H.R. 6387 – FIRE Act; H.R. 6398 – RED Tape Act; H.R. 6409 – FENCES Act; H. Res. 1156 – Expressing

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order without objection the chairs authorized to declare recess at any time. Today the rules committee is convening to consider five measures, H R sixty-three eighty-seven, H R sixty-three ninety-eight, H R sixty-four zero nine, H res one one five six, and H R eight zero thirty-five. H six three eight seven h r six three nine eight and sixty four O nine three measures from the Energy and Commerce Committee pertain to mitigating regulatory burdens that stem directly from the Clean Air Act that fall upon the shoulders of the state. Inevitably, some will leap to their feet and allege that Republicans are gutting supposed environmental safeguards and that we don't care if the world burns. We don't need a crystal ball or some sort of terror reading to predict this. It's the same line that's used ad nauseum with no deference whatsoever to facts or evidence. Let's be clear about the facts and the context surrounding them. The Clean Air Act was signed into law more than fifty years ago. Since this time, we've found better ways to prevent wildfires. We've made unmatched progress against emissions, and we live in an age when foreign pollution has contributed to non-attainment in at least eighty-five counties. The air quality of some communities is suffering due to no fault of their own. We shouldn't be using the Clean Air Act as a punitive measure, a machine, against our localities. Perhaps most important is the fact that related Supreme Court case law has changed and intersecting statues have been rewritten. We need to reconcile these elements of the Clean Air Act with these facts, and our colleagues across the aisle are more than welcome to join us in enacting meaningful reforms. Hres one one five six would express the house's support for tax policies that support working families across our nation, as well as a recognition of the positive impacts that the working families' tax cuts have delivered for hardworking families. And what are some of those positive impacts? Increasing access to health savings accounts for millions of Americans, permanent expansion of the child's a permanent increase in the standard deduction, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, the expansion of educational freedom and choice through five twenty-nine accounts for families. The list goes on and on. The facts and evidence as to why the working family's tax cuts are a boon to the American people are as clear as day. There's no debate about it. Finally, we'll turn to H. R. eight zero three five, which reauthorizes section seven O three of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until October twentieth of twenty twenty seven. As President Trump and others have said, Pfizer remains extremely important to our national security, especially given the current global events. A short extension, eighteen months, will ensure the Trump administration has the tools necessary to protect our homeland, preserve the recently enacted reforms critical to safeguarding Americans' constitutional rights and will allow the congress to continue to evaluate any future changes that may be necessary to the program. With that, I look forward to the discussion that will take place here today, and I yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and let me just say, today's agenda is really something. Uh, first, Republicans want us to vote on giving themselves a pat on the back for their big ugly bill. You don't even use the bill's actual name in this resolution. instead of calling it its actual title which you named it the one big beautiful bill act you're calling it the working families tax cuts act rebranding it because it's so unpopular

mmm

so let me give you you guys a little bit of advice if your bill is popular and helps people you don't need to pass another measure to tell people how popular and great it is you wouldn't need uh to rebrand it you wouldn't need to tell people uh something works um if it actually works uh they would second we have the fire act uh the red tape act and the fences act all huge giveaways to big polluters so they can dump more toxins into our air and make people sicker and then we have a pfizer extension that republicans don't even know if they can pass so here's the point i spent my time meeting with constituents over the last two weeks i didn't buy a bubble wand in disney world um i spent my time listening to people i work for uh you know what they said to me they're asking what the hell is what wrong with trump he's obviously unwell he's acting like a maniac and my voters wanna know um why you guys are acting like everything is just normal it's not normal and you all know it he is very obviously deeply unwell there is something wrong with him he's up past midnight attacking the pope he's posting pictures of himself as jesus and as a catholic i'm horrified by that and i'm sick and tired of republicans Because the beep people back home in my district and the and I think people all across the country think he's nuts. And they wanna know when Republicans are gonna grow a spine and stand up to this lunatic. We've been at war in Iran for a month and a half. Gas is way above four dollars a gallon. The Epstein files are still being hidden. DHS is still shut down. Costs are skyrocketing. And the president of the isn't doing anything to solve any of that. He's posting pictures of himself as Jesus and saying he's gonna commit war crimes. And this committee, the powerful House Rules Committee, which could mean to do something about any one of these issues, is passing a non-binding bill to congratulate Republicans for passing a bill they already passed. I mean, this is insane, Madam Chair. Take any one of these issues. The DHS shutdown, for example, and look at how it's impacting people. DHS is still shutdown because Republicans are fighting with each other, instead of working together to do their job. Mike Johnson had a perfect bipartisan deal hand-delivered to him and rejected it, only to reverse course and accept it. So why aren't we voting to reopen DHS today? Good question. Nobody knows. Apparently Mike Johnson doesn't really even care because we're not even considering legislation um in today in this committee. And Trump is now paying TSA workers anyway. Apparently he believes that he could have paid TSA workers all along. So he withheld the pay because he wanted to use TSA workers as pawns. Kind of what a rotten thing to do. And again, this is just one of the many broken promises and betrayals from Trump and the Republicans in Congress. You guys promised lower prices on day one. Promise broken. Everything is more expensive. Rent, healthcare, groceries, gas. You guys promised to release the Epstein files. Promise broken. It's now been months and months since Democrats forced a vote to demand the release of the files yet the administration continues to stonewall and protect pedophiles instead of prosecuting them. You guys promised no new wars. Promise way, way broken. We n- we have now been at war with Iran for over a month and a half. Thirteen American service members are dead. Hundreds more are wounded. Thousands And now get this. Now we are blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait that Iran already blockaded. So we are blockading their blockade? How d- how does that make any sense? Meanwhile, oil prices continue to soar. And higher oil prices mean higher gas prices, higher food prices, higher housing costs. It will drive everything up. Costs are going up and up because Trump's uh because of Trump's war. And he is taking money out of the pockets every single American family. And for what? So we can reopen a strait that was already open before the war started? I mean, what a disaster. Families are hurting, gas prices are digging into people's budgets, fertilizer prices are hurting farmers, our troops are at risk, our allies are abandoning us, our adversaries are laughing at us, and Republicans' big plan for the week is passing a resolution to congratulate themselves for a bill they already passed. last year. A big ugly bill, by the way, that made a trillion dollar cut to Medicare and Medicaid. And a two hundred billion dollar cut to food assistance for seniors and kids. So they could give new tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires in giant corporations. That is what we get from Republicans every week in the Rules Committee. More broken promises, more betrayals, more fluff, while people back home are crying out for action. A reckoning is coming, Madam Chair. And for the people who are being hurt by the policies of this President and this Republican Congress that reckoning cannot come soon enough. 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 Palmer and Representative Tonko from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement.

Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and the members of the Rules Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm pleased to speak in support of three pieces of legislation, H R sixty-four O nine, the Fences Act, H R sixty-three ninety-eight, the Red Tape Act, H R sixty-three eighty-seven, the Fire Act. All three bills are important uh part of Energy and Commerce's permitting reform efforts. Defenses Act, H. R. sixty-four O nine, introduced by my colleague, Congressman August Flueger of Texas, ensures that states and local communities are not penalized for foreign air emissions emanating outside the United States. Across states across the country are being unfairly penalized for pollution that originates beyond U S. borders, including uh air emissions from natural events like the Canadian wildfires, Currently, the Clean Air Act allows states to adjust their plans when foreign emissions prevent them from meeting federal standards. However, guidance from the EPA under the previous administration narrowed the relief, limiting it to only human-caused emissions from abroad. This bill clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or man-made, are excluded from consideration when determining whether a state meets national air quality standards. Importantly, the bill allows states to account for foreign emissions earlier in the regulatory process, instead of forcing them to wait until the very end and risk costly delays or federal sanctions. The Red Tape Act, H. R. sixty-three ninety-eight, introduced by my friend Congressman John Joyce of Pennsylvania, eliminates the duplicative requirement in the Clean Air Act that requires EPA to assess and provide feedback on environmental impact statements, other agencies prepare under NEPA. An action agency preparing an environmental impact statement is a better fit for the NEPA than a federal agency. under NEPA already possesses the expertise and resources necessary to assess the environmental impacts. EPA is often already involved in the NEPA review process as a cooperating agency, requiring them to provide secondary review under section three O nine is unnecessary, duplicative and inefficient. This duplicative review leads to increased delays and expenses in the NEPA process. This legislation is an important step to streamline permitting, and it removes burdensome inefficiencies in the current NEPA process. The Fire Act, H. R. sixty-three eighty-seven, introduced by Congressman Gabe Evans of Colorado and co-led by Congressman Adam Gray of California amends the Clean Air Act to ensure that states are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures, like prescribed burns and and brush clearing. States currently limit these practices for fear of falling out of attainment, are due to the costly and lengthy exceptional events process. The Fire Act ensures that It provides clarity and predictability for air quality planning, reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers and communities, and rewards proactive wildfire mitigation measures. Prescribed burns or controlled burns are the most effective way to decrease both the severity of fi- wildfires and the public health problems associated with the smoke they produce. These bills are an essential component of the committee's permitting reform efforts. The clean

Gentlemen, it is back, now recognized, Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Tonko from the

I thank Chair Fox and Ranking Member McGovern and members of the committee for the opportunity here. I'm here to testify on HR sixty-four O nine, HR sixty-three ninety-eight, and HR sixty-three eighty-seven. I strongly oppose all three of these bills. Across the country, Americans are struggling to afford health care after Congressional Republicans allowed Affordable Care Act premium tax subsidies to expire. Simultaneously, the Trump Administration initiated a large-scale rollback of common climate and environmental programs designed to improve public health and lower Americans' utility bills. Now the President is adding fuel to the fire by waging an illegal war in Iran that has raised gas prices to record-breaking levels. Simply put, President Trump and Republicans are worsening the affordability crisis. And while my Democratic colleagues are working on solutions to this crisis, congressional Republicans are doubling down with bills that will make these problems even worse. Today, we are here to discuss three partisan bills that will gut critical public health protections in the Clean Air Act and make Americans sicker. H. R. sixty-three ninety-eight, the Red Tape Act, would exempt major federal projects and regulations from any scrutiny of their impacts on air quality and public health from EPA experts. The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by removing the requirement that EPA's comments be made available to the public. Ignoring the consequences of major actions won't make them go away. But that is exactly what the Red Tape Act would have us do. And for the people who live near these major projects, turning a blind eye to the problem doesn't protect their families from toxic exposures. Worse yet, the Red Tape Act is being billed as permitting reform, when in reality it is a bill to let polluter run amok without proper safety, or, common sense guardrails, out of sight from the public. The two other bills being considered are a direct attack on the national ambient air quality standards, which set health protective limits to common air pollutants, such as fine particulate matter and ozone. Republicans claim that the Fire Act and the Fences Act are needed to ensure States are not penalized for pollution from wildfire and wildfire mitigation efforts or pollution from foreign sources. While those are both worthy goals, the Clean Air Act already provides flexibility to EPA and States to address these issues. Beyond those duplicative provisions, these bills take a sledgehammer to the public health protections at the core of the Clean Air Act. The fire act does little to make it easier for States to use prescribed burns as a tool for wildlife management. Instead, it expands the definition of exceptional events that States can claim when demonstrating compliance with air quality standards to include regularly occurring weather, like drought and heat. To put it simply, the fire act would give polluters a free pass on the Clean Air Act. allowing States to use a hot day as an excuse to ignore the harm inflicted on the health of Americans. The Fences Act would ignore bad air quality in areas that experience any foreign pollution, and remove EPA's ability to impose sanctions on States that fail to make progress toward reducing cleaning up the air. Republicans frame this as reducing regulatory burden. But in reality, the bill removes all accountability, would grind permitting to a halt, and will leave millions of Americans to breathe breathe unhealthy air while being told it is safe. Clearly, these are serious problems with both of these bills. That is why I have filed amendments to address some of the major deficiencies. I urge this committee to make them in order for the floor. Congress should be focused on making life more affordable for the American people, not saving a few dollars for corporate polluters. These bills are nothing more than a partisan attempt to make executives richer while making Americans sicker in the process. With that, I strongly oppose HR sixty four O nine, HR sixty three ninety eight, and HR sixty three eighty seven. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, and now I recognize Miss Fischbach for her time of questioning and comment.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and and thank you both for being here, really appreciate it. Um, I I do support these. I think in general, reducing regulations and straightening some things out make a lot of sense. And I just have um, just a quick question for representative palmer and maybe you can talk about how the red tape act removes some of the duplicative efforts uh to streamline the review of an action the energy uh the eis

well it's pretty obvious uh representative fischbach that that um it eliminates the duplicative process and by requiring the epa to do duplicative reviews it's almost uh we're almost saying that the agency are incompetent to do the reviews. I don't believe that. I b- uh uh the Supreme, that's a position of the Supreme Court that the agencies uh are able to do this. So when you add this this extra layer of review, it slows the permitting process, which adds to the cost of pr- of of projects. As we learned uh during the four years of the Biden administration, when we had tw- about twenty percent, I think it was, cumulative inflation, that just delaying a project four years would add substantially to the pro cost of the project. So what we're trying to do, and and um, contrary to what my colleagues across the aisle believe, is we're trying to to maintain the environmental quality that we have. I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which we built environmental systems, so I'm very familiar with what goes into to um cleaning the air and the water and and and doing it the right way. But when you add layers uh here that delay the permitting process, you're adding

Thank you, Mister Palmer, and I I appreciate all of the authors for bringing these forward and for you taking the time to be here with us at Rules and thank you very much, and I yield back.

Now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mister McGovern, for his time of questioning and comment.

Well Well thank you very much and um anyway I'm I'm opposed to these amendments but um I like Mister Palmer and Mister Tonko so much I'm gonna

pass some questions. We'll be back. Thank you very much. Now recognize Mister Roy for his time of questions and comments.

I appreciate it. Gentlemen, I go back.

