H.R. 1958 – Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider three measures, H R five fifty-six, H R nineteen fifty-eight, and H R forty-six, thirty-eight. H R five fifty-six, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act would prohibit the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture Departments from banning the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain federal land, or water, under the jurisdiction of the respective secretaries. For countless men and women across the nation, hunting and fishing are simple and essential parts of life. I believe that all of us here in this room should But the federal government sees those activities as nothing more than a target to over-regulate. How disappointing. It appears that the only thing that Democrats know how to do when they're in power is regulate every aspect of our lives. That's not governance, it's utter lunacy. Hunting and fishing deserve to be accessible for all who want to enjoy them, and not cordoned off by unserious and burdensome regulations that lead to financial barriers and lack of access. H. Roy nineteen fifty-eight, the Deporting Fraudsters Act of twenty twenty-six would make illegal aliens inadmissible and deportable from the United States if they're found to be defrauding the U. S. government or having unlawfully obtained public benefits on the local, state, or federal levels.

Mm-hmm.

When fraud perpetrated by illegal aliens is allowed to run rampant and go unconfronted, the American people are the ones who shoulder the cost. Their hard-earned tax dollars are the ones being siphoned away, and that's the last thing they want to see happen. Further, this legislation eliminates the possibility of foreign nationals to remain eligible for immigration relief and benefits if they admit to or are convicted of fraud. This is a much needed correction to current law and one that is sorely overdue. Next, we turn to H R forty-six thirty-eight, the Bill to Outlaw Wounding of Official Working Animals Act or the Bow Wow Act. This legislation's aim is quite simple, to protect the law enforcement working animals that accompany the men and women who keep our communities and nations safe. H R forty six thirty eight would hold criminal, illegal aliens accountable by rendering them inadmissible to and removable from the United States if they inflict harm upon these working animals in any setting. And finally, this legislation conforms to other existing grounds of inadmissibility and removability by not requiring a conviction. As always, I welcome my Democrat colleagues to join us in supporting the measures before us. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mister McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, today we're considering three bills, one that puts vulnerable wildlife and children at risk of lead poisoning, and two more bills meant to further demonize immigrants. This is what we get every week in the Rules Committee now. Republicans totally ignore the massive consequential things that we should be debating and instead mess around with the margins we pass things that already passed and pretend not to watch the news I mean take this Bow Wow Act bill well it used to be called Bow Wow now Republicans are changing the name maybe after they realize making light of violence against animals isn't funny this isn't funny it's deeply unserious and insulting and it trivializes the issue and by the way violence against animals is already a deportable conviction. So what is the point of this bill? That's just one example, but I could go on and on. These bills are all a distraction, an attempt to distract from their broken promises. Republicans said no new wars, release the Epstein files, and lower costs on day one. All of those promises, they have now been broken. Uh, the Epstein predators, they're still being protected. Food, gas, utilities, health care, child care, and rent, are all more expensive. Republicans jammed through their big ugly bill to hand out more tax breaks to billionaires, paid for by hurting working people. They are defending Trump's disastrous tariff policies that have driven up the cost of nearly everything. And now they are supporting sending over a billion dollars a day to the Middle East on an illegal war that nobody asked for except the defense contractors. We have spent more in the Middle East in just over two weeks than we spend on homeless veterans in an entire year. More than three times what we spend on helping seniors heat their homes. More than we spend in an entire year on trying to get kids in school healthy breakfasts. We have spent nearly what it would have cost to extend the ACA tax credits for the entire year. Now how is any of that America first? How is it America first to shovel people's hard-earned tax dollars into another illegal endless war halfway around the world? And the result? Thirteen American service members are dead. More than a hundred and forty are wounded. And our own government bombed an elementary school after dismantling the Pentagon office designed to stop our government from doing things like that, like bombing schools. And if all of that were not awful enough, Some of our Republican colleagues have responded to this new war with disgusting hate directed at our Muslim American brothers and sisters. Quote, " We need more Islamophobia, not less." Another quote, "No more Muslims immigrating to America." Another quote, " Muslims don't belong in American society." These are quotes from sitting Republican members of Congress. And don't even get me started on speaking Speaker Johnson's pathetic response, which was, and let me quote him, " It's different language than I would use, but I think that's a serious issue," he says. That's the Speaker of the House. Really? He thinks Muslims living in America is a serious issue? Well, I think this is hate speech. I think it's ugly. And I think it's profoundly un-American. And on top of it all, the President of the United States, President Donald Trump, is now fundraising fundraising of dead American troops. I can't believe I'm I'm saying that sentence out loud because it's sick. It's one of the most depraved, evil things that I've ever seen from any party ever in American politics. He took a photo of himself in his own branded baseball cap, standing behind the casket of an American soldier coming home from the Middle East. And he slapped it on a fundraising email asking people to donate money to his campaign. What kind of demented, unhinged person does that? And when he was asked about it yesterday, he said he saw nothing wrong with it. I mean, really? With every passing day, it is more and more clear that this administration is a failure. This Republican majority is a disaster, and this president is just a bad person. Maybe that's why his approval rating on the economy is underwater, and why most people say Republicans have betrayed America by b- breaking their promises and going back on their word. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Representative Schmidt 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 and address all of the legislation within your jurist in your five minutes representative schmidt i welcome your testimony

thank you uh for your thoughts uh so we're talk ten minutes thank you very much for having us today uh steering a rule that we kind of speak to a for our new committee at at least thirty eight so after we get to that

