extension so other negotiations can occur and I would assume at that point, they'll either come to a conclusion or not and we'll be dealing with that bill again. But what we won't do is derail the rest of the government. 94 percent of the government will be funded. Our military will be paid, our borders will be secure, important research programs and programs that support our most vulnerable will happen. We don't have disagreement there or the disagreements we have have been resolved through negotiation. So putting those things through, I think is the right thing to do. Working on the area that is still a matter of contention is probably the appropriate thing to do as well. Again, I would have preferred all six be accepted as negotiated. This is the second time the Senate has done this. We had a negotiation last year. They asked for a clean CR, which they got. They asked for a short-term CR, which they got. And then they introduced extraneous matters, which were healthcare, Obamacare, insurer subsidies, and undoing Medicaid reforms that Congress had enacted into law and the President had signed earlier last year. So it's pretty hard dealing with the United States Senate because when you've got an agreement, they don't feel bound by the agreement that you had. So again, we're sort of used to this. But I would rather preserve the really 94 percent of funding where we have agreed, get that taken care of. That shouldn't be subject to this debate or this controversy and then move on. There's clearly negotiations at the highest level going on on the Department of Homeland Security right now. There have been a number of moves by both parties, by the President, by the Senate to continue this discussion. So obviously we would deal with that at that point. But I don't think we should miss the opportunity of passing into law things we agree on to keep the government shut down. I mean, literally, if we don't act on this, we're going to be back at the point where people that keep our skies safe aren't getting paid, where promised pay raises to air traffic controllers and the Coast Guard don't happen, where we don't have money in reserve for a natural disaster, we have one undergoing right now, where our men and women that protect us overseas wonder whether or not they're going to get paid or their families here are going to be safe. You know, that just... so let's solve the range of problems where we have very substantial bipartisan agreement and negotiation and then work on this remaining problem.

And Mr. Cole, I agree with you and I am hoping that a majority of the folks when when these gets to the floor do agree with you because I just you're absolutely right, we need to keep the 94 percent open. And I'm just I'm just sorely disappointed that I mean, when we left, you know, and the Senate was supposed to come in, that that the agreement that was struck was not was not honored. And it's it's deeply disappointing because I know that everybody worked very hard and we took the votes to make sure that that would happen. So it's unfortunate, but I do think, you know, that at this point, you're right, we need to keep the 94 percent open and let that bit that's being held hostage essentially until they get their way that that we will we have got the two weeks to deal with it, but in the meantime, let's get the other done. Did you want to say something? You looked like at one point you were going to say something. Okay. All right. Well, then I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Fischbach. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.

Yeah, I don't really want to spend a lot of time on the substance of the of the bills before us because I said a lot in my opening statement, but surely you understand what why there's so much controversy over over all of this. I mean, we have two Americans that are dead, shot right before our very eyes. And you had the Secretary of Homeland Security, you had Stephen Miller, and you had Greg Abbott just lie about it. Just lie. And so there's a there's a problem here in terms of trust. I mean, and I don't trust them at all. And I don't trust this administration. I mean, even even in the last few days, the President has been all over the map on responding to the tragedies. I don't trust them to tell me the correct time, never mind to negotiate in good faith on guardrails on on ICE. So I mean, that's that's where the that's where the angst is. That's where a lot of the concern from the American people is coming from is that they're seeing one thing with their own eyes and being told something very different by this administration. And there's you know, and and I guess they they just they can't bring themselves to say they were wrong or that they apologize. And it and it is it is chilling. I'm just telling you, it is I mean, but I appreciate the fact of I appreciate the work that both of you do. I appreciate the work of your staff. I know these are not ordinary times. But I'm I just want to clarify the record, the historical record. And since since you both testified on the funding bills a few weeks ago, I've been reading some of the press coming out of my from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, some of the press releases and the tweets from Republicans saying that regular order has finally been restored for the first time in decades. So one House Republican said, quote, 'For the first time in 29 years, the House has passed all appropriations bills. With a one-seat majority, regular order has returned,' end quote. Senator Lankford congratulated the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee on on this accomplishment saying, quote, 'That's no small feat,' and referring to you, Chairman Cole, 'He's the first appropriations chair to do so since 1997,' end quote. But just you know, and again, I have great respect for both of you, but just I have to ask, is this really the first time since 1997 that the House has passed all 12 appropriation bills? Yes or no?

Have no idea. I'm focused on what's in front of me, which is trying to get these bills passed.

Yeah, but just for the for the record, the correct answer is no. This is not the first time in 29 years the House passed all 12 appropriation bills. The 1997 record that people on your side keep referring to is the last time that Congress passed all the required appropriation bills on time. Just so that we're all clear. First, zero appropriation bills were signed into law on time during the past year. Zero. And that is why the government shut down in October and why it is partially shut down right now. And second, Congress regularly passes all 12 appropriation bills. It had done so every year for over a decade. That that is until last year. We operated under a year-long continuing resolution for the entirety of fiscal year 2025. Let me put that in context. From October 2024 into November 2025, for 13 months, this Republican majority failed to get a single appropriation bill signed into law. In fact, we've continued to operate under a partial CR until we partially shut down over the weekend. This funding cycle, fiscal year 2026, stands out in two notable ways. The first way, speaking of setting records, is that for the first time in 30 years, there have been two shutdowns in a single funding cycle. Two shutdowns. Secondly, members have been notably cut out of the amendment process here at the Rules Committee for fiscal year 2026. Only three out of the 12 appropriation bills this fiscal year received a call for amendments. Chairman Cole, when you were the Rules chair during the FY 2024 cycle, you issued a call for amendments on 11 of the 12 appropriation bills. And during the FY 2024 cycle, nearly three times more appropriation amendments advanced to the House floor than in this cycle. So Republicans may be out here claiming victory on non-existent records, but I think it's important that we that we understand that this whole process, you know, is abysmal. And I bring this up because truth matters and the facts are the facts. I get it, the administration kind of sets a standard where they can just say whatever the hell they want to say, whether it's based on truth or fact or not. But I think here in this institution, it is important that we not exaggerate or not make things up. And the facts are the facts. And so I say this for the historical record, Madam Chair. And again, I appreciate my colleagues being here and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Roy, you're recognized.

I thank the chair. Mr. Cole, is it true that the bill in front of us that is the package of five of the appropriations bills plus the 14-day CR for Homeland is appropriating at a level that is less than our current level of funding as a general matter?

Correct. If you look at all 12 bills, yes.

Right. So it would yield a result in total pending the resolution of the full year's Homeland bill that would be a reduction in spending year over year, putting aside some of the math quirks and how we do accounting, but year over year from 25 to 26.

That's correct. And just for the record, the Homeland bill that this body passed, that the House passed, actually reduced Homeland spending by $600 million. A CR actually restores that since we're continuing the status quo. So but your point's correct. Yeah, this is the second year in a row that we've effectively spent less money than was projected at the beginning of the year, less money than we did the year before.

Is it also true that we have, again, in general terms, not getting to the dollar to the penny, over the last three fiscal years had spending, discretionary spending, stay relatively flat?

That's correct.

For three consecutive fiscal years.

That's correct.

Have you is that a normal occurrence in this town?

No, normally discretionary spending goes up by 3 to 5 percent a year, sometimes more. And over a 10-year budget window, that's a lot of money. I mean, literally the savings the last couple of years probably amount to something like half a trillion dollars over a 10-year budget by just simply holding the line. You let revenue catch up with expenditures. So yeah, there's no question fiscally this helps correct the course. But again, and you and I have had this discussion often, the main drivers there are the mandatory spending, entitlement spending, whatever phrase you want to use. That's 70 plus percent of the federal budget. Our appropriated money is only about 26 percent or so of all federal spending. Actually, the Appropriations Committee historically has done a pretty good job of keeping the numbers intact and an exceptionally good job over the last three years.

And is it not also true, without getting too much in the weeds because this is about discretionary spending, that last summer we obviously passed the big beautiful bill, as it's come to be known, that had a significant amount of reforms with respect to mandatory spending, just as a general matter, correct?

Absolutely true.

My point generally speaking here is, is whatever agreements, disagreements we have, that we have moved the needle, maybe not as far as I would do if I was just the sole decider, maybe maybe farther than some people would choose, but we have moved the needle with respect to the overall spend of our government. So the other point that I'd make, and I'll be mindful of the time that we use here, that I think merits observation is we're going to have a debate obviously over the next two weeks when the Homeland bill expires. But I do want to remind people of the extent to which the men and women in ICE, Americans, people of all backgrounds, all economic backgrounds, they have been keeping dangerous individuals off of the streets of the United States.

Yes, in my view, that's correct.

And we just gloss over the people when you look at the people removed. For example, an individual here with convictions for homicide and robbery, admitted gang member that was removed from the streets of Minnesota. An individual that was involved with rape. An individual that was involved with assault, forgery, and obstruction and arrest for drug possession. An individual that was involved with sexual assault and driving under the influence. An individual who is a convicted sex offender and convicted of sodomy on a 12-year-old girl. An individual with multiple arrests for driving under the influence, larceny, assault, and making terrorist threats. An individual with aggravated assault with a weapon, larceny, assault, possession of cocaine, and robbery with a gun. An individual possession of a weapon and aggravated assault with a gun. An Asian gang member, Asian Boys gang member. An individual with fraud, identity theft, and driving under the influence. An individual with driving under the influence, aggravated assault on a weapon, assault, and possession of amphetamine. And I could go on and on and on. There are other individuals, multiple counts of credit card fraud, drug possession, controlled substance possession, and drug trafficking. Three prior convictions for selling amphetamines as well as convictions for assault. Previously arrested for child cruelty and battery. These are individuals, and I'm only touching the just just the tip of the iceberg of the individuals that these men and women have been engaged in removing from the streets of the United States as a direct consequence of the policies of the previous administration with wide open borders putting individuals onto our streets and endangering the people that we represent. So right now what we have in front of us is a bill that will only fund Homeland, it will only fund the men and women that are doing that for 14 days. Now we'll have a debate over the next 14 days about that, but I want to remind people why there are some people who are frustrated that we work together on a bipartisan basis to produce legislation that funded all of government and we passed that out last week and that would carry forward what needs to be done to be able to secure the homeland of the United States, fund our men and women in uniform in the Department of War, fund the other priorities of government at flat spending. And now we're getting this back and we're going to reduce Homeland spending for two weeks. To be clear, I am going to be fighting like hell to ensure that we've got the resources necessary for the men and women of Border Patrol, ICE, and the other people at Homeland Security to secure this nation against violent criminals that are endangering the people of the United States. That is an absolute hard line in the sand. And we will have that battle over the next two weeks. Glad to have it. And we can have the battle over the SAVE Act because yes, only citizens should vote. And we can have the battle over voter ID because of yes, you should have voter identification to vote. These are common sense 80 percent plus issues that poll highly on a bipartisan basis. So we will have those debates. And the final point I'll make that I will say credit to the House and on a bipartisan and on a bipartisan note, I am thankful that we included in this bill stopping the absurdity of the Senate getting a $500,000 sue and settle payday by being able to put that provision in there and we had unanimous vote twice in the House to stop it. So I'm thankful to leadership in in both chambers for including that in this bill. And with that, I yield back to the chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Roy. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.

I yield first to the ranking member.

The gentleman's recognized.

Well, let me say to the gentleman who just spoke, I agree with him in getting rid of the Lindsey Graham earmark, which was kind of a payola for for Lindsey Graham and some of a few senators. So we agree on that. I I also agree that all the bad guys should be should be removed from the United States. But that's where our agreement ends. I mean, I I object to five-year-olds being detained. I object to American citizens being murdered in the street. I object to off-duty police officers being detained because the color of their skin is brown. You know, in Minnesota a US citizen said ICE took him at gunpoint in his underwear without a warrant in front of his four-year-old grandchild. I mean, in another instance a US citizen went on his lunch break and masked federal agents detained him in a chokehold. In Miami, federal agents ripped a woman from her car as she screamed that she was a US citizen. I mean, I mean, in California a US citizen on his way to work at a food bank pulled over to warn federal agents that they should wrap up their stop of another individual before school-age children gathered for the bus. Moments later, the ICE officer shot him in the back. In Chicago, ICE agents stormed an apartment complex by helicopter as families slept and deployed chemical agents near a public school. I mean, US citizens are carrying their passports out of fear of being detained without cause. There are reports of Native Americans who are US citizens being detained by ICE. 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025. 32. It was it was ICE's deadliest year in two decades. So I'm sorry, that's where we disagree with the gentleman. And I just wanted to say one other thing, and I'm sorry the gentleman left, but talking about, you know, saving taxpayers, you know, reducing the the debt by a half a trillion dollars in this package? I'm sorry. I mean, that's laughable when you look at the fact that you added $4 trillion to the debt in the big ugly bill. Now maybe that kind of funny math works in Texas, but I don't think it works anywhere else in this country. I mean, that's a that's an insult to the American people's intelligence to somehow say that we're being responsible in terms of reducing the debt, you know, when you add $4 trillion to the debt in the big ugly bill. And I thank the gentlelady and yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Like you, I will not be voting for this package. From last week to now, nothing on the ground has changed significantly. We cannot give DHS and ICE a blank check and hopes that things will work out in two weeks. That approach fails to meet the moment and it fails to meet the concerns of an overwhelming majority of Americans who want an immediate end to the violence, lawlessness, and chaos caused by ICE across this country. Look, we need look no further than the habeas corpus case involving five-year-old Liam, the boy in the blue bunny ears hat, who was detained with his father in Minnesota and shipped off to a detention center in Texas. Trump campaigned on a promise that he would deport the worst of the worst. And if that's what were actually happening, I don't think we would be in anything like this position. But that is not what is happening. Five-year-old Liam is a child, a now traumatized child. He is clearly not the worst of the worst. And neither is his father, who was the excuse for detaining Liam as well. His father has no criminal record either in the United States or in Ecuador where he came from. He lawfully applied for asylum in this country. He followed all of our rules and laws. He applied through the app provided by Customs and Border Patrol. He followed all the rules. And he was making his appointments here in the US. He was working as a construction worker to support his family. They were not public charges. So this is a big, ugly, violent charade that we are seeing out on the streets of America run by Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, and President Donald J. Trump. Our colleague from Texas says nothing has has changed between when these bills passed and and the present time. Well, I think what has changed is the hypocrisy of this administration's detention efforts has been exposed. And I just wanted to cite the court opinion in little Liam's case. It's very brief but very powerful. And the court called out that hypocrisy. The court said, and I quote, 'This court and others regularly send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported, but do so by proper legal procedures.' Said, 'The problem in this case is it has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.' And Madam Chairwoman, I would ask that we I seek unanimous consent to introduce into the record the three-page opinion from the Texas District Court.

Without objection, Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.

