H.R. 2189 – Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act

[Gavel sounds.] Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. With objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider three separate measures: H.R. 261, H.R. 2189, H.R. 3617. H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act, would fortify our nation's national security posture by protecting submarine cable infrastructure and striking down duplicative permitting laws. Current protections for the United States cable infrastructure need a serious tune-up so that its reliability and safeguards remain secure from all manner of threats. We've seen it all too well across Europe, multiple incidents of both undersea cable and undersea pipeline damage going back to 2022. As we all know, our nation's adversaries are always looking for weak points to exploit, and this legislation targets an important area we do well to strengthen for the sake of our own national security. H.R. 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, would update the Gun Control Act, GCA, of 1968 to exclude less-than-lethal projectile devices from its definition of the term firearm. Currently, the GCA places new models of less-than-lethal equipment, such as Taser devices, in the same classification as firearms. This classification is erroneous and makes it more difficult for law enforcement to acquire these less-than-lethal devices. We can and should correct this so that law enforcement is best equipped for both self-defense and de-escalation. Finally, H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, would amend the Department of Energy Organization Act by enshrining, quote, "critical energy resource," end quote, as any energy resource that is essential to the energy sector and energy systems of the United States and the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption. We've heard many times over in this committee how the demand for critical minerals continues to climb across the nation, and as such, we should be working to open opportunities right here in America to harness those resources and ensure their place in bringing on new energy to meet the demands of the 21st century. H.R. 3617 would also direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct an ongoing assessment of the nation's supply of critical energy resources, the vulnerability of the critical energy resource supply chains, and the energy security considerations of critical energy resources in the development of energy technologies. I look forward to the discussions we'll have here today on these three measures. With that, I now yield to the ranking member substitute, Ms. Scanlon, for any comments she wishes to make.

Thank you, Madam Chair. These three bills don't seem to be about helping working families or lowering costs, the primary considerations for my constituents and, I would argue, the American people. They're not even about making people's lives a little bit easier. It's Republicans once again snapping to attention to serve special interests while regular people get screwed over again. First, we've got H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act. Sounds harmless until you realize that it exempts large companies from our nation's coastal conservation laws. Under current law, small businesses that operate in marine sanctuaries have to follow the rules. So that's dive boat operators or fishing guides and whale watching tours. The small operators all have to follow the rules. If this bill becomes law, the small businesses still have to follow the rules, but big corporations won't. Another special exemption for billionaires courtesy of this Republican majority. Next, we have H.R. 2189, bundled with H.R. 4242. Everyone wants law enforcement to have the tools that can reduce the use of deadly or lethal force, but this bill takes a dangerous detour. It exempts less-than-lethal devices from key federal gun laws, not just for law enforcement, but for everyone, including people who are currently prohibited from possessing firearms. That means devices that should be traceable, detectable by security equipment, and subject to background checks could become untraceable and undetectable. No background check, no accountability. That doesn't sound like de-escalation to me, and it doesn't sound like it's going to help our law enforcement. Finally, there's H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act. I saw this on the agenda and I had to check my calendar to confirm that it wasn't Groundhog Day again because Republicans just pushed a critical minerals bill last week. Now they're back for round two. This one defines critical energy resources so broadly it can be read to include oil, gas, or coal. And for what? So that big polluters can continue to dump toxins in our water and release chemicals in our air. Here's the bigger point. Why is this what Republicans think Congress should be doing with our time? People are struggling. Rents are up, groceries are up, energy costs are up. Families are worried about healthcare, and Republicans are fine with letting the ACA tax credits lapse, ignoring rising costs, and doing nothing to help working families. When big corporations want something, when polluters want something, when donors want something, Republicans jump to it. We saw it last year with the one big ugly bill, canceling health coverage for millions so the ultra-wealthy could get bigger tax breaks. House Republicans are using the Rules Committee as a rubber stamp for a pay-to-play agenda, and regular people are asking the obvious question. If I don't have the money to pay a lobbyist or make a big contribution to the right PAC, do Republicans care about me? It's absurd. The American people see this for what it is. It's corruption, plain and simple, and it's Washington at its worst. With that, I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Westerman and Representative Elfreth from the Committee on Natural Resources. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Westerman, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on this important legislation. Undersea cables play a crucial role in the global economy, and I have one of these undersea cables with me today. This outer part is mainly just the protection, and the business happens in these little tiny fiber strands inside. And this has got eight fiber strands. They can make these with, I believe, up to 40 fiber strands now, but one of these cables, one of these little strands can move 400 to 800 gigabytes per second. So you're talking about over six terawatts or terabytes per second moving through these cables across the ocean. And again, this is only eight strands. But these cables are small, yet they carry approximately 95 percent of the global internet traffic, and they also facilitate trillions of dollars in global financial transactions. The demand placed on these cables will only increase in the coming years. Despite the important role that undersea cables play in our economy and national security, they have faced duplicative and burdensome federal regulatory requirements. It is important to note that numerous environmental statutes under our committee's jurisdiction apply to these projects, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, among others. Make no mistake, the permitting process that is required for these projects is thorough. It ensures that our marine resources are protected. Cables looking to go through a national marine sanctuary face an additional requirement to obtain a special use permit under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Unfortunately, the reality is that this permit is simply unworkable. While an undersea cable project typically has a lifespan of approximately 25 years, a special use permit is only valid for five years. The permit, which is in addition to compliance with the numerous environmental statutes that I just mentioned, has resulted in no new cables being laid within a national marine sanctuary in the last 20 years. Sanctuaries have turned into de facto no-go zones for undersea cables, particularly in the West. This has resulted in consolidated landing areas for cables, which has increased the risk to infrastructure. H.R. 261 would prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from requiring undersea cable projects to obtain a special use permit when seeking to route a cable through a national marine sanctuary, provided that the applicant has been issued a license or permit that is in effect. By eliminating this requirement that is not additive to our environmental statutes, we can ensure that these cables have sufficient route diversity while protecting our marine resources. H.R. 261 also eliminates the five-year timeline for special use permits for other activities that occur in national marine sanctuaries. These changes are key regulatory reforms and advance the goals of President Trump's Executive Order 14267, reducing anti-competitive regulatory barriers. I urge the committee to report an appropriate rule so this bill can be considered in the House. Thank you. I look forward to questions and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Westerman. Ms. Elfreth, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, and my colleagues on both sides of the dais. I'm here on behalf of Ranking Member Huffman and my Democratic colleagues on the House Natural Resources Committee to oppose H.R. 261, which puts corporate profits over common sense established environmental protections. Current law requires a special use permit for any action that could impact the health and habitat of our national marine sanctuaries, the crown jewel of our country. These permits are the industry standard that have been effectively used by both small tourism, as my colleague from Pennsylvania mentioned, those small businesses and billion-dollar corporations seeking this break today. In issuing these permits, NOAA assesses the appropriate fees for administrative costs, project monitoring, and the fair market value for the use of resources if the sanctuary itself is physically impacted by the activity. The fair market value rate for undersea cables in sanctuaries is typically about $40,000 to $100,000 per linear mile, which can be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. For multi-billion dollar corporations, that fee is a drop in the bucket. But for marine sanctuaries, those fees are a lifeline and cover the cost of the maintenance and management of those marine sanctuaries. NOAA uses these fees to support daily operations, address conservation needs, improve public access, and conduct research and monitoring. For example, Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary in Georgia is a popular spot for sport fishing and diving as well as a critical site for scientific monitoring through drop cameras capturing seafloor imaging and water quality monitoring. H.R. 261 would exempt corporations from these special use permits if they are installing undersea cables. This would mean that they'd be allowed to physically disrupt and change the habitat of the sanctuary without contributing at all to its upkeep. Notably, H.R. 261 would not exempt small businesses like mom-and-pop scuba shops who are just taking tourists to view the sanctuaries. This bill creates a two-tiered system where the wealthiest corporations are allowed to drill into the seafloor for free, but tourists have to pay for a hands-off look at these habitats. H.R. 261 is a solution in search of a problem. There's nothing stopping corporations from proposing undersea cable routes through marine sanctuaries right now. In fact, I have a note here that NOAA has not denied any such permit for fiber optic in the last 25 years if they use that special use permit route. In fact, there are already cables running through sanctuaries under current law. What these big companies have made clear is that they don't want the environmental oversight or to pay the fair market value, both standard requirements under every other federal land management agency. H.R. 261 strips NOAA's basic authority to review environmental impacts, collect standards and fees, or protect the most sensitive ecological areas. These are by definition the most sensitive ecological areas. And these cables aren't just a mild disruption to the ecosystem. While fiber optic cables are small, installation requires massive industrial operations. We're talking about drilling equipment, anchoring systems, and construction vessels that can devastate seafloor habitat across miles of ocean. Our marine sanctuaries are truly America's crown jewels, 629,000 square miles of irreplaceable marine ecosystems that drive $8 billion, billion with a B, in economic activity and sustain tens of thousands of jobs in communities that truly need it. Small businesses across coastal communities depend on healthy sanctuaries for fishing, tourism, diving, and research. And those small businesses follow sanctuary regulations. They pay these permit fees. They respect environmental standards. This creates a system where small businesses are forced to follow the law while tech billionaires get exemptions. During committee consideration, Democrats offered a reasonable amendment to preserve minimal environmental safeguards, basic insurance requirements, protection for the most vulnerable areas, and standard rental fees. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected. I've consistently demonstrated a willingness to work across the aisle on our critical infrastructure needs that the chairman laid out, and that invitation remains open. We can and must modernize our communication networks, but we can also do it while protecting critical marine ecosystems. Those sanctuaries belong to every American, not just Silicon Valley executives. The fishermen, tourist operators, and coastal communities who depend on healthy oceans deserve better than this corporate handout scheme disguised as policy. I urge rejection of this legislation and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Now open it up for the committee for questions and comments. Ms. Fischbach.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just wanted to... it wasn't on for just a second. Just understand a little bit better. All this does is take away that one, that need to jump through that one hoop. And if I understand correctly, ma'am, they've never been denied in 25 years.

Thank you for the question. The note I have is that not a single special use permit for fiber optic cable has been denied in 25 years.

Well, see, that kind of makes the point then. That why do we have them if they're not... I mean, it's literally just a hoop. And Mr. Chairman, maybe you want to respond to that.

Well, there's not been a special use permit obtained in the last 20 years. So, and again, it's a five-year permit and these things have a 25-year life. So why would you spend the money to put a 25-year cable down when you've got a five-year permit?

Congresswoman, I think it's also not just about the permitting, but it's also about the fees that go to sustain these marine sanctuaries that are critical to their preservation.

Okay. Well, I just feel like this seems to me like a pretty simple response and you're not dropping any kind of regulatory things that they need to go through anyway because they're already... and correct me if I'm wrong, they're already authorized by another entity when they go to the special...

Yeah, there are multiple permitting processes that you have to go through. The special use permit is a layer on top of all the other permitting layers.

All right. Well, thank you very much and I yield back.

Yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her time of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned about this appearing to be kind of a backdoor repeal of important sections of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. I've had the privilege of kayaking and snorkeling and diving in several of the marine sanctuaries and through that process have learned just how fragile they are. Can you tell us a little bit about why we need to continue the current structure and just how it's going to impact because it's making it sound like, oh, it's not a big deal, we would have let these things happen anyways.

Well, I think this legislation is taking a bit of a sledgehammer to what I'm hearing the chairman say, maybe a scalpel was more necessary. If the special use permit of five years doesn't match the lifespan of the cables, let's have that conversation. I think it's really important we're talking about by definition the most sensitive ecological areas in this country. I don't represent a marine sanctuary, but I have one near my district, Mallows Bay, which is phenomenal and serves, I think to your point, not just a place for recreation, but a place for the ecology of our world's oceans to recharge, certainly important for fisheries issues as well. But I also want to introduce for maybe the folks watching at home this issue of a pay-for, and these fees pay for the upkeep of these sanctuaries. And if we eliminate these fees, I'm not seeing a solution on how we're paying for that critical upkeep, again, of our by definition most sensitive marine sanctuary areas.

Thank you. I mean, I do take your point that this is a sledgehammer attacking something that maybe a more nuanced and refined kind of solution might have dealt with. And just the impact of where it is going to provide a license to some of our larger corporations which are already doing quite well and still put the burden on the mom-and-pop whale watching place or the dive shop. I think we should be paying attention to that. So thank you for your testimony. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for his time of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just... Mr. Westerman, seems to me these cables are extremely important from the standpoint of commerce and the economy, and I sure want the United States to be the one that's handling the permitting and allowing this to happen. Seems to me like it's a good piece of legislation and that there's a lot of fear-mongering on the other side of that. I mean, do you have any other comments? Just seems common sense to me that we would do this.