committee's jurisdiction for years republicans have warned about the financial costs of open borders and uncontrolled immigration And now, more than a year after the prior administration ended, we're beginning to learn even more about the costs of illegal immigration. Consider this reality for a minute. Democrats ushered millions of foreign nationals into the country, who then overwhelmed state and local resources and took advantage of government programs many of those same aliens then turned around and defrauded those very same programs. And meanwhile, the same people who cheered those aliens into our country are the same people who have turned a blind eye to their fraud. That's why I applaud our colleague, Representative Dave Taylor, for his bill, the Deporting Fraudsters Act. The bill is simple. If you're a guest here in our country, and you defraud our country, you must leave and cannot return. Most Americans agree, and I would hope that all of our colleagues of both parties would agree as well. Here are just a few examples of that fraud. In December, federal prosecutors in Massachusetts charged two men with food stamp fraud. The fraudsters used small storefronts to redeem snap benefits, sometimes amounting to five hundred thousand dollars per month. One of those men is a green card holder. In the same month, ICE announced it had arrested two illegal aliens from Somalia who had fraud convictions. One of the men, who was arrested in a single operation in Minneapolis, was a former member of the Gangster Disciples. and is a known current member of Vice Lord Nation, a Chicago street gang. In May of twenty-five, a Cuban national was sentenced to prison for his role in a scheme to defraud Medicare of more than three point two million dollars through a sham, durable medical equipment company. And we're just starting to see more as we discover more of what has happened over the past several years. This bill takes a huge step toward ending fraud across the country, and I urge our colleagues to support it. Let me turn now to the other bill, H. R. forty-six thirty-eight, impr introduced by Chairman Calvert. This bill is also simple and should garner bipartisan support. Since President Trump began securing America's borders and restoring immigration enforcement in this country, ICE officers have endured a thirteen hundred percent increase in assaults. Consider that. Thirteen hundred percent increase in assaults just because officers are enforcing the laws passed by this Congress and signed into law by the President, most of which have been on the books for years, and they're being enforced by a President who has an electoral mandate to do just that. Well, meanwhile, while we've focused on the harm to the humans who are in charge of this operation, the sad fact is that there are hard-working animals, dogs and horses in particular, who serve in Federal Law Enforcement alongside their human officers who are also being subjected to aggressive behavior during their work days. These animals play a vital role in keeping America safe. Border Patrol's horse patrol units help insure the most rugged locations along the border are secured. CBP's detector dogs screen passengers and cargo to prevent the introduction of harmful plant pests, and animal disease from entering the country, but they too are under attack. In June of twenty twenty-five, an Egyptian national arriving at Dolis International Airport from Cairo kicked Freddy, who got a lot of attention at the time, a five-year-old beagle used by CBP, specially trained to screen arriving luggage. Freddy did his job. He alerted to one of the man's suitcases. The guy kicked him. Turns out the suitcase had food items in it that were not to have been allowed into the country, uh, and should have been disclosed. The dog did what the dog was trained to do, uh, and wound up injured as a result. CBP officers arrested the national, who later pleaded guilty to harming animals used in law enforcement in violation of federal law. We cannot tolerate foreign nationals who harm America's uniformed, uniformed canines and equines. And so this bill is simple. If you're a foreign national who is convicted of or admits to harming animals used in law enforcement you cannot enter our country nor remain here. I would hope all of our colleagues of both parties find it within themselves to support animals like Freddie other animals that are serving alongside, their dedicated human agents. They put it all on the line for people every day, and I yield back.

Thank you very much. Ranking member Raskin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Fox. Thank you for having us and uh, Mister McGovern, Miss Gendlin, thank you for coming. It's a pleasure to be with uh, my colleague, Mister Schmidt. Um, so, we were here to discuss two immigration bills that I view as completely unnecessary. So I would say let's let sleeping dogs lie on these bills. Um, But I do want to talk for a moment about what the Trump administration doesn't want anybody to talk about at all which is the overwhelming and urgent need to rein in an out of control Department of Homeland Security. Um, this is a form of overzealous government regulation, Madam Chair, that I hope we could agree on. Today on American streets, we have DHS agents arresting kindergartners, daycare workers, and parents in the drop-off zone at school, DHS's masked agents are breaking into people's homes without search warrants, totally in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and dragging grandpas out of their beds in their underwear in subzero temperatures. Federal officials are abduct- are abducting children from their beds in the middle of the night, or using them as bait in order to arrest their parents. DHS is rounding up refugees who went through stringent vetting procedures to come here, and targeting immigrants who are following the law and dutifully showing up at their court hearings, their ICE check-ins, and their green card interviews. The agents are even arresting US citizens on fal- false charges, more than a hundred and seventy of them, only to have the charges completely fall apart often before the cases even get to court. DHS is putting citizen protesters in surveillance databases and following them home on the streets to try to intimidate them. ICE and CBP agents are racially profiling US citizens and even telling them that their passports are worthless in order to prove their citizenship. And DHS is of course killing American citizens, people like Alex Prede and Rene Good, Ruben Ray Martinez, shooting them down in cold blood. There is no form of overzealous government regulation that's worse than the government killing the people. Yet today we're meeting not to talk about this, um, but rather, uh, to enlarge the power of the immigration, uh, state even more by taking up two more cookie-cutter bills that make various crimes deportable offenses without requiring a criminal conviction. So we're talking about things that are already against the law where people can be deported immediately upon conviction, and yet now uh these are bills which would just remove the conviction requirement. Now I want to be clear as co-chair of the animal production caucus, Madam Chair, and a huge dog person that I take violence against animals very seriously. Um, but the incident which gave rise to HR four six three eight, which my colleague has described well, the so-called bow-wow act demonstrates why the bill is completely unnecessary. It all started when K nine detective Freddy the Beagle, who was working with CBP at Dulles Airport to detect smuggled agriculture products, alerted officers to the presence of over a hundred pounds of prohibited farm items or other food items. Um, these items belonged to Mister Ali Marie, a foreign national from Egypt. who in the melee kicked Freddie so hard that the dog became airborne and suffered bruised ribs. Now, Mister Murray was immediately arrested for this crime at Dulles. He was charged and pleaded guilty within a day to one count of harming animals used in law enforcement under eighteen USC thirteen sixty eight. He was sentenced to jail, forced to pay Freddie's medical bills, and swiftly deported back to Egypt within three days. So this case nicely illustrates how totally unnecessary the bill is. Harming animals and law enforcement, uh, really any form of animal cruelty, is already a crime involving moral turpitude and is a deportable offense. If it weren't, Mister Murray would not have been deported a mere three days after he kicked poor Freddie. Bizarrely, because this bill does not require a conviction, if the legislation had been in place when the incident occurred, mister Marie would have been deported before trial and there and then, therefore, before the judge ordered him to pay, I think it was more than a thousand dollars in restitution, to cover Freddie's vet bill. In other in other words, if we had short-circuited the judicial process, we would not have gotten the check from him before he left the country. Eliminating prosecution and the conviction requirement is barking up the wrong tree uh Madam Chair and um we we can't uh circumvent the judicial process in that way. That's the problem generally with these deport first and never prosecute bills being advanced by the majority. I understand it's easier to write a bill if you take language from existing statute and just cross out the conviction part, um but that doesn't mean that that's good public policy to do it that way. Um, look at what the administration did with, uh, Jason, Nella, and Priscilla, uh, Flores, who was accused of stealing a hundred million dollars worth of diamonds in one of the largest jewelry heists' heists in US history. Um, and he was deported by the administration before the criminal trial was complete. Um, because that happened, he's not paying financial restitution. There was no fine. Hundred million dollars that the victims can't get. because we elevated in privilege deportation, over trial conviction, and then restitution, uh, and prison and so on. So, I think that these bills are solutions in search of a problem, um, and they're not talking about the real issue that we should be talking about. Just like with animal cruelty, Madam Chair, conviction for fraud is already a deportable offense because it is a crime involving moral turpitude the Supreme Court uh, has found that. So, instead of these kinds of bills, I think we should be working on ways to rein in DHS, which is violating the constitutional rights, not just of of immigrants but of US citizens as well. And I urge the Rules Committee to scrutinize these bills carefully. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister Raskin, what what kind of penalty should we give for bad jokes in the Rules Committee?