Gentlemen, he goes back now recognize uh Miss Scanlon of Pennsylvania for her co- questions and comments.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman. Look, uh, these bills appear to be just another Republican hand out to their donors in the oil and gas industry. It seems to be a cornerstone of the conservative agenda to our skies dirtier, the air we breathe less healthily, just to boost profits for corporations. If these bills will become law, they will make people sick. They're going to harm our children, and they'll allow states with already lax pollution enforcement standards to further undermine air quality. The district that I represent already has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country caused by en- environmental factors, so I cannot, in good endorse legislation which would increase the assault on their young their young lungs. So there's really only one constituency for gutting the Clean Air Act, and that is the polluters that the law keeps in check. So I will be opposing the legislation, all three bills. Mister Tonko, is there anything you wanted to add?

No, I think it's just I would highlight again that they already, the EPA already has the opportunity to exclude um certain emissions uh from uh you know, the uh prescribed burns and wildfires and the like. And uh in some cases they would be able to exempt state, within their state boundaries, some of the pollution that's occurring. So uh it is again a gift to the uh polluters.

So there's already flexibility to address instances where someone's able to make a good case as opposed to a blanket overturning of regulations.

Exactly.

Thank you. I yield back.

And I yield back now, recognizing the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Scoppers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I, I don't have any questions on the language, but I do, I do wanna I wish I could say this in a private conversation, but I can't. So I do wanna say it. Uh, the Easter Sunday post about annihilating a civilization is not OK. I won't, it's not. And posting a picture

Gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from

Thank you.

colorado mr. neguse for his time questions and comments

thank you uh thank you mr. chairman what and i certainly as a man of faith would agree with my colleague from uh from georgia wanna say thank you to representative palmer and uh representative tonko for being here uh to talk about these three bills that the the committee is gonna uh our committee is gonna consider uh mister palmer i wanted to talk a bit first about the fire act so Help me understand, in your view, what does this bill do?

I thank my friend from Colorado for the question. Um, I think what it does is allow states to take action to mitigate against uh uh fires that not only can cause extreme damage because of of how hot they burn, but also reduces the amount of pollutants that that are emitted. Um, being able to go in and and do control burns uh to do um wildfire mitigation like removing dead wood and fuel from from the forest floor changes uh what gets emitted into the atmosphere so if you could do that and do it on a regular basis and i think um you know maybe twice over every five years uh would be acceptable you what you wind up burning in the control burns is is uh the fire is not nearly as hot and you don't have uh a

OK. So, as I understand it, this legislation, or at least according to the author of the legislation and I think based off your description, what the bill does is it excludes prescribed burns from the definition under the relevant law, such that it does not count towards the calculations that are rendered by the EPA in terms of determining whether an area would be in a non-attainment or attainment zone by virtue of pollution. Fair enough?

It's that plus, um, um, removing some of the impediments, regulatory impediments against the the prescribed burns.

Which impediments?

Well, there's there's, um, things that the states or private landowners have to to get in order to, uh, to do that, and particularly in California. And I think, uh, Colorado's experienced some pretty fires as well and it's particularly a problem on federal lands

sure

and that that's something that i think the uh natural resources committee has has taken up uh and you're on that committee you're well aware of of of some of the issues that

correct but not on this bill

that are holding back

i guess is what i'm saying i i'm i guess this as i because this bill is a pretty short bill basically it's five pages i think six pages it's

yeah yeah

it's just saying under the statute that prescribed burns

yeah

right are now considered an activity that would not be counted towards the

But

hot the pollution.

that's right. But but under prescribed burn you're gonna have less emissions um

Okay.

or less problematic emissions than you would if you had a massive wildfire.

I understand your argument there. So I guess here's what I'm getting at, and I uh start perhaps a better way for me to frame the question. Earlier this year, or rather earlier last year, uh on October sixteenth of twenty twenty five, the trump administration published a memo via the epa under administrator lee zeldin i'm gonna read you an excerpt of that memo quote it's the policy of the us environmental protection agency that any regulatory provisions that would limit strategic deployment of prescribed fire should not be included in clear air act state implementation plans as part of the control strategies for attainment or maintenance of the naaqs right are you familiar with that

i'm not familiar with the memo no

ok But I will also tell you that in twenty sixteen the EPA promulgated specific guidance around wildfires and prescribed burns. The point I'm getting at here is that as best as I can understand, what this bill seeks to accomplish is already existing law. So, I'm not familiar with anything that bars the state of Alabama or the state of Colorado

Mm.

Right.

Yeah, I'd I'd Yeah, I'd Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can exclude this, but the process to determine what emissions that qualify as an exceptional event. Like I said, it's very complicated. That that has and time-consuming and it's uncertain for the state. So what we're trying to do is is get some uh uh certainty,

Right.

but they do not easily qualify as an exceptional event because they're man-made activities. Uh so uh emissions from wildfires rarely qualify as an exceptional event, but emissions from wildfire mitigation activities uh intended to reduce the frequency or severity of wildfire fires do not. this is what we're uh i think um the gentleman from colorado mister evans and gentleman from california mister gray are trying to address

uh i think uh and i'll move on cause i know we have other bills to discuss although uh if representative tonko wants to expound on this we welcome him to that i think we just have a fundamental disagreement about the the nature of the the type of relief that this bill seeks to achieve because as i understand it what this bill is doing is essentially kind of a blanket style policy versus the current procedures that are being implemented by the trump epa and were implemented by the biden epa and the obama epa where essentially if a state wants to pursue a prescribed burn and wants for purposes of this attainment non-attainment classification, wants to be able to make sure that those don't count uh that they go through the process um with the epa but i understand your argument is that that they shouldn't have to or there should just be a blanket policy that that this is something that is worth pursuing,

Right. If I may, um, uh, I'd I'd like to point out between twenty sixteen, twenty twenty three, no tribe, state or local agency successfully used an exceptional events demonstration for prescribed fires and in twenty twenty four, the EPA only approved one. So, I I do think

How many were submitted?

Uh, well, that I don't know, but uh, my guess is

I mean, that would be a pretty important data point.

Well, I'll I'll be happy to provide that information to the to you,

Yes, sir.

uh, Representative Noguiss.

Yes, sir. Mr. Sanko?

Representative Nguz, I would just say that there seems to have been a good balance struck here with states giving flexibility given flexibility to move for an exemption, and the EPA maintaining a certain standard so that uh that

Wow.

balance is very delicate but it's been struck and I think it uh has worked well.

Yeah. I I certainly agree. Um, I think, Mister Palmer, it'll become a no surprise to you that I feel the same way about the Fences Act. and obviously we have a disagreement on that bill. And again, kind of explaining that bill to a layman, my understanding is essentially what you're trying to do is to exclude foreign pollution sources that may be impacting a particular community from the determination as to whether or not that community is in attainment or non-attainment of the goals that the EPA promulgates under the Clean Air Act for what is an acceptable level of Fair?

Uh, yes. I I I do agree that that it is unfair for the states to be uh required

OK.

to meet these standards when, for instance, in California, twenty-five percent of the particulate matter is a foreign source.