Thank you. Look, even after the shooting deaths and even after exposing what happened to little Liam whose family did not commit any crimes, ICE is still in Minneapolis. Trump is threatening to send ICE to more cities. On Saturday, ICE agents tear-gassed and pepper-sprayed peaceful labor union marchers in Oregon. ICE agents are still abusing citizens and non-citizens alike. Federal agents are still kidnapping people and children, holding people at gunpoint, citizens and non-citizens alike, and raiding people's houses without warrants. They seem to be becoming even more emboldened to commit these acts rather than backing down. And certainly the administration and Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller are not forcing them to do so. So it's up to us. You know, we've seen ICE collecting data on peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, putting them in government databases so they can be harassed. They're abusing people in detention facilities, denying detainees medical care, which has led to avoidable deaths, including one of my constituents. He wasn't one of the 32 people who died in ICE custody last year. He died in ICE custody along with I think we're up to six or seven now this year, just a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to vote to give any more money to ICE and to Kristi Noem until we enact concrete laws that can stop the unlawful conduct and violence that ICE is inflicting on America. ICE needs to get out of Minneapolis, no more invasions of city, no more breaking into people's houses, no more arrest without warrants. This week, it's up to Republicans whether the government shuts down. It's their majority. I'm not going to carry their water. We won't be complicit in funding ICE while this utter lawlessness continues. Look, earlier this year, Republicans gave ICE billions in their big ugly bill. They're not going to be hanging out, you know, with a tin cup on the corner looking for money if this doesn't pass right now. But at the same time, they wouldn't our Republican colleagues wouldn't spend a dime on extending the ACA tax credits. Three months ago, House Republicans refused to extend those tax credits when they passed the prior package of appropriations bills. But they promised to work on the ACA tax credit issue after that round of appropriations passed. I think the Speaker said he's going to spend the whole first quarter doing that. Well, the tax credits expired and House Republicans have not advanced a plan to reduce costs for the millions of Americans who now can't afford their health coverage. On Wednesday, just this past Wednesday, I met with the folks who manage enrollment for Pennsylvania's ACA marketplace. And I heard how many people have lost coverage because of Congress's failure to extend the tax credits. I met with a small business owner whose premiums for his family, including four kids, have increased from 1,900 to 3,000 a month. They're paying 36,000 a year for health insurance, a $12,000 increase. Small businesses can't absorb that. It's insane. He doesn't think he can afford to keep his coverage and he's considering dropping it. But House and Senate Republicans don't care. They're not taking up the bill that we did force through the House. So pardon me if I don't trust a deal with ICE and DHS abuses being addressed if we just push these spending bills through when they still haven't dealt with the ACA tax credit system which they promised to do after the last push. It's a little bit like Lucy and Charlie Brown. I'm not seeing the football get pulled aside again. Look, they're rushing through these spending bills, they're refusing to end the government-funded violence in our streets, all the while letting working Americans drown in rising healthcare costs. What does it say about this Congress that it would rather give masked armed agents billions of dollars while denying healthcare to working people? We are better than this. I sincerely hope we can find a path forward for the spending bills this week, but until then, I oppose this package. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Cole, I know the Democrats want to focus on immigration and custom enforcement, but this is the whole Department of Homeland Security appropriations, is that correct?

That's correct.

And so I know that the there was an unfortunate action off of Massachusetts. US Coast Guard performed the search and rescue mission. Unfortunately, they did not find any survivors. That was just a couple of days ago. I think a week ago, the US Coast Guard icebreaker had to go help a cruise ship that was stranded in the ice. Is that correct?

I don't know those two incidents, but that would be pretty normal, I'm sure it is.

It is correct. But my point is this, Department of Homeland Security is much bigger than immigration and custom enforcement. I mean, they're forcing a continuing resolution on the United States Coast Guard. I mean, that's what they're doing. It's customs and border protection is bigger than ICE. I mean, we know that Democrats want open borders. That's what they had under the Biden administration. They allowed millions upon millions upon millions of people into this country illegally. We have no idea who is in this country. But aside from immigration and custom enforcement, you've got customs and border protection, which is Border Patrol. You've got the Transportation Security Administration, who does a tremendous number of things. Most people know them as the ones that run the security at the airports. Is that a fair statement?

That's correct.

Okay. I've already mentioned the US Coast Guard. You've got the Secret Service that's also under Department of Homeland Security. You've got what's known as CISA, the critical I'm sorry, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. You've got FEMA, which is also under Department of Homeland Security, is that correct?

That's correct.

Citizenship and Immigration, which is not ICE, but there does deal with citizenship and immigration. And then you've got the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. All of these are under Department of Homeland Security, correct?

Correct.

And when you do the continuing resolution, what does it do to those agencies as well? Does the continuing resolution impact the US Coast Guard?

It certainly does.

I mean, the the bottom line is this ridiculous demand from the Democratic Party that we have a continuing resolution for Department of Homeland Security. The only thing this is better than is a shutdown, but we're going to be right back here in two weeks. And I'm I I'm sorry that... ...that two people were shot and killed. I really am. I wish it hadn't happened. It's not lost on me that they happened not just in the same state, but the exact same city. And my understanding right now is that ICE is carrying out operations around the country. ICE isn't just operating in Minneapolis, are they, Mr. Cole?

That's correct.

But the difference is in other states, even if they are a Democratic-run state and a Democratic-run city, those mayors and those governors are allowing the local law enforcement agencies to do their job. And in Minneapolis and in Minnesota, my understanding is that those local law enforcement agencies have been given orders not to do their job. And while I'm sorry that the gentleman is deceased, the fact of the matter is he should have been arrested and put in jail when he kicked out the taillight of the vehicle that the officers were in.

[Crosstalk.]

And the Democrats don't want to talk about that. And so I intend to vote for the legislation, Mr. Cole. I think that those of us who want this country to move forward and our economy to move forward will continue to vote yes. My understanding is, and I think this is actually a good thing, that the Homeland Security bill that passed the House of Representatives actually had de-escalation training for immigration and customs enforcement. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And by doing what the Democrats have done, they have stopped the de-escalation training for immigration and customs enforcement. Is that correct?

Correct.

See, I think that the de-escalation training is important and I wish they had not stopped it. I wish that the de-escalation training was there. I hope it'll be in the next piece of legislation that we have, as it was the last. And with that, Mr. Cole, I just want the American citizens to know that DHS is much bigger than immigration and customs enforcement. And they are able to operate effectively, more effectively in other states because they have not been given orders by a radical mayor and a radical governor. The local law enforcement and state law enforcement have not been given orders by a radical governor and a radical mayor not to help from the standpoint of what local law enforcement is supposed to do. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse, for his time of questioning.

I thank the Chairman. Chairman Cole, I presume you agree with what the gentleman from Georgia said, this is a red state, blue state issue? Is that your...

No, I do not.

Oh, he said radical governors versus governors who are in compliance with the law.

Hang on, stop. It's not a debate between the two members. It's your time.

I hear you. I'm asking Mr. Cole a question.

Yeah, I mean, try not to put words into Mr. Scott's mouth, but at the same time, it's not Mr. Scott's time.

I thank the Chairman. How about we do it this way, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Cole, I want to read you a quote. Quote, 'I think the death of Americans, what we're seeing on TV, it's causing deep concerns over federal tactics and accountabilities. Americans don't like what they're seeing right now.' You want to take a guess who might have said that?

No.

The Governor of Oklahoma, someone I suspect you know well, Governor Stitt, said that on TV a few weeks ago. So I think this notion that this is purely an issue in Democratic states, states with Democratic governors or states with Democratic mayors, clearly across the board you have heard over the course of the last several weeks an outcry among the vast majority of Americans who I think are deeply offended at what they see ICE doing in Minneapolis and beyond. Now, with respect to the gentleman from Georgia, because he talked a lot about the various different sub-agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, I will say he expressed more support for some of these sub-agencies within the department than the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I mean, this sort of refrain about FEMA. Secretary Noem has talked about abolishing FEMA. Now we're forced to listen from my colleagues that we must do everything we can to save FEMA from the same people who said nothing when Secretary Noem was discussing abolishing it. Cyber security, CISA. The Trump administration has proposed to cut by a third. A third. 1,000 people they're trying to fire at the cyber security division. And I'm supposed to take at face value statements from my colleagues that this is what, that it's outrageous that we would have a continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security and the cyber security division, that that would put them in a tough spot. I think you ought to be complaining to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Trump administration, not to your Democratic colleagues. I will also say I wish, I wish my colleague from Texas were here, Mr. Roy, and I trust my good friend from Georgia can perhaps relate this to him because to hear him somehow tout this bill as an example, as a paragon of fiscal responsibility is too much to bear, having listened to him on this committee every week for the better part of the last three years. Let me read you from the Cato Institute what they say about this bill. Last week, the proposed $1.7 trillion discretionary budget represents a $24 billion increase compared to fiscal year 2025 levels. It is $50 billion above the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act's budget, non-binding budget targets, which we of course played a part in negotiating, as you all will remember just a few short years ago. And by the way, this doesn't include the $300 billion that Republicans allocated to the Department of Homeland Security, specifically ICE, and the Defense Department last year in the OBBA. So you all may have your reasons as to why you think that these bills deserve to be passed. I certainly don't. But fiscal responsibility cannot be one of the reasons. Full stop. The empirical evidence makes that very clear. Fiscal year 2026 will mark the first year since the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 that Congress will not have statutorily binding spending caps. So spare us talk of fiscal responsibility when this bill ignores that entirely. To say nothing, by the way, of the discussion around earmarks. And this is not meant for the Chairman or the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee. It's meant more for my colleague from South Carolina in absentia who has, again, railed about earmarks every meeting that I've attended and I guess is prepared to vote on a bill that includes every earmark one could conceive of. $1 million for the elevators, elevator repair at New York City's Met Opera. I look forward to understanding how the gentleman from South Carolina, again, talk about paragon of fiscal responsibility, how he justifies that vote for his constituents. In any event, the question that I would like to ask of the Chairman and the Ranking Member relates to, of course, the Department of Homeland Security because the background, the backstory, of course, with respect to the bill that we're considering today is in the context of what's happening across the country and the serious objections that you've heard from colleagues on my side of the aisle, myself included, and why I'll be voting against this bill when it comes to the floor tomorrow, if it gets there. Mr. Cole, I wonder, you've heard, I'm sure, from many Democratic colleagues of yours about our belief that Secretary Noem should be impeached. And I wonder if you agree with that or what you think of impeachment.

I'm not going to speculate on something that hasn't happened. And no, I don't agree with that. But if you want to have impeachment, go right ahead. You have the ability to offer a motion to that deal. But that's really not what we're here to discuss. We're here to discuss the appropriations process.

I hear you, but...

...and funding the rest of the government, most of which is unfunded right now. I mean, right now we are not paying men and women to defend it. We're not paying the air traffic controllers that brought us all here that flew safely. We're not paying the TSA. We're not funding the government. These other things are important. And I think the Senate, I don't agree with what they did, but they said, okay, let's set aside two weeks here and only fund this for two weeks. The rest of this stuff is really, honestly, extraordinarily important to the country.

Our objection...

...but what this bill does is keep funding that...

I hear you.

...and then leave open this other area.

You made a very impassioned case on that. And I think you answered my question. As you heard from the Ranking Member, as you heard from Miss Scanlon, and I echo their sentiments, there is a complete lack of trust and a loss of trust with respect to what the Trump administration is doing. There are many of us who will not support the appropriation that, whether it's a continuing resolution or the proposed budget that the House passed last week that we all voted against, and many of us who believe that there must be a change in leadership and that Secretary Noem should be the subject of impeachment proceedings. It sounds like you disagree.

On that latter point, you don't think she should be impeached. I'm here to talk about appropriations bills, not impeachment.

That is not the subject in front of us right here. That's not got anything to do with any of the bills we're working on. We're simply trying to fund the government. That sounds like a maybe. Look, if you want to have a theatrical debate...

It's not a theatrical debate.

Yes, it is. Because it doesn't have anything to do with any of this legislation.

It has everything to do with the Department of Homeland Security's budget.

If you want to talk about the Homeland Security budget, I'm happy to talk about the budget. It's not an impeachment issue. It's a budgetary issue. And what's proposed is a two-week...

Is that right?

Yes, it is. Okay, let me explain why I think that that view is misplaced.

Secretary Noem has unlawfully impounded funds in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, right? That relates to the budget that the House and the Senate are passing for the department to implement.

She has violated the law.

That's not a question.

I'll finish it.

I'll give you an opportunity. We're passing a continuing resolution for two weeks.

Okay, that's great. So your question was how does the impeachment of Secretary Noem or impeachment proceedings against her concern the Department of Homeland Security budget? And my answer to you is that she has violated the law, in my view and in the view of many others, in a number of ways as it relates to the money that has been appropriated to her agency. That has included unlawfully impounding funds. That has included obstructing congressional oversight in violation of riders that have been passed in this appropriations bill previously. The record is replete with these examples. So that's why I ask you about it. And I'm not, it's not a gotcha. You answered it. You said you don't agree with it or you don't think that she should be impeached. So that's your view.

If you want to bring an impeachment resolution, by all means do so.

And the reason I ask, as you could probably imagine, is that I didn't hear the same reticence from my Republican colleagues, including you, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, a year and a half ago when all of you seemed very, very eager to impeach Secretary Mayorkas. I'm sure you recall your vote to impeach him, yes?

I certainly did.

Yeah. Yeah. There was a mad rush on your side of the aisle to impeach Secretary Mayorkas. I didn't hear anybody at the time say that that was an inappropriate use of the time within the House or the ability of members to be able to pursue it.

And it sounds like... Look, I said it didn't have anything to do with an appropriations bill. That didn't have anything to do with an appropriations bill. That was some measure put in front of me. I voted on it. I don't think you'll find I spoke on it or that it was, but comes to the floor of the House, we've got an obligation to cast a vote. That's appropriate. All I'm saying is I'm here to talk about appropriations. That's what's in front of us. And it's not the package I would have preferred. It's the package that came over from the United States Senate. I still think passing it is better than not passing it. You and I obviously disagree on that. Fair enough.

I appreciate that. Well, I'll certainly agree with you on that last sentiment, which is that you and I disagree on it. There's no, in my view, basis to continue supporting the lawlessness that the agency, ICE in particular, has been perpetrating against the American people in the context of this appropriations bill. And I'll be voting no on that basis. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is to Chairman Cole, building upon what my colleague from Georgia mentioned. I mean, this is not just a vote to fund the Coast Guard, to fund FEMA, to fund TSA. There are also quite a few other measures within this legislation we're seeking to fund. So if you could, in the inverse, explain to the committee and explain to all those watching, a no vote on this Senate amendment to H.R. 7148 equals what?