It, every dog has his day, Madam Chair, so

Oh, man.

Oh, Mister Raskin. Good to have you back. Mister Griffith.

Uh, any questions to Matthew?

Thank you Mister Griffith, Mister McGovern.

I don't really have any questions. I But I'm sitting listening to this and I appreciate both of you coming here and uh talking about this legislation, but uh I mean um I think it's clear from what Mister Raskin just testified that uh we really don't need this legislation. But what really puzzles me is that, um, we're back, um, and we've now spent twenty-two billion dollars on this war in Iran. And we can't even get my Republican friends to agree to have a debate on whether or not to vote to authorize the use of military force in Iran or not. I mean, we can't even get a real debate on this stuff. I mean, twenty-two billion dollars we have already spent. Um, and I went through on my opening statement what that could have paid for. Uh, when I'm at home people are complaining to me about the cost of living, cost of healthcare, I mean, the cost of groceries, the cr- the cost of, you know, housing, the cost of everything. Um, and, and we came in, and, and, and, and yet, um, you know, we're doing this. And I, I'm just, like, I mean, somebody who's just turning on the TV and watching this, you know, has to wonder what the hell's going on here. uh, that again, we're spending billions and billions of dollars on a daily basis in a war halfway around the world, that Congress refuses to discuss, and refuses to, it doesn't even have the guts to vote for it. Um, and here we are, we're we're back and we're debating this, you know, um, kind of bills that are redundant. I I I think we got our priorities all screwed up here. I think that's why people are really angry. Um, I mean, again, if if war is not a serious issue, I don't know what the hell it is, but you know, the Bow Wow Act, um, again which seems redundant, doesn't strike me as the most important issue before the country right now. And um, and I think people who are watching are wondering why the hell aren't we talking about more important things, right now. But in any event, um, I thank you both for being here, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Uh, Mr. Langworthy.

I'd I would like to offer Mister Schmidt uh the opportunity to clarify, you know, tie up any loose ends or or respond to anything that's been said so far.

Thank you, Representative, and Madam Chairwoman, I I would just add to what my colleague laid on the table. This these bills are both aimed at in the colloquial plugging loopholes in current law. The policy, I think, i- is agreed to, if you commit these crimes you ought to be deported, and if you're convicted of them that shows that you've committed them. But right now, as Mister Raskin suggested, it's it's a catch-all provision in current law that covers these offenses. Uh, it's the moral turpitude provision. And that, of course, is subject to interpretation, to argumentation, to litigation, literally sometimes taking years to determine whether or not particular conduct, uh, that has been admitted to in the most extreme examples. It's clearly fraud, it's clearly animal cruelty against a a law enforcement animal. Um, But whether that constitutes moral turpitude is a matter of law. It has literally been tied up in in the courts for years in multiple circuits. So, this brings clarity. Uh, I think it's common sense at the end of the day if you have an individual who is engaged in this removable conduct who admits they have engaged in this removable conduct you shouldn't have to wait for the criminal justice system to run its course and by the way there are jurisdictions because a lot of these uh laws are are are state and local laws that wind up being enforced. um, you've essentially given a veto to state and local prosecutors who may have very different political or philosophical or priority views around the country, over whether our deportation and and excludability law should be enforced. So, I think they make good sense.

Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Langworthy. Miss Galin, did you drive in?

Uh, no, I took the train.

Took the train, of course.

Yeah.

That was a safe way to go.

Yes, very easy.

We're glad you're here.