OK. So let me why don't we walk through a hypothetical, although it's actually not so much a hypothetical, because we live at uh in Colorado. Let's assume that you have a state or a jurisdiction jurisdiction, I should say, uh, you know, a couple of counties in the metro area around Denver that are in non-attainment, right? So, by that I mean the EPA has determined that this particular area is not attaining the pollution goals, right? That they're essentially exceeding the goals for what would be acceptable pollution, and as a result, a lot of folks may be getting asthma, you may be creating, you know, respiratory diseases that are metastasizing in the population. That jurisdiction argues, let's say, that it is in part because of foreign pollution. Right?

Mm-hmm.

This bill would essentially allow that jurisdiction to make that argument and to evade any kind of prophylactic steps that they would otherwise be required to take to reduce the pollution in their community. Is that right?

I think that what you run into here is that you underestimate the ability to determine the source

Sure. Oh, well, no, but I'm saying what if you're right? Well, no, but I'm saying what if you're right? I, I

Oh.

I I guess I'm maybe that was way too complex,

Well, if if we're right, here here's the thing.

too complex of a

I uh in addition to work for the engineering companies, I grew up dirt poor. And uh and and shared a bedroom when my brother had cardboard between two floors. And one of the things when we talk about environmental impact for things like asthma, childhood asthma, uh most people start thinking about it as just the air pollution. It it really isn't. Uh that that could be a mitigating uh circumstance that that on that end. But it's also indoor It's it's uh uh insect uh uh fecal matter, it's it's mites, it's dust. Uh, it could be the failure to um uh to uh mitigate dust from from roadways uh for people who live uh close to that. So there are a lot of things that impact um air quality

W- I hear you, Mr. Palmer.

and and impact these things that that I think

L- let me

But let me finish my point uh, Mister Ndegeus. It's that i- if you really wanna talk about the impact of health, what you wanna do is create better jobs. You wanna uh give people more opportunities to live in better housing, have uh eat better, live better, uh have better access to health care. And when when you start imposing these regulations based on uh a source of pollution that that uh a locality has nothing to do with that they can't control,

Sure.

then you start impacting uh economic opportunity for for people.

And uh and I understand that's your argument, and I'm so let me Let me give you the counterpoint, OK? If you are in the most polluted zip code in the United States of America, OK? And in that zip code, we establish that fifty percent of the pollution in that zip code comes from foreign sources. That does not mean that the pollution that that per- that residents in that zip code are experiencing is not deeply destructive to their health. And I think the concern I have about this bill basically what this bill is saying is look if you're in that deeply polluted zip code if the city or the jurisdiction or the multi-county jurisdiction can prove that some of that is from foreign pollution such that you would actually no longer be considered uh you know in the non-attainment zone you don't have to do anything about it and i'm not i i understand the necessity for perhaps

mmm

some other legislation that we could work together on bipartisan legislation to try to enforce standards international, such that we can stop the foreign pollution that's permeating a lot of the Rocky Mountain West. Just by way of example, as you probably know, the vast majority of the non-attainment counties and jurisdictions are in the west, the western part of our country, west of the Mississippi.

Mm-hmm.

And a lot of that has to do with foreign pollution. But that does not make it any easier for my neighbors to breathe clean air in Colorado. And that's my point. I I don't this legislation I I've given you plenty of time. uh uh mister tanko i wanna give you an opportunity if you if you're so inclined

no i i you know i i see the uh the attempt here is to uh to you know allow groups communities or or you know allow groups communities or or um um eh communities in general to bypass responsibility and that responsibility may come in various formats but when it comes to the environmental impact we should do all we can to give them the tools they require and demand that that be done and again i think allowing for exemptions um excluding them from the um uh certain situations is a tender balance and it and it has been maintained by epa if epa is implementing its

yeah

its standards uh uh uh effectively and uh we would hope that they are

i i i certainly agree with you and i appreciate the chairman's indulgence i think this debate would be a lot different if we replaced pollution with poison nobody nobody would argue you know, again, you you could uh of course uh be indignant about the fact that there are foreign sources of poison that might be impacting you. But you still gotta do something about it. You're not you're not gonna let your community, you know, ultimately be harmed by that. You're gonna have to take some steps to hopefully rectify this situation. And I my fear here is that we're just basically saying no, it doesn't if if it's foreign, and if it's a foreign contribution of pollution, then you're off the hook. Um, and I I just don't think that's the way we should go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you a question. I don't know where this has come up in y'all's committee, but it's come up in my state of South Carolina about the dangers of chemtrails, its pollution. Uh, and some states have banned it, like Florida. I don't know what some others are. Hey, did y'all delve into that at all as far as the, uh, what it's doing to the environment?

We have not.

OK. Well, I have no, no questions. Thank you.

OK.

Gentleman yields back, seeing no further individuals wishing to ask questions. I thank the panel for being here, and we will take a brief recess while we move to the next panel. Thank you.

Thank you.

I got this problem. I have no problem. You really want I now welcome our second panel, Representative Kelly and Representative Sanchez from the Committee on Ways and Means. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Kelly, I welcome you for your to testify here today and you are now recognized.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. So hey. Tax increase from taking. The data shows it is doing just that. By the end of March, more than twenty-three million taxpayers claimed new overtime deductions. More than five point six Americans claimed the deduction of a tipped income, and nearly half of all filers benefited from at least one of the new deductions designed to provide provide relief and reward hard work. That is not marginal. Real relief is being delivered in real time. Tax refunds are up over eleven percent. Over seventy million Americans have received tax rate funds this season, totaling two hundred and forty-one point seven billion dollars. That's a fourteen and a half percent increase over last year for an average of three thousand four hundred and sixty-two dollars. Remember what was at stake? A four trillion dollar tax hike inaction would have caused higher rates and lower refunds. Under the leadership of President Trump, Republicans stopped that. In addition, we made permanent and strengthened the tax code that recognizes An honest day's work should lead to an honest day's pay. In short, you get to keep more of your own hard-earned money. Building on the success of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that principle is now reflected permanently in law. If you work overtime, you get to keep more of it. If you earn tips, you get to keep more of it. If you're raising a family, the tax code supports you. If you receive social security benefits, eighty-eight percent of our seniors won't pay any tax. Now, as a father of four and grandfather of And I'm proud the Working Family Tax Cuts is making historic investments in our future, shaping a brighter and more prosperous destiny for future generations. More than four million children are enrolled in tax Trump tax accounts. So think about what that means for the next generation. Many of those children will receive a one thousand dollar initial investment growing tax-free. Trump accounts provide families and children a solid foundation to carry out their version of the American dream. Now let's talk about Main Street. Before s- before serving in Congress, I spent my entire career in the private sector as the ownership of a family-owned car dealership founded in nineteen fifty-three by my mother and father. I know what it's like to try to manage your business and meet payroll while making sure Washington gets its share too. My district is home to one of the highest concentration of small manufacturers. These manufacturers are aiding President Trump in his goal of employing American workers producing right here at home and buying Revitalizing the industrial might of the United States cannot happen without the restoration immediate expensing for equipment and research and development. The working family tax cuts made the twenty percent small business deduction permanent, providing an average of four thousand six hundred dollars in relief to eight million business owners. In total, more than twelve million small business owners will see an average of seven thousand five hundred dollars in tax relief. Now, there were when our family, the business would uh, would have enough money to make payroll, but not enough money to pay ourselves. It's reality in so many small business owners' face. These are real dollars that can be in re- in reinvested into workers, equipment, and expansion. From employers to employees, seniors, children. This law is reaching across our entire country and our economy. Now I come from a part of the country where people measure work a little bit differently. So when someone says they worked a half day, That means they work twelve hours, not four. That is the reality for millions of Americans, people who do not ask for special treatment but only fairness. And this law reflects that expectation. It aligns the tax code with how Americans actually earn a living. It stopped a tax increase. It guaranteed stability and certainty. And it gave families and businesses the opportunity to get more of their own money. But let's also take a second to thank Treasury Secretary Besant and IRS C uh, CEO, uh, their leadership on implementing the law and delivering on the promise of an increased level of taxpayer service has been incredible. Real businessmen understand how to run an organization by driving productivity and quality through technology, rather than a simple headcount. Modernizing delivery of service through technology has led to faster and larger refunds than ever before. This tax day, Americans are seeing the result of a clear policy choice. To let keep workers keep more of what they earn, to support families trying to get ahead, and to build a tax system that works with the economy and not against it. That is what the Working Families Tax Cut set out to do, and this fouling season, it's delivering. Thank you.