Well, it equals voting no to 94 percent of funding the government. So, you know, as important as Homeland Security and that agency is, and the discussion is, I'm not diminishing that, is it really appropriate not to pay anybody that wears the uniform of the United States that's defending us right now? I don't think that is. Is it appropriate not to fund research at the NIH on cancer and Alzheimer's or people in clinical trials? I don't think that is. Is it appropriate not to provide services to the American people that those of us that are most vulnerable need? Look, this is a huge swath of the federal government. This is like, you know, taking a sledgehammer to try and get a fly. I mean, I'm not saying the fly is not important. I'm saying this is about funding essentially almost the entire government of the United States, which we are not doing now. The Senate has acted. It's now up to the House to act. Is this what I would have proposed? No. Is this what my colleague the Ranking Member? No. We disagree on a lot of things. Is this the approach I would have taken to the Department of Homeland? No. But I would rather fund everything. Look, there are federal employees in every district in America. They ought to get paid for the work they're doing. They are doing important jobs for the country. Why would we shut down every safety agency? Why would we ask air traffic controllers to keep working without getting paid? Why should we ask scientists that are doing important research? I mean, it just is, you know, inappropriate in my view not to fund the government. Most of the issues we're talking about honestly aren't appropriations issues. You could deal with them in Judiciary, you can deal with them in the committees of jurisdiction. Part of the problem the appropriations process has is that everybody tries to put things on it that don't have much to do with it. So again, you want to impeach somebody? Fine. File an impeachment resolution. We have a process to deal with that. Not dealt with in the appropriations bill. So again, I'm not going to go home and tell my people that are working hard at Tinker Air Force Base to keep 50 and 60-year-old airplanes flying in combat conditions, they shouldn't get paid because Congress is having a fight over something that's totally unrelated to what they do, which is critically important. I'm not going to look at a young service family and tell them I'm sorry, you've got a six-year-old in daycare, we're not sure whether or not we can pay you to do... I'm just not going to do that. This is not what I would have preferred, but I'm going to vote to fund the government of the United States and then let us resolve these other issues through negotiation, through legislation, through adjudication if you need to. But shutting down the government is not a good thing to do. And it endangers and harms people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. And it puts the American people at risk. They may even agree with you about the issues you're concerned about in ICE or Homeland Security. But I bet you they don't agree that the military shouldn't get paid. I don't think anybody in America believes that, or very few people do. And I think they would think you were reckless in running that kind of a risk. And I don't think people, again, that are simply doing their job, 99.9 percent of whom work hard, play by the rules, have discharged the things we asked them to do, shouldn't get paid, or that vital research... So it just to me the remedy is out of proportion to the problem that my friends have. And, you know, you want to shut down a government for the second time in three months? You have the ability to do that, I guess. The Senate chose not to do that. They chose a different course, not the one I would have chosen. But at least they looked at what we did together with the Senate and said five out of six of these things we were okay with. Let's get that done. Let's put a two-week limit on this other and continue this debate and discussion. I would have preferred a longer period of time, but I don't know how they ended up with two weeks, but that's where they're at. And so right now, right now, the government of the United States, not this Capitol complex because we did fund the Leg Branch, we have funded Ag, you know, we have a number of bills in place, but about almost over 70 percent of the government is unfunded and people are doing important things for the American people and not getting paid. And they don't have anything to do with what's going on in Minneapolis one way or the other. So, you know, I grew up in a military family. I grew up with a father that was a military defense worker after that. Had a brother that followed the same course. They worked hard, they played by the rules, they deserved to be paid for what they do when they were doing it. I think the same thing about folks now. You want to have these arguments, discussions, you want to change things, but you don't shut down the government of the United States and freeze everything because you're upset about something that's happened. You deal with that problem within the context of that. You don't shut down the government. But again, people have a vote, they're entitled to do it. And the Senate chose this thing. It's not what I would have preferred, but I think it's better than shutting down the government.

Well, that is very, very well put, Mr. Chairman. And I think that's what everyone should consider when voting on this after we report out the rule tomorrow. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you very much, Mr. Jack. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Hello, Madam Chair, and hello Chairman and Ranking Member. You know, it's interesting because the other side of the aisle seems to be making the case of why we should restructure Homeland Security because it's got a lot of different pieces in there that don't make sense together. And so, you know, we should take that up. I'm not sure that we would be able to do that right now in these circumstances. But where we're at right now is that when we were last here, the Ranking Member and Democrats together with Republicans had said, listen, there is so much controversy around Homeland Security. Let's separate it out. So we had a vote on the two different bills. But it's Republicans who put them back together and sent them over. So there's this creation...

If I may, that's actually not quite accurate. The Senate asked for these bills to be put together. That's part of the negotiation. So yeah, did Republicans put them back together? That was the request of the Senate. That was the request specifically of my Democratic colleague, Senator Murray. We want all six bills together. You wanted it differently in the House and we accommodated that. The Senate asked for what it got. So please don't blame that on Republicans. Blame it on the Senate collectively on both sides. But that was the request we got. So, you know, sorry, we sent them what they asked for in the form that they asked for. And then they made a decision to change it, which they have the right to do. And they sent it back.

So what we have, Chairman, is we have a problem right now because there was support for funding the other agencies and we talked about the good work. In fact, you were here last time. And we talked about some of the problems. And in fact, I asked you, do you think it's all right that they are arresting Native Americans for immigration offenses and putting them in detention? And you agreed that that's not okay.

Of course not.

That's not okay. And wouldn't you also agree that it's not right for them to be arresting any American citizen? In fact, Latinos often look like Native Americans and that's probably why those Native Americans were arrested because they have darker skin, right?

I have no idea.

You have no idea. But it's not right to arrest any citizens for immigration.

Of course not.

And I think that that's the problem, is it's not right and they keep doing that. And when they do that, it's a violation of the 14th Amendment. It's a violation of our basic principles of what it means to be a citizen of the United States is we should not have ICE going around and arresting hundreds. Hundreds. It was over 200 by now because the last document we have, it was 170 and that was several months ago. But the other thing that they're doing is they're arresting and pulling people into custody and then the courts are having to throw them out. 2,300 documented court cases where they are saying you are violating people's due process rights. 2,300. These are court cases. This isn't us lefties or whatever they want to call us. We believe in due process. I would assume you believe in due process as well.

Of course I do. Although not really dealt with normally in an appropriations bill. Not, you know, we have all kinds of committees, we have all kinds of legislation. Our legislation is about funding the government.

Right. And when we fund the government... We did that in the House. We sent it to the Senate in the way the Senate asked for it to be sent. That's not a legal matter, it's a procedural issue. Nobody's rights were violated by that. We had an agreement with what they would do. They broke that agreement. They have the right to do that. And they've now sent it back to us in another form. So to me, the real question is do you want to keep the focus on Homeland, which this clearly does because it's, as my friend the Ranking Member said, about 10 days funding. That's all that's in here for Homeland. And if you want to vote against it, by all means go ahead. Then there's the funding for the rest of the government, which was negotiated in a bipartisan fashion and which was agreed upon by, honestly, majorities of both parties. Majorities of both parties voted for those funding bills. And now you've got exactly the same thing in front of you. The same thing that a majority of your party voted for and a majority of my party voted for. Why shouldn't that get funded? You want to deal with Homeland separately? That's what the Senate has decided to do. They sent it to you separately. And or but they put it all in one package. They didn't do what we did in the House and separate it out. They could have sent us over five bills. They could have sent us over five bills and then sent this as a separate package. I don't know why they decided not to do that. But I'm not willing to jeopardize the entire funding of the rest of the government and not pay military families and not pay federal workers and not pay safety workers and not fund FEMA in the middle of a disaster. I'm not willing to do that because I'm mad about this. Other people are, they have every right to be. But that's the issue in front of us now. Ranking Member, I think that part of what we're struggling here in this conversation is that this is a bill that will fund Homeland Security. It will fund CBP and ICE. And the idea that we could not ask anything, that we can send over a check and say, but you don't have to do anything. I think that I can't see how that works. For example, last week or last time you were here, we talked about body cameras. Right? There's money in there, but there's no requirement that they be turned on, that they be kept on, and that the footage be available to law enforcement, local as well as federal. That's something that could get included in a funding package. Am I right, Ranking Member?

You are right. But let me just say a couple things because questions haven't been directed to me, so I'm going to take this opportunity to say something. First of all, with the structure and the organization of the Department of Homeland Security, I was appointed to the committee that examined that effort many, many, many years ago. And I voted no, particularly because Coast Guard, FEMA, and other pieces were included in that. This was a conglomerate that people rushed to to vote for. And in my view, a mistake because of those things there. If my colleague Mr. McGovern were here, yeah, I passed all 12 bills when I was chair of this committee. I also want to just say to Mr. Roy, $4.5 trillion cuts that biggest cut for the wealthiest and for the biggest corporations. Give us a break on fiscal responsibility. Kristi Noem, let me be clear because I have colleagues who are asking this, I said she should be fired, she would resign. If that not was the case, then we could bring impeachment proceedings. So that's where I am on that. Now, this is we tried to put in guardrails in the House Homeland Security bill. I have a list of them, I won't go through it, but many of the things that have been out there and we've discussed. Citizens, warrants, body cameras, requirements, etc. That was rejected. And that was with the 207 of those. And I speak for myself and not everybody else. I said, as I said in my opening remarks, I don't think it took into consideration what we need to be doing with regard to ICE. With what we have here is five bills. I have to repeat this, five bills. And this is information that I have distributed. Increases the National Institutes of Health. It has state opioid response grants. It has childcare and Head Start. It talks about power of the purse where we got some of that back and on a bipartisan basis, overwhelming numbers. We rejected the Trump administration's effort to dismantle the Department of Education. Rental assistance is in there. Homeless assistance is in there. Funding to expand air traffic controllers personnel. 3.8 percent for military personnel. Bipartisan basis, we said yes, no, we came to a conclusion. Did we get everything we wanted? Hell no. Did the Republicans get everything they wanted? Hell no. And that's the five bills that are there. Look, I've never wanted to run for the United States Senate. Okay? I've been asked in the past, why would I want to go to the other side to what I call the dark side? You know, where rarely anything gets completed, etc. They came back and they took this thing. And look, we talked about disassociating the two pieces so you could have that strength of your feeling about five bills and you could have the strength of feeling about the Department of Homeland Security bill. And is it as it was currently structured and which is something that I am not for. However, what I am for... ...for is for the five bills that we have passed. And this comes with a it's not two weeks anymore. It was the two weeks. You're now if you if this votes on the 3rd, you go to the 13th, it's 10 days. There is not a dime of increase in there for for Homeland. It is a continuing resolution. And therefore, it is the same. I want the opportunity. I want the opportunity in those 10 days to talk about what we want to do in reforming ICE. And it is and that's there and I'm I will I'll lay it out the same things that we've been talking about. You cannot detain American citizens or deport them. You have to have warrants for people's arrest. You have to require body cameras for people. We have to have an oversight capacity of an agency which I said in my outset is lawless and is a rogue agency the way it's currently constructed. Does it need to be reformed? Amen, it does. I'll take those 10 days and see what we can get. And at the end of those 10 days, if if we can't decide to go with it, then it's a no vote. And Department of Homeland Security is shuttered. But not Labor-HHS, not Department of Transportation and HUD, not Defense, not State, not the other five bills because they're good bills with good things for the people that we care about. And I'll fight for those Democratic priorities every day of the week and fight against a lawless and a rogue agency that is taking this country, turning it around, and pitting one person against another and killing American citizens in our street in our streets. We have to change that. We have an opportunity. Without it, we will not have an opportunity.

So part of my problem is I keep hearing Republicans say, I keep hearing Republicans say, oh, we can't do that. Oh, we can't put that in appropriations. We can absolutely put in appropriations because if we're not going to demand that when they violate the Constitution, Chairman, they said that you cannot that it's all right to kill somebody because they were carrying a gun, lawfully carrying a gun. And when he was shot down, he wasn't he was already down. And when he was shot, that gun was no longer in his possession. Do you agree with the idea that you can get shot because you're lawfully carrying a gun?

Of course not.

Right. So that's a violation. I don't think any American agrees with that. Of course not. But how do you enforce that? That's the problem. They're violating the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the 14th Amendment.

First of all, there'd be an investigation and probably be court cases on this. That's normally how you punish people that break the law. You punish them individually. You don't normally shut down the government of the United States because somebody did something wrong.

Ms. Leger Fernandez.

They do something wrong all the time. But you don't shut down the entire government. And you certainly don't shut down areas where you have negotiated in good faith and have bipartisan, bicameral agreement.

We're not talking about this. I'm talking about what can we do. So if you want to have this thing, again, I wish the Senate had sent it back

separately. They chose. We accommodated them. We accommodated your Democratic colleagues in the Senate. That's what they wanted. That's what they asked for. But what I'm talking about what can we do? We accommodated your Democratic colleagues in the House

because you wanted a separate vote on it. And we gave it to you. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

It was Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. So I think that this is exactly, Madam Chair. Republicans, Republicans and Democrats, but it was specifically a No, no, don't talk over each other, please.

We've been doing very well, but let's not talk over each other. I know. I apologize. This is the Rosa DeLauro we've known to come and love. No. All right. So I will I will wrap up. Ms. Leger Fernandez, would you wind it up, please?

Yeah, I'll wrap it up. But I think that what I'm the frustration you're hearing us say is that we are hearing, including from the Chairman, these don't belong in appropriations. And my God, if we are funding it, where else do they belong? And especially when you keep violating every single piece of this Constitution. And in 2026 alone, ICE has violated 96 court orders. So, Mr. Chairman, saying this could go through a court isn't working. We need to put it in the language of the bill and we can. We need to make it enforceable. We need to have accountability. And none of that exists right now. And that's the frustration that Americans are feeling because this Trump is going down on this. Americans don't like what happens. They don't like seeing people gunned down in the street. They don't like the idea that, you know, it's about retribution and revenge. You're going into Maine, my God. Really? Oklahoma Oklahoma has more immigrants than Maine does. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Right? And the retribution doesn't make any sense. I don't know what the population in Maine is, but we're certainly proud to have a healthy immigration community in our our states. So but they're going into Maine because it's a Democratic state

and they're not going into Oklahoma because it's a Republican state because that's what Trump has said is he's going to have revenge and retribution.

Well, actually, that's not correct. I mean, I was with one of my county sheriffs over the break and there were ICE operations in Oklahoma. He said the difference is we cooperate with them here. We work well together. So we haven't had the same experience. That's not right. But saying there's not an ICE presence in Oklahoma, I can tell you is just not true. There is. There aren't any surges going on in Democratic states. And, Madam Chair, with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. I mean, in Republican states, there's no surges going on in Republican states and that tells you everything. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.

I don't have any questions, Madam Chair. God bless you. Thank you. Many thanks.

Mr. Norman, you're recognized.

I'll be I'll be brief. I think everything's been talked about. You know what what does get me though is the left continues to demagogue what happened to the ICE agents and the encourage assaults on police. Yet they stood beside a president who let 15 to 20 million illegals in this country. They stood beside it. They stood behind the the children who were left to to dry with sex trafficking, with didn't say one word about what was happening by the Biden administration that President Trump is trying now to cure. That's what the ICE agents are doing. They're not talking about the 8,000 assault on the ICE agents. They're not talking about the young man who unfortunately was killed, but he kicked out a he kicked out a car, a light tail light in a car. He should have been arrested, but they let him go with the lax rules as a sanctuary city has. It's so hypocritical. Mr. Cole, you've been around a long time. What's going to happen in 10 days?