Yeah, first I would like to address the issue about the fair market value and collecting fees. Since this supplemental permit has been put in place, or special use permit has been put in place, there hasn't been a single company try to obtain a permit. So it was basically a way to scare all the investors away from the marine sanctuaries. Now, we're talking about this crossing the ocean. If there was ever a needle in a haystack, this cable running on the bottom of the ocean floor doesn't really seem like that big of an issue no matter how you slice it. On your question about who's going to be running the cables, I can tell you already who's running the cables. It's the Chinese companies that are running cables all over the world. And our cables, especially leaving the West Coast, are constrained through corridors where it would make them very easy and vulnerable to be severed if somebody wanted to be a bad actor on breaking communication from the US to other countries.

Yeah. I think it's a good thing that needs to happen. And I'll tell you, I kind of... when you talk about habitat and structure, I know I fish in the Gulf of Mexico a good bit, and if you want to catch a marlin or a tuna, you go find one of the oil rigs and you fish around that and you're going to catch a lot of fish, snapper as well. And I remember when the environmentalists in the Obama administration had cut the red snapper season down to three days for the recreational fishermen, but if you were a commercial fisherman, you could fish year-round. And so I'm glad that we got that straightened out so that the American citizens can fish again in the Gulf of Mexico. And I don't have any further questions, Chairman.

Recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse, for his time of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Chairman Westerman, and my colleague from Maryland, and thank you both for your respective testimonies regarding this bill. Chairman, remind me, I know you represent the great state of Arkansas in the Congress. What part of Arkansas do you represent?

The Fourth District.

What part of Arkansas geographically is that? I've never been to Arkansas.

Well, you've missed out. You should come visit.

I'm eager to come visit.

So I've got 33 of the 75 counties, so I've got a large rural district.

Wow. So you represent almost half of the counties of Arkansas in your congressional district.

Not quite, but yeah.

It's a landlocked district, right?

Well, we do have some rivers that connect to the ocean, so we have...

No direct access to the oceans or seas in Arkansas, I don't think, last I checked.

Well, we have a lot of barge traffic that goes to the ocean.

Sure. We ship a lot of grain and aggregates down the Arkansas River, Mississippi River. I hear you, I hear you. But safe to say you're not...

There's no oceanfront property in Arkansas.

No oceanfront property in your... kind of like Colorado, the district that I'm proud to represent. You could probably guess why I'm asking. At least in Colorado, most of my constituents right now are awfully concerned about the cost of living. Unemployment's up, mortgage rates are up, inflation is up. Undersea cables don't come up that often at the town halls that I hold back in Colorado. Is that the case in Arkansas? Is this an avid point of discussion with your constituents?

No, but now that you mention the affordability issue, being able to build things adds to that ability to make things.

Undersea cables?

Yeah, absolutely. When you're talking about transmitting data and doing commerce.

Boy, boy, I don't know. That seems like a real attenuated case between making the case about the cost of beef and unemployment rate rising and mortgage rates going up and the need to provide these multinational companies with the stability that they supposedly require for undersea cable development in our oceans. I don't know. That doesn't seem like a particularly cogent case, but sounds like you disagree. Let's talk a bit about the underlying parts of this bill. My understanding is that the special permits essentially you're talking about $2.7 to $7 million per 20 miles of cable across a sanctuary that would be eliminated, right, by virtue of eliminating this permit fee?

Well, there's no fee being collected now because nobody's applying for a permit.

Sure. No, I understand. And I'm going to ask you about that because I think you posited a theory on that front, so I want to talk to you about that. But I guess I want to make sure we're still...

Posited a theory. I like that.

Well, I want to... before we get to your theory, I want to make sure I understand the underlying facts. So the special permit essentially you're talking about $2.7 to $7 million for every 20 miles of undersea cable, right?

I don't have the data on that, but I'll let... I'll go with the theory you're positing.

Okay. I can attest to you that that's the case. Okay. You suggested that the reason that no permits have been issued is because those fees have, I think I wrote down you said, it's scared away all the investors. Who owns, who builds these undersea cables?

No, I didn't say anything about the fees.

Oh, okay.

I said the ability to only get a five-year permit when you've got a 25-year investment is what I think scared away the investors.

Oh, okay. Got it. So it's not the fee, it's the length of the permit.

Right.

So then why not simply ensure that your bill, which my understanding there was an amendment in the full committee markup on this front, would still have the permit fees attached? You're just eliminating it entirely. You're not suggesting that we're going to have a 25-year permit and we're going to have the same fee schedule. You're saying get rid of the fee schedule, get rid of the permits entirely, right? That's what the legislation is saying, right? Correct. So I guess what I'm getting at is if the argument is that acquiring a special permit is going to cost a company between $2.7 to $7 million for every essentially 20 miles of undersea cable, if the argument is that that is going to disincentivize these companies from developing the undersea cables, a reasonable question to ask is who builds these cables? Who owns these cables?

Well, right now Huawei's building most of them because we're not...

I'm talking about here in the United States.

Well, that's the problem. We're not building cables in the United States like we need to be building them.

Okay. Let me... I'm going to read you an article. This is from earlier this year. The headline: "Meta Plans to Build a $10 Billion Subsea Cable Spanning the World." You're familiar with the company Meta? I've heard of them. Okay. The parent of Facebook, the parent of Instagram, the parent of WhatsApp, second biggest driver of internet usage globally, right? Building a, apparently according to sources, 40,000-plus kilometer project that could total more than $10 billion of investment. Something tells me that Meta is not dissuaded to build this mega undersea cable by the minuscule fees that are being charged through the special permit process at NOAA. And I guess that's my point. I don't know that it's a lot to ask of these multinational global companies to pay a modicum of a fee to NOAA to protect some of the most treasured places with marine life in the continental United States. Do you disagree?

Now, what do you call a modicum of a fee?

Well, are you telling me... you're saying $2.7 million for 20 miles? You're saying we're charging Meta too much? You think Meta...

We're not charging them anything right now because we're not laying any of these cables.

Because Meta refuses to pay. Because they refuse to go in and buy the... I mean, I think you should rename this bill essentially the giveaway to Amazon and Meta bill. Let's just from now on, we're not going to require Meta or Amazon or these large technology companies, which build these... the undersea cables. These aren't mom-and-pop technology companies in Arkansas or Colorado that are building these cables. It's Meta, it's Amazon, it's all the huge multinational corporations. And this bill essentially says that those companies don't have to get a permit anymore to build undersea cables. And the argument that I think you're making is that the permit structure right now disincentivizes these massive global tech titans from building out undersea cables. I think in my view, this is both misplaced in terms of the priorities that the House should be considering in light of all the challenges that our country faces, but I also think that it is a giveaway to some of the largest companies on planet Earth, and I'm not really understanding why House Republicans have decided to prioritize it. But I want to give you a chance to respond.

Well, I just understand we have differences on the way policy should work, but right now there is no fee being collected. Nobody's building... laying these cables across sanctuaries because of the restriction of a five-year permit if they do on top of all the other duplicative permits that it takes to lay the cable. ...now. Maybe that's a good thing. There would be a lot of commerce and transactions take place on these cables and I think that's just a difference between a Republican view of the economy and a Democrat view of the economy. You see an opportunity to tax something simply because it's there and we see an opportunity to grow businesses by allowing these cables to be there.

I mean look, you may be right, Mr. Chairman. This $10 billion Meta undersea optic cable I'm sure is real important to the future development of the economy in the United States. Lord knows that whatever AI chatbots this will be used to help facilitate more Instagram reels that can be shared, I got to tell you that's really integral to the future of the country. That just doesn't, I don't think that that in my view is a cogent basis for this bill. I don't think that that dog doesn't hunt, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah, well I'm not an expert on cash flow analysis for a data company, but if somebody will spend the money to put the cable there, there must be a market and a reason to put that cable there. So I think we should let businesses have the opportunity to go through a permitting process that's very rigorous without a footnote that says, oh yeah, you go through all the permitting process and you can only build your project for five years, which is basically saying you are never going to put a cable through this sanctuary as long as this five-year permitting process is in place.

Requiring the richest companies on planet Earth to pay a small fee before they build undersea cables that implicate some of the most sensitive marine life in our country doesn't seem like a big ask. But I will yield back.

Maybe you should offer that amendment.

I'm happy to, I will offer that amendment. And I'm going to tell Chairwoman Foxx when she comes back that I've earned the support of my friend from Arkansas.

I didn't say I would support it. I said maybe you should offer it.

I appreciate that. I yield back. I thank the gentleman.

No support guaranteed. I'll defer and recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy.

No questions. I yield.

Gentleman yields. We'll now go to Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico.

You know, my good friend in Colorado and my neighbor, my vecino, is echoing some of the same things I'm seeing, right? That here we are in the we're now in the second year of the Trump administration. We all remember that he promised to lower costs on day one and we haven't seen any of that. In fact, we've seen the opposite. We've seen costs go through the roof. We've seen tariffs sort of wreak havoc on American consumers. We've seen him favor fossil fuels, attack renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of new energy. And we haven't seen Republicans kind of do anything to lower costs. We haven't seen them complain about what Trump is doing, whether that's the tariffs that they refused to until recently, you know, they froze time so that Congress wouldn't have to have a vote on that. There doesn't seem to be any moral outrage about the crimes and abuses that are set out in the few and the Epstein files that have been released, not heavily redacted. You know, Trump's in those, his cabinet's in there. There doesn't seem to be any Republican outrage about citizens being shot to death. So what are they doing? And I think the difference, as the chair said, between Republicans and Democrats might be evidenced in this bill. That Republicans just want to keep giving away more favors to the biggest corporations, the multi-billion dollar corporations, right, who have so much money they don't know what to do with it. And Democrats are saying, you know, this isn't right because there are a lot of small businesses, mom and pop businesses that are going to get ruined if a mistake is made. And it's not like a mistake doesn't get made, right? I'm looking at the fact that Meta, they had a drill bit that broke during installation off of Tillamook County, Oregon. They left 1,000 feet of pipe, steel pipe on the sea floor and they spilled 6,500 gallons of drilling fluid. And they didn't really pay for the cleanup. So that's the problem is like who is going to carry the burden of Republicans removing regulation so they can favor the biggest corporations? And that's the tension that we are seeing here. That is indeed the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats want to make sure that those biggest corporations pay their fair share because the other thing that they want when they eliminate this, they're eliminating not only environmental review, but the ability to charge fair market fees, fair market fees. Why wouldn't you want the biggest corporations to pay fair market fees? And I think that's the, you know, that's what has us upset. If it's a five-year, let's address that. But why don't you want them to pay fair market fees? And maybe they're not drilling because it's too environmentally sensitive to drill in these sanctuaries. Remember what sanctuary means. Sanctuary means that most precious of place. That most precious of place. It's the word we use for our houses of worship. It's the word we use for the most precious of places. Representative Elfreth, is there anything in this bill which would require corporations to clean up their mess if they made a mess?

Not my read, Congresswoman, and in fact the amendment we offered in committee, the minority offered in committee, would require insurance requirements in case when something does go awry, as you mentioned that one example. And I want to point out here that while the cable is small, actually installing it, it's not just throwing it out, it's also drilling into the sea floor. It's regular upkeep of those repair cables in the most environmentally sensitive areas. Our colleague from Colorado pointed out that these fees go to pay for something that otherwise taxpayers will have to pay for when and if those are interrupted. And if I could suggest there's a lot of I think some common ground here. There are real national security interests when it comes to telecommunications. That is not, you know, specified out in this bill. That's not addressed as a special use of this bill. Again, it does not have the insurance requirements we suggested in committee. It doesn't match the five years versus 25 years lifespan of the cable. There's common ground here, but more importantly I think is who is going to pay for the upkeep of again our most sensitive marine areas when things go wrong. And this bill says it's not the billion-dollar corporations, it's not Meta, it's the taxpayers who are going to have to pay for that. And I take umbrage with that very suggestion and I think you do too.

Well, the idea that the taxpayers and some of those taxpayers are these small businesses that actually make their living in these sanctuaries. I love that word, the sanctuaries, this place that we should protect and keep sacred or keep clean and keep pristine, right? So they're going to both pay in their taxes and then pay if there is any damage done, right, during the construction. And what about tribal consultation? Is there anything in this bill that would require tribal consultation if it's not a tribe that authorizes this? I didn't see anything.