Thank you. Um, Madam Chair, Please excuse my irritation, but the fact that the speaker has chosen to waste this legislative week, again, on do-nothing messaging bills, while the damage from President's Trump, President Trump's war in Iran is expanding by the moment, is, is really just a dereliction of duty. We've got thirteen s- US service members dead, hundreds more wounded, and the Pentagon has admitted that it killed hundreds of children at a girls' elementary school in one of the worst killing of civilians in US history. Trump and his administration continue to fail to offer a coherent explanation of the objectives the strategy or the exit plan for this war, while millions of people across the region are in harm's way. Every day we're sending our soldiers into danger and with each passing day this conflict is escalating. The Trump administration clearly did not have a plan when it started this war because they didn't foresee what every analyst for the past forty some odd years has seen, that if you start a war with Iran, they're going to block the Strait of Hormuz. So, we now know we've spent over twenty-two billion dollars, I think the the ranking member said already in these three weeks, gas prices are going through the roof. And Trump and Hegseth and Rubio are on TV, saying that the war is gonna continue and they feel like, until they feel like stopping it, or as long as it takes. Again, no plan, no goal, no objective. All we see is people who clearly do not understand the difference between reality and reality TV, and who've shown a blatant disrespect for service members and their families.

Mm-hmm.

And meanwhile, here in the people's house, we have our weekly memo, our our weekly menu of fake bills. kind of the legislative eq- equivalent of junk food. We're not gonna consider any legislation this week about the war or its consequences. There are no hearings scheduled by armed services or foreign affairs committees to get answers from the administration about the Iran war. And if the Trump administration fights this war with memes and video vibes, as it has been doing, and all the Republicans do is bring up bills like the Bow Wow Act, there will be no justice. for the service members we've lost or accountability for the billions of dollars that have been wasted. It is a shocking failure of leadership and that's why I'm irritated today. Um, but turning to the some of the junk bills that are before us, Ranking Member Raskin, I wanna revisit a couple of the points you made in your statement, because I'm not sure that our colleagues are listening. Is it true that it is already illegal for someone to attack a police dog and that it's a felony to commit fraud.

Um, but it is certainly illegal to attack not just a police dog but any dog in every state. That in itself is a crime, but it's also, federally speaking, a crime of moral turpitude that is an immediately deportable offense. And, uh, we need cite no case for that other than this case, because it's amazing when you look at what happened. This was taken care of within two or three days. So, uh the the freddy uh freddy got kicked um by this smuggler of food and uh immediately gets apprehended gets arrested uh is held overnight then is tried he is convicted and then um is deported because this is a crime of moral turpitude to uh attack a dog And then, so everything worked beautifully. Um, uh, you know, I mean, we're we're still investigating allegedly the homicides, uh, of, uh, Alex Preddy, um, right now, and Rene Good, right, uh, months later, those are still being investigated allegedly. That's what Christy Noem, um, and Attorney General Bondi told me when I asked her. They said, " Oh, it's still being investigated." Well, the, that crime was investigated immediately, it was prosecuted, uh, the guy was convicted, and he was deported.

Mm-hmm.

And he had to pay a fine,

Mm-hmm.

uh, which wouldn't happen if he were immediately deportable. If I could just l- l- say one other thing about your comments, um, Ms. Scanlon, you know, the - the - James Madison wrote this letter to Thomas Jefferson about the war power. And he said the reason why Congress has to have the power is because the executive, like the kings, will always be trying to get into wars. Why? Because it can distract people, because it enlarges their power, it enlarges their control, uh, over money, and it enlarges their control over people's liberties and freedom. And I just noticed that, uh, that President Trump's FCC chair, Mister Carr, just warned broadcast entities that if they, if their coverage did not conform to a pro-Iran war view, they could get their broadcast licenses stripped away from them. I mean, we really gotta think about the founders, not just in some, you know, artificial academic way, like, oh, how great the founders are. They were warning us about precisely the moment that we are in right now. And Madison was avid that the executive would spend money freely on wars to promote their own avarice, vanity, conceit, imperial dreams. and look where we are it's like almost two billion dollars a day that we spent and we're we haven't even debated it all we wanted was the opportunity to debate it so we can vote on it and we didn't get that

mmm yeah well i mean it is more than a little ironic that uh here we have a war that's been started without debate and some might say it wags the dog in an effort to distract from what's really going on and instead we have to debate the bow-wow bill Look, I think you made the point that the key thing that this bill does, these bills do, is remove the due process protections, um, of an accused. So if you're a non-citizen and you're simply accused or arrested for one of these crimes, you could be deported. Um, I know we have seen, as, as I've been involved in immigration representation for some time, that there are problems when you don't have the opportunity to contest allegations because unethical, or uh vindictive bad actors, including human traffickers, will make allegations of misconduct against folks who are not citizens in order to control their behavior. So there's a very important and directly relative um point to having due process in these cases.

I mean the reason that due process are the two most beautiful words in the constitution maybe in the English language are precisely because government is not infallible. If government were infallible, we wouldn't need due process, we would just let a government agent come forward and say, this person is guilty of doing something, let's put them in prison, let's deport them, let's impeach them or whatever. But our whole system runs on due process, where we have adversarial expression of different views and the mobilization of different factual proffers to whoever is seeing it. So I just, I can't imagine why we wanna go down this road, and forgive me 'cause I'm in such a founder's mood today, But Jefferson really warned that what the government does to non-citizens, and this was around the Alien-Sedition Act, he said, will come to haunt citizens. What they get away with, they remove the conviction requirement for citizens, they will remove the conviction requirement for things like your gun license, your ability to vote, and so on and so forth. They will, they will transpose it to the citizenship domain, and that's been the history of the country.

Well, and that's certainly what we've been seeing with some of the immigration enforcement mechanisms where they say we don't need a warrant to go arrest someone who is in the country without permission but then they go and without a warrant they knock down the door of a citizen and drag the citizen out into the street. So

I mean, if you teach a law enforcement force that it's basically lawless and it doesn't report to anybody, then there will be citizens who end up getting shot in the face and we saw that in Minneapolis.