I don't think we know. I mean, I think there'll be a serious negotiation. My guess is there'll probably be an extension. I don't think it'll get settled in 10 days, but you know, I'd love to be wrong about that. And we'll probably be up here with some other short-term CR. What I do and I agree very much with the Ranking Member on this. I don't see why the rest of government has to be held hostage to this dispute. I don't see why the military needs to be threatened. I don't see why the NIH needs to be threatened. I don't see why the Department of Education needs to be threatened. I don't see why as my friend pointed out, rent assistance needs to be threatened. So I don't think those people have much to do with this dispute. And if we have to have this, you know, we'll see. I also think, you know, everybody here's commented. I actually agree with my friend the Ranking Member. I wasn't here when Homeland Security was created, but I've seen it as a very ungainly agency with 23 different components if I remember the number correctly. And I don't think probably there needs to be the authorizing committees need to do some pretty serious work in redesign. Again, we don't do that in our committee. That's not our job. You know, Congress has created this entity. Our job is to fund it. We try to arrive at what we think the appropriate level is. We try to put in guardrails or things. We agree sometimes. Sometimes we don't agree. Whatever. But the point is, we worked it out and got it done. The Senate broke the agreement. They may feel justified in doing that. They certainly have the ability to do that. So we now have a situation because they did not do what they agreed to and because they did not accept the bill in the form that they asked for it in. It's now been kicked back to us with a huge government shutdown underway. And I think we ought to stop that. Most of these areas we agree on or we've come to an agreement. We ought to take those aside the way any normal people would be and say, I'm not going to punish the American military because I'm mad at something ICE is doing. I'm not going to, you know, disrupt clinical trials at the NIH because I'm upset. I'm going to these areas we agree, we've come to agreement. Let's do that. Keep focused on this and we'll keep working at it. But again, a lot of these problems as my friend suggests, I think are some of them need to be in court. They don't need to be fought out in a legislative arena. If somebody did something wrong in a case of a law enforcement official did something wrong, you know, then they need to go be punished and or be a trial and be adjudicated, I should say. So I think exploding these things up and derailing the entire government is irrational. I don't think it is going to work. I thought it was irrational when Republicans did it over Obamacare as if the whole rest of the government was about Obamacare. It wasn't. This is the same thing here. So we ought to take the areas we can agree on, take those off the table. They're done until September 30th. Let us get about our work for that, sort this other issue out, and go from there. But my guess would be to get back to my friend's question, I would be surprised if this is solved in 10 days. I would be enormously pleased, but I would be surprised. And I would not be surprised to see us back here with some short-term thing. But let us get most of government done and get back to thinking about next year as well. And you know, some of the authorization committees, it would be really nice if they just authorized. If they just did their work. You know, I can show you a committee, the only authorization committee around here that gives us an authorization bill every year is the House Armed Services Committee. It doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican controlled, they produce a bill that covers everything they spend. No other committee comes close. Not remotely close. So if they want to restructure these agencies and change, there's plenty of work to do. They can get right at it.

I think the preview of coming attractions will be the next 10 days will be demagogue in Kristi Noem, demagogue in ICE agents, calling for prisoners to get cut loose, calling for ICE agents to be assaulted. I think that will be a preview of coming attractions. And when they don't totally dismantle ICE, they'll have to vote against it. They're willing to shut the government down. I'm it's all I can do. I'm I'm against giving them 10 days. Let's call their bluff. I think the last time they shut the government down for 43 days, how did that work out? Not too good. Republicans got the blame for it. I know. It didn't work out too good for them. They know that. How did it work out for the American people for 43 days?

That's right. Not very damn good. No. How did it work out for families that didn't make mortgage payments that they owed because the you know, the the employed person in the family for the federal government didn't get paid. But by God, we expect you to come to work. We expect to be able to fly in and pontificate while you don't get paid. Your car payment doesn't get paid. Your rent doesn't get paid. And you worry about your family. That's real adult. So I mean, we've got substantial agreement here. People can vote how they want to. I'm for getting those things done like my friend the Ranking Member. We can continue to work on this other deal. But you know, you tell me how it's logical to shut down the entire government of the United States, jeopardize millions of paychecks, not just public paychecks, but private too because we do business with a lot of private business. And that's because we're upset about one thing over here, which we can deal with and have the instruments to deal with. But you know, again, you know, we live in this superheated, super polarized age, but I don't think it's a logical response to the problem in front of us.

Well, you hit it on the head. It's not fair for the American people. The SNAP benefits that were denied during those 45 days in South Carolina, 43 days in South Carolina, those people suffered for that. As Mr. Scott brought up, you know, the Homeland Security is more than just ICE. They want to dismantle ICE. It's not going to happen. There is a strong contingency and growing. The minute they start all these outlandish demands, it's not going to happen. I'll give I'll reluctantly vote for Do you want me to finish? Yes, you're finishing. I will reluctantly vote for the rule and give them the stupid 10 days and let's see how it plays out. It's going to get shut down. Let them bear the consequences. And I think they will, as they did before. So but thank you for your hard work for both of you for your hard work. We just have a total disagreement of what service is in this country and what leverage you'll use. For them, it's one word: power. And thank God the 77 million people aren't going to give it to them. I yield back. Madam Chair. Mr. McGovern. Just for the record, SNAP benefits were withheld

notwithstanding the fact that the money was there to pay for them. That was decided by the President of the United States.

Well, with all due respect, there wasn't enough money for the month. That was Well, there was more than enough. There was more than enough money

to not stop them. Okay, Mr. McGovern. Look, no, but I mean, I just want that that was the first time in history that ever happened. Well, with all due respect, the President went to the Supreme Court to deprive people of food. Right. So cruel he is. Sorry.

Okay. Let's stick to the subject matter. Okay. I thank Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Norman. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for coming today. I really, really appreciate the Chairman setting the record straight on why we are here today and talking about the other body. And I almost wanted to cheer when the Ranking Member made her comments. I was not in Congress when Homeland Security was established either, Mr. Chairman, but I do remember the debates that went on in the country about this being a very ungainly, I think was the word you used, and it's a good word, of putting these disparate agencies together. And if anything good comes out of what's happening, although I think other good will come out of what's happened in Minnesota, I do expect other good things to happen. It really would be nice if we could look again at the composition of this committee and say, why are these things all put together here? It really is a very, very confusing issue. And I hope it will spur the American people to to do a little little understanding of where we are in the country with this various agencies put within this one committee. And it does make it very difficult, I think, to to administer it. And maybe it's time for us to look at a way to make some changes. And I hope long term, that's what happens. But I want to thank you all again. We didn't expect to be back here when we sent those bills over to the Senate. I thank you for the good work you've done. You've emphasized over and over again that these bills came to us as a result of the hard work of the subcommittee members. And as Ms. DeLauro said, it's nobody's perfect bill. These bills are nobody's perfect bill, but we live where we have to compromise. And I appreciate the good work that you all have done. And I'd like to get this process behind us so you can get started on next year's process and hopefully it will turn out to be the right kind of process as you all want it to be. So I thank you all very much for being here today. And seeing no further questions, we appreciate your being here and you are excused. Thank you very much. I now welcome our second panel, Chairman Comer and Representative Walkinshaw from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Comer, I welcome your testimony. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern.

I urge Rules Committee to grant a prompt rule for the House's consideration of both the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find former President of the United States William J. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find former Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Government on Oversight and Government Reform. Subpoenas are not mere suggestions. They carry the force of law and require compliance. Former President Clinton and former Secretary Clinton were legally required to appear for a deposition before the House Oversight Committee. They refused and actions have consequences. Last July, Republicans and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee's Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee unanimously approved a voice vote a motion to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary Clinton for depositions as part of our investigation into the federal government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases. On August 5th, I issued subpoenas to them. The testimonies of President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are critical to understand Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking network and the ways he sought to curry favor and influence to shield himself from scrutiny. In fact, then Secretary of State Clinton would have signed off on the annual Trafficking in Persons Report. In 2010, under Secretary Clinton's tenure, that report began covering trafficking within the United States. Given her service as Secretary of State, she could provide firsthand information about the federal government's efforts to combat international sex trafficking. Their testimony may also inform how Congress can strengthen laws to better combat human trafficking. Since issuing the subpoenas, the Oversight Committee has acted in good faith. We've offered flexibility on scheduling. We've tried to accommodate. The response we received was not cooperation, but defiance, repeated delays, excuses, and obstruction. President Clinton and Secretary Clinton claim to have been treated unfairly because the Oversight Committee accepted written statements under penalty of law from former US Attorneys Gonzalez, Holder, Lynch, Sessions, and Garland, as well as former FBI Director Comey. Those written statements were accepted because none of those officials recalled any information relevant to the Epstein investigation, nor could we find any evidence that they did have personal relationships with Epstein. By contrast, the Oversight Committee required in-person testimony from former US Attorney General Barr and former US Secretary of Labor and US Attorney Acosta, both Republicans, because they possessed information directly relevant to the investigation. The Clintons had documented relationships with Epstein and Maxwell, including President Clinton's trips with Epstein and Maxwell evidenced by numerous photographs, flight log records, wedding invitations, and other materials. We repeatedly informed the Clintons' attorneys that a written statement would not be sufficient. The subpoenas required a deposition. Federal courts have consistently held that witnesses may not impose their own conditions upon the manner of congressional inquiry. Yet President Clinton and Secretary Clinton attempted to do exactly that, submitting a brief, bulleted written statement that was neither comprehensive nor responsive to the Oversight Committee's many unanswered questions. No person, not a former president or a private citizen, may willfully defy a duly issued congressional subpoena without consequence. And there can be no doubt that this bipartisan congressional subpoena was lawful and duly issued as Ranking Member Garcia confirmed for the record during the committee's markup. The Clintons have flatly refused to appear at all despite repeated warnings that the Oversight Committee would move forward with contempt proceedings. Two weeks ago, the Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis to hold both Clinton both President Clinton and Secretary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with their subpoenas. President Clinton must be held accountable for his actions. Secretary Clinton must be held accountable for her actions. The Rules Committee and the full House must take this opportunity to uphold Congress's investigative authority. And we must do so to demonstrate to the American people that justice is applied equally to everyone regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige. I also urge the Rules Committee to grant prompt rule for Representative Gills' House Joint Resolution 142 disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the DC Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. As I've said many times before this committee, Congress has the constitutional right to review legislation passed by the DC Council under the DC Home Rule Act. It also has the authority to block such legislation. In this case, it should do just that. In December this past year, the DC Council enacted, without the mayor's support, legislation that blocks corresponding tax relief for DC residents and businesses that is afforded them at the federal level by the Working Families Tax Cut Act. These reforms provide much needed tax relief for both individuals and businesses, relief that keeps more of Americans' money where it belongs, in their pockets. However, the DC Council has cherry picked pieces of these federal tax reforms and decided to just ignore the application in the local tax code. The tax provisions they have chosen not to implement in the DC tax code include no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security for senior citizens, no tax on auto loan interest. This hurts seniors and hardworking American families and that's just the start of it. They've also cut various tax credits for DC local businesses including research and development, manufacturing incentives, stifling them from growing their local economy. The House must swiftly exercise its constitutional responsibility to oversee the District of Columbia and stop this misguided legislation from going into effect. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to unite in the support of DC taxpayers and businesses and support this necessary resolution of disapproval. Again, I ask the Rules Committee to grant a prompt rule for the House's consideration of these measures and I welcome the committee's questions. I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Comer. Mr. Walkinshaw, can you hold on just one second? Sure. I can't figure out where that pounding noise is coming from. It's I'm sure it's distracting to me. I don't want it to be distracting to you all. We thought it might be coming from your mics. That's why I wanted to hold. Well, I'm missing a piece. It could be. Oh, yeah. He's missing the There it came. That might that could have been it. No. Okay. My mic's turned off if it's still Yeah, we'll see. It went away for a second and then when you spoke, I think it did come back. I think that was the issue. Could be. I'm sorry. Because it's not there anymore. Okay. All right. We'll just switch out. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Walkinshaw. Please, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. This is my first time before this august committee. I got the full experience here over the last hour listening to you all. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in opposition to HJ Res 142, which would create chaos during tax season for 700,000 taxpaying Americans here in the District of Columbia, and in opposition to the Clinton criminal contempt resolutions, which would bring congressional Republicans one step closer to realizing their decades long fever dream of locking up Secretary Hillary Clinton. By nullifying a law passed unanimously by the DC Council, HJ Res 142 would force DC to freeze its tax season, rewrite guidance, update forms, and coordinate changes with private tax preparers. Chairman Comer and my Republican colleagues are frustrated that DC has not conformed its tax law to the so-called Big Beautiful Bill and laments that DC residents will pay taxes on their tips. The Chairman knows that his home, the the second best commonwealth in the nation, my apologies to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, has also not conformed its tax code to the bill. In fact, Kentucky has regularly failed to conform to the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Chairman, if you earned any tips last year, you'll be paying Kentucky taxes on them this year. Passage of HJ Res 142 would also risk a downgrade in DC's credit rating. As the rating agencies know that this Congress knows not a thing about fiscal responsibility and are deeply concerned if we engage in this kind of meddling. As I've said to Chairman Comer and my Oversight Republican colleagues before, if you want to micromanage the District of Columbia, the best thing to do is run for mayor or city council. I oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. This week is a critical one in Oversight Democrats' efforts to deliver the transparency and accountability that the American people and the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's horrific crimes deserve. While President Trump has done everything in his power, including summoning members of this body... ...to the White House situation room for scheduled browbeating to prevent the truth from coming to light. Oversight Democrats forced a vote to subpoena the full Epstein files and have been crystal clear that we want to talk to anyone, regardless of party, who has information about Epstein's crimes. And while President Trump's Justice Department continues to hide nearly half of the Epstein files in violation of the law, Chairman Comer and this Congress face a choice with respect to President Clinton. We can choose door number one. Through that door, our investigation into Epstein's crimes moves forward with the Oversight Committee conducting a four-hour interview with President Clinton. He has agreed. This kind of interview with a former president is very rare in the history of our republic. But given the horrific and sprawling nature of Epstein's crimes and the need to fully understand the facts, Oversight Democrats believe it to be necessary. But Chairman Comer is dead set on choosing door number two. And through door number two lies a politicized criminal contempt vote sent to a politicized Trump Department of Justice, very likely to die in court months or years from now. That door involves no interview or additional information from President Clinton, information that could advance our investigation. So the question before us is this: Do we want to advance our investigation by interviewing President Clinton, or do we want to play politics? I would submit, Madam Chairwoman, the American people are tired of Epstein politics. They want us to get to the truth. I yield back.

Thank you both very much for your statements. I'm going to defer my questions, and Mr. Scott, I wonder if Mr. Scott has no questions. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.

Well, so I have two sets of questions, Madam Chair, because we have two bills coming up here at once. So let me start with the D.C. bill. Chairman Comer, has your committee held a hearing or a markup on this measure?

We have not because in order to rescind the D.C. Council motion, you're on a time frame of 30 days.