You didn't misread the bill. No, ma'am, there's nothing about tribal consultation in here. And if I could just address, I think there's a little bit of miscommunication or facts been misconstrued between a letter that was sent two years ago on a specific project. The Santa Ynez Band of the Chumash Indians sent a letter that was specific to their project and they did ask us to make clear that their letter was not meant to be construed in support of this bill. What they asked us to read is Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians supported resolving the concerns about undersea cables in the Chumash sanctuary during the designation process. The tribe understands that special use permits may not be long enough for the industry and agrees that some reform to the act may be appropriate. However, the tribe has not taken a position on the bill and the tribe's support for the industry in the Chumash sanctuary is not the same as support for the bill.

Well, actually this actually demonstrates that what you want is you want to be able to have those who are being impacted on a specific project to have communication, to have a say-so, to have input. And what we're seeing is time and time again, Republicans keep saying, oh we cannot have input. That would be too burdensome to the richest corporations in the world to, oh my god, let regular people actually have input to this process. And I think that that is part of this distinction that we are seeing. Is there anything else you want to point out on the bill since I'm the last Democrat, this is your chance?

Well no, I appreciate your questions and again I think we even I know we don't craft policy in this committee, but I think even today we've come up with some pieces of common ground that I would hope we could find a way to amend this bill to make it address the critical issues that we have in front of us, telecommunications, national security, but without sacrificing the most sensitive marine sanctuaries in this country.

Well, you know, our ranking member isn't here, but he repeatedly points out that in the past the Rules Committee did accept amendments. It did accept amendments, bipartisan amendments, it accepted amendments from the minority so that this place was intended to help perfect legislation and it doesn't do that anymore. So unfortunately maybe we'll get back to that when there is a different majority. And with that I yield back.

And whenever that happens we'll pull up the film. All right, Mr. Chairman, is there anything you want to tell me as I consider the rule on this bill?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think pictures tell a thousand words. This is this little tiny cable the size of my finger. We're talking about it going across the ocean. If you listen to the discussion here it sounds like this is going to destroy a marine sanctuary to run this cable across it. There hasn't been a special use permit issued for one of these cables in 20 years. It's not because there's not a need and a demand for these cables, it's because that is like a poison pill in the policy that drives investors away from running cables there. So it's consolidating all these cables in close areas where they're subject to where they could be damaged, multiple ones in a short amount of time. Now also if you listen to the discussion it sounds like this is just going to be the Wild West and anybody can go run cables anywhere they want to if we remove this requirement for a special use permit. There's still all of these other laws that are in effect, the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, which part of a NEPA process is tribal consultation. You're still going to do all the discovery and the you're going to look at the effects and it's still going to be a long burdensome process to get a permit to run one of these cables. This is really, you know, it's a needle in a haystack that seems to be a molehill being made into a mountain here in this hearing. It's not that big a deal to run a cable across the ocean and it's not going to destroy a marine sanctuary to have one of these cables going across it. So with that I would ask you to report a common sense rule that will allow Americans to build things again. You know, this is this is a cable going across the ocean. If we were talking about a transmission line going across the country or an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline, the same arguments would be made that it's going to destroy everything we've got and it's not. We've got to use a little bit of common sense in this. And with that I yield back.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you probably did a disservice to the molehill because I've had some molehills before and they're bigger than that. So it's not making a mountain out of a molehill, it's making a mountain out of something smaller than a molehill. I yield back. We thank you all for your testimony. We thank you for being here today. That ends the first panel and we'll take a moment or two to let you all get out of the room and get the second panel in here. [Recess.] All right, I now welcome our second panel, Representative Fitzgerald and Ranking Member Raskin from the Committee on the Judiciary. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Fitzgerald, I welcome your testimony. You're now recognized.

Thank you so much. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee, I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. I also want to thank the bipartisan group of members that worked on this bill for a long time now, the last two Congresses, Lou Correa, Congressman Lou Correa and Congressman Stanton and also Congressman Schweikert. This bill will put life-saving less lethal technology in the hands of more law enforcement and public safety officers. The Gun Control Act, the GCA of 1968, was enacted to assist law enforcement in their fight against violent crime. Along with imposing stricter licensing and regulation requirements on the firearms industry, the GCA also established a new definition of a firearm which, according to the bill, includes any weapon, including a starter gun oddly, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. While the definition has been suitable for the firearms industry for the last 50 years, as we know, modern advancement in less than lethal technologies, for the most part Tasers, have created a new need for Congress to take a second look at the definition to ensure that the GCA as written does not stifle innovation. For example, Axon, the manufacturer of the Taser, introduced a in 2023 came out with a version of the Taser, the Taser 10. And it is very sophisticated and it's very accurate and effective in minimizing some very dangerous situations that occur on a regular basis with law enforcement. But because the Taser 10 is primed with an explosive propellant that actually shoots out the pronged item, it must be classified as a firearm currently under the GCA despite its low risk of serious industry or death. So what does this mean for law enforcement and public safety use? For starters, many states prohibit public safety officers from using firearms. In at least 12 states, correctional officers are unable to carry firearms in the course of their official duties. Many state laws also prohibit or restrict the use of firearms in schools or hospitals, meaning security officers would be unable to purchase the devices. For police departments, law enforcement officers can be unfairly subjected to high levels of liability exposure, which is really kind of the gist of the bill, for discharging a firearm than a less lethal device. Because the less lethal device is considered a firearm, if it is used during a law enforcement encounter, that use may be considered deadly force in 43 states across the country. This includes my own state of Wisconsin, in which I worked on legislation while I was a member of the State Senate there to put prohibitions in place to make sure that there are a number of different situations where somebody that could want to purchase one would want to purchase one would be limited in that state by a private purchase. This means police departments will routinely choose a weaker Taser model to avoid that liability exposure. It's an unintended consequence of the law passed long before advancements in less than lethal technologies that has led to fewer law enforcement agencies adopting more innovative tools due to their same classifications and restrictions as other firearms. It also makes bulk purchases of these devices. So there's a lot of government-to-government sales on these items, which is one of the reasons that Congressman Schweikert got involved in this. It also makes the bulk purchase of the devices burdensome for some police departments, including tribal police. As recently as 2023, the ATF has taken a position that Native American tribes and their law enforcement officers do not qualify for bulk purchase of the firearms under the Gun Control Act's permitted exceptions. That's kind of an ancillary issue that I know may or may not come up today, but it is something that's been discussed and really the bill doesn't do much in that area. It is an unfortunate consequence that kind of continues to divide the tribal police departments from the rest of the country. That is why the Law Enforcement Innovative to De-Escalate Act is both necessary and important. H.R. 2189 makes a small but important change to the Gun Control Act definition of a firearm to appropriately define a less lethal projectile device. So I just wanted to make the case to the Rules Committee that we're not superseding state statute. And many of you sitting here on the Rules Committee today, your state legislatures have already dealt with this. So domestic abuse issues, they've probably got something on the books already using it in any way that would most reasonable people would say is more than a lethal type of system, which these are, they're systems. It's typically already been addressed by your state legislature. First, the device must not fire a projectile at a velocity exceeding 500 feet per second. So that's another bright line that's in the bill because we know anybody that's handled regular firearms knows that that same figure is 700 feet per second to up to 1,200 feet per second for a regular round that might be fired out of a handgun or out of a rifle. And second, the device may not be designed or intended to expel ammunition commonly used in firearms. So it's very bright line when it comes to making sure that there is a significant difference. It also must not accept its projectile through the ammunition feeding device, so a magazine, such as a pistol grip that, you know, you'd obviously be very familiar with. You cannot have a pistol grip. There's nothing there that would accept a magazine. And finally, the device must not have been designed or intended to be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or serious industry. So I believe the language is significantly crafted in a way that addresses any of the concerns of the firearms being deregulated because a lot of people have been saying, oh you're making these changes, it's going to change what has been in place for many years. That's not true. By making this change, we are equipping our law enforcement and public safety officers with the best tools to keep our community safe and our first responders out of harm's way. Innovation should be rewarded in this area. We should ask more of the private sector to innovate these types of answers for law enforcement. And once again, I want to thank Congressman Correa, Congressman Schweikert, Congressman Stanton for their leadership on this issue and look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Raskin, Ranking Member, for his time.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We all want law enforcement to use every tool available to keep themselves and our community safe, but H.R. 2189 doesn't do anything to further that goal. That's why I must oppose this legislation, which weakens federal firearm laws and fails to provide law enforcement with any new tools or training that would prevent the use of lethal force. What this bill would actually do is rip a dangerous new loophole in the Gun Control Act by exempting so-called less than lethal devices from laws that presently require firearms to be traceable, detectable, and not available to prohibited purchasers like felons and domestic abusers and fugitives. H.R. 4242, which has been added to 2189 in the Rules Committee print, would create a parallel exception in the National Firearms Act, which regulates especially dangerous devices like machine guns. These new Swiss cheese exceptions would open up a lot more statutory loopholes and allow dangerous people to more easily access untraceable, undetectable weapons without a background check. The legislation rewrites the definition of firearm throughout the entire criminal code to exclude from coverage certain less than lethal but still highly dangerous weapons like Tasers, which have been identified as a contributing factor in more than 500 deaths in the country. Because the definition of what constitutes a firearm is central to our federal firearms legal architecture, altering that definition is a tricky and dangerous endeavor and will produce consequences that are perhaps not the ones intended by some of the bill's proponents. The bill would establish a new category of weapon, so-called less than lethal projectile devices, which are currently classified as firearms and exempt them from all regulation under federal firearms laws like the GCA. And these weapons, contrary to what the title of the bill might invite us to believe, would be exempted from federal firearms laws regardless of who uses, purchases, possesses, or manufactures them. For example, this bill would allow persons who are not presently legally allowed to possess or buy firearms, like domestic abusers, like convicted felons, like fugitives and other prohibited purchasers, to legally buy Tasers that are designed to incapacitate their targets. And they would be able to buy them without ever going through a background check. The bill would also exempt these weapons from the requirement that they have a serial number and be traceable so that law enforcement can identify the owners if they're used in violent crimes. It would similarly exempt them from laws that require firearms to be detectable by metal detectors and X-ray machines used at airports or schools or whatever. If H.R. 2189 were to become law, nothing would stop a convicted felon from buying an undetectable Taser and carrying that weapon right past security onto an airplane, into a school, or indeed into the U.S. Capitol. This bill would make most of society less safe. Supporters say it's needed to update the Gun Control Act of 1968 to reflect modern technology and ensure that law enforcement can use these lethal weapons. But law enforcement agencies are already exempt from most of the provisions of the GCA and they already use all kinds of firearms, including those covered by this bill, without any legal obstacles. In fact, police departments in all 50 states presently use Tasers. Likewise, the tax provisions in H.R. 4242 do nothing for law enforcement agencies because they already purchase these weapons completely free of excise taxes. Supporters argue the change is needed because of the classification of these weapons as firearms in federal law may result in the use of the weapon being considered deadly force, even though the device is designed to be less than lethal. But federal courts have successfully distinguished between deadly force and intermediate force in cases involving law enforcement use of such less than lethal weapons. And states are perfectly capable of modifying their laws to account for these technologies if they believe it's in the interest of public safety. There's no indication that state or federal law is out of step with the design and use of these weapons, much less that such a mismatch has prevented law enforcement agencies from adopting them. Law enforcement departments in every state have already procured, obtained, and routinely use these devices, both in my state in Maryland and in the good gentleman's state in Wisconsin. The leading groups opposing gun violence, including Giffords, Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Community Justice Action Fund, all strongly oppose this legislation. They've worked in good faith with the proponents and offered alternative language truly focused on the needs of law enforcement, but the proponents have refused their proposals, raising questions about what the true purpose of this legislation is and the agenda of the single company that has pushed for it and stands to profit from carving its product out of long-standing federal law. Congressman Mike Thompson shares my view that we should keep working on in good faith. He has submitted an amendment in that spirit, which would ensure that less than lethal weapons that would otherwise be classified as firearms are not considered firearms when used by local, state, and tribal law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity. If the purpose of this legislation is really to help law enforcement agencies, then let's adopt this amendment to effectuate that precisely tailored objective. But as it stands, I do not believe we can risk opening up dangerous new loopholes in our firearm laws. I've repeatedly supported and will continue to support legislation to give law enforcement the tools and training they need to keep everybody safer, but I must oppose this bill that could put law enforcement officers and everybody else in danger. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Ms. Fischbach of Minnesota for her time of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I've been a long supporter of this legislation, so Mr. Fitzgerald, thank you for bringing it forward. And I really do think making the less than lethal equipment more readily available, you know, it will help not only law enforcement, keep law enforcement safer and and deal with how they can interact with the community. And I think it keeps community members safer too because you don't you lessen the need for the use of lethal force. So I appreciate that. And I know that this legislation has broad support. Do you have any of the do you have any of the names of some of the groups that support this because I know that it has been...