Certainly. Um, I did wanna seek unanimous consent for an article from WMAR two, which is the Baltimore ABC channel dated uh June twenty ninth, twenty twenty five, the title is " Freddy the Beagle is fine but the man who kicked him was arrested and deported".

Without objection.

OK, and thank you for your testimony, Mister Raskin.

But Thank you, Miss Scanlon. Miss Halchen, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not have any questions, but would like to uh once again go back to uh Congressman Schmidt to see if there's any additional things that you might like to add, um in response to anything that has been brought up in this uh debate.

Thank you, Representative, and uh I might just add that my friend Mister Raskin and I share a a fidelity to the founders. Uh, we sometimes see the history a little bit differently, but that's the nature of a a wonderful and diverse country. But I I would suggest to the committee that our founders also never contemplated a circumstance where a federal administration would functionally look the other way for four years, and allow eight, nine, ten, or more million people to illegally enter our country in violation of our laws, that is three times the population of my state. Uh, and that's just the ones we've been able to count. Uh, our founders never would have contemplated that we would have a government so big that we would have a large number of people who would look at fraud on publicly funded programs to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, and suggest that is not a serious problem that we need to deal with. Uh, and the founder certainly would not have contemplated that those two issues might have come together, where people who were never supposed to be in this country in the first place, are allowed to come here, to stay here, to, uh, defraud the taxpayers while here, uh, and then at least in some cases, not all, but in some cases, I would argue game the system to stall on their way out. Uh, if the committee is interested I can share particulars, but there are many examples uh of cases where individuals have admitted to the conduct that this Congress has determined should get them kicked out of the country, and yet they stay here for years on end while gaming the criminal justice system. Uh, those are the loopholes these bills are both designed to fix.

Thank you, and if you could touch um on you mentioned the the amount of of millions of people who are allowed in in the country under the biden administration with open border policies from the democrat party uh and democrat representatives um many of those were also on the terror watch list um as as many as ten to twelve thousand individuals allowed into the country under the biden administration uh were known terrorists or known to be have ties to terrorism. Could you comment on um the importance of these bills i- from an enforcement perspective, but also under the current circumstances, we have the Department of Homeland Security that is currently being unfunded by uh the S- US Senate um and uh could you just make a comment on how that makes American citizens at greater risk when uh, the Democrats don't want to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Well, Representative, in my view at least, this is certainly, uh, not the time to have the Department of Homeland Security, which was created in response to the worst terror attack on our soil on nine eleven, uh, to be hobbled, uh, by being either not funded or sporadically funded or imperfectly funded or late funded or however you want to view it. Um, and it's somewhat puzzling to me that the fight the the political fight seems to be about the Immigration Enforcement Agency,

Thank you. I appreciate uh your work on this um legislation and Miss Madam Chairman, I yield back.

Madam Chair?

Yes, uh.

Ma- ma- maybe recognized, but one, one minute, I just want to point out for the record that our our founders, um, were themselves undocumented immigrants, um, who wanted to fill this land with ambitious restless immigrants. Um, there was no immigration law when they wrote the Constitution. And I don't think our founders could have possibly imagined a Congress that would turn its back on its constitutional responsibility when it came to war. I mean, and that is what's happening right now with this Congress. So cowardly, that we won't even debate and vote on whether to authorize the use of military force, when it comes to Iran. So, when you talk about what our founders could ever imagine, I don't think they could have ever imagined that we would get to this point. And quite frankly, it's unconscionable. I thank the General, you're back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Uh, we can sit here for a long time and speculate what the founders thought, but Mister Jefferson did go after the Somali pirates, and he didn't bother to ask for congressional approval. So I think um I got ahead of, oh my goodness, I have awakened Mister Griffith here. Uh, he is gonna speak about Mister Jefferson.

Ma- Madam Chairman, would you yield?

I should never speak about Mister Jefferson. Your Mister Griffith is in the room. Mister Griffith, would you like to be recognized?

It wou- i- i- uh, uh, y- yes, if if the gentlelady would yield. Uh, I just wanted to make sure we corrected the record. The gentlelady misspoke and said that Jefferson went after the Somali pirates when in fact they went after the the pirates of uh tripoli and the north african coast

oh sorry tripoli and north africa thank you very much

mmm

thank you for correcting me i appreciate that gentlemen i see no further um persons wishing to ask you any questions or comments so we appreciate you coming in today talking about tripoli and we're your excuse

thank you very much

thank you I now welcome our second panel, Chairman Westerman and Representative Randall from the Committee on Natural Resources. You all are making this a regular occurrence. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Westerman, I welcome your testimony.

Well, thank you, Chairwoman Fox, for this opportunity to testify today on some very important legislation. As Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, And as co-chair of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, which I believe is still the largest caucus in Congress, I have time and again stood up in Congress for the rights of hunters and anglers. H. R. five fifty-six, sponsored by Natural Resources Committee Vice Chairman Rob Whitman, is critical to ensuring those rights are protected well into the future. Simply put, H. R. five fifty-six would ensure that any ban on using lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal land is based on site-specific data and coordinated with state game and fish agencies. This guarantees that any band is based on sound science and works with the agencies responsible for regulating hunting and fishing within their state borders. Providing these safeguards is vital, as alternatives to lead ammunition and fishing tackle can often be very expensive, with some options costing as much as ten times more than similar lead products. Passage of this bill pairs well with recent actions by the Trump administration that fundamentally changed the Federal Government's approach towards opening federal lands to hunting and fishing. In January of this year, Intec- Interior Secretary Doug Burgum signed Secretary Order thirty-four forty-seven, which directed interior's offices and bureaus to open lands to hunting and fishing unless existing authorities and unit purposes require an area to be closed to those activities. It also includes language requiring that any ban on the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle be backed by site-specific science. This order sets the stage for opening thousands of acres of federal lands to responsible hunting and fishing which is a win, not only for sportsmen and women, but also for wildlife. Hunting and fishing participation generates over a billion dollars a year in excise taxes paid by firearm and fishing equipment manufacturers. These amounts are only likely to increase under the Trump administration, which is opening more federal lands to hunting and fishing. Alternatively, any ideological and unscientific restrictions on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle, put those dollars at risk. Instead of regulating hunters and anglers out of our federal lands, we should continue to work with state managers, conservation organizations, and sportsmen and women. When lead is shown to cause harm to wildlife, it will be addressed accordingly. But why, why