This was introduced 11 days ago.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

I have a limited amount of time here. And has Congress ever vetoed a local D.C. tax law before?

Yes. We did House Joint Resolution 42 last Congress. Isn't that right, Mr. Walkinshaw?

Mr. Walkinshaw?

That's incorrect. We have not. I don't know what you're talking about. That's unprecedented.

So since this measure has received zero public consideration by the U.S. Congress, and you want the House to vote on it this week, and Congress has never interfered with a local D.C. tax law before, let's at least spend a few minutes evaluating what it would do. Can you tell me the size of D.C.'s budget for fiscal year 2026?

It's $22 billion.

Okay. And how much of that is covered by the projected revenue raised from local D.C. taxes?

We've worked very closely on the Oversight Committee with Mayor Bowser in trying to recruit industry. The answer is $13 billion.

And private investment.

Yeah. And what is D.C.'s capital budget for fiscal year 2026, which is used to invest in things like the Metro, public schools, and public infrastructure? I'll have to go through my notes. It may take a minute.

It's $2.6 billion. How have D.C. revenue projections over the next four years been impacted by the mass layoffs of federal employees by the Trump administration?

Do you know, Mr. Walkinshaw?

They've been negatively impacted.

All I know, Mr. McGovern, is we've worked with the mayor to try to get the federal employees back to work, something that she supports.

Revenue estimates have been revised downward by $1 billion, $1 billion. So if we overturn D.C.'s new tax law, do you know what the fiscal impact of that decision will be on D.C.'s budget? I mean, according to D.C.'s Chief Financial Officer, that would blow a $600 million hole in the budget. And you know, I raise these issues and again, I mean, you know, I agree, I mean, that if you really want to micromanage D.C., you should run for City Council because clearly I don't think you're coming here knowing the first thing about D.C.'s budget process and fiscal situation. And I think Republicans in Congress think they know better than D.C.'s elected officials about these very technical local tax and budget decisions. But blowing a huge hole in their budget? I mean, seriously? I mean, you guys can't even manage the federal budget, which is your actual job. I mean, you guys just voted for this big ugly bill which adds $4 trillion to the federal debt. And you're going to tell D.C. how to run their government? I want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record, Madam Chair, a letter signed by the Mayor, Muriel Bowser, and Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, Phil Mendelson.

Without objection.

And just read one quote here: "The District is already a month into the 2026 tax year and has begun accepting and processing tax returns. Disapproval at this stage would create huge administrative challenges, require taxpayers to refile their taxes, render existing guidance and forms obsolete, and necessitate rapid mid-year changes to tax administration systems." This is insane. This doesn't make any sense. So, Madam Chair, I really am frustrated that this is what we're going to spend our time doing this week. A bill that's going to create more chaos in the District. It just doesn't make any sense. Now to the second bill that we're here to talk about. You know, President Trump referred to efforts to uncover the facts about the Epstein issue as a, and I'm going to quote him, "a hoax involving Democrats, not Republicans," end quote. And he instructed Attorney General Bondi to investigate Democrats, including President Clinton. And that's exactly what this is all about. My Republican friends, you know, say that they are interested in getting to the truth of the Epstein files. I'm on the Rules Committee. We moved nine times, nine times to try to get an amendment considered on the House floor to release the files. And the way we actually had a vote on it was through a discharge petition because all of you blocked it.

That's not true. That's not true. We blocked it. I subpoenaed Pam Bondi for the Epstein documents.

Yeah, yeah. It is true. You did block it. You did block it. Nine times in this committee, we voted to make that amendment in order and it was blocked. In addition to the Clintons, six other people were also subpoenaed. Attorney General Barr, she came in to testify. The rest, including the Clintons, all sent in written declarations. Yet this contempt resolution singles them out for partisan reasons. They are actively negotiating with the committee to provide testimony, most recently offering to sit for a transcribed interview, which I guess Chairman Comer has rejected. Because this isn't really actually about getting at the facts. It's about playing politics. It's about creating a spectacle. We all know what's going on. Mr. Walkinshaw, isn't this just a political exercise to change the subject away from Trump's involvement in the Epstein files? By the way, the incomplete release of the Epstein files up to this point, Donald Trump is mentioned 5,391 times. 5,391 times. And not one word about even asking the president to voluntarily come up and answer questions. But I'll yield to you.

I think it's really important to remind the American people about the timeline of President Trump's involvement here. We all know he ran for the presidency in 2024 saying he was going to release the files. Shortly after being sworn in, his Attorney General claimed to have a binder with the client list and she was going to release the files. At some point very quickly, President Trump changed his tune. He started doing everything in his power to prevent the release of the files. We know based on reporting the Attorney General told him that he was mentioned in the files. We now know thousands of times he's mentioned in the files. So I think we, the committee...

You know thousands of times because he released the files.

Half of them. He released half of them only when he was forced to after doing everything in his power to prevent it.

Is there an update on the Clintons?

And I can share an update. The good news, Mr. Chairman, I think we'll be able to go through door number one that I outlined in my opening statement. I understand that the Clintons have agreed to appear for depositions and have agreed to the terms that you laid out in your most recent letter.

Are you aware of that?

No.

Well, if that's the case, somehow the media and the Democrats get the correspondence way before we do.

My understanding is that their attorneys reached out to you. Your staff has it, Mr. Chairman. You better check with your staff. But if that's the case, why are we doing this then?

If the staff has it, they just got it because we've been in there waiting for you all to stop talking on the last bill so we could present this bill. And look, you transcribed, they rejected a transcribed, he wanted a transcribed interview. The difference in a transcribed interview and deposition, you don't have to answer the questions in a transcribed interview.

They've agreed to the terms in your letter.

I would suggest that you consult with your staff. Maybe Mr. Walkinshaw can maybe make sure that you're, my understanding is that your staff has been, has been notified of this.

If they've been notified, it's been in the last 15 minutes.

Mr. McGovern, it just has come out in the last five, I just received a note in the last two minutes.

Well, then can we just, can we save all the...

No, no, no. Just because they, we're going to have to review this and look at this. And look, this sets a bad precedent. So every time we issue a subpoena, and what Mr. Walkinshaw does not say is the Democrats made the motion for all these subpoenas. This was a Democrat motion and a majority of the Democrats on the committee voted for this subpoena.

Because we want to hear from everyone.

So you're trying to say it's partisan and it's not partisan. I reclaim my time, Madam Chair. It's bipartisan.

So in other words, you're getting everything you want but you still want to go ahead with the show. You're talking about something nobody's even read yet, Mr. McGovern. All right, Mr. Let me ask. So in the recent DOJ release of the Epstein files, there appears to be far more information about prominent people in Epstein's circle, including Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Elon Musk, and Howard Lutnick. Chairman Comer, do you know if top Trump advisor Elon Musk ever went to Epstein's rape island?

I haven't seen any evidence that he had.

Do you know if Trump advisor Steve Bannon ever went to Epstein's rape island?

I don't keep up with Steve Bannon.

All right. Do you know if Trump's Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, ever went to Epstein's rape island?

He has said he went to the island with his wife and kids and would never go back. I believe he went somewhere. I don't know if it was the island, but he went somewhere with Epstein.

He said that before. So you don't want to subpoena them? Or don't you care to learn if they are...

I've subpoenaed the former Republican Attorney General Bill Barr for a hard-hitting deposition and we subpoenaed Alex Acosta who served in the Trump administration.

Are you going to subpoena any Republicans? How many Republicans did Jamie Raskin subpoena when he was...

How many Republicans did the Democrats subpoena? This is a bipartisan investigation.

That's why a majority of Democrats on the Oversight Committee voted for this. Reclaim my time, Mr. Chair. Chairman Comer, you can spread all the propaganda you want in your committee, but it's my time in this committee and I'm asking the questions. So the answer is no, that you're not going to subpoena... I don't even know what the question is. I was very... Are you going to subpoena Howard Lutnick or Steve Bannon or Elon Musk?

We'll subpoena anyone that the evidence leads us to.

Is that a yes?

If the evidence, we'll talk about it with the committee. We don't just pull subpoenas out of our butts like Jamie Raskin would do.

Chairman Comer, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Bondi more than five months ago.

I subpoenaed Pam Bondi for the Epstein documents.

Excuse me, Madam Chair, can you muzzle the witness please? I mean, Attorney General, Chairman Comer, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Bondi more than five months ago requiring her to produce all of the Epstein files to Congress by August 19, 2025. Yes or no, as of right now, has Attorney General Bondi fully complied with the subpoena?

We're still reviewing the three million documents to see if that's all of the documents or not.

So the answer is no.

It's important...

Just one minute if I could. I'm going to ask you all not to talk over each other, but I do have a question I'd like to, I mean, something I'd like to ask if you'd let me real quickly. Thank you. We keep, people keep saying have all the files been released. Does somebody have a total of the files? How is anybody ever going to know how many files?

Madam Chair, when this started five or six months ago, there was a, it was suggested that there were between 100,000 and 300,000 files. We've already had released over 3.1 million files.

Okay, now Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Walkinshaw, why don't you respond please?

The direct answer to your question, Madam Chairwoman, is yes, we do have a number. And we have a number because the Trump administration, the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, said there are six million files. They collected six million files. Now he says they over-collected, so they've only released three million. The law does not allow them to subjectively determine that three million of the Epstein files that are in his possession, which he said were over-collected. Mr. McGovern though asked a question about the Oversight Committee's subpoena and the Attorney General's compliance with that subpoena. That's separate from the release of files that we've seen publicly because the Oversight Committee's subpoena does not have the same list of allowed redactions that the legislation that we all voted for has. She's produced to this committee only 30,000 pages of documents, not three million, not six million. She's out of compliance with the subpoena and not following the law requiring the release of all six million documents.

But can we talk about this? I'm interested in getting to a number. So what I'm curious, okay, so she's released over three million, you've said, Mr. Chairman.

She just released three million in addition to the, I don't know, 30-some thousand a few months ago.

And Mr. McGovern, you said we know the number? Is that what you said?

The Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, President Trump's former personal lawyer, said that there are six million files. He's choosing to release only three million and he's choosing to heavily redact that three million.

So should we hold Pam Bondi in contempt?

She is turning over documents and what they said is they turned over documents, every document that they are legally required to turn over.

I don't think she's complying with the subpoena.

They're not complying with the law to turn over...

Well, all right. There are still investigations, there's class action lawsuits, there's a lot of legal stuff still taking place with this. But we want the documents. We want everything. We're reviewing the three million. I don't think anybody can say with honesty they've read all three million of them. We're pouring through them as quick as we can. I'm worried about the three million that haven't been released. And do we know what's in those three million pages that haven't been released? We do not know. Have we heard from, have you, because I've been reading the public, I've been reading public statements, but I want to know whether you have heard from Epstein's victims and survivors about the recent release by DOJ? Have you heard of the concern of some of the survivors who believe that DOJ is deliberately releasing personal information about them while at the same time protecting the men that abused these women?

That was deeply concerning. I mean, look, the most recent release, we heard from the Department of Justice that they couldn't follow the law because they were taking so much time to carefully scrutinize the files and ensure they did the appropriate redactions to protect the survivors. And then we hear from survivor after survivor after survivor who was revealed in the release. So they delayed the release to protect the survivors, so they say, and then they failed to protect the survivors when they released half of the files that the law requires.

And the interesting thing is that the names that really weren't released are the perpetrators, are the people who abused these women. So we, you know, again, they victimized again the survivors and they're protecting the people, you know, who abused them. You know, I got to say that, you know, Republicans on the Oversight Committee have moved swiftly to hold the Clintons and Democrats in criminal contempt. Yet several Republican members of the Oversight Committee notably refused to comply with congressional subpoenas from the January 6th Committee. Maybe Chairman Comer, do you think your own members should have been held in contempt and prosecuted?

So I'm glad you asked that question because there's been a lot of speculation in our Minnesota fraud investigation that there may be a Democrat member from Minnesota that net worth has significantly increased. What we found out, you can't, we can't investigate other members. That has to be the Ethics Committee. So if there was an issue with the January 6th Committee subpoenaing members of Congress, which I've been told we're not supposed to do, then they should take it up with the Ethics Committee because that's their sole purpose is to investigate other members.

So I'm just wondering whether we should recess for five or 10 minutes so that you can figure out what the Clinton development is so we maybe can save ourselves a whole bunch of time.

May I ask you a question, Mr. McGovern? Is this going to be the standard practice every time we issue a subpoena, whoever's in charge, Democrat, Republican, whoever's in control, every time you issue a subpoena, letting them stonewall for five months and then prove that you've got the votes on the floor in a bipartisan fashion to hold them in contempt? No, I mean, I think what the danger here is that the Clintons were negotiating in good faith and you jumped to this for five months.

We have seen Chairman Comer has repeatedly moved the goalposts here.

That's bull. That is not true. You've been here three weeks. You don't, hey, that's not true, Madam Chairwoman.

At our markup...

Just a moment. You made an accusation, Mr. Walkinshaw, that the Republicans moved the goalposts.

That's right. I'm going to explain that.

How can you back that up?

I'll back it up this way. We had a markup a couple weeks ago on these contempt resolutions. The Chairman laid out his objections to the Clintons' most recent offer at that time. He didn't like that they hadn't agreed to a transcription. He didn't like that they wanted to limit the amount of committee staff in the room. They had said that he hadn't agreed to limit the discussion to Epstein-related matters. He claimed at the time that was untrue and he did want to limit the discussion to Epstein-related matters. All of those objections that the Chairman laid out at our markup a couple weeks ago were addressed by the offer that the Clintons made yesterday. We now know the additional objections that the Chairman laid out in a recent letter have been addressed by the Clintons and their lawyers. So if we're going to continue to move forward despite the fact that they have met everything you've asked them to meet, I think we've revealed what's actually happening.

And so the question is, are we interested in getting to the truth and the facts, or are my friends interested in creating a spectacle? Or is this all about, no, this is, I'm going to say, we have, we have been on this committee, Democrats on this committee have tried nine times to bring a resolution to the floor to release the Epstein files. Only when public pressure finally, you know, forced you to cave on it, finally did we have a vote on it. And now we have a Department of Justice that is half-complying.

Mr. McGovern, let me tell you, I agree with you that we should take a recess so that we can review the recent developments. That's all I was trying to say to you is I think that we should do that. Votes have been called, I mean, excuse me, votes have been called, and so I think we should go vote and return 10 minutes after the last vote.

And I get to finish my questions?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Can we start at the end? If you want, take another 20 minutes, although I've taken some of your time.

Can we start at the beginning of the last vote?

Beginning of last vote. If that is giving you all enough time, perhaps they might have something to say at that time. Okay? Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I want to thank Chairman Comer and Mr. Walkinshaw and the others who are here. We're now going to recess, committee's going to recess until after the beginning of the last votes.

Okay, so let me see which one you want to use. Okay. So, okay, this one. Okay. How about now? Is that better?

It's better, yeah.

Yeah?

Okay.

Okay. No worries. I'm going to look for the part for this if I can.

Thanks.

Talk to you soon.

Bye.

Thank you.