Yeah, there's throughout the process that's gone on for the last four years... Again, I'll give credit to Congressman Stanton who's worked hard on this bill. But we had dialogues and discussions and at the end of the day, Fraternal Order of Police support it. I think because they find at the local level they have some departments that are in a position where they can easily access the technology and then there's others because of counsel maybe in a municipality or at the county level are concerned about the liability associated with it, which goes back to what we kind of brought the bill forward for is to make sure that there's a very clear message that we're not trying to supersede local level of law, whether it's municipal or state law. And we also want to make sure that these departments that currently feel like they're hamstrung and unable to get the technology can secure it. So, Fraternal Order of Police, County Sheriffs' Associations, International Union of Police, African American Mayors' Association supports it, came out publicly and supported it, and also the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, NOBLE. So they know what it's like because they're kind of dealing with this issue on a regular basis and having members from these associations that find themselves in different positions, which is not the way it should be. We did not want to supersede state law and I think the state legislatures have done a good job of already putting statutes in place that protect a lot of the situations that have already been brought up here this afternoon.

And I appreciate that and I just wanted to, you mentioned a lot of groups that and not only I think you mentioned earlier, not only are they supportive of it but they were involved in actually helping, you know, making sure that it...

To craft it. Absolutely.

Yep. And one other group that I did think was significant that we should point out that does support this legislation is the Coalition of Families Against Police Brutality. And so they recognize the helpful way that it could potentially lessen, you know, that use of lethal force. So I like I said, I've long supported this bill. I appreciate you bringing it forward and with that, I will yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her time of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Obviously support giving law enforcement the tools they need to protect our communities while minimizing the use of deadly force. We've seen that there can be positive results there in my community, but this bill doesn't do that. The bill's proponents claim that it will help police departments acquire Tasers and less than lethal weapons, but police departments already have access to those tools. They're already exempt from the regulations that apply to civilian purchases. And if we want to help departments acquire this equipment, we should be talking about properly resourcing our police, not changing the gun laws. The reality is that this bill will make it easier for criminals and dangerous people to buy Tasers. We've seen Tasers used by domestic abusers on their spouses, they've been used in assaults and robberies. The last thing we need is to put these weapons in more hands without proper safeguards. And let's not forget this legislation, which again does not actually help police departments purchase Tasers, comes from the same party that has repeatedly tried to slash police funding. Just last April, President Trump rescinded over $800 million in federal grants supporting local law enforcement and community safety. And last year, Republicans passed budget legislation that would implement deep cuts to these same programs. Republicans can't defund the police and then claim they're helping them, especially with a bill that is just going to make weapons more accessible to criminals. Mr. Raskin, was there anything you wanted to add?

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. The domestic violence groups opposing this like the United Church of Christ, the Interfaith Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Catholics for Family Peace Education and Research and so on. Like the gun violence groups, they see this as not doing something necessary for law enforcement because law enforcement already is using this across the country. And I think everybody in this room has police departments in their state, including Mrs. Fischbach in Minnesota. The Minneapolis Police Department use Tasers, the Minnetonka Police Department, Saint Charles, Hastings, Brooklyn Park and so on. So the police departments have access to it. The question is, do we want convicted felons and convicted domestic abusers and fugitives from the law to be able to access Tasers when we know that these have been used as very dangerous weapons against people and have indeed caused serious injury as well as death.

Yeah, and it does really bring home the fact that it doesn't actually help law enforcement get Tasers to be able to have ways to de-escalate situations that could end in tragedy. We had in 2020 a really tragic, horrific incident in Philadelphia where a citizen was having a mental breakdown and the police were called and he was shot and killed very quickly after the police arrived on scene. But it was at the same time that the city was trying to implement a program where they would have mental health professionals on call and where they were trying to arm the police with Tasers to have a less lethal method of dealing with situations. They didn't have the money for the Tasers, they didn't have the money to have mental health professionals on call. So I think we should be helping our police departments be funded in ways that allow them to keep everyone in the community safe and this bill doesn't do that. Thank you, I yield back.

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

I just want to ask you this, Mr. Fitzgerald. Your colleague there has said that if this bill passes that felons will be carrying Tasers on airplanes. I'm not aware that you can carry a Taser on an airplane today. Am I missing something here or is he just making stuff up like he usually does?

No, you can't carry a Taser on an airplane right now. As a matter of fact, I think there's a number of situations where the issue continues to be raised about where they would be or wouldn't be allowed. And they're subjected to the same type of scrutiny that any type of weapon would be. So it's kind of I think a red herring. It's an argument that's been out there that suddenly people in the private sector, which right now less than 1 percent of all Tasers that are owned by somebody are owned by somebody in the private sector. It's not something that's really happened. And I think a lot of these departments right now, a lot of the police departments have actually put in place some strong protocols on how they can handle a Taser, maybe when they're off duty. There's a lot of different protocols that are in place. Again, we're not touching any of that stuff. This should be handled by the chiefs of police, the sheriffs, and the state police state by state. We're not touching it.

Doesn't supersede state law or any of those?

As a matter of fact, I think what it might do is prompt some state legislatures to maybe go back in and take a look at their own statutes to see how it conforms with what we're doing here today, which is welcome. That's great. I think that should happen.

Mr. Raskin, can people carry a Taser on an airplane today? Can I carry a Taser through TSA? Can you explain your statement?

Absolutely not. Absolutely not because they are regulated firearms.

But you propose or this legislation proposes not to make them regulated firearms. There are other things that TSA does not allow on airplanes outside of regulated firearms. They don't allow a knife on an airplane. That's not a regulated firearm.

Okay, right now there's not a separate regulation. It's because they are regulated firearms. So you're right, every state could go back and change their laws to criminalize the use of Tasers and the TSA could do that as well. But I stand on my original position.

It's already criminalized unless it's in use of self-defense, correct?

What is?

The use of a Taser. I as a civilian, if I own the Taser, I cannot Tase somebody just for the sake I can't walk down the street and Tase somebody just for the sake of Tasing them.

What law are you citing?

I'm talking about the law of common sense. That is an assault if I walk up and Tase somebody, is it not?

Right now, see, I guess I'm just trying to get the committee to focus on the fact, and I'm glad that you're underscoring this, that when you say it's no longer regulated by federal firearms policy, you would need to adopt new laws and regulations to treat Tasers separately. And some people will say...

No you don't.

No?

No.

Really? So you're saying if you no longer have it regulated by the National Firearms Act, it's still illegal to bring it on an airplane? Based on what law?

TSA would not allow you to take a Taser on...

Based on what?

They won't allow you to bring a Taser into this building, Mr. Raskin. I don't know what it's based on. It's based on common sense.

Because it is regulated. It is common sense and embodied in federal law, which you guys want to change right now. That's what I'm trying to get you to focus on.

You guys, you are the party of no. This is good common sense legislation. It needs to pass. It is ridiculous that y'all are fighting this. I yield.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I want to drill down, I want to give Mr. Raskin an opportunity insofar as he'd like to respond to my colleague from Georgia because I didn't find the argument that was being made by the ranking member from the Judiciary Committee all that complicated. My understanding is that the current definition of firearm, insofar as a weapon and whether you deem that lethal, non-lethal, a weapon is defined as a firearm under federal law, it then is subject to a variety of different background and registration related requirements.

That's right.

And so insofar as you pass legislation like this, which would pull a particular device out of that definition, you then open the door to no longer having those same safeguards under federal law.

It's common sense. I mean, our point is simple, which is presently Tasers are regulated under the Gun Control Act and under the National Firearms Act. And so if you can't access a gun without a background check, you can't access a Taser in the same way. If you are a convicted felon and you cannot purchase a semi-automatic weapon, you cannot purchase a Taser. It's treated the same way. And so if you strip it out of federal law, then it's in a completely different category. I'm amazed that the argument is being made that it wouldn't have that effect. I thought that was the whole purpose of the legislation because right now the police departments already have lawful access to it and hundreds of them are using Tasers as everybody knows.

Precisely.

So this is about making Tasers accessible to everybody else. And if you don't think they should be carrying them on airplanes, then maybe you should reconsider whether you support the idea of no longer regulating them as part of federal law.

Yeah, and my point to your point, Mr. Raskin, I mean if someone is convicted of a violent felony, that person may not otherwise be able to acquire a weapon, right, by virtue of the federal background check system.

Correct.

But would be able to acquire the weapons that are deemed non-lethal by this legislation.

So we're taking people right now like convicted felons, like convicted domestic violence abusers, like fugitives from the law, like undocumented people who cannot purchase a firearm because of what they've done, and now we're saying but you can purchase a Taser. And so that is the legal import and significance of what we're doing. And if you like that idea, great, but if you don't like that idea, if you think that's dangerous, then you should oppose it.

Yep. Mr. Fitzgerald, thank you for being here.

Yeah.

So last year...

Can I just respond to that last...

Sure, of course.

I'll just say just for Wisconsin, Pennsylvania is kind of in the same spot, a lot of the states, and I don't know where Colorado's at, but you must be 18 years old to own a stun gun or Taser, you must be 21 and possess valid concealed carry permit to carry in public, it's a felony to carry a stun gun or Taser in public, it's illegal to possess stun guns or Tasers for those with prior felony convictions. So it does fall in state statutes.

It devolves, yeah, and I'm not...

As far as TSA goes too, they have a laundry list, right? We've all seen it. You can't take it on a plane.

I hear you and I'm not going to get into the TSA back and forth, that's not my my colleague from Georgia is you know very myopically focused on that, so I'll let him delve into that. And I hear your point. I mean it's a policy choice, right? I mean you're making the argument that this bill essentially devolves regulation effectively to the states. And so if you're in a state that's a high regulation state with respect to a non-lethal weapon, then obviously as you said those restrictions would apply. I want to just talk about the tax portions of the bill, the excise tax portion. So last year Republicans passed a bill to eliminate the excise tax on silencers, correct?

Right.

Okay. Republicans also passed a bill last year to eliminate the excise tax on short-barreled rifles, correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And last year as well, House Republicans passed legislation to eliminate the excise tax on short-barreled shotguns, correct?

I think that's correct. I don't know if it was worded that way, but yeah.

Okay. And this bill eliminates excise taxes on Tasers, right, and non-lethal weapons that are defined under the legislation, right?

Congressman Schweikert has been very clear though, we've asked for a report to show what that would be because so many of these are government to government sales.

I hear you, but I'm just saying for those that are not for government, it eliminates the excise tax for the public, right? Okay. So no more excise taxes for short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, Tasers. What other weapons do House Republicans plan on pursuing the elimination of an excise tax next? I mean it seems like y'all are just obsessed with eliminating taxes on weapons and I'm trying to get a better understanding of what might be coming down the pike.

I mean I would say the gist of it is a lot of that is intergovernmental sales. So silencers were intergovernmental sales? Yeah, there's a good portion, portion, not all. Well I'm just saying that's one of the angles on it is that I don't expect the number to be that big on this bill. I don't want to comment on the other bills in the past, I don't know what the number is.

I hear you and I'm not asking you for a number. I guess my point is, I mean you voted for them as did all of your Republican colleagues. My point is there are plenty of excise taxes that impact everyday consumers in Wisconsin and in Colorado. Airline excise tax, for example, on airline tickets, right? You could go down the line. And it just seems to me like my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have this myopic obsession on eliminating every tax for a gun or weapon that one could conceive of. And we're spending all of our time in this committee taking up elimination of excise taxes for weapons when we could be taking up very basic common sense proposals to make life cheaper for and more affordable for more Americans. You could understand where I'm coming from.

Very good. I so are you saying you would offer something like that?

Oh no, I'm saying that I guess I'm asking why every time there's an elimination of an excise tax bill that Republicans present to this committee, it invariably has to do with guns or shotguns or rifles or Tasers or whatever else, I don't know, knives, what's next? What else do you have planned?

I'm unaware of any bill on knives coming up coming down the pike, so.

Well, you may be speaking too soon. I mean given the priorities of this House Republican caucus, that's my point. Okay. In any event, I just I will say on the law enforcement piece because you made the point, Mr. Fitzgerald, that the bulk of this bill connects to transfers and sales associated with law enforcement. I'm looking at the federal code here. So this is 26 U.S. Code Section 4221, subparagraph A, subsection 4, right? Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, no tax shall be imposed under this chapter on the sale by the manufacturer of an article under this chapter, which essentially is all firearms and ammunitions, to a state or local government. So what are we doing here?

Well what we've seen is and what I think we're anticipating is this there may be more sales as a result of the bill on Tasers to law enforcement because right now there is this liability issue.

But they're not taxed now.