Gentleman Neal's back. Now recognize uh Miss Sanchez for her time.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and ranking member McGovern and members of the committee. After two weeks off, Congress has a lot to address. President Trump is weeks into an illegal war of choice in Iran, Americans are paying the sky-high prices at the gas pump, there has been no justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the President's promise of lowering costs for Americans is all but a distant memory. Instead of solving any of those problems, the Republicans are taking the time to pat themselves on the back about a bill that we've never passed. After all, the resolution we have before us is about a bill called, quote, the working family's Now I wasn't too sure, and I asked my staff, have we ever passed a bill in the House called the Working Families Tax Cuts Act? And sure enough, we haven't. The Republican tax cuts for the rich is so unpopular that they are now trying to change the name almost a year later. And the name isn't the only thing that they're trying to rewrite. They're also trying to hide what the bill actually does. Some of these tax benefits for working families are all well and fine, But of course, Republicans being who they are, they couldn't help but make sure that the wealthy and well-connected got the best deal. But don't take it from me, let's let the numbers do the talking. Under the one big ugly bill, a person making above one million dollars a year in twenty twenty seven, will get an average tax cut of over ninety-six thousand dollars. Meanwhile, a person making less than fifty thousand dollars will get just a two hundred and forty-seven dollar tax cut. That's barely This bill gave millionaires almost four hundred times the cuts it gave to average working Americans and how did we pay for this bag of goodies for the wealthy? Well first we took away health care from seventeen million Americans. We substantially cut food assistance for four million Americans. We cut subsidies for clean energy, ensuring that Americans would pay more for their energies bills for years to come. So you're kicking Americans off their health insurance, you're raising gas prices to six dollars a gallon and then stripping them of food stamps. But thank God they're gonna get that sixty eight cents a day, because Republicans really care about working families. And that's not all. The bill also cut taxes for the top one percent of Americans by at least a trillion dollars over the next decade. And granted seventy five billion dollars to the already bloated budget of the dangerous and out of control ICE agents roaming our streets and terrorizing our communities. Shockingly, after all that, the bill still costs four point seven trillion dollars. Republicans told us that economic growth would pay for it. They also told us that tariffs would pay for it. Never mind that the illegal tariffs were struck down, or that they raised prices on American families and alienated our trade partners. Never mind that GDP growth at the end of last year was just a measly half of a percent. So not only are the tax cuts for the rich being paid or on the back of American's health care and food security, they are being paid by your kids and your grandkids who will be footing the bill for this reckless bill for generations to come. President Trump's big ugly bill cost the American people far more than it got them. And slapping a half-assed resolution on the table eight months later as a PR stunt is not going to change that fact. I thank the members and I yield back.

You know, he yields back, now recognized uh, I have no questions, I agree.

Yeah, just briefly. Yeah, just briefly. Let me just say that um Americans are struggling. I mean, they, people are hurting. Uh, and the President's illegal war in Iran has put American lives at risk and caused prices of everything from gas to groceries to fertilizer to skyrocket. That's just a fact. Agencies like FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard are still not funded. We're not, we have, we still President Trump promised to lower prices on on on day one. That was his promise. But instead of address addressing any of these important issues, Republicans want us to vote on a non-binding resolution that basically, um, as Miss Sanchez says, pass them on the back for a bill you passed last July. Mister Kelly, is it your testimony today that this resolution accurately describes the impacts of the bill Republicans named the one big beautiful bill act that became law last July?

So, aren't we talking about the share of taxes paid by by the American people?

No, I'm just saying is is the bill that we're dealing with right now, does it accurately describe the impacts of the bill that you guys called, the one big beautiful bill act that you played?

Yeah, we actually called it the working families tax cut. Uh, I I do think, Mister McGovern

But you you you you just changed that name. That's not what you called it when you passed it.

Well

So so I anyway

Well, I I guess it's my option to call it what I want,

You can call it I I call it the big I call it the big ugly bill,

so I I think you can call it anything you want, but so if you're asking me a question

so that's my option.

No, okay, I I get it.

But look,

I get it.

but but you know, but this resolution says that your big beautiful bill uh prevented a major tax hike from occurring. But I I don't see anything in the resolution that mentions that the reason why was because Republicans back in twenty seventeen scheduled tax cuts for working people to expire at the end of twenty twenty five while making major tax cuts for corporations permanent. Um, I don't I don't see that reflected in this bill. Um, correct me if I'm wrong. And in January, the White House put out a press release stating that the big ugly bill, I'm gonna call it, call it what I want, will cause average refunds to rise by quote, one thousand dollars or more this year. I mean, that's what the, what the White House put out. But according to the latest IRS statistics, refunds are up just like three hundred and forty-six dollars. That's sixty-five percent lower than what President Trump promised. And these refunds are being completely, completely, completely,

yeah well i i think that uh

yes

when you look at talking about the math of things uh the gas price that we are facing right now today uh pales in comparison to what it was previous administration, uh, when you look at the actual dollars that we're talking about. So and that's previous administration there was no there was no conflict taking any place in the wor in the in the in the wor world, but we still saw gas prices go up and up and up, and we haven't reached that level yet, and I would say that pretty soon we're going to see it drop down. So when the state of emergency was closed, gas prices went up, market prices changed, uh, but in the previous four years there was no there was no conflict anywheres and yet the price of gasoline was much higher than it is today.