The committee will come back to order. We are going to suspend the panel from the Committee on Oversight and Government and go to the Committee on Natural Resources. So, I now welcome our third panel, Representative Stauber, Representative Ansari from the Committee on Natural Resources. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Stauber, I welcome your testimony.

Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, thanks for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act. In November, the U.S. Geological Survey published its final 2025 list of critical minerals covering a total of 60 commodities. These critical minerals face risk from disrupted supply chains, and they are vital to U.S. national and economic security along with our nation's ability to compete and win in the 21st century. The data is clear. Demand for these critical minerals is projected to skyrocket in the coming years, and we must be ready to meet this challenge. According to a recent study from S&P Global, global copper demand alone is projected to increase by 50 percent by 2040, driven by the growing needs of artificial intelligence, defense, and manufacturing. This surge could cause a shortfall of up to 10 million metric tons of copper without a meaningful supply chain expansion. In other words, we need to mine more, and we need to mine now. Unfortunately, our country has been moved in the opposite direction in recent decades, becoming dangerously reliant on mineral imports. This dependency plays right into the hands of our adversaries, most notably China, who controls approximately 60 percent of global critical mineral production, 90 percent of processing, and 75 percent of manufacturing. We've repeatedly seen the CCP impose mineral export restrictions and use its stranglehold over rare earth minerals as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations, increasing uncertainty across key sectors of our economy. To unleash our vast natural resources, we must take decisive actions to cut through the red tape and end the years of hostility against domestic mining from the Biden administration, which reversed project approvals and restricted development on millions of acres of public lands. Since taking office, President Trump has moved swiftly to set America on a path to mineral dominance, from issuing America First executive orders focused on mineral production to including dozens of new mineral projects in the FAST-41 process. This administration has sent a clear signal that we must support rather than impede our domestic miners who form the foundation of our national strength. H.R. 4090 builds on President Trump's efforts by codifying aspects of three executive orders related to hardrock mining. First, H.R. 4090 requires the Department of the Interior to assess the cost of America's import reliance for each mineral commodity monitored by the USGS. This data will inform further efforts to reduce our reliance on foreign adversaries like the People's Republic of China. Next, the bill directs agencies to identify federal lands suitable for new mineral production, streamlining priority mining projects on federal lands and accelerate mapping efforts to provide a clearer picture of significant domestic mineral wealth. Finally, H.R. 4090 directs Interior to conduct a nationwide review of laws and regulations, including those from state and local governments, that discourage mineral development. Interior will then provide a report to Congress with their findings, along with policy recommendations to increase domestic mining. During markup, the Natural Resources Committee worked to cross the aisle to strengthen this bill, adopting two minority amendments that require Interior to report to Congress on the barriers to byproduct mineral production on federal lands and examine projects with the potential to produce hardrock minerals from coal ash and coal byproducts. And I am proud that the bill was reported by the Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support. H.R. 4090 takes a broad and forward-thinking approach to addressing one of the country's most serious challenges. By codifying these policies into law, we will provide our domestic mining sector the policy certainty it needs to invest and grow here in the United States. I urge the committee to adopt an appropriate rule so we can bring this bill to the floor. And I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Stauber. Representative Ansari, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern. I'm here to testify in opposition to H.R. 4090, sponsored by Representative Stauber. At a time of total chaos across our nation, a partial government shutdown, ICE terrorizing communities and murdering Americans in the streets, and countless other crises, our colleagues across the aisle have chosen to spend time on a bill that hands the mining industry the power to gut its own regulations while doing nothing to actually secure American critical mineral supply chains. Now, I do support mining where appropriate, where there are proper environmental and labor safeguards, and I do believe that there are some positive aspects of this bill. But that does not mean that we should be handing over the keys to the industry to pick and choose its own regulations, because I've also seen what happens when mining goes wrong. We've seen water contaminated with toxic pollution, groundwater run dry, and tribal sacred sites and cultural resources disrespected and destroyed. This bill effectively directs the mining industry to tell Interior and the Forest Service which regulations to eliminate, regulations that are essential to protecting communities from toxic waste and polluted drinking water and that ensure our communities have sufficient opportunity to have their voices heard. And as we've repeatedly raised, our domestic mining industry is dominated currently by foreign companies, some even owned by our adversaries, and nearly all of whom pay no royalty back to the American people for extracting publicly owned minerals. This bill makes it even easier for these foreign-owned companies to take our American resources for free. Under H.R. 4090, any mine the Secretary deems a priority would get fast-track approval, even if it is owned by a foreign adversary of the United States and the minerals would be shipped abroad, or if it would devastate a local community. Again, I support responsible domestic mining. We need minerals for our modern economy, and I want to see secure, strong supply chains. But we cannot mine our way to security with brute force. We need to work with our allies to strategically source and process minerals. We need a recycling industry, and we need to explore innovative, low-impact ways to source essential minerals, such as from more mine tailings. And while there are some parts of this bill that direct the government to conduct studies on some of these findings, it's clear the primary purpose is to gut regulations and hand over even more power to an industry that is already getting pretty much everything that they've asked for. This bill does not come up in a vacuum. We must consider who benefits from this mining free-for-all. Just two weeks ago, the Trump administration announced that it would invest over a billion dollars and take an equity stake in USA Rare Earths, a mining and manufacturing company.

Reporting uncovered that USA Rare Earths hired Cantor Fitzgerald to help with fundraising, a firm chaired by Brandon Lutnick, the son of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. And in October, the Trump administration announced equity investments in mining company Trilogy Metals while simultaneously directing agencies to fast-track permitting for Ambler Road, the controversial project needed to access Trilogy Metals' proposed mine site. Trilogy Metals' third-largest shareholder is John Alfred Paulson, a Trump mega-donor and economic advisor. His shares increased $70 million in value after the announcement. The administration is making a pattern out of picking winners and losers in the mining industry, and a suspicious number of those winners have close ties to Trump officials. These deals tie taxpayer dollars to corporate balance sheets and incentivize administration officials to prioritize individual corporate interests over the broader public good. Earlier today, Ranking Member Huffman of the Natural Resources Committee and Ranking Member Garcia of the Oversight Committee, both committees I'm fortunate to serve on, sent a letter to the administration demanding answers on the Trump administration's taxpayer-funded mining spending spree. To date, there has been no public disclosure of procedures or safeguards in place to ensure that these ownership stakes do not influence permitting decisions, regulation, enforcement, contracting decisions, or any other agency decisions relating to these mining and mineral projects. Before we give this administration even more power to enrich themselves at the expense of everyday Americans, let's get answers to at least some of these questions. I reiterate my interest in working with colleagues on innovative ideas in the mineral space, but I cannot support this bill as written. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Ansari. We appreciate it. I am going to ask questions on this bill. Representative Stauber, are you or is the committee, the Natural Resources Committee, as far as you know, motivated with this bill to help any person or any entity?

No.

No. Okay. Well, I think that's, I think we should get that out of the way right away. My good friend Representative Leger Fernandez has offered an amendment before in this committee and in the Natural Resources Committee, I know, about prohibiting companies that are 10 percent foreign-owned from receiving the benefits of the bill. I wonder if that well-intentioned amendment might have unintended consequences. And so I'd like to ask about that. So, it's apparent that China's already doing whatever it can do to prevent us from building out secure domestic supplies of critical minerals, right? China has been for many years trying to corner the market on critical minerals, right? So, what would prevent China or some other country for that matter from going out and buying 10 percent of a company, 10 percent of the stock of a company, and then stopping this legislation from applying to that particular mine and therefore cutting off, inadvertently cutting off supply of critical minerals? How can we not have the law of unintended consequences go into effect with that amendment? Because the amendment's before the committee and so I'm jumping to that because I think it raises the issues related to this.

Madam Chair, I will tell you that China has been devastating to our economy in many ways, including mining. They will dump their cheap steel when they have to. They'll try to put out of existence our mining industry, in particular on the Iron Range. They will, on their commodity prices, they will short-cut them to reduce cost across the globe so there's no investments anywhere else. And specifically to Representative Leger Fernandez's bill there is when you put an arbitrary number on it, the communist country of China, they cheat. They'll just go on the market and...

You don't mean it.

Yes, I mean it, Madam Chair, and I've seen it. So they're just going to buy whatever arbitrary number we put on. They're just going to buy 10 percent. If we say it's 14 percent, they're going to buy 14 percent. That way they stop the mining in our country. You've just given them the opportunity to do that, and it would have been written in our law. And so I think that we have to recognize we've got to win this AI war, we've got to win the energy war, we have to win the mining war, and we have the ability to do it. I will tell you, Madam Chair, that in the district that I represent is the biggest copper-nickel find in the world. And we need those critical minerals. In addition, in the same complex, we have found helium, helium at between 11 and 13 percent. Helium at 3 percent is economically viable. And so these are rich minerals, and we also have found titanium in northeastern Minnesota. So I just ask that we allow my constituents to have the opportunity to have well-paying jobs and in the United States. It's with our labor, our environmental standards, and there are no shortcuts.

Well, I will tell you the approach I take about this. I think the Lord gave us the resources that we need on this earth to do what it is we need to do to survive and to thrive. And without being detrimental long-term, we ought to be able to use the resources that the Lord gave us to use. Again, I'm as much of a conservationist as I think anybody in this body is. I grew up very poor, so I was used to not using things to begin with. That stuck with me. So I don't use things, and I recycle everything, and I look to preserve the earth. And I farmed most of my life, and I think farmers do that despite what they say. So we have to figure out a way, it seems to me, to be able to take advantage of the resources that we have in a responsible way and not let some other country come in and use what belongs to us.

Madam Chair...

And so we have to look for ways to do that.

Madam Chair, I couldn't agree with you more. These minerals are going to get mined. They're going to get mined because the demand's for it. Do we want to lead or not? Do we want to export our environmental guilt or not? Minnesota's been mining for 145 years. We mine the iron ore that goes into taconite that makes over 80 percent of this nation's steel. We know how to do it. And Madam Chair, I think we know China will do anything to undercut us. We've seen it, and we can't allow it to happen any longer.

Well, thank you very much. And I used Miss Leger Fernandez, we're good friends, but because she had the amendment and gave me the opportunity to delve into this issue now. She'll probably want to talk about her amendment later, and I'm not trying to cut that off. But I'm over time, and so I yield to Mr. McGovern.

Thank you very much. I appreciate you both being here. I don't really have any questions, but I just want to make an observation. I kind of feel like we spend an awful lot of time up here in the Rules Committee debating bills that seem to benefit in terms of a profit members of the Trump administration or members of their cabinet. I mean, there have been some questionable deals that the administration has been making over the last year. I mean, from Stephen Miller selling shares in a rare earth mining outfit for significant profit after the administration announced a deal supporting the company, to Howard Lutnick's son being hired on another minerals deal. And this administration has now taken equity shares in seven mineral companies, several of which have documented ties to administration officials. And I just, you know, I mean, I know when we raise these issues, my friends just let it go by. But I mean, at some point, this doesn't smell right. And that's just my conclusion. But I do want to yield to Miss Leger Fernandez to allow her to respond.

Thank you, Jim. And I thought that maybe we'd have a conversation about this since you just raised it, so that way we can stay on topic. And thank you for calling me your good friend. I've really enjoyed getting to know you and being able to call you a friend as well. I think that what's interesting is that my amendment and the issue that I raise repeatedly with regards to allowing China and our adversaries take our minerals comes not from me. I'm not that smart. It comes from the Select Committee. That's where it came from. This originated with them last Congress, where they raised the issue about the fact that we need to start saying China and our adversaries should not be mining our lands. Because what then happens is they take those resources to China. And last time Representative Stauber was here, he didn't want to answer that question. I asked you where the copper that they intend to mine near the Boundary Waters is going to go, and you have to acknowledge it's going to go to China. ...that was a let me let me finish the point I was going to make. So Madam Chair, I think that what you're talking about is good for us to wrangle with that. What this bill does is it provides a benefit. And what I am saying is we should not be providing these benefits to our adversaries.

I agree.

So but every time I raise the issue of let's stop we keep having these mining bills come before us, I keep saying let's not offer that benefit to our adversaries and we keep hearing oh we can't do that now, we can't do that now, we can't do that now. Well when are we going to ever say enough? When are we going to ever say we don't want China to be taking these things? And I think the argument that oh the unintended consequences China might come in here and buy a bunch of and buy the controlling stock. Well then my question would be if they buy that controlling stock do we really want them to get the benefits? Because if they got that controlling stock they're going to then take all the minerals. And I think that that's the problem is what you just pointed out is exactly the problem. If we keep if we don't say no you can't, then they're going to keep doing it because we have not put any any we have never said no to them. And we need to start saying no. We need to start saying that these resources are very important. And in my state we have a huge mine down in Silver City that mines all kinds of things. Guess what? It's American owned. You can have American owned companies. And if you start saying that these kinds of things are only available to either American owned companies or companies owned by our allies or at least not our adversaries, then you're going to start having more American or friendly companies owning them. So that's the consequences. You're I think you're thinking of what are the consequences. That's the consequence I'm looking for. The consequence I'm looking for is saying no to China and our adversaries and yes to Americans and our allies. So that's does it make sense of where I'm trying to go with that? And the fact that it came out of this whole line of what we should be doing. Ask talk to Representative Moolenaar about it. And when I talked to Secretary Burgum about it, he agreed with me. I mean this is not something that is this should be bipartisan. I don't know why the Natural Resources keep saying we can't do it now. They they don't say that it's the wrong thing, they just keep saying we can't do it now and over and over again it can't be now and there's always some kind of new excuse. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern and I'll just say very quickly. We need to put some really good minds onto how to solve this. All right. Ms. Fischbach.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Stauber, thank you for bringing the bill forward because I know how hard you have worked for Northeast Minnesota and and I know there's a lot of discussion about who's going to benefit from it, but I know what you're talking about is you're talking about those folks in Northeast Minnesota, those miners in Northeast Minnesota who this has been their life. I mean you mentioned what 135 I remember 135 years of mining and they've had it pulled out from under them so many times now. And one quick question. Does this bill require any specific mine to be opened?

No. No, not at all.

I know that that's been one of the criticisms is that we're trying to open certain mines and you know near the Boundary Waters, all kinds of things like this, but this is just simply maybe you want to explain it.

It's it's really it's good report language and I do Representative Fischbach, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, I do want to maybe correct something that the Ranking Member said. He said there's no benefit. In in at least one proposed mine in Northern Minnesota, there will be 1.8 estimate estimated 1.8 billion dollars of federal royalties paid to the federal government. There will be 800 million dollars of taxes over the life of the mine paid to the state of Minnesota and that does not include the school trust fund where mining royalties go in. So every single school district in the state of Minnesota receives a benefit from mining. And I think that to to my good friend and colleague Representative Leger Fernandez, you know she talks about the mining and the oil and gas in her state. Those are really good paying jobs. I ask my friend can my constituents have those same good paying jobs? Those $135,000, $150,000 a year jobs? Can my constituents have them? We can lead.