Well I'm just saying that it would be something that Mr. Schweikert has asked for a report on, we want to know what the numbers are and it might be something you might revisit. But but right now it's still a lot of intergovernmental sales that's going on on this.

But I know I hear you, but I guess what I'm saying is they're not taxed now for governments, for state governments, or am I wrong about that?

No, you're right, you're right.

Yeah, so federal law says a local police department, they're not paying a tax on the Taser. So if you're eliminating the tax, who are you eliminating it for?

Well it if there was any type of sale outside of intergovernmental, which I've already said...

For citizens. Precisely.

Well I said, I said it's 1 percent of total sales right now. There's not a market that that is there for this.

Then why eliminate it?

Well that's what Mr. Schweikert was focused on. That's that's why we've got this report in here to see exactly what the impact might be.

Well, I think I mean I don't know, I have no idea. I hear you and I hear that you're you were in an unenviable position I think, Mr. Fitzgerald, because I think you're being asked to defend a component of the bill that was not an original component of your legislation, right, that that made its way through Judiciary. So I hear you and I would just suggest to you again policy arguments that you know folks will make in good faith with respect to your the core of your bill, but it would strike me that Mr. Schweikert's portion of this bill really should be removed. That there's no no one's articulated a cogent basis for eliminating this excise tax beyond as I said just an obsession amongst some quarters apparently in in your conference of eliminating every excise tax having to do with a weapon. So anyway, but I appreciate the good faith exchange here and I'll yield back to the chair. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back and now recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, Ms. Houchin.

Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. It's easy to forget that law enforcement officers are routinely placed in high-risk, rapidly evolving situations where they must make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. The job is hard enough without limited access to the best and safest tools that lead to less tragic outcomes. Innovations in public safety equipment have far outpaced the statutory and regulatory frameworks that govern them, limiting access to less than lethal devices which have been shown to result in much lower rates of injury than traditional law enforcement tools like pepper spray or physical restraint. This is bipartisan legislation and it is a simple common sense solution that not only allows law enforcement to more effectively do their job but enhances public safety. I want to ask Congressman Fitzgerald just to emphasize the consequences of maintaining the status quo. Could you talk about how clarifying federal regulations governing these devices leads to less confusion for law enforcement agencies and what clarity will ultimately mean for safety in our communities?

Yes, thank you for the question. So it's about the clarification that has been needed for some time and it's exactly what the police departments and public safety officers have asked for and what is needed because what they find is that officers can be kind of unfairly subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for simply using a firearm, for using their their service revolver during a police encounter. And the less than lethal device gives them another option. I think we've seen law enforcement use it as a tool to truly de-escalate some of these very, very high tension situations. It might be a domestic that they're walking into, it might be somebody that's currently involved in committing a crime and they're armed. But there's an exchange that happens with because if you talk to police officers about it, there's an exchange that can happen that the public is now aware of Tasers and they're aware of how they're used in law enforcement. So a lot of times they can actually use it to their advantage to diffuse those tough situations because the threat's there but it's not lethal and it's really if you meet with police officers, if you meet with sheriffs' deputies, it's one of the reasons that they feel like if we could just tweak the statutes and get this in a good place, they could work with their state legislatures, develop a strategy there that's probably similar to what most states have already put in place to to put protections in place. And then ultimately it would allow maybe school security officers, security in hospital situations, and there's a number of different situations where the less than lethal force option is a great alternative to what they have available to them now. But when they talk to counsel, when they talk to the city attorney, when they talk to counsel at the county level, what they say is, listen, we're still subject to these liabilities and because it's not very clear in statute, we need this, we need this to fix this situation and that's what this bill does here today.

And just in terms of officer safety, the technology has increased to the to the point where distance is also increased between the officer and maybe a subject that could be a danger.

That's a great point. In the past, because the technology was not fully developed, you had to be fairly close to an individual if you were going to neutralize them for a short period of time with this projectile. Now with innovation in the technology, the officer is further away from the individual and it gives them many more options. So it's another thing that's really helped.

Question is if we declassify the Taser as not as a firearm, does that make it able for a civilian like me to carry that for personal protection?

Like I've been saying all along, it's less than 1 percent. But I think there is a possibility of some type of technology that is available now that could be sold for personal protection. That doesn't exist right now. But again, I think your state legislature, if if that's a change that is made within the technology at the local level, it might be something that they might want to respond to. But it's not addressed in the bill that we're that we're dealing with today.

And I just want to note this, the federal law first classified in 1976 the firearms, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is what this classification is currently under. In 1976, Tasers were added under that classification as a firearm because they used gunpowder as a propellant. Since the 1990s, Tasers have used canisters of compressed nitrogen gas rather than gunpowder, which I think due to the increase in technology, that classification may be outdated. So Congressman Fitzgerald, some of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested that the bill could lead to deregulation of certain firearms or create devices that could be easily converted into a firearm. I'd just like to give you a time to respond to that.

Yeah, I mean that's kind of was part of what's already been argued here this afternoon. But to be classified as less lethal device under this bill, the device may not accept firearm ammunition. That's that's, you know, it's part of the nomenclature of of a pistol or firearm that a police officer may have that obviously in a revolver, individual rounds can be added or in a 9mm, a magazine is used. These this technology doesn't have that. It's not part of it. So it's not something that really should be discussed as a comparison in my estimation. And any weapons parts kits that can be converted to firearms, that's addressed. This ghost gun issue which has come up, that's been addressed. So I think at the end of the day, a lot of what we're doing again is deregulation, but so it'll put the police departments and sheriffs' departments in better position, but at the same time we don't reach so far that we, you know, kind of smother what's going on at the states, which is all good stuff that's happened in the state legislatures.

Thank you. As the technology continues to advance, I think it's essential that the law should keep pace, providing law enforcement agencies with the necessary tools and regulatory framework to effectively navigate very complex operational environments while upholding safety and increasing accountability. Thank you, Congressman. Totally agree. Thank you.

Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady of New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez, for her time of questioning.

Thank you so very much. Mr. Fitzgerald, just to clarify, under current law, can someone with a violent felony conviction legally buy a firearm? Yes or no?

No.

Can someone who is found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others due to mental incapacity legally buy a firearm?

No, if they're violent felons or domestic abusers, no, they're not going to be able to buy it.

Okay, but if this bill were to become law, so domestic violence right now cannot buy anything, especially like if you have if you're stalking, you cannot buy a firearm, correct?

No, right, if you've been convicted of stalking an individual, no.

Right. But if this bill were to become a law, the effect would be that violent felons, domestic abusers, stalkers, and those deemed mentally unfit and other dangerous people would be able to purchase these weapons, the Tasers. Is that correct?

No, they're addressed. No, they're all addressed by state statute.

Well, actually, no. Under federal law. All 50 states, all 50 states. I am looking at the Department of Self-Defense, which is Taser, which lists the state regulations. And the green stands for no restrictions. And I think that that's a problem with this. And in fact, at the Ways and Means... ...this hearing, a Republican counsel testified that they would be able to buy this. And I think that this is part of our problem, is that this is such a broad exemption to federal firearms safety laws that we are very concerned. And not only are we very concerned, I have a letter in opposition to the bill from the National Domestic Violence Hotline and other organizations that help victims of domestic violence stating that the bill, and I quote, "will not only allow domestic abusers to acquire projectile weapons without a background check, it will make it perfectly legal for a domestic abuser and other people convicted of violent and abhorrent crimes such as felony child molestation to possess these weapons."

Can I respond? Can I respond?

Well, while I am would like to enter into the record, Chairman, the letter dated November 18, 2024, to both the Chair Jim Jordan and the Honorable Jamie Raskin. And I just quoted what the letter says, and these are people that I need to emphasize spend their lives committed to trying to protect women from ongoing abuse. And these Tasers would facilitate additional abuse. They are not they're not harmless. They might be less than lethal in most circumstances, but Representative Raskin, are they harmless?

Well, no, of course not. And I mean, that's why they've been regulated as a propulsive explosive device under the National Firearms Act for decades. And but I mean, I'm delighted to hear Mr. Fitzgerald say that he thinks the states should, I think he's saying should go ahead and legislate to prevent domestic abusers and convicted felons from accessing them. But if that's your position, why change the law in the first place? The police departments already have access to the Tasers. The full import of this bill is to give other people the opportunity to buy them, including convicted felons, undocumented people, fugitives from the law, domestic violence abusers, and so on. I mean, that's why that's what we're focused on right now. So I don't it is not the case that 50 states have laws that duplicate what federal law says. That's the whole point about federalism. For decades, the states have relied upon what Congress has done in the Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act. And now we're going to pull the rug out from underneath them, and so we'll go back to the states. But I'm sure we'll hear from people, if not you, Mr. Fitzgerald, people on your side of the aisle saying, "Oh, well, there's really no problem with allowing everybody, including convicted felons, to access Tasers at the state level."

Right. And and that's what this chart shows, if everybody can see. I'm not supposed to hold things up here, but basically there's only eight states that provide regulations. And and we were hearing earlier that, well, the law of common sense would apply. I mean, I would ask Representative Raskin, will the law of common sense protect a woman who's already been abused by her partner?

Evidently not. And I think it was our our colleague from Georgia who talked about the law of common sense with respect to who's getting on an airplane. I agree it should be common sense that people with Tasers shouldn't be able to get on an airplane, and that's why that's embodied in federal law today with firearms. But if you look at what the TSA says, it doesn't mention Tasers. It says you can't enter with a stun gun or a shocking device. Imagine if this legal change were to go through, they would explicitly go ahead and say people cannot enter with Tasers. But no, the confusion is going to be if we actually strip the law of what's been in there for decades, because now every state is going to have a different rule on it or different language on it, and then different federal departments are going to have to regulate on it that have now been just depending on federal law.

Right. And we keep hearing today all day, "law enforcement, law enforcement." Mr. Fitzgerald, does any part of your bill exempt just law enforcement officers, or does it apply to everybody?

So all U.S. states and territories already criminalize misuse of less-than-lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws. Then on top of that, 42 states have explicit statutory definitions for less-than-lethal devices. Of the 42, 34 already prohibit the possession, impose age restrictions, and impose criminal penalties for misuse. So I'm not sure what the map is that you're holding up. I'm just I'm just...

No, the map is acquisition. It's acquisition. It's acquisition of the weapons. That's what we're talking about here. This bill is about acquisition, not about if you commit a crime with it, which is what you're talking about. We're talking about why why make it easier for people who've already committed...

No, they're not going to be able to get their hands on a Taser if that's what you're talking about.

Yes, they would, because this this bill only applies to everybody. And that's what the amendment is about. The amendment is, if this is about law enforcement, then let's make it apply only to law enforcement. Is that correct, Representative Raskin?

Well, I mean, let's put it another way. And again, I'm not sure that Mr. Fitzgerald is focused on this, but this legislation would say that a convicted felon or a domestic violence abuser could go and buy a Taser without a background check at all. Today, they've got to go get a background check, but if this passes, then they wouldn't have to go to get a background check. So the gentlelady is right that that this suddenly opens up a huge market for Tasers from people who we don't want to be able to access them. And it's true you could charge them with an aggravated assault or battery afterwards, but that's going to be cold comfort to the victim of domestic violence who now is suffering from her abuser carrying a Taser and training it on her.

And I think that that's the concern, is that we need to be we have we have passed these common sense regulations to protect people from those who we have decided should not be had have access to weapons. And whether they are less than lethal or in this case can take you down, can can can temporarily paralyze you, can knock you unconscious. Like, why would you want somebody who is a felon, somebody who has been convicted of domestic abuse, of stalking, of any of these horrible crimes, to have access to these kinds of weapons? And and that's I think what our concern is. So Mr. Thompson, who's the longtime chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, has the amendment to say if we're concerned about law enforcement, let's have this act apply solely to law enforcement. And Mr. Fitzgerald, I don't recall, or would you be supportive of that kind of amendment?

No, I mean, that's the path we chose not to go down, which is to supersede...

So this isn't really you chose you already chose not to go. So you want to so you want to tell local police departments how to run their show, how to run their shop, because that's what your amendment does. It starts to put burdens at the local level, and you're starting to direct local law enforcement how to do this, how to run this program. In many of the states right now, that's up to the legislatures with the input that they have from local law enforcement, from the sheriffs, from the chiefs of police. What the amendment does is it starts to direct, "Here are specific things that we are going to add to the federal statute." So I mean, if you if you want to do that, that's another way of of handling this. It's not something that I support, though. Well, well, I'm glad to hear that you have clarified your position that you do not want to make this applicable to solve the problem that you guys all keep talking about, a problem with law enforcement, but it's not a problem with law enforcement because the amendment just says the bill would exempt less-than-lethal projectile devices from being treated as a firearm only when they are used by a person while acting in their official capacity as a state, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement officer. So the amendment doesn't put a lot of restrictions. It just says if you're a local law enforcement, tribal, state, you're you're fine. You don't need to have these regulations, but everybody else would.