Thank you, Chairman Westerman. Representative Randall, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I'm not at present a member of the Sportsman's Caucus. I do come from a family and community of hunters. and I know that our nation's hunters and anglers are among our most dedicated conservation champions. Each year they contribute billions of dollars through license fees and excise taxes to fund the very wildlife programs that sustain our national heritage. They deserve policy that respects their contribution, not a bill that uses them as a front for corporate interests. H. R. five five six is a direct assault on the ability of federal wildlife managers to protect our species from lead poisoning. For decades, these professionals have worked in lockstep with states to ensure federal lands remain open for hunting and fishing. This bill would shatter that partnership by disregarding the very best available science and imposing an impossible standard to meet on land managers. Under this legislation, managers would be required to prove that a population decline is primarily caused by lead in a specific land unit before taking action. To understand why this is a trap, we have to look at the state of the national wildlife refuge system. Fifty-three refuges have zero staff on the ground. Three hundred and sixty-six refuges are insufficiently staffed. The remaining two hundred units operate with severely limited resources. Expecting these chronically underfunded offices to conduct exhaustive unit specific forensic studies on every population of loons or condors is not rigorous science. It's a bureaucratic blockade. This evidentiary bar is so high that it effectively puts a close sign on science-based management. Ironically, it may force managers to close sensitive areas to hunting rather than navigate this arduous costly process. The science is settled, lead kills wildlife. It has been documented in over a hundred and thirty species. Across the west in Arizona and California and Oregon, we've seen the heartbreaking impact on iconic species like the bald eagle and the California condor. This is not a hyper- threat, it is a documented reality. Further, this bill is so arcane that it overrides local wisdom. Even in states like Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, where local governments have already acted to restrict lead, a federal manager would still be forced to repeat that wasteful process before aligning federal protection with state law. This bill is not about protecting the average hunter. It is about protecting ammunition's manufacturers. Today, non-lit alternatives are high-performing and cost-competitive, and prices are continuing to come down as adoption grows. For most hunters, the Switch costs less than their annual hunting license. Thirty-eight states have already shown us the way forward through voluntary buybacks, gear exchanges, and retail partnerships. These programs protect wildlife without creating a fight between the sporting community and land managers. We should be investing in incentives and research. not tying the hands of those tasked with guarding our environment. I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical political theater and let's focus on real solutions that preserve our outdoor traditions and ensure our nation's bird, the bald eagle, is here for the next generation. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Randall. Mister Griffith, you're recognized.

Yeah, I'd ask the chairman. I- is there cause my my son who hunts and fishes and does all that doesn't seem to think there is, is there a cost effective alternative?

uh n not with the performance of lead i mean when you hunt waterfowl you use steel shot um which there's problems with that because the the kill ratio is not as high, so you you wound a lot more um uh waterfowl with steel shot but when you start looking at the alternatives to lead like tungsten and bismuth it's it's much higher you can be talking as much as three four five dollars per shell on a shotgun shell

yeah

and then you think about fishing tackle as well all of the the lead that's used in that and the alternatives are are quite expensive

i i appreciate that cause i i heard some of the contrary and i thought wait a minute that's not not been my understanding so i appreciate you clarifying that now you go back madam chair

thank you mister mcgovern you're recognized

thank you madam chair i i again i'm gonna say what i said before i mean with all this going on in the country right now with all this going on in the world right now this is what we're doing i mean gas prices are going through the roof uh we've already spent twenty two billion dollars in iran and we can't even find the time to vote on whether to authorize that illegal war um and while we're doing this um i think our priorities are all screwed up around here um i yield back

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, hunters and anglers have long have been some of the strongest supporters of wildlife conservation in the United States, and through excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, sportsmen and women contribute more than a billion dollars each year to conservation programs and support wildlife habitat management. In in rural districts like mine in western New York, hunting and fishing aren't just traditions, They're a way of life and a key part of how we support wildlife conservation. Uh, unfortunately in the past administration, federal agencies pursued sweeping restrictions in the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle without relying on site-specific scientific evidence, and these policies threaten to increase costs for hunters and anglers while putting conservation funding at risk. Chairman Westerman, can you explain how requiring local scientific evidence before imposing bans helps insure conservation policies remain effective while protecting access for hunters and anglers

it's it comes back to trusting the science but you gotta have science to trust so you gotta do the research and determine if there are um adverse effects of using um lead shot or lead fishing lures in a in a certain area uh am because we just see these broad strokes painted to try to get rid of of lead, what that does is it affects districts like mine as well, where, you know, hunting and fishing oftentimes is is considered a - a poor man's way to recreate. And if - if you can't do that, then there's not a lot of other things you can afford to do. And if you start increasing the cost of fishing lures and the cost of you're just putting more barriers there for people to - to - to hunt and fish, and you're also, um, making it harder for future generations to get into, uh, the sport. And we know that hunters and fishermen are the greatest conservationists and environmentalists in our country. So, a lot's at stake when we talk about, you know, it's just the cost of ammunition or it's just the cost of a fishing tackle. Uh, and you combine that with the restrictions on accessing public land as expensive as it is to to lease private land these days uh you just create barrier after barrier to entry and for people to practice this time-honored tradition of hunting and fishing in our country

well that's exactly the point thank you very much this legislation does not eliminate regulation it simply ensures that federal agencies rely on real science and local data before imposing costly restrictions and regulations on hunters and anglers. Uh, this bill helps protect access for sportsmen while ensuring conservation decisions made grounded in evidence. And I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mister Langworthy, Miss Gatlin, you're recognized.