And thank you, Mr. Stauber, but I just I thought that we should turn this around to who is it it really does benefit those individuals, those folks, it's going to benefit the economy, it's going to benefit and you mentioned the school trust fund and it's going to do...

Well and strategic national security as well.

Absolutely. And we're going to have an opportunity and my good friend and colleague Representative Leger Fernandez is going to have the opportunity to support legislation that allows processing and refining to happen in our country and it's going to happen very soon. So I'm looking forward to her support on it. Thank you, Mr. Stauber and I do think that this it it really does it only makes sense to be mining where we have the resources and making sure that we are using what we have to lessen our dependence on others and and growing our economy.

This doesn't greenlight any project. You still have a rigorous permitting process both at the federal level and the state level.

All right. Thank you very much and I yield back.

Thank you. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Ansari, we're hearing a lot about this bill and the wonders it's going to produce, but it feels a little bit like all hat and no cattle. Would this bill do anything to meaningfully increase critical mineral production?

Thank you for the question. No. And the the two fundamental issues I see with this bill, you know Ranking Member McGovern talked about the the corruption aspect essentially. And first and foremost what this bill does is direct the Department of Interior to be able to work directly with the mining industry around deregulation. I mean I think fundamentally that is something that should not be happening. If we want to properly regulate an industry, that industry should not have a direct say in that. As was also mentioned, you know I do think the the fact some of the questions that we've posed in committee and throughout the negotiation process of this bill have been can we get some of these questions answered before we pass this bill? Questions around what will the permitting processes look like? How will we avoid conflict of interest to the point of Trump administration officials very closely tied to Stephen Miller and Howard Lutnick making tens of millions of dollars in relation to mining companies? But ultimately, you know even more so than that I think the issue around China is what is so perplexing to me, right? And I think if I fully agree with the creation of jobs again I support mining there's a lot of mining in Arizona, I have you know all of the labor unions in our state that are you know that were very disappointed when clean energy tax credits were cut that cut many of the jobs in our state are excited about mining jobs. But they want to also make sure and and many of these labor unions are you know are majority conservative members, they want to make sure that it's American owned companies and benefiting the United States as well. So I think you know just want to really echo the point around the fact that that is a common sense amendment that came directly out of the Select Committee for China and I think you know ideally would be would be easily supported by Republican colleagues today.

Makes sense. It it does seem okay this is an attempt to move things forward for this industry, but we do need to be careful both to avoid conflicts with those in power and the idea that mining companies or officials could put their thumb on the scale in ways that might hurt other stakeholders, but then also that we're going to end up with national security conflicts with our adversaries. So it does feel like it's not quite ready for prime time here.

Exactly. And I think that we could get to a good you know bipartisan place here and I think you know I heard the argument of national security from my colleague which which I hear, but I also think the guise of national security has been used over and over again to rush into deregulation and to me it's a it's actually a major national security concern that arguably our largest foreign adversary and competitor you know is not it would benefit from this greatly and is not there's nothing we're doing to to prevent them from doing so and I think that's extremely important here.

Yeah. I mean it ties into some of the concerns that we have about some of the barriers that are being thrown up with some of our allies who produce critical minerals that we simply don't have here and whether it's tariffs or blowing up NATO or different agreements that those are areas we should also be working on to address the critical mineral areas.

Absolutely. I think I think we've done a lot to damage our relationship with our NATO allies and our European allies. I know that there was a bipartisan delegation recently to Denmark that that had to do a lot of you know frankly damage control on behalf of the United States and trying to indicate that not everybody feels you know the way the President does, but I think this could be an area of collaboration absolutely and and we should be prioritizing those allies in this regard.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you very much, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the mining industry is extremely important for the United States of America. Heard a lot of nonsense from the other side from people that like to kill jobs, but Mr. Stauber, do you have anything else that you'd like to say?

Yeah. I I think it's really important that we recognize that it's it's not just verbiage or a quote about our strategic national security. We cannot rely on foreign adversary nations any longer. COVID taught us so much and look at what's happening with the critical minerals and rare earths right now. The communist country of China is has stopped selling globally six rare earth minerals that we need in our everyday life, right? And so we have the opportunity to mine it here with our environmental, our labor standards. Again Mr. Scott, it's going to be mined somewhere. We got to mine it here. We're I don't agree with you know exporting our environmental guilt to other countries to put in our electric vehicles or what have you.

That's exactly what's happening.

It's 100 percent. And so and again in my opinion we have the ability, we have the will, we have to take the political science out of this and have the facts and the true science lead us in in critical mineral mining in the United States of America. And and Minnesota and Alaska and other great states have the opportunity to do it. When we lead, we win.

Yeah. I I couldn't help but laugh when I think it was the was it the Governor of New York that said now she's for nuclear power? Finally couldn't ignore the science anymore, could she? I support this legislation, Madam Chair. With that I yield back.

Thank you very much. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Thank you, my good friend Madam Chair. And I'm going to since we already talked about the problem of the Republican bills refusing to address the fact that we keep allowing our foreign adversaries, I'm going to go on a different tack. And that is we know that under Trump utility prices have skyrocketed, right? And it's you know we read it up again Madam Chair I'll I'll enter into the record energy bills in US have increased 13 percent since Trump took office, new report finds.

Without objection.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think that that's part of the problem is we're we're seeing an administration that is continues to take policies that increase costs for Americans, but then don't provide any protections for Americans. And this is the tension. We're not saying we shouldn't do mining, we're saying we should do mining responsibly. And since I come from a mining state, I know these issues. And I know that when the mining companies got to say what the rules were... ...our groundwater was contaminated, our surface water was contaminated. And Madam Chair, you know that in North Carolina and South Carolina, there is a lot of water that's been contaminated by mine sites. Now what's happening now is it's a lot better, right? Because there have been regulations put in place. And my problem with this bill is that it now says mining companies, you get to say what you want to do. And we know that mining companies, if we let them make the choices, they're going to do what is best for their short-term profits and not for the long-term benefits of our citizens. And I know Madam Chair is very concerned about water issues. In New Mexico, despite the fact that you have more water than we do, we're very concerned. Does this bill do anything to help keep our water water and waterways clean, Representative Ansari?

No. And exactly what you mentioned, Congresswoman, this bill explicitly directs the administration to solicit industry feedback on regulations that they see as burdensome and to implement a plan to roll back each quote unquote unduly burdensome action. So all of that will happen without any public or tribal consultation. It's deregulation for and by the industry, which has catastrophic consequences and we know that. And industry support also doesn't mean that isn't it isn't in the best interest of the American people. I think that is extremely extremely concerning. I think history has shown us that. And I think this argument around jobs, this bill is not a job creator. It's simply deregulation for and by the industry. And I think it's very rich to be talking about quote unquote killing jobs from Republicans when the reconciliation bill last year literally killed hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs across this country. And so that is what this bill is and and there's nothing in there around protecting our water, there's nothing in there around even protecting national parks. And again I keep going back to this point because I think the fact that you know China is not exempted from this deregulation is highly concerning to me.

Right. And I think that that's what we go back to. In New Mexico we have stronger environmental regulations than in other places. We have stronger methane regulations than across the border. I have the Permian Basin. Literally if you take pictures, you can actually see that in New Mexico methane is being released at much lower levels, you know because they have a way of doing it, and in Texas much higher levels. And guess what? We're having some record lease sales. So you can both regulate and make a profit. But companies only care about profit. And I think that that's what we need to aware of. It's up to us, Congresspeople, to care about our communities. And sadly, Democrats seem to be the only ones caring about both jobs and keeping our waters clean so that we have water to drink and water to utilize for the essential aspects of life. Is there anything else you want to add, Representative Ansari?

No, I think we covered it.

Okay. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith. Oh, that would be me. For his time of questioning. So a lot of the times I don't ask questions or I don't say anything, but every now and then I get wound up. And unfortunately this bill's got me a little wound up. We heard earlier that there was a question will critical minerals be mined immediately under this bill? The answer is obviously no because it takes a long time to get a mine set up if you understand mining. Isn't that correct?

Average in the United States 29 years.

Yeah. Now we hope to shorten that a little bit, but it takes a while to get a mine set up of any type. And so if you pass a bill today to make it easier, it's not going to happen immediately. Then we heard that utility bills have gone up 13 percent since Trump has taken office. It's been a little over 12 months. But let me tell you how utility bills go up and it's not you can't look at the first 12 months. What you have to do is you go back in time. I was elected on a pro-coal platform because of electric bills. My district, the region that I represent, in the 1990s was the third lowest electric bills in the country because they relied on coal. Now I know this isn't the coal bill, but it got me stirred up. They relied on coal to build their to do their electricity. Then all of a sudden we came in with Barack Obama's war on coal. Prices had been going up a little bit and then all of a sudden boom, it made it harder to mine the coal, it made it harder to use the coal in electric generation. And guess what? We have some of the higher coal prices or some of the higher electric prices today. And part of that reason is is that all the companies that used to rely on coal are rapidly transitioning over as policy dictates to other sources. Now natural gas at this moment is cheaper because of fracking. When I was first elected everybody in fact one of my power companies was building a facility to bring in natural gas imports. And then suddenly horizontal drilling and fracking came about and the price of natural gas dropped precipitously. That is a competitor to coal, but depending on the month coal can compete and will compete. Furthermore, we have taken our coal-fired power plants and we've made it difficult for them to continue to operate and companies don't want to reinvest in upgrading those plants because they're afraid that somebody will come along whether it be state or federal legislation or federal executive orders and tell them they have to shut down. So when people start saying utility bills have risen 13 percent since Trump took office, you have to look back in time. Now I'm not saying you have to look back 29 years, but you have to look back in time. This is not a result of Trump policies. This is a result of Green New Deal policies. This is a result of the war on coal. This is a result of the war on fossil fuels and stranded assets. When you take a facility that was cut the ribbon on it I was there in 2012 when the ribbon was cut, supposed to have a 50 year life expectancy and the state legislature's trying to shut them down well before the 50 years is up, those folks have to then reinvest in new things and maybe it's a good thing, but they have to reinvest in something like oh offshore wind. It's exactly what they did. And guess what the ratepayer gets to do? They get to pay for the old facility and the new facility and then they want to blame that on Republicans who fought against these policies. I can't sit here and let that happen. I've got to bring it out. Did I say anything that you disagree with, Mr. Chairman?

Chair Griffith, I appreciate your comments. I I do want to talk about something that I think was...

All right. Let me give you that in a second. Do you disagree with anything that I said?

I don't.

All right. Now is there something else you'd like to say?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to correct the record if I may. This does nothing to the NEPA regulations. It does nothing to affect the Clean Water Act. It does nothing to negatively affect the Clean Air Act and nothing to the Endangered Species Act. These are four critical pieces during the permitting process that both the state and the federal look at. So this legislation doesn't diminish any of that whatsoever.

And and I would have to agree with you on that and say to you that you know people who say that we want to use fossil fuels or critical minerals and we want to mine those and somehow we are against the environment is just wrong. One of the most thrilling things that's happened to me in the last few months is I got to see an Andean condor. You know we care about the environment, but just like Ms. Leger Fernandez said, we may disagree on how to get there, but you can do some regulations like NEPA and Endangered Species Act and so forth and continue to create jobs through mining whether it be critical minerals or what we mine in my district is coal and we do have natural gas, we have coalbed methane. We've actually been fracking in my district for about 50 years, it just wasn't horizontal fracking in the coalbeds. So you know and these are good jobs and unfortunately when the war on coal started they killed those jobs. There weren't other jobs there. They didn't get any new jobs in the clean energy fields. Everybody kept promising they'd have new jobs. Well I got to tell you something. You take a coal mining job paying more than $100,000 a year and you say well we're going to get you another job working at the Family Dollar. There's nothing wrong with working at the Family Dollar, but it doesn't pay what it pays in the mining industry. Go ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I got to tell you that my good friend from New Mexico has the really the the luxury of having two major industries, oil and gas and mining. All I'm asking is let us mine. Let my constituents make $135,000 a year. Why can't my constituents have that good paying jobs? I'm going to vote for this bill and I'm going to vote for this rule and I appreciate it because I want your constituents and my constituents to have the ability to have good jobs in the mining industry.

And with that I yield back and now recognize Mr. Jack from the gentleman from Georgia.

I have no questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All right. I see with my tirade I ran everybody else off. Oh, I didn't see Ralph sitting there hiding. I apologize. Mr. Norman.

Thank you. Appreciate it, Representative Stauber for doing this. This is a good bill. You know this country's been under a lot of stress because of the Biden administration the last four years what they've done. It just hasn't been the immigration, mass immigration that he's allowed that's unconstitutional. I was in the room when the Governor of Alaska came in. This administration the Biden administration shut down the Alaska Keystone pipeline and pretty much immobilized all of Alaska for their income. We've got a lot of minerals in Arizona that in talking with what the Biden administration did was unfathomable. And you know with with China aggressively going after this country in the minerals that they threatened to shut down, it was President Trump who had a one-year reprieve when Beijing threatened to shut down the rare earth exports which would have interrupted semiconductor chips and magnets essential for our military. There's no reason we ought to be beholden to China. It's a failure of politicians. So thank you for doing this. Don't belabor the point. We'll be supporting good bill. I yield back.

All right. That concludes all the folks wishing to ask questions from this panel. We appreciate you being here. And now straight to here? All right. And now we're going to go to witnesses on amendments. Do we have any witnesses who wish to speak on their amendments? Amendments? Yes, come on if you want to talk about an amendment, come on up. All right. Ms. Ransall, you're recognized for five minutes to talk about your amendment.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member McGovern, committee members, for the opportunity to testify today on the funding package. Across the country from the streets of Minneapolis to high school students in Aberdeen to the neighborhood vigils happening across my district, the American people have been unequivocally clear. No more funding for ICE. No more funding for Kristi Noem, for Stephen Miller, for Tom Homan, for Greg Bovino. No more abuses of tribal sovereignty, no more violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, no more illegal warrantless searches, pulling people from their cars, using their children to lure them outside. We've had enough. Renee Good and Alex Preddy's murders were deliberate, intentional acts of violence perpetrated by the Trump administration. And the wake-up call for this Republican majority should have come sooner. There have been more than 30 deaths of individuals in ICE custody under this fascist regime. ICE agents are tear-gassing families in their cars, individuals simply exercising their First Amendment rights. There's blood on the hands of every individual aiding and abetting the Trump administration's dangerous fearmongering, invasions of US cities. I refuse to stand by while our neighbors are shot in the streets, while children are kidnapped from their parents, and while tribal citizens are held hostage. I'm here today to call for Secretary Noem's immediate resignation and if not her impeachment.