Also doesn't fix the liability question, which is another part of the entire bill, is that right now, counsel in many of these municipal municipalities or at the county level, they're they're actually concerned about the liability associated with it, which is why some of these police departments are not deploying the less-than-lethal Tasers right now.

Yeah. So I'm going to Representative Raskin, I mean, clearly the there is a solution to this bill to make it apply solely to benefit law enforcement officers. Republicans are not willing to do that. Is there anything else you'd like to add to this debate today?

Well, that point is correct. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the sheep's clothing is we're just trying to help law enforcement. Law enforcement gets Tasers right now, and to the extent we need to further clarify it, that's exactly what the amendment does. The wolf is the domestic violence abusers, the convicted felons who are not going to be able to purchase firearms, but they are going to be able to purchase Tasers, and that will be their next stop. And there will be no background check to stop them. The liability issue is a complete red herring. They have not identified a single case in the country where anybody has been punished more seriously because a Taser is covered by the National Firearms Act. So they say they're worried about liability, but they haven't demonstrated one case, civil or criminal, where there's been liability that's been based on the fact of the classification of a Taser under the National Firearms Act. Just doesn't exist. No cases like that.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Representative Raskin. I mean, and I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm feeling a little bit like a Democrat right now because I want to talk about something that's not actually covered by the bill, which happens all the time in here. And and I want Mr. Raskin to think about this because it's a problem and it was and it was raised by Ms. Leger Fernandez. The question was, if you're a felon, can you buy a gun? The answer they got was no. That's not correct. You can. I'll come back to that in a minute. Bear with me. Then the question was, if you're found to be a danger to yourself or others, can you buy a gun? And the answer that that was responded was no. But that's not correct. And so let me straighten this out and then and then give you what bothers me about all this. If you are convicted of a felony, and I can't speak for all states, but I was licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia and I'm on senior status basically now, but if you were a felon of any type, there was a restoration process and you could go to a judge. Not only could you get your right to back back your right back to vote, but you could get your right to carry a firearm back. I did it several times for clients. If you are found to be a danger to yourself or others, but you are determined to have some kind of a mental disorder and you get treatment and you're later found that you are now competent, you can buy a firearm even though there previously was a declaration that you were a threat to yourself or to others at that moment in history. So we believe that you can be restored. I'm okay with that. And it has to go to a judge in both cases. I'm okay with that. Here's what bothers me, and what's not in this bill, is not affected by this bill. And I'm I'm looking to the Democrat leader on the Judiciary Committee to help me solve this problem. Not today, I'm not asking for an answer today or a fix today. If you are convicted of a misdemeanor domestic assault against your brother or against your wife, no matter how serious or not serious, because if it's serious, it's going to be malicious wounding. Again, I'm using Commonwealth of Virginia, but there's a higher offense if it's serious. There is no mechanism to have your rights restored to carry a firearm. Your voting rights aren't affected, but your firearm rights are. It has always bothered me. I want a fix. I want to try to find a fix because as a former domestic relations attorney, when you have people going through a divorce or a breakup, sometimes they do things they ought not do and they should be punished. And there should be a limitation on their ability to get a hold of a firearm or other weapon. There should be a limitation for a time period. But for some reason, if you are involved in a domestic situation that eventually, you know, you get it over, the breakup happens or whatever, there's no way to ever get your gun rights back. And I faced this with a client of mine who was convicted of pushing his wife in 1972. He felt so bad about it, he didn't get a lawyer. That was a mistake. And so instead of having the take case taken under advisement, trying to get your attention here. I know you got I'm listening. I'm trying to catch up with you. Okay. I know you got lots of I know you got lots of stuff. I'm not offended. I'm just trying to make sure because this is important to me. In 1972, he commits a simple assault. He was so disgusted with himself, instead of getting a lawyer, he went straight into court, he pled guilty, he went to anger management classes on his own, he did everything that we wanted to do, and when he died, he'd never once again assaulted his wife and they were still married. In the meantime, in the early 2000s, I couldn't come up with a solution. Nothing that would work under the federal law. I did get the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, who was a Democrat, currently serves in the Senate, to do me a favor. He did the right thing. Everybody in the community said, "Yep, this was a one-time deal and the guy did everything we'd want him to do." So he gave him on a misdemeanor charge, gave him an absolute pardon. I'm not sure that worked on federal land. I told him, "Don't you go hunting." He wanted to go hunting. "Don't you go hunting on federal land. You could get yourself in trouble because under federal law, there is no way to do it." We could maybe get by in state court, but we'd have a hard time in federal court. So we're here talking about all these things and worried about this and that and the other, but there are there are tens of thousands of people out there who made a mistake. Now, today, most of the courts know that if somebody comes in, they'll even advise them, "You know, I can take this case under advisement. Don't plead guilty if you give me on the first offense." But there may be some who still slip through with that. Today they know because at the time that my guy was originally convicted, the Violence Against Women Act didn't exist, which takes away his gun rights. But he did everything by the book, he did everything we'd want him to do, and we gave him no chance to redeem himself and to get back out in the field and go hunting. And so I just ask you as the as the ranking member of Judiciary, help me find an answer to this because it's it's just not right. If you're a convicted felon, you can be restored. If you're found to be not competent or dangerous to others at a particular moment in history, you can be restored. But if you push your brother or you push somebody that lives in the house with you or you push your wife, God forbid, it's a lifetime and no restoration, no redemption, no forgiveness. I yield back.

So Mr. Griffith, I'd be happy for the gentleman to respond, Madam Chair. A short response, Mr. Raskin. It'll be shorter than the question, I guarantee it. No, but Mr. Griffith, you're obviously an excellent lawyer in addition to being an effective congressman. And I'm drawn to a lot of what you've just had to say there. One of the first things I did as a state senator was to remove civil disabilities, including disabilities on voting and others on people getting out of prison. And that's a very similar point, and I'm much more drawn to your proposal than I am to the one we're talking about today. And I'll tell you why. Because you're saying that there's certain people who've committed a wrong, a criminal wrong, and they're repentant for it, they're rehabilitated, and they're beyond it. And the law has got to be open to that. This one, this bill doesn't look at that. It just says there's a category of people who've been convicted in the past who we are now going to treat like they haven't done anything wrong because we're going to no longer treat Tasers like firearms. And that includes people, as the gentlelady was saying, who are domestic violent abusers. And so I understand your concern on that. I don't disagree, but just think about the concern I raised. And I yield back, Madam Chair. Very much so.

Thank you very much. Mr. Langworthy, you're recognized.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This has been a rather noisy panel with a lot of back and forth. I'd like to offer Mr. Fitzgerald, the gentleman from Wisconsin, any time to clarify or or offer any rebuttals to some of the allegations that were made that you didn't really get a chance to in the last... Yeah, thank thank you, thank you. I'll just go back once again because treating the less-than-lethal devices as firearms affects the ability of the state and local law enforcement agencies to acquire and deploy these tools. So if there's anything I guess I would like to clear up, it's the idea that this liability is real. And and the problem is when you have a law enforcement officer approach you, and this is an issue in the state of New York right now, where they right now have many departments that are concerned that if they issue these to their police officers and to the sheriff's deputies and they use them, that right now in New York statute, it's not clear as to whether or not it is the same as using a full firearm in some type of law enforcement action.

So that is probably the most important thing that should be discussed here today because I think at the end of the day, it's going to bring clarity to an issue that is currently plaguing law enforcement across the nation. And and there is a different varying of degree of that depending on which state you're in and what that legislature has done to address it. So like I said before, I think it's a good thing that if state legislatures start to take a look at this bill, they're going to say, "We may have to tweak this, we may have to do this," but what we want to be able to do is make sure that this technology gets into the hands of law enforcement because at the end of the day, it prevents law enforcement death, which is the number that we're all really concerned about. So I yield.

Thank you very much. I mean, our law enforcement officers should have access to the tools to help them slow situations down, create space, resolve encounters without everything escalating to deadly force. And I believe that H.R. 2189 updates outdated federal law so that de-escalation tools can be used as intended while preserving clear safeguards to ensure public safety. And if the Democrats were serious about reducing violent encounters, they would support expanding access to de-escalation tools. And Republicans are choosing to do exactly that with this legislation. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Norman, you're recognized.

I thank both of you for testifying this today. Scott, I guess the main two things. One, you're hearing from law enforcement that this is what they want, they need and want. Is this coming mainly from the law enforcement community across the country?

Absolutely. I mean, they they see somebody in a community next to them because of a decision made by their council in that jurisdiction where that officer has that available to them, but they don't. And we're trying to iron all that out, and that's what this bill does.

And they get qualified immunity most most fire most police have qualified immunity from it.

That's right. That's right. Now, I'm worried about that. I think you are too, probably, as we see it starting to be maybe attacked and peeled back, but yeah, everybody for the most part has that right now.

Well, and it's, you know, the law enforcement's under attack. You can see in in Minnesota, they're under attack now that in a way that we haven't seen before. I think it's a it's a crime what's what's happening to them. In a Taser that has got more force to it, how does a qualified immunity work if, like, someone has a heart attack that they shoot somebody and how would that play out, you think?

It's such a it's such a tiny percentage of what results from the use of the Tasers that it's almost like a case-by-case on how it plays out, depending on the individual's health, depending on the circumstances in and around it. So it's very difficult, I think, to come up with kind of a blanket answer to all that.

Well, thank you for putting this up and I think it's a good bill, we'll support it. I yield back.

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

I'll pass.

Okay. Well, I want to thank our panel members for being here today and for prompting a very lively discussion. Mr. Raskin always brings lively discussion to us, and we appreciate it very much. And seeing no further questions, Ms. Houchin, you've already recognized, right? Then you are dismissed. Free to go. Thank you very much. [Recess.] I now welcome our third panel, Chairman Guthrie, Representative Castor from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes, Chairman Guthrie, or you'll be wheel-locked. That's a private joke between Chairman Guthrie and me. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, you're recognized.