Thank you. Um, Miss Riprandel, am I correct that this regulation that the bill seeks to overturn was introduced because of the poisoning that we are seeing to a variety of animal species.

Yes, it absolutely is, um, the case. And, you know, we have real scientific data that lead poisoning kills animals. That's why we have the protections that we do.

And and that this lead poisoning is linked to the use of lead shot, lead weights with fishing, et cetera.

Indeed.

OK, I I thought that was the case, conversations seem to have gone a little bit astray. Um, you know, as a representative from Philadelphia, we are very fond of our eagles, um, particularly bald eagles. Um, but as I was preparing for this hearing, I'm seeing that more than half of bald eagles, um, suffer from lead poisoning. And that's one of the reasons, along with DDT and other, are the reasons that we had seen such a reduction in their population across the country. Um, I I find it very hard to understand why we would turn back the clock with legislation that um would undermine the progress that has been made with respect to eagles and other animals although as I think about it perhaps the symbolism of our national symbol, the eagle being afflicted with lead poisoning, may be uh you know appropriate for the damage that this Congress is inflicting on the environment with bills like this. Um there's been a little bit of discussion here and and like many of you uh my i too have a family that engages in hunting and fishing so i was looking on the ducks unlimited website and it was talking about the fact that since lead was banned from uh the use for shot for waterfowl thirty years ago the ammunition manufacturers have adapted and and brought forth new methods which are comparable in price is that correct?

that is correct and i don't have a full price list of every um kind of ammunition that you could buy right here before me but i will say that um recent studies show a really minimal and decreasing price gap uh winchester xp lead ammunition for uh two seventy example costs for example costs thirty four ninety nine while their xp copper impact non-lead costs forty two ninety nine just a eight dollar difference And meanwhile, premium bonded lead core ammunition costs fifty nine ninety nine, making some non-lead options actually cheaper than the premium lead alternative.

OK. So so a simple Google search on Ducks Unlimited and and then this other evidence shows that in fact American innovation is addressing the change regulations. Is there anything else um you wanna add with respect to uh the arguments we're hearing?

I think um you know we've we've covered a lot but a really important um you know underlying uh idea that is striking to me is that when we decide that science is important when we decide that we need more science and right now when we are unhappy when the majority is unhappy with the scientific data that is before us that is when we have decided we need new and more science not when nih funding is at risk not when we are seeing um a an attack on scientific research across um federal agencies but now when when the science isn't telling us what we want it to tell us that's when we are demanding more

ok thank you i yield back

thank you very much miss galvin miss haljan you're recognized

thank you madam chair um Thank you, Chairman Westerman. I appreciate you bringing this legislation before us. I was in the state senate in Indiana for eight years and during that time, uh, in an attempt to expand hunting opportunities in Indiana, uh, the general assembly, uh, inadvertently outlawed certain types of hunting on public land, which is one of the issues that I heard about most from constituents. Um, because they do want access to those opportunities for hunting and fishing on our public lands and so i appreciate your efforts to to make sure that those opportunities are readily available um so i just wanted to express my gratitude for that and give you an opportunity to um address any of the other comments that have been made um to this point in the hearing

well thank you representative halchin and again access to our public lands is critical whether you're wanting to hunt and fish or just uh enjoy the the outdoors in whatever activity you're doing. I did find it interesting, I haven't seen that study that Ducks Unlimited did, but the fact that Ducks Unlimited would do a study on two seventy corlock ammunition, which is a a rifle, when duck hunting is done with a um or waterfowl hunting is I think it's illegal to hunt it with anything but a shotgun. oh well wherever that came from so the alternative on waterfowl hunting you can go still which is price comparable to lead shot but again it's it it's not nearly as effective as a as a kill rate then you start looking at bismuth and tungsten these heavy shot loads and it gets very expensive if you've ever been duck hunting and if you're you're not a very good shot, you can go through a box of twenty-five shells in a in a hurry. Um, so it i- it does add expense to it, just when you're talking about waterfowl, which again, this doesn't change anything about being y- this doesn't say you could hunt waterfowl with lead shot. You still have to use non-lead shot for waterfowl. This is looking at all the other regulations that are trying to be forced on Americans to uh deer hunt, rabbit, whatever you're hunting with a lead alternative, to fish with a lead alternative. And that gets to be very expensive.

Thank you, I appreciate that insight, and uh your uh expertise uh not only as Chairman of the committee but also um on these types of uh bills is uh greatly appreciated. Uh you're one of a few that has that much expertise in this particular arena. I will note that, um, I did lead a letter to our governor when that error was discovered. It wasn't my legislation, but we led a letter to the governor, uh, trying to fix the issue before hunting season opened and were successful in doing that. And then we came back the next legislative session and fixed it. Um, but I know that my constituents in the state of Indiana certainly appreciate your efforts to expand and preserve hunting and fishing opportunities. And we thank you. i yield back

i'm glad you got it fixed

me too

thank you miss houcher miss fischbach you're recognized

thank you madam chair and i will just say i support the legislation and i do appreciate you bringing it forward because obviously minnesota not right now with the snow but we are uh hunting and fishing maybe ice fishing right now but i yield back thank you