So, the price of gas today, I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, is way higher today than it was when Trump first took office, even though he promised that he was gonna lower prices on day one. In your resolution you talk about how the one percent is gonna pay a greater, quote, greater share of total income taxes. But the truth is that your

Thirty-two cents.

big ugly bill showered the wealthy in in tax cuts that they don't need. And, and don't just take my word for it, based on estimates from the Nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the top twenty

OK, well, just to to correct this a little bit, Just to to correct this a little bit, the average gas price under President Trump is thirty-two cents lower today the average gas price, under President Trump, is thirty-two cents lower today, than it was under President Biden, that's without any conflict in the mid-east. Uh, so that was just driven be- because that's where they wanted to put it.

Are gas prices higher,

So I get all that.

are gas prices higher today than when Trump took office?

Under the Biden administration, it was higher.

So, so, oh, so you're saying that the gas prices are not higher today than when Trump took office?

No, I didn't say that they weren't higher than when Trump took office,

Oh, no, but I'm just saying, yeah, I, I

but I'm saying that's still thirty-two cents less a

The guy that compared it

gallon than it was under the previous administration.

The,

So,

the guy that,

if you wanna compare apples to apples,

the guy that you were in the ambulance with,

let's compare apples to apples.

they were all afraid to take on. basically said it's a lower prices than day one he he he we were all misinformed so gas prices i i don't know about how it is in in your district but i'll tell you my district people are not at all happy with the trajectory of the way gas prices are going right now and i'm hearing it from

yeah yeah

you know people all over in rural areas in suburban areas and in urban areas um an article published in february sixth um this year in political states quote republicans tax cuts shave billions off amazon's tax bill The company says it ran a one point two billion dollar tax bill last year, down from nine billion dollars the previous year, even as its profits jumped by forty five percent to nearly ninety billion dollars. Where in the resolution do you mention these corporate giveaways?

I don't think it's mentioned in the resolution.

OK, I mean I it just I think it's interesting that it's not mentioned. And and and and in this bill, you also get rid of the nearly one hundred year old tax on gun silencers and sawed-off shotguns. Um. this is what I call the hitman handout. Um, that's not mentioned, um, in this bill either. So, how did Republicans pay for all of these, you know, kind of handouts? By imposing the largest ever cut to Medicaid, a trillion dollars, and the largest ever cut to the Affordable Care Act and SNAP by adding four point seven trillion dollars to our national debt. But, but the resolution that kind of costs all that, that you guys are patting yourself on the back about, doesn't mention any of that. Um, you know, I mean, nothing. I mean, am I am I don't think am I missing something here?

No, I don't think I think you're straight on your talking points, that's what you wouldn't have to say and I I understand what you're saying.

Yeah, OK. I don't

I don't agree with you, I I uh

Well, no, but these these are

I've actually lived the previous four years under the previous administration.

This is this is not my this is not my opinion. Um, it's uh these are these are these are facts by reputable, you know, no a CBO and non-partisan um, you know, uh organizations. Why doesn't your resolution mention that because of cuts to food assistance in the big ugly bill the two point five million low income adults and children have already been kicked off a snap, including over a hundred thousand people in your home state of Pennsylvania.

No, I don't know. I don't have the same figures you have.

Yeah, but that, I mean, that's just that's the impact.

Well, I'm gonna assume what you're s- you're you're bringing up,

Yeah. And and what about the fifteen million Americans who will lose their health care,

I I get that.

including one million who have already lost their uh their ACA coverage because of the um of the cuts in the big ugly bill? I mean, you know, when I talk said at the beginning that people are struggling, I mean, I'm talking about, you know, regular people who are, who are basically seeing their lives becoming more difficult and complicated because of the bill that, uh, you're, you, you're all patting yourself on the, on the back on. I mean, it's true, nothing about this resolution, um, including the title, um, accurately depicts the Republican tax bill. Um, and, um, you know, and I, um, I, again, I'm, I'm still kind of amused by the name change, as if somehow that's all that needs to be done so that people don't realize uh the uh terrible impact that the Big Ugly Bill has had on on regular families. Like all you need to do is change the name and and boy that solves all the problems. I mean I um I don't think that this bill uh that you passed is either big or beautiful. Um and um and as somebody who represents a working class district, I I gotta tell you, if they heard anybody, Democrat or Republican, say that somehow we all should be grateful for Donald Trump and that everything is going really hmm

no i think you've uh

i mean uh

spit a lot of facts today and i think people will do well to look at the numbers as you've given them um it's very clear

uh i i i don't really have anything else to i yield back my time but

gentleman yields back now recognize uh uh gentleman from texas mr. roy no questions i yield back gentleman yields back now recognize the gentleman from colorado mr. neguse

thank you mr. chairman uh thank you mr. kelly and uh miss sanchez just wanna pick up uh where our ranking member left off

you're good

so mr. kelly this is a resolution, not a bill. Correct?

Yes.

Okay. The resolution is non-binding. Is that right?

You don't want to Yes. Yeah.

What w- what was that?

It's non-binding.

It's non-binding. Okay. If it passes the House, it passes the Senate, it's signed into law by the President, nothing changes. Correct?

Correct.

Okay. But Can you You said yes?

Yes.

That nothing changes. Okay. So, pretend I'm a constituent of yours in Erie, Pennsylvania, walking down the street, and I say, " Congressman Kelly, what'd you do this week in Washington?" You say, " I passed a resolution commemorating a bill that I voted for a year ago." This resolution achieves nothing, changes nothing, does nothing. Right?

I have for a while, yeah, I I walk down the streets of Erie quite a bit, I don't actually have people coming up to me and saying those type of things, so.

No, no, no, I'm asking you.

No, I I know you're asking me, you are you are you from Erie?

What was that?

Are you from Erie? I mean, you're you're presupposing that you're from Erie,

I'm not from, no, I'm from Colorado.

so so somebody comes up to me in the streets of Erie and says, oh, let me tell, let me differentiate about what it is you're talking about,

Got it, got it, okay, alright, well, maybe bad hypothetical.

because I'm confused.

Let's pretend I'm a congressman from Colorado.

Which you are.

And I'm asking you,

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

what would we do this week? What does this resolution do?

Well, uh, you know what, I would, I would only say this, uh, of the years that I've been here. And I, and I mean this sincerely. It would be nice if for a change we would take a look at the efforts on both sides of the aisle to improve the working conditions and the incomes of every single American. I don't care how they're registered or how they're voted, whether they, whether they,

But, but, let's do that.

where they practice. So, but but we put something forward that actually makes sense,

But this isn't bad. No, but this isn't bad.

and really and really does a much better job.

But, Mister Kelly, I guess what I'm saying is, y- you could have decided this week, you know what? Congress has been on Easter recess for two weeks. It's time to address a healthcare crisis in our country. Let's put a bill on the floor, bipartisan, democratic bill, republican bill, you name it, we're gonna put some ideas on the floor. You could put a tax bill on the floor.

Well, well, here here's, this may help.

Hmm. Hmm.

So, this founding season has been a massive success. Thanks. changes in the working family's taxes. The most recently available IRS data shows that over two hundred and forty one billion dollars have been refunded two hundred forty one no but no you're asking me

No, no, I I know, I I agree.

what I would say to somebody.