...CBP agents holding up crews fighting the Bear Gold fire in my district for hours to interrogate and ask for IDs before ultimately detaining two first responders should never be allowed to happen again. I've met with local officials from across the country who are scared this will happen in their communities next, which is why I introduced the Emergency Responder Protection Act and will keep fighting for it to be law. And this brings me to my final point about why there is no other option than to remove Secretary Noem from office. She is so obsessed with dressing up in tactical gear and posing for photoshoots with weapons that she has completely forgotten the important emergency response functions at DHS. I know some of my colleagues are wary of voting no on this package because it would also withhold funding for other DHS agencies like FEMA, but let's be real. Those other agencies are also suffering with Kristi Noem at the helm. Under her leadership, she's been dangerously undermining the safety and resiliency of our communities dealing with disaster. FEMA has frozen critical funds like the BRIC grant program, held up billions in disaster relief, and treated disaster response as political gamesmanship by punishing states and arbitrary withholding funds. The communities in my district who are experiencing more and more frequent flooding desperately need those funds. That's why I also have an amendment to condition this funding package on releasing all of the frozen FEMA BRIC grant funding. Because Secretary Noem is dangerous. She's dangerous for the American citizens, she's dangerous for immigrant communities, she's dangerous to local governments who are simply trying to protect lives, property, and infrastructure in the face of a worsening climate crisis. I urge this committee to include my amendments in the funding package. And finally, I want to note my support for Representative Summer Lee's amendment to the Clinton contempt resolution to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much. Gentlelady yields back. Ms. Fischbach?

I have no questions.

No questions. Mr. McGovern?

No, I support your amendments. I thank you for coming here. But as you have probably learned by now, on appropriations bills in particular, this majority has not been particularly open to allowing there to be debate and votes on the House floor, which is again why what is happening now is far from regular order. But I appreciate you being here and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott has no questions.

Ms. Scanlon?

No questions.

Now we're coming to me. I appreciate it and it has nothing to do with you and they keep telling people this. You have what is technically a Holman amendment to reduce a salary to $1. Except while technically correct that you could reduce it under Holman to $1, it's been driving me crazy because Legislative Services tells everybody that. Oh, this is what you do. Except it's in violation of other laws, state and federal wage laws related to minimum wage. The purpose of the Holman rule is to rearrange the agency. And in the process of doing that, you can either eliminate a position or reduce the salary, but you can't reduce it in violation of other laws. Now, that's not your fault. That's the drafters of these things and both sides have put them in and I've gotten to where I'm voting present on them. I used to vote against them just because they're not written right. So anytime anybody on either side wants to write a Holman rule provision, come to me and I'll help you draft it. I'll probably vote against it, but I'll help you draft it so it gets drafted correctly. That's all I wanted to say was procedurally it drives me crazy and Legislative Services, Mr. Ranking Member, has told everybody that's what you do. It just doesn't work legally and it's not the way the Holman rule was supposed to be used.

Can I make a radical suggestion?

Yes, sir.

Make her amendment in order. You can make that case on the House floor and we can debate it and you could vote no.

No, I've been voting present on them because I like to see people using the rule as the guardian or shepherd of the modern usage of the Holman rule. I like to see people using it, but I'd like to see them use it correctly. So anyway, I appreciate that, but I probably won't make this one in order.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may, really quickly. I appreciate that education, you know, as a brand new member of Congress learning the ropes around here. What I will say is that what I'm hearing from my constituents and the constituents of folks in red and blue districts across the country, they're frustrated by the lack of rules, or by the lack of tools, the ability to safeguard the rule of law, the Constitution, and they are crying out for us to do something.

And I would just say that that is what Holman's for. It's just not been applied when you got advice on how to do it, and they do it to everybody, so it's not just you. And so I don't want anybody to think that this was your error.

Oh no, I don't feel attacked at all.

Because that's not the case. This is a Legislative Services thing. All right, I yield back. And now recognize Mr. Neguse.

Well, I thank the chairman and I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment and for being here, and I certainly support her amendment. I just want to take an opportunity because my colleague and my good friend from South Carolina was not here earlier to hear my diatribe against this particular bill.

He could listen to it later.

And well, I thought I'd give him the opportunity to be able to hear it, perhaps an abbreviated version again. And so to the amendment that you proposed, Ms. Randall, which I think is both appropriate from the perspective of imposing accountability but also fiscally responsible. And I wonder if you would describe this minibus as a fiscally responsible bill. Do you think that's—

I do not.

You do not. I agree with you. I don't think it's a fiscally responsible bill either. You know, earlier you were not here for some of the exchanges, but we had a very robust exchange with the Appropriations Chairman about the fact that this bill actually exceeds the Fiscal Responsibility Act budget targets from three years ago and includes hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks. I mean, one in particular I found was a million dollars for repairing elevators at the New York Met Opera, which I don't know, the people of South Carolina, I guess, are going to be on the hook for that. I don't know, perhaps if Mr. Norman, I'm happy to yield a moment to you if you'd like on behalf of the people that you represent in South Carolina.

Look, earmarks are the cancer of this country. Earmarks on both sides, particularly with how if you pinpoint those in South Carolina, pinpoint those across the nation in other states, it's horrible. That's what's bankrupting this country.

So you're voting no on the rule?

Very dis— on the rule for—

For the earmarks that you disdain?

Earmarks, my package was turned down. This is the— with everything going on with President Trump, with the accomplishments he has made with tariffs, money—

This is Mr. Trump?

This— it gets much worse if this gets turned down.

All right, Mr. Norman. I mean, I find it fascinating because, you know, one can take this principled stand on earmarks and we can't possibly allow for this proliferation of domestic spending, and then when given the opportunity to take a principled position, one-word answer: Trump. Right? As you said, Trump, the accomplishments of Trump. I can't possibly be pressed to vote against this rule or against this bill in light of the fact that the President supports it. That's what it sounds like you're saying. In any event, I have a different view, so I'll be voting no. I suspect Ms. Randall will as well. But I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Jack. No questions. Mr. Norman?

No questions.

No questions. All right, seeing no one else here— oh, I thought I got to you.

No, not yet.

Oh, I must have done that earlier. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

No problem. And you know, I'm so glad that we had the conversation about the lack of tools. Because I think that, you know, earlier we had Chairman Cole here, and he agrees we shouldn't be arresting and putting into detention Native Americans. And we know they're doing that because they're brown, right? They say, "Oh, you look Latino, let's arrest you," you know. And I think that that's the problem, is that there is no accountability. Even when somebody says we don't like this happening, even when you acknowledge you shouldn't shoot somebody dead because they were carrying a licensed firearm, which many Republicans went on the TV talk shows and said, "Oh, he was carrying a firearm, he deserved what he got," right? Republicans were saying that. That Alex Petty shouldn't have brought a gun as a protester there, even though it was legal. But there are no ways to hold Noem accountable. There's no thing in the bills right now that will hold the agents accountable, and in fact the opposite. They think they are completely immune. And they're not. The Constitution applies to them, but until we say we're going to force them to comply with the Constitution, it's not going to work. I, you know, I agree that that's the dollar, right? That's the dollar. That's where you're going at. Now wouldn't it be better if we actually said there is no sovereign immunity, there's no immunity for what they are doing? What do you think of that kind of bill? And I'm sure you've signed on to some of the bills.

Absolutely. We have worked on qualified immunity in my time at the state legislature, and I think the American people want the same kind of accountability for federal agents who are literally murdering people in the streets. They want to ensure that they can be held accountable in the courts and also, really the bare minimum, that there is an independent investigation when there is a fatality at the hands of federal agents.

Right. And these are the kinds of accountability measures we can include in the appropriations language that should be included in the appropriations language that Democrats are insisting, and any Republican who actually believes in freedoms— if you believe in freedom in the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, if you believe in freedoms and you keep saying that you do, you should vote for these accountability measures. But all we're hearing is you can't put that in an appropriations bill. And that's why Democrats aren't trusting them. And I think that that is the problem that we have. Now Mr. Chair, I'd like to request a unanimous consent.

Please state it.

Mr. Chair, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record written testimony from Representative Salinas in support of amendment number 24 to the Senate amendment to H.R. 7148, which would hold the federal government civilly liable when CBP or ICE officers violate an individual's constitutional rights. And this is the thing, is if they are violating your constitutional rights, there should be a means of holding them accountable.

Without objection, the testimony is submitted for the record.

Yeah, and I think that that's the thing, and that's what you're also getting at. And so I appreciate you coming here to testify, clarifying that this is the kind of thing that exists for every other law enforcement, and actually exists for federal law enforcement officers until we had Kristi Noem and Donald Trump as President, where they're saying the laws don't apply to us. That's the frustration. The laws apply to everybody, and let's make that happen. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Seeing no one else wishing to ask questions, we appreciate you being here. Thank you so much. All right, the committee stands in recess subject to call of the chair.

I don't know. Question was how long? I don't know.

I am advised that we will be advised as soon as we know something, but so I wouldn't go too far, but stay tuned. The committee will reconvene. Obviously, there's a lot of ongoing discussion and negotiations about the Clinton contempt report. I think we need more time for OGR to clarify with the Clintons what they are actually agreeing to. Accordingly, the committee will postpone further consideration of the contempt. However, should there not be substantial compliance and agreement overnight, the committee will return to continue the hearing on the contempt. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.

Yeah, Madam, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to state for the record that the Clintons have been trying to come to an agreement on testifying to the Oversight Committee with all relevant information. And what Chairman Comer was promoting, in my opinion, has always been an exercise in politics. This contempt resolution had no merit even before this hearing, and it certainly should not move forward. But I do want to commend the chairwoman because removing this was the right thing to do. And I know it wasn't easy. Our side is not afraid of releasing these files. We are not afraid of what comes out, and we are not afraid of holding rich and powerful men accountable, up to and including the President of the United States and those in his administration. And just finally, Madam Chair, I made my thoughts clear about why I oppose the appropriations package, so I won't rehash that. But in this measure, but in the measure to repeal D.C.'s new tax law, Democrats strongly oppose this resolution, which would blow a $600 million hole in D.C.'s budget. I read a letter from the mayor and the chairman of the D.C. Council, which states that this would throw a huge wrench into D.C.'s current tax filing season and cause people to refile their taxes. That's insane. And if Republicans get their way, they would be undoing D.C.'s new child tax credit, which would give thousands of dollars to families with children to deal with childhood poverty. So in any event, I just wanted to state that for the record, and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, H.J. Res. 142, or H.R. 4090?

Madam Chair?

Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Oh, I'm sorry, we're not there yet.

Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. [Gavel sounds.] The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack.

Madam Chair, I move the committee grant a rule providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026. The rule makes in order a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148. The rule waives all points of order against the consideration of the Senate amendments and the motion. The rule provides that the Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 142, disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council and approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. The rule provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees. The rule provides that pursuant to section 604(h) of the Home Rule Act, a motion to recommit is not in order to the joint resolution if under consideration while the act of the D.C. Council is within the congressional review period prescribed in section 602 of such act. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.

You've now heard the motion. Thank you, Mr. Jack. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?

I think I've said enough, but...

I am not going to answer that. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number six to the Senate amendment to H.R. 7148, offered by Representative Wasserman Schultz, which would prohibit the use of funds to detain or deport Haitian or Venezuelan recipients of Temporary Protected Status, otherwise known as TPS, who continue to meet the statutory eligibility requirements for TPS, including a prohibition on granting TPS to individuals with criminal convictions. We have hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Venezuelan folks in our districts who have come here under TPS, and the summary denial of that status to them is causing a lot of hardship. I think this makes sense, and I would urge that people vote for the amendment.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Is there any further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Scanlon? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. Ms. Scanlon requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman no. Mr. Roy.

No.

Mr. Roy no. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott.

No.

Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith.

No.

Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack.

No.

Mr. Jack no. Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon.

Aye.

Ms. Scanlon aye. Mr. Neguse.

Aye.

Mr. Neguse aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair no.

The clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, seven nays.

The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Madam Chair.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 24 to the Senate amendment to H.R. 7148, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, offered by Representative Salinas and myself, which would hold the federal government civilly liable when a CBP or ICE officer violates an individual's constitutional right, creating a cause of action against the federal government. As of October 2025, it was reported that immigration agencies held at least 170 U.S. citizens against their will. That's four months ago. And we know that many more citizens have been arrested, detained, and thrown into immigration detention centers. You cannot be arresting citizens and saying they're violating immigration laws. We know that this number is well above 200 by now. And what's sad is many U.S. citizens are often stopped by ICE based only on how they look. Do they look brown? Do they look Latino? Do they look like my brother or my sons? And that is a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution. What we keep hearing from ICE and CBP and the Trump administration is they have complete immunity. Well, that is not true. But it is important that Congress speak out and say they do not have complete immunity. And indeed, they cannot continue to violate United States citizens' constitutional rights. And we shouldn't even be having this conversation. We shouldn't be begging the ICE or CBP to do their job consistent with the Constitution. So instead, we should be passing a law to hold them civilly liable for that. We should make sure that there is accountability. And I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. Ms. Leger Fernandez requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman no. Mr. Roy.

No.

Mr. Roy no. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott.

No.

Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith.

No.

Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack.

No.

Mr. Jack no. Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon.

Aye.

Ms. Scanlon aye. Mr. Neguse.

Aye.

Mr. Neguse aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair no.

The clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, eight nays.

The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Any further discussion on the rule?

Madam Chair.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number four to H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act, offered by myself, which prohibits prioritization of a mining project if it is owned or operated by a foreign entity of concern or subsidiary of a foreign entity of concern. In other words, China. And we had a very, I think, good discussion about this earlier on. We should not be providing fast-track authority to China to come in and mine our lands and take our critical minerals. It's something we need to address. I raise it over and over in this committee. I'm not going to go into a long explanation because I think we've had it. But I do want there to be a vote on this motion, and I'm going to ask for a recorded vote because I think we should go on the record of where we stand in terms of stopping China from mining our critical minerals and taking them across the ocean. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. And I think you've raised an important point. I just have some concerns, as others have said, about the way this is being approached. So I hope that the China Committee and you and others will look at a way for that to be done within the very liberal laws that we have in this country concerning ownership. So perhaps something can be done, and I admire you for what you're doing. Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it, the amendment is not agreed to.

Recorded vote.

Okay. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman no. Mr. Roy.

No.

Mr. Roy no. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott.

No.

Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith.

No.

Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack.

No.

Mr. Jack no. Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon.

Aye.

Ms. Scanlon aye. Mr. Neguse.

Aye.

Mr. Neguse aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair no.

The clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, eight nays.

The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the rule? Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the motion from the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to.

Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. A recorded vote's been requested. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach aye. Mr. Norman.

Aye.

Mr. Norman aye. Mr. Roy.

Aye.

Mr. Roy aye. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy.

Aye.

Mr. Langworthy aye. Mr. Scott.

Aye.

Mr. Scott aye. Mr. Griffith.

Aye.

Mr. Griffith aye. Mr. Jack.

Aye.

Mr. Jack aye. Mr. McGovern.

No.

Mr. McGovern no. Ms. Scanlon.

No.

Ms. Scanlon no. Mr. Neguse.

No.

Mr. Neguse no. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

No.

Ms. Leger Fernandez no. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Madam Chair aye.

The clerk will report the total.

Eight yeas, four nays.

The ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack, will be managing the rule for the majority. And Mr. McGovern will handle it for the minority. Without objection, this very interesting meeting is adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]