thank you very much mr. jack you're recognized

just one question chairman i i'd appreciate you noting that uh hunters and fishermen are some of the greatest conservationists we have could you expand upon that just a bit more before we move this

yeah i'd yeah i mean it's just practical life experience that people who love spending their time outdoors wanna take care of those outdoor landscapes um people like to hunt and they and like to fish in places where there's wildlife and where there's fish And they know that the way you have more wildlife and how you have more fish, is you take care of the habitat where the wildlife and the fish reside. They know that you follow the laws, uh, that have been put in place hopefully by, um, scientific study to say this is the best way to manage this l- this wildlife. It's so that you don't overfish a fishery. You know, the tragedy of the commons is a concept that came from an individual thinking they can uh they can catch all the fish they want they're just a small player in the in a big area but if everybody's doing that you you deplete the resource so sportsmen and women are true conservationists they love the outdoors they love the opportunity to be able to pass those traditions on to their children and their grandchildren and they know that they have to take care of the habitat and take care of the resource and they have a passion for it like um none others that i have seen and a and a true compassion and a true work ethic to take care of of what we have got and to pass it along in better shape and that's the ultimate definition of a conservationist someone who believes in uh long-term stewardship and that we should leave what we have in better place for the next generations

very well said i yield back madam chair

Thank you, Mister Jack. And I wanna say that I I agree with you completely on particularly on that last statement that you made. I think uh uh we all know um people who hunt and fish and and love the outdoors and and they do wanna preserve it uh for themselves and and the future. Um I see no one else wishing to ask a question of you all. So with that, you are excused. This panel is excused.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there anyone else seeking to testify on H R nineteen fifty eight, H R forty six thirty eight, or H R five fifty six? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Virginia Mister Griffith.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H R five five six, the protecting access for hunters and anglers act 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 substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill, should be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair. and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H. R. nineteen fifty eight, the Deporting Fraudsters Act of twenty twenty six under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in nature is substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary. 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, The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides, for consideration of H R four six three eight, the Bow Wow Act of twenty twenty five, under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment that is for substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now presented in the bill modified by the amendment printed in the rules committee report 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 the judiciary or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides the debate on motions that the house suspend the rules under clause one of rule fifteen relating to h. j. res one thirty nine shall be extended to one hour

thank you mister griffith um you've uh now heard the uh motion from the gentleman from virginia is is there further discussion

madam chair yeah i just will point out for the record two more closed rules completely closed rules but um i'm sorry three three completely three closed rules Um, I um, I uh, but I have an amendment to the rule. Uh, I move with the committee strike section four from the rule, which grants extended debate time for HJ res one thirty-nine, proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Madam Chair, the fact that Republicans are bringing this up for a vote right now is truly astonishing. If Republicans were serious about balancing the budget, they would do it through the reconciliation process. Instead, they used that process to add four point seven trillion dollars, trillion with a T, to our nation's debt to pay for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit corporations and the ultra-wealthy. And Trump's illegal war in Iran, which this Congress refuses to debate or vote on, um, has already cost American taxpayers more than twenty-two billion dollars. The President has proposed increasing the defense budget by half a trillion dollars every year. This is a hypocritical charade, plain and simple. And this close process only exacerbates the measure's deep flaws. It would likely lead to massive cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. In the past, Democrats have offered amendments to protect these programs, but Republicans are preventing any alternatives from being offered. providing it with an providing it with an extra twenty minutes of debate boy how generous is that um you know i think that that is the is the way to you know to increase the so-called seriousness of this i mean that is a sad joke i i urge a yes vote on my motion um and i yield back

thank you mister mcgovern um does any other member wish to uh, speak on the amendment. Mrs. Gammill, I recognize.

Yeah, I would have to support the amendment and and I too am very concerned about this push to uh introduce this balanced budget amendment, particularly given the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration. I mean, if we're going to my my constituents can't afford to balance this war on their backs. Um, so I will be voting for the amendment. Um we did try to put through when H um JRAS when the balanced budget amendment went through the judiciary committee. Our republican colleagues uh voted down amendments that would have exempted social security and Medicare from the requirements of the balanced budget so it would cut into um earned benefits for Americans as well. So with that I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Gellin. Any further discussion on the amendment from the gentleman from Massachusetts? hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

those opposed say no

no

no

in the opinion it's true the no's have it the amendment's not agreed to as for a roll call roll call mister mcgovern requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

mrs. fishbach

no

mrs. fishbach no mr. norman mr. roy mrs. Houchin mrs. Houchin no mr. langworthy

no

mr. langworthy no mr. scott mr. griffith

no

mr. griffith no mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

Mr. McGovern. Aye. Miss Galin.

Aye.

Miss Galin, aye. Mister Neguse. Miss Ledger-Fernandez. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The clerk will report the total.

Two yeas, six nays.

The noes have it, the amendments not agreed to. Is there any further discussion on the uh rural um amendment? No, rural debate. Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by

so we can take some motions

on the motion from the gentleman from virginia all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye those opposed say no

no no

in the opinion shared the ayes have it the motion is agreed through mr. mcgovern requests a roll call the uh clerk will call the roll

mrs. fishbach

yes

mrs. fishbach aye mr. norman mr. roy mrs. Howchin mrs. Howchin aye mr. Langworthy

aye aye

mr. Langworthy aye mr. Scott Mister Griffith.

Aye.

Mister Griffith, aye. Mister Jack.

Aye.

Mister Jack, aye. Mister McGovern.

No.

Mister McGovern, no. Mister Scanlon.

No.

Mister Scanlon, no. Mister Neguse. Mister Ledger-Fernandez. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Madam Chair, aye.

The clerk will report the total.

Six yeas, two nays.

The ayes have it the motion to report is agreed to. I'll be managing the rule for the majority.

No. Then I'll do it for the minority.

Yeah. Mister McGovern for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.