I'm not asking you about the benefits of the bill. I'm I I I get it, I understand that you believe that the bill that you all have renamed, okay, I get it, you believe that that bill has made the lives of the American public better. I disagree, but I understand that's your argument. That's not what I'm asking you.

Mm-hmm. Okay.

What I'm saying is You serve on one of the most important committees in the United States Congress. I I assume you'd agree.

I do.

Right? Yeah, Ways and Means Committee.

Yes. With Miss Sanchez and

With Miss Sanchez, wide jurisdiction.

Yeah. Wide jurisdiction.

Right? Over a lot of challenges that are facing the country. And I'm just trying to understand why you've decided to spend this week considering a commemorative resolution. That's it. I I that's the question.

well yeah i guess you would have to ask why how the process works and why is it on the why is it here this week that we're doing i don't know uh i watched last fall we we we didn't spend any time here and now this year uh we're also spending i think so i don't know how many days now we've been been shutdown in certain parts of the government i i think people ask me more than anything else what is wrong with you people and so we're putting this forward so we can show the features and benefits and add value to the american people uh yeah uh i think they seem to be but that's kind of my point

yeah i would say mr. killi I think that your chairman um has put you in a in an impossible position I mean he it's not fair I think to you to have you present this resolution on behalf of the committee because I the the honest the honest reality is I think we all would concede right if we're being honest that there are far better ways for the united states congress to spend its time than debating resolutions that commemorate bills that were passed by the united states

No.

Oh, how long?

No, no, since two thousand eleven.

Oh, since two thousand eleven. I'm sorry. How long is that? Sixteen years.

Yes.

Can you recall an instance where you've had a resolution that you're voting on commemorating a bill that you've passed?

That's a, that's a good question, and I've been in in here when we're in the majority and when we're in the minority, and I've often asked myself the same thing when I go back home.

Sure. Yeah.

And in fact, the people that I represent ask me the same thing from time to time. So I, I would think,

What's the answer?

We can debate, we can debate this back and forth, well, was it worthwhile, was it not worthwhile, I think it's very important for people to see the features and benefits, they're gonna add to their real life and real dollars and cents.

That sounds, that that sounded like a note, Mister Kelly.

This is, this is what we thought. Well, but,

Sounded like a note to me.

to you it may sound like a note, to me it sounds like what you just asked me, so what did we talk about?

You know what I'm saying is, you've been here a long time,

I have, I have.

far far longer than I have. I'm just trying to get a sense of, is this normal, is this usually what happens, that you pass a law, and then a year later you s- you do a holiday to celebrate that law,

No, no, no. I'm so so, Rep, what I would suggest. So if you were back in Colorado and somebody said, what does this thing that they're talking about mean to you?

I would just tell them.

And you say, yeah, tell them it's four thousand three hundred dollars a year.

I wouldn't pass a resolution. I don't need to pass a resolution of the Congress to tell them.

And worth it. I know.

I could just tell them. I could say, I passed this law, I voted for it, and here are the ways that it's impacting your family.

OK.

I don't have to waste everybody's time and go through

No, you uh, you're absolutely not. I've I've been I've been here too long to listen to one-sided arguments about about who struck John. I listen, I I would think that the American people expect an awful lot more out of both parties, all the time, not part of the time, but all the

Here's what I can promise you.

So I've watched wasted time,

No.

excuse me,

Got it.

I've watched it, we've wasted more time. Nobody in the private sector would run a business this way. Nobody in the private sector would continue down these roads and say,

I agree with you on that.

this is the right way to do it.

Sure.

Unfortunately, that's the way the model works.

Well, you and I oughta fix it.

So we're on the same page.

I I mean, let's and that's what I'm saying, I you uh you have this commitment from me, her here's what I'll tell you, is that, you know, we've I introduced a lot of bills, uh, you know, to challenge, uh, to address various problems, public lands issues, forest management, And I am not gonna introduce a resolution. If I get one of those bills signed into law, I'm not gonna introduce a resolution that honors that bill. I I'll just leave it at that bill and let the American

Okay.

people decide whether or not it was in their interest or not. And I'm I'm gonna ask that perhaps you make that same commitment. What do you think?

Yeah, well, I I would just tell you this. Um, I'll look forward to do working with you over the next time.

Okay. All right.

So if you do introduce something, I'll say, I remember one time you and I sat in a rules committee,

Okay.

and you and you you challenged me on this.

All right.

So So let's at the end of the day,

I will say, although

let's just listen to me anyway this already is live it's already working and the american people

i hear you i will close on this

are doing quite well under this or is it perfect no it's not perfect

i i no i know i i hear you but i'm just saying that it could have been a press release i mean this this this this could be accomplished with a five minute interview you know on a television show we don't need to

yeah yeah

we don't need to get the machinery of the us house representatives to pass proclamations to honor laws that were passed previously uh and

ok alright

obviously as the ranking member said you know the convenient name change that you know you all have landed on uh what are you calling it now the

we're Working Families Tax Cuts. Yeah.

Who, when did you d- make that decision?

What was it? Uh, I didn't come up with that myself, actually.

Who came up with it?

It was it was presented, I I think it came out of ways and means.

When?

Uh, I think it came out of ways and means and we changed the name on it from the one big,

What?

beautiful bill.

When was that?

And I will just tell you, I can't give you the exact date and time.

'Cause I, I gotta tell you, I looked, I searched the bill,

Did you find it?

it's, it's a long bill, hundreds of pages.

And it's a long bill. It is.

Do you know how many times the Working Families Tax Cut is mentioned?

I don't know.

None.

No? Okay. So you're happy with the new tax cut?

Not in the bill. No, no, no, your title, the title you just referenced

Your title, the new title. No, that's good.

cannot be found.

Yeah, yeah, well.

Whatever you all are calling it today,

I don't I don't think,

not on the bill.

you know, but it's honestly, so I don't think whenever we would have named it, you wouldn't be happy with the way it was named.

I, you know, you're probably right, but

But working families, tax cuts is something that every single American understands,

I I hear you, Mr. Kelly.

especially working families.

And I I'm not, I don't begrudge, I get it.

No, I don't begrudge you either.

I I'm just I'm just saying that, you know, maybe we can move on from name changes to bills and proclamations honoring bills, and we can just get to the nitty-gritty of trying to try to Mr. Sanchez, Sanchez, if you care to expound on this.

Perfect.

Sure. While Mister Kelly thinks that it's important to, uh, trumpet the wonderful things in this bill, I I wanna I wanna give folks a reality check. Um, CBO estimates that the bill, whatever you wanna call it, but it certainly is not the working family's tax cut bill, um, will make the bottom twenty percent of households worse off. They will lose more in cuts from assistance programs and health care that then they're going to gain. The average household income will fall by one thousand two hundred dollars, that's three point one percent, for those with incomes in the bottom ten percent of the income scale. So we're talking about the people who need help the most. While ri rising by thirteen thousand six hundred uh dollars or two point seven percent, for those with incomes at the top tenth percent. So there's nothing that's working families about this. This is definitely a giveaway to those at the top. And I I we heard about refunds, I just wanna fact-check this as well, because a new Center for American Progress report found that Trump's promise to increase tax refunds by one thousand dollars or more has actually fallen flat filing season ends tomorrow and the average refund so far is just three hundred and forty-six dollars up from a year ago and that average is heavily influenced by refunds

Here, here. Thank you, Miss Chancher. I yield back to Mr. Chairman.