Thank you. Well, the Chairman Chairman Foxx has a business in North Carolina. If you park in her parking lot, it says, "Violators, property of Grandfather Mountain parking only, customers only, violators will be wheel-locked." So I could see you out there doing it, is what I'm saying. So I wouldn't want to park there. So thank you for having us here today, Chairwoman. Thank you, Ranking Member McGovern. I'm pleased to speak in support of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, sponsored by my colleague and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative James of Michigan. This legislation will leverage expertise of the Department of Energy to secure critical supply chains for energy resources that are essential to the modern economy and our national security. H.R. 3617 directs the Secretary of Energy to periodically assess supply chains for critical energy resources and ensure strong supply chains that can create affordable, reliable, and secure energy systems. Over the past few years, it has become apparent that our reliance on adversarial nations like Communist China creates substantial vulnerabilities for economic and national security interests. While the U.S. is blessed with vast natural resources, our mining and refining industries have dwindled. As recently as 1990, the U.S. was a world-leading mineral producer. Today, we don't even crack the top 10. Communist China has intentionally exploited this vulnerability and taken steps in recent years to limit mineral exports that are used in a range of military and other applications. We cannot allow America's future to hinge on access to markets in adversarial nations. When the Department of Energy was organized in 1977, energy security concerns were a central threat facing the American economy, raising costs on families and stifling economic growth. Almost 50 years later, the American people are facing similar threats. Throughout the 119th Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee has held several hearings to examine the state of our nation's energy industry, during which numerous expert witnesses have highlighted the importance of domestic energy supplies and the vulnerabilities of over-reliance on imports from adversarial nations. Importantly, the Trump administration has remained steadfastly focused on ensuring U.S. remains a global leader in advanced technologies like AI and advanced manufacturing, and this legislation enhances that work to prioritize domestic supply chains for minerals, rare earths, and energy resources needed to fuel next-generation energy in our H.R. 3617 is timely piece of legislation that will ensure the Department of Energy leads the way for a more secure, affordable, and reliable future for our nation's energy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Guthrie. Ms. Castor, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the ranking member. I'm pleased to be here with Energy and Commerce Chair, my good friend Mr. Guthrie. I wish we were here to discuss how we can boost America's critical mineral supply chain. Critical minerals are essential for our energy sector, but H.R. 3617 could actually harm U.S. energy production and lead to higher costs across the country. Electric bills are already sky-high, and Congress should not make it worse. In addition to serving as the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, I also serve on the bipartisan Select Committee to counter the Chinese Communist Party, the China Subcommittee, where Rob Wittman and I led a bipartisan critical minerals working group and worked together to develop policies to help the Department of Energy and other agencies really focus on how we break everyone's dependence on China. China has weaponized critical minerals. That's why Democrats were very forward-leaning through policies in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and in the Inflation Reduction Act to give the Department of Energy, along with private sector partners, a lot of new ways and loans and grants to help develop these critical mineral supply chains, break the dependence on China, because in the energy sector, we are reliant on a broad portfolio of critical minerals. And I think there's bipartisan support across the Congress to develop more resilient supply chains. The International Energy Agency estimates that mineral demand for clean energy technology will almost triple by 2030 and quadruple by 2040. And that's kind of the the problem here. Is in America right now, one of the reasons that electric bills are so sky-high is because there are enormous amounts of cleaner, cheaper energy waiting to come on to the grid... ...and the Trump administration has sabotaged it all the way along, whether you're talking about illegally canceling wind projects, I'm sure the ranking member knows this all too well. It this is one of the reasons that prices remain high at a time when we have surging energy demand. You have data centers, things are being electrified. What the Trump administration has done is put its finger on the scale for dirty energy, and we think that this bill would do the same. There is a lot of vague, sneaky language here. H.R. 3617, it amends the Department of Energy's mission to include securing the critical energy resources, not minerals. Says minerals in the title of the bill, but nowhere in the bill. Directs the Department of Energy to conduct ongoing assessments to develop strategies to strengthen critical energy resource supply chains, but again, not minerals. And you may be wondering, what is a critical energy resource? Well, as defined by the bill, it could be quite literally any energy resource that's essential to the energy sector. So they have this circular thing going on and they fail to get to the heart of the matter, and it's too bad because the Congress has been working in a bipartisan fashion on critical minerals. The Biden administration was, even the Trump administration, they they're actually trying to work with allies and partners. But we just don't we cannot sanction again another effort to put the finger on the scales for dirty, expensive energy supplies while you are sabotaging cleaner energy that should be on the grid to benefit businesses, manufacturing, our whole competitiveness here in America, and help lower electric bills. So we think this is a we should go back to the drawing board here. I think there's a lot of common ground, get back to all of the above. Even the energy secretary in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee couldn't even say that he's for all of the above. It was only dirty energy that is more expensive, fueling higher cost and higher electric bills, and that's the last thing that folks we represent back home need. So for all of those reasons, I hope the committee will say respectfully, Energy and Commerce Committee, go back to the drawing board, or it could be substantially amended by the Rules Committee to actually make make way for countering China and lowering electric bills. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

Thank you very much. I'm going to recognize myself to ask a couple of questions. Chairman Guthrie, when the Department of Energy was organized, was the goal or even a goal to reduce our reliance on China for critical components of the energy sector? Is that anywhere in their mission statement?

Thanks. In the '70s, you know, what we were finding was oil issue. That's why Department of Energy came out of the oil issue. And on that, I'm from all of the above. I am, and I think what Secretary Wright said was best of the above, and we need to make sure that all fits, and it all fits in the right place. But this is a Department of Energy graph from the North Storm on January the 26th, and what the stated capacity of wind and solar was less than 89 percent of its less than 80. So 20 percent of its stated capacity minus 80 and in wind was 23 percent of its stated capacity. And if we look at New England, which oil is a lot of New England, have a chart here that they got more from burning wood than they did from wind and solar in New England on on January the 26th this year. And so they all have their role, but we can't just not focus on these other group. Nuclear didn't go up or down because it's always on. So nuclear was like plus one percent, I believe. And we need to work together because we need to have all resources. But this just proved when you say we got capacity in wind and solar and then when the conditions aren't ideal, I mean, there was wind blowing, but it was gusts of wind, which isn't ideal. You need a steady constant wind or steady constant sunshine to meet the goals that they have. And that's the issue that we want to address as part of it. All the resources, it takes minerals to do the solar panels, it takes minerals, critical minerals to do wind turbines, and so I think let's look at all of it.

Well, you just anticipated my next question. Are these critical minerals needed for these alternative forms of energy?

They are. It's everything we do. It's automobile production. And you know, in China last spring withheld sending critical minerals as reaction to some of the things that they didn't like. And fortunate for us, it woke us up or should wake us up that they didn't do it at a time when they was national security issues could be out there. And so we absolutely have to have a plan, and this is a result of that, a plan to make sure that we have all the resources that allow us to have the energy that we need to make sure we have a successful country.

Well, I'll say this for our friends on the left, they certainly have a way of capturing language and calling wind and solar clean and everything else dirty. It I have to say I'm somewhat offended by that because when you're staying warm, you're very happy to have whatever energy you can get. Let me say one more question quickly. Would the strategy this bill would require from the Department of Energy ensure that the department takes a holistic view of critical energy resources instead of focusing on just one goal? And you said all of the above. That's the way I've always believed we should have all of the above, including solar, wind, water, which we never hear about anymore, nuclear, everything. So isn't it going to take a holistic view?

Well, that's why, and I think it was referred to as vague, but that's why it was drafted as as all of it. Right. It's not just antimony, it's do we have the right resources of if you saw the chart, wind, coal, and oil really produced in New England. I lived in New England for a couple years and the jobbers going down the street filling the tanks up in the basement as my good friend from the ranking member is familiar with. And you know, if you just completely change all that infrastructure, it'd be extremely expensive to do. It is it makes it unaffordable when you don't do it correctly for people living in those communities. But there are areas where this all works. I'm on every electron we can produce, but if you're going to produce to a capacity with wind and solar because you make a preference for that that doesn't perform 89 percent and 77 percent less than it says it can do, less than ideal less than ideal conditions is usually when you need the most.

Thank you. Mr. McGovern.

Yeah, just briefly, I why is this bill called the Critical Mineral Supply Act? Because when you read the bill and you read the actual text, the term critical mineral is not mentioned or even referenced anywhere. Instead, you use this term called a critical energy resource, which I think as you've just admitted, could include oil, gas, or coal. And so I guess if you if you really wanted to focus on critical minerals like the like the title of the bill states, which I guess you don't, I was just wondering whether you would favor an amendment to to limit it to critical minerals. Under the Energy Act of 2020, which is current law, the definition of a critical mineral includes minerals that are essential to our economy and have a vulnerable supply chain like cobalt and lithium, which are used to build batteries and electric vehicles. But the definition explicitly excludes fuel materials like oil, gas, and coal. So I'm just trying to understand like like why is is this is this a way to kind of cover up that there'll be more handouts for oil, gas, and coal industries? I mean, why was the why was that why was that term used?

We want to make this so so what our goal is to make this a holistic view of our critical minerals, our our energy resources to make sure that we're energy independent and we continue...

But I'm just pointing out that there's a the definition of critical minerals is one thing. Right. Doesn't include oil, gas, and coal. And I guess my question is why is the bill named this way and why is the term critical minerals not mentioned anywhere in the bill? I mean, it seems like there's a little bit of deception here.

Well, what we're trying to do is make sure that we have we have the Department of Energy making critical reviews of all energy resources to make sure that they have they have strategies for energy independence. Part of that is do we have the right antimony? Do we have things that we can make magnets? Do we have the coal and oil and gas and do we have what it takes to build turbines? Do we have what it takes to build I mean, it's our goal is to have a holistic all of the above approach.

Ms. Castor, do you want to...

I think you you've hit upon it and why we we have to oppose it after all of the good bipartisan work on critical minerals. This appears to be another giveaway to dirty energy companies and giving the Department of Energy more leeway to to boost the fossil fuel companies who have had a a front row seat driving policy. We just when you look at the track record over the past year at the Department of Energy, it's it's filled with illegal cancellations of energy projects at a time we desperately need more energy on the grid. We've got to hold down electric bills. People are being are just being hammered by the higher cost. In Florida, the the Republican-controlled utilities commission just passed the highest rate increase in the history of the country, over $6 billion. We're reliant on gas in the Sunshine State. And for critical minerals, all of the analysis looking forward says if you want to counter China, you do not want them to eat our lunch anymore and you want to boost American manufacturing and make batteries in America again, you've got to you have to include battery storage technology, you have to include the renewable energies that are yes, they're cleaner and cheaper, and that is the way of the future. We can stay stay stuck in the past like like the president likes to keep us, but that's an expensive, dirty future where we're going to be left behind compared to what what we really need to be doing.

Yeah, I think it's sad that around here you have to read the fine print in these bills because again, just at first blush, you would think that this was about batteries, this was about clean technologies, this was about, you know, a critical minerals supply. But it's about much more than that. But I appreciate you both being here and I yield back.

Thank you very much. Let me see who is next. Took away my list. I think Ms. Fischbach is not here. Mr. Scott. Mr. Griffith.

Chairman Guthrie, heard all these arguments before. Is there anything that you would like the committee to know that you haven't had a chance yet to say?

Well, I'm just to reemphasize one thing. I it these this is about all of the above and a holistic approach, and we do need the antimony, we need the battery, we need the technology. What has affected us last spring is when China quit shipping what is defined in the bill as critical not in the bill, it's defined as the as the as the ranking member said, critical minerals. But also this we're looking at critical energy resources. And this is over the next two years, and maybe there's a future where this doesn't have to happen. But I'm telling you, this is a graph I can submit for the record from the Department of Energy that shows the increase in production over on January the 26th. You see coal 24 percent, natural gas, the energy produced from these sources, 43 percent, nuclear 15 percent. You throw in New England, you have oil at 35 percent because they for some reason New England developed different than the the rest of the country in the way that they produce. And and these are critical, and to ignore that would leave us if we had a if we didn't have these resources, you think of what January 26th would have been. Not only would it have been extremely expensive, people would have been extremely vulnerable.

And what was the date on that again?

January 26th, the height of the storm, Storm Finn.

And has that already been submitted for the record?

I can submit these for the record. I've got one from Department of Energy, all impacted regions. I'll just and show show.

I would so move, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Griffith.

And I yield back.

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

Thank you. Ms. Castor, I really am struggling with this Critical Minerals Supply Act that doesn't really address critical minerals and the fact that it does reference critical energy deficiencies at the same time that we've seen this administration cut previously congressionally authorized funding to a range of non-fossil fuel energy sources. Can you help us understand what is being accomplished here and what we really need to work on?

I think it goes all the way back to the campaign and the election where you saw fossil fuel titans go to Mar-a-Lago and the president said, if you help fund my campaign with over a billion dollars, I will deliver for you. And time after time, that's been made plain. It's been made plain to our neighbors back home who are suffering exorbitant higher costs on their electric bills. They open those electric bills and they're like, please mercy, grocery bills, housing is already expensive enough. Can we please have Washington actually tune in to the the high cost of living? Instead, what does the Congress do? The bit their big ugly bill ripped away cost-saving rebates and investments to help people afford energy. Yes, and the pathway is through cleaner, cheaper energy. And a lot of the the legacy fossil fuel companies, they understand this. So they want to to try to keep their competitive edge. So that's why you've seen the Trump administration cancel enormous cancellations of clean energy projects that were permitted, approved, ready to come online, and they pull the rug out from under them. And if you're worried about people having the energy they need during a storm, why would you sanction the administration ripping away all of those new energy resources? Also taking a hatchet to massive transmission investments. And if you want to keep pressure on lower electric bills, we've got to modernize the grid. It's got to be more resilient. So that's why you look at a bill like this and again, it's a sheep in wolf's clothing. That's been the course of action over the past year.

It is really disappointing because we had been making some some headway with respect to transforming our energy system and and I guess I thought that our Republican colleagues were serious when they said, well, we need to do all of the above to get there. Clearly, all of the above goes to the wayside when fossil fuel industry is willing to pay to play. So thank you for your testimony. I yield back.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the witnesses. Thanks to the chairman for being here and Ms. Castor. Our nation's security, economy, and technological future all depend on access to critical minerals. Increasing domestic energy production, securing supply chains, and reducing reliance on foreign adversaries is not just smart policy, it's common sense. It's good for the economy and it's good for American families. Energy independence affects virtually every major sector of our economy. This bill is a logical next step to follow President Trump's America First energy independence agenda for a safer and more prosperous America. Chairman Guthrie, we've heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle call this legislation a sheep in wolf's clothing. I hate to say I think she probably meant the other way around.

I think I did mean the other way around.

Thank you, Ms. Houchin. Yes, right. But could you just take some time to respond to the criticism of the bill and also talk about why this bill is necessary to give the Department of Energy the tools necessary to allow domestic energy production to increase to ensure that our supply chains are secure?

What this bill does is it directs the Department of Energy to look at all critical energy resources is what it says, all energy all critical energy resource, which is also if you want to define the critical minerals such as we receive from China. And it is important that we're involved. I've had people ask me why should the government get involved in in these types of things is that if we don't we every time we try to produce them here, so mining of critical minerals, we don't process critical minerals either. That's another thing we have to look at. And every time we look to mine them and people start producing them, then China dumps the marketplace and the price lowers, we can't produce them and then they it they do it on purpose and this has to be this has to be addressed and you look at but we want to look at the entire energy sector and you know, we talk about I'm in I can keep bringing these up, what carried the load during this last storm and maybe sometime in the future that could be different, but in the next two years, it's not going to be different much different than that. And so we want to make sure that people have access to to electricity, we have access to energy, access to heat when they need it or summertime they have access to to air conditioning. But we also need batteries, we need storage, we need solar panels, we need all of all I said it, I believe it, so I know that all of the above, but I also don't disagree with the best of the above. You know, solar works somewhere better than it works others. And we do need to modernize our grid, we need to work on transmission. I think I don't disagree with anything my friend just and she is my friend has just said, but I think that if we if we don't focus on all of the resources, you won't have I mean, this is New England alone, this is the impacted areas. Just think of what would happen if we didn't have these resources.

Thank you. From manufacturing to AI, the demand for critical minerals is skyrocketing, yet for too long, misguided policies have left the United States reliant on foreign adversaries for these resources, jeopardizing our energy security and economic potential. As recently as 1990, the United States was the world's number one producer of minerals. By 2018, the United States has fallen to 12th overall in global non-fuel mineral production. This legislation secures critical energy resource supply chains by diversifying sources and increases domestic production, refining, and processing of resources. Doing so unleashes American energy, powering our factories, fueling innovation, and securing the future. Thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Thank you very much. And I need to just express my frustration that we always hear the Republicans talk about that they don't want to let China get ahead of us and we got to do this because we got to fight China. But every time we bring a bill here and I try to do an amendment that says we should not have our critical minerals or our mining activity go to China, Republicans always shoot it down. So it's like they always sort of say one thing and do the opposite. Right. Republicans are always saying one thing, but their bills do the opposite. And that's what you just described, right? They they say we got to protect critical minerals, but then this is a fossil fuel giveaway. That's the wolf. Right. I can't say wolf either because it's a W and R. So I'm going to stay away from that metaphor. But I think the other issue here is when we talk about access, you need to be able to afford it, and that's your point, isn't it, Representative Castor? You cannot afford energy right now. Americans are paying twice the rate of inflation. Does this bill do anything to help that?

No, it's likely it would make it worse. On average across America right now, people are paying 13 percent higher electric bills than last year, but a lot higher in some places. And like I said in Florida, because we're so reliant on gas and gas now that we're exporting more of it, and some goes to China, you that could be a good amendment, that is inflationary. And this would be inflationary as well, not actually addressing the critical mineral issue, but instead kind of surreptitiously, sneakily saying critical energy resources. We just because of the track record of the Trump administration sabotaging cheaper, cleaner energy, what the Republicans did in their big ugly bill, every bill, I mean, I think Energy and Commerce produces more legislation that comes to the floor, but they haven't brought one bill really to help people with their electric bills. It's all kind of smoke and mirrors where here we're going to say we're helping you, but no, they're doubling down with the more expensive, dirtier fuel sources, turning a blind eye to the sabotage of so much that was poised to come onto the grid to keep prices lower. So yeah, I think you summed it up well.

Yeah, I think people are and they see it. The American people see that Republicans keep siding with the biggest corporations and not with them. Because renewable energy projects, you know, I have a lot of renewable I have a lot of Arlington assets in my district, but I also have a lot of renewable energy projects. Guess who they help out? The rural farmers and ranchers who can put up that windmill, who can put up that that solar array. And I'm just going to leave it at this. They they also say, oh, we need to help with the energy supply chain, but isn't it right that the Department of Energy has lost more than 3,500 employees because of Trump's attack, and including the employees who would help with the critical mineral supply? Is that right, Representative?

That's correct. It goes back to all the way back to the crazy DOGE effort where a lot of America's top talent were forced out at a time when we have got to counter China. They're eating our lunch. Our manufacturing numbers are down in the U.S. A lot of that is because of the hatchet that the Trump administration has taken to a lot of the clean energy investments at a time when China is surging. They're going to be exporting all of the new technology across the globe. And the fact that the president has has taken a lot of our allies and pushed them towards towards China. It's just a recipe for for higher cost higher cost across the board that we can't afford.

Yeah, thank you. And you know, it's just so sad that our constituents have to suffer the cost of higher energy and utility bills because Republicans just are always standing with the biggest, richest corporations. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Langworthy.

In the interest of time and votes coming up, I just want to thank the witnesses for coming here and I will yield back.

See no other persons wishing to ask questions of our witnesses, and with that, any anyone else seeking to testify on H.R. 2061, 2189, 3617? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. Excuse me. The chair will be in the receipt of a motion.

Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H.R. 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 119-18 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 among and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025, 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 the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply 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 Energy and Commerce 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 the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. And finally, the rule provides that each day during the period from February 10, 2026, through July 31, 2026, shall not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act, 50 USC 1622, with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the president on February 1, 2025, April 2, 2025, July 30, 2025, or August 6, 2025.

Thank you very much. I want to just clarify my motion when I said a bit ago that the chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy. You now heard the motion. Any discussion or amendment to the rule? Mr. McGovern.

Yeah, we have three amendments. Let me do the first one. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number three to H.R. 2189 offered by Representative Thompson, which would narrow the definition of less than lethal devices in the bill to devices used in the official capacity of local, state, and tribal law enforcement. Madam Chair, Republicans keep saying that this bill is about helping law enforcement assess tasers and other less than lethal weapons, but the bill goes way beyond that. As currently drafted, the bill would let anyone get these weapons, including people with violent felony convictions and domestic abusers, without having to go through a background check. The name of the bill is the Law Enforcement Innovate... ...Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. This is supposed to be about helping police officers get Tasers, not all this other stuff. So by voting yes on my motion, you will be allowing for an up-or-down vote to support law enforcement without allowing more weapons to be put in the hands of violent convicts, domestic abusers, and dangerous people. I urge a yes vote on my amendment.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it.

I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.

Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.

No.

Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. 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.

Yes.

Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon.

Aye.

Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The clerk will report the total.

Three ayes, eight nos.

The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion on the amendment?

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number two to H.R. 2189 offered by Representatives Cloud, Moore, and Biggs, which will prohibit the Federal Reserve from studying, developing, or taking or issuing a central bank digital currency. Madam Chair, although I oppose the underlying policy, Republican leadership reportedly promised to include this proposal as part of future bills after failing to do so when we passed a sweeping crypto bill out of the House last July. But Speaker Johnson has not done so. In December, when the NDAA passed without this policy, a Republican member of Congress said that the speaker, that said that Speaker Johnson, quote, "didn't keep his promise," end quote. Congressmen Cloud, Moore, and Biggs, who have filed this amendment, clearly have not forgotten about this broken promise either and deserve to know if Republicans on the Rules Committee support their efforts or not. I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

No.

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

I ask for a roll call, Madam.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.

No.

Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. 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. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The clerk will report the total.

Three ayes, eight nos.

The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there other amendments for discussion?

We have one final amendment, Madam Chair.

Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.

I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strike section four of the rule, which blocks privileged consideration of measures ending the administration's disastrous tariff tariffs until July 31, 2026. Madam Chair, I just got to say this is really stunning. It is no secret that in private, many Republican members of Congress have concerns with President Trump's tariff policies. Now some are even voicing their concerns in public. Can't believe it, but they are. Representative Bacon said today that he is inclined to vote to end these tariffs because of the damage that they are doing to our friend and ally and trading partner Canada. Representatives Hurd and McClintock have said that they want Congress to have more of a say on tariffs. They want us to be able to do our job. Well, they were just about to have the chance to vote this week to end them. So what's this all about? The White House is scared. They know that the Republican House, finally, after months of blocking itself from doing what the Senate has already done, is poised to vote to end these unpopular, unwise, and downright dumb tariffs. And the White House said jump, and Speaker Johnson is saying, "Until when?" Well, I guess the answer is until July. This is an embarrassment, and I can't believe that members on this committee on the Republican side will go along with this. You knew a vote ending these tariffs would pass because they are driving up costs for hardworking Americans. They are a vanity project for this president and they are not based on reality. And the only reality is that Americans are picking up the tab. Things are getting more expensive. So instead of taking that vote, you are rigging the rules to protect the White House and your members from embarrassment. President Trump's trade war continues to increase the prices that Americans are paying for food, for gas, and for everyday goods. In defense of the Constitution and the role of the Congress, I urge you and I plead with my colleagues to vote yes on my motion to to give this body back the power that it is constitutionally entitled to. Let us do our job. If people want to support these rotten, stupid tariffs, you can vote for that. But we ought to be this is this is this is a new low. And with that, I again urge a yes vote and I yield back.

Madam Chair, can I speak to the...

Yes, Ms. Scanlon.

Yes, I would support Mr. McGovern's amendment. It is really shocking when we see the impact of these tariffs on our constituents as prices continue to go up. As Mr. McGovern mentioned, our colleagues in private conversation when the president can't hear them openly acknowledge that these tariffs have been a disaster for Americans. We've already seen the Senate pass these bills, but the only way that the House gets to deal with it is you hide it in a procedural thing. It is shocking, the denial of reality that we have to live through right now. Do not believe what you can see with your own eyes when we see ICE agents killing Americans on our streets. Do not believe the calendar because we're just going to throw the calendar out with this motion. I obviously can't support the underlying rule. I think it shows an incredible amount of cowardice that our colleagues will not stand up and actually just take a vote on the damn tariffs. I yield back.

Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. And you know, this kind of reminds me of the Epstein files. This is the fifth time that these nine Republicans are going to vote in favor of the tariffs, because that's what this is. Fifth time that they are going to prevent the House from taking up the legislation to vote it up or down on the floor. The same way they kept blocking release of the Epstein files. They are now blocking relief to America's families and to America's small businesses. We often talk about the thousands and thousands of dollars that our families have to pay because of these tariffs. But what they are doing to our small businesses, 76 percent of small businesses responded to a poll about how is it impacting them, 50 employees and less, said, "We don't know if we'll be able to continue this." Right? They talked about having to lay off workers. 120,000 workers laid off from small businesses in November 2025 alone related to the tariffs. This administration, the Republicans who enable it on this floor and in this room, are causing the biggest job losses that we have seen in years and sometimes in decades. And they keep doing it over and over again with this trick of saying a day is not a day. You know what? A day is a day. It passes. It's 24 hours, and every day that passes where you do not let the floor debate and vote on these tariffs is another day that our working families pay more and that our small businesses pay more. And these are their voices, not ours. You go and look at what the different small business organizations say. They all say these tariffs are horrible, they're killing us. But you all looking down on your phone because you don't want to acknowledge that these tariffs are bad and you are taking the fall for everybody. Madam Chair, with that I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, I'm not looking at my phone. I want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the Supreme Court heard argument on November 5 on the very issue of whether the Trump administration has the authority to impose the tariffs under debate. Our extension of the tolling of days, something Democrats did as well in the 116th and 117th Congress, has a clear end date, sunsetting in a matter of months, unlike the blanket prohibitions on COVID NEA resolutions under Democrat rule. This extension will allow the Supreme Court the time necessary to provide a ruling on this very consequential issue.

Madam Chair, this is the fifth time we've moved the date. And so I guess the new argument now is that we should not only give up our power to the White House, we should give it up to the Supreme Court. I mean, this is the fifth time we've done this. We at some point my Republican friends, you know, have to live up to the responsibility of what your job requires. And that's not what we're doing here today. So again, I urge a yes vote on my amendment.

And Madam Chair, I would point out that that Supreme Court opinion was bought by small businesses.

Okay. Well, I just have pointed out the how people can have differences of opinions when whether they're in the majority or the minority. Any further discussion from our side? Hearing no further discussion, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to.

I ask for a roll call.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.

No.

Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. 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. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The clerk will report the total.

Three ayes, eight nos.

The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further amendment or discussion? Hearing no further discussion, the question's on the motion from the gentleman from New York. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

No.

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

I ask for a roll call. I think it's important.

Mr. McGovern asks for a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

Aye.

Mrs. Fischbach, aye. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.

Aye.

Mr. Roy, aye. Mrs. Houchin.

Aye.

Mrs. Houchin, aye. 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. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

No.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, no. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Madam Chair, aye.

The clerk will report the total.

Eight ayes, three nos.

The ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy, will be managing the rule for the majority. Mr. Neguse will handle it for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.