Chairman, your's back now, Rick.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Miss Sanchez, you said that gas was six dollars a gallon in the State of California. Is that correct?

Yeah, some places it's above six dollars an a a gallon. It it varies, but it's definitely above five dollars a gallon. Uh, I normally fill my gas my gas tank up and it costs around fifty, fifty-two dollars. Eh, last time I filled it up, last week, seventy-five dollars. And I drive a hybrid, which gets

i drive an f three fifty um so cost me a little more to fill up but i i wanna get back to the six dollars that you said it cost in california um you know how much gas costs in georgia right now

no idea

it is depending where you are metro versus rural it's somewhere around three dollars and fifty to three dollars and sixty cents a gallon

and how's the air quality there

it's great it's wonderful especially in in rural georgia

really

But, I mean, the the problem

Well, I bet anywhere rural probably has better air quality than an urban city.

Well, I mean, Atlanta, uh, you know, I mean, I I'm in Atlanta a fair amount, in fact, I'm there twice a week, um, but but I live in in rural America. But I would just suggest to you that Atlanta is a metro area just like you represent a metro area. I mean, the problem is you got Gavin Newsom taxing the citizens of California two dollars and thirty cents a gallon more than than the governor of Georgia is. In fact, Well, the governor of Georgia suspended the gas tax for sixty days. Uh, and and my question for you is why doesn't Gavin Newsom do something like that to help the citizens of of California?

Well, I think that the

We we all we all acknowledge that gas prices are higher today than they were a few weeks ago. But let let's I mean, Republican governors have tried to help their citizens by by cutting taxes, while governors like Gavin Newsom are more interested in putting the money uh in in the coffers of the state. So why doesn't why why doesn't the state

Well, if you're giving me an opportunity to California cut their gas tax. If you if you will give me an opportunity to answer,

Okay.

I will say number one, I don't think this resolution mentions anything about gas prices. Uh, I could be wrong. You you brought the gas prices up. But but secondly, please on the plea you you asked me a question and I'm trying to You brought the six dollars up. I'm trying to answer if you'll not talk over me and allow me to give my answer. But but I don't believe the resolution mentions anything about gas price. But I'll tell you that those prices I are higher now because we are in a war that, um, the president feel the need to consult with Congress about, and because of tariffs that the President unilaterally imposed, which were found to be illegal by the Supreme Court.

Miss Sanchez, Miss Sanchez, that's not true. My question is, the delta?

It i- it is true. It is true, and and

Why is gas two dollars and thirty cents a gallon more in in the state of California than it is in the state of Georgia?

But it's higher in Georgia than it was when Trump first took office, the the the

I'm a- this is my time, I I'm asking you the question.

And I and I think I've answered it sufficiently, thank you.

No, the bottom, the bottom, you have not.

I I I I think I have.

It's a simple question, why is gas two dollars and thirty cents a gallon more in the Democrat-run state of California than it is in Republican states?

The California gas tax, for your information, is sixty cents a gallon, it's not two dollars and thirty cents a gallon.

You you ha- you have significant

There are federal there are federal taxes involved

you have significant

which are uniform throughout all of the states.

you have significant carbon fees in the state of California, your prices in California are two dollars and thirty cents a gallon more

And we're the fourth largest economy in the world.

Because of a And therefore it should be cheaper.

No, I I

Therefore it should be cheaper.

I it would be a lot cheaper if we weren't at war with Iran and if we

But

weren't trying to open a strait that was opened before we got into war with Iran,

I'm not

but call me crazy,

But gas

call me crazy.

Well, you I would call you that, but you take offense to it.

Well,

Um

no, you can you can call me crazy, but I'm gonna tell you that my constituents don't think I'm crazy. They know why their gas prices are higher now

Well, yeah, I I actually have to admit the less you're district,

than they were when Trump first took office.

the more

And they know why their grocery costs are higher, they know why their health care is higher,

Because you won't help us pass a farm bill.

because of no, because of bad policies passed by by this administration,

No.

All right, all right, okay, go, go, go, go, go, go.

Mr. Chairman, this is my time.

this Republican Party.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Rankin, thank you, Mr. Rankin.

My point is, gash

M- Mr. Scott and Sanchez, here's the problem.

The truth hurts. The truth hurts.

Stenographer has no idea what you all are saying because you're both talking at the same time.

Okay.

The gash is two dollars and thirty cents.

Well, the truth hurts.

So you all want to argue at some point, that's fine,

That's fine,

let's get a little bit more of it.

she's not going to answer the question,

It's God, I know, it's your time.

Mr. Chairman, it's my time. Gash is two dollars and thirty cents a gallon, more in the state of California than it is in the

And if you don't

than it is in the state of Georgia. The reason for that is because you have a democratic governor and total democrat control of the state legislature and so nobody in the state government does anything to help the citizens of California.

No, nobody does.

Now, it's my time.

Nobody, not one person.

He's, hang on, he's not asked a question yet.

As far as

Okay, Ar-

As far as DHS not being funded, you wanna talk about blockades, it's the Senate democrat blockade on a rule vote, on a procedural vote in the Senate that is the only reason that Department of Homeland Security, who does tremendous value to our country,

They got a slush fund.

is not funded.

They got a slush fund. And and the

Hang on, hang on. He hadn't asked a question yet. Go ahead, Scott.

She can't stop talking.

I just just got just

I mean, it's a the bottom line is Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats have run a blockade on the rule and will not allow a vote on DHS funding, and that is the only reason DHS is not funded, and that I yield.

Chairman yields back now, recognizer Miss Leisure Fernandez of New Mexico,

Well, hello,

her

and i think you wanna make a couple of points first is that over in the senate

i love it

yes

they have passed by unanimous consent twice twice a dhs bill twice

yep

and that unanimous consent what does unanimous mean uh representative sanchez uh represent it's not your time

no i mean all the people

representative sanchez what does unanimous mean does that mean that every republican senator said ok

yep

yes i agree

that means that a hundred percent of the people agreed And nobody disagreed.

But but right so so let's put let's correct that one.

Thank you.

And I think that Representative Sanchez, you were making a very valid point. Each state is gonna make its own decisions about what it wants to do with regards to state taxes, state policy. But what we have here is we have the Trump administration knowing, knowing that the straights of her moves, because the general would be a major problem if you decide to go into war, that it would lead to gas prices. And that's the point you were making, is that like uh uh really, it's like everybody's prices have gone up because of Trump's war, Trump's Iranian war tax. Is that what you were trying to say,

I yeah, and I was trying to

or not?

like connect it back to the original bill which doesn't give the tax relief that

so in fact there was a the federal reserve which is neither democrat nor republican the federal reserve just issued a report that pointed out that all of the core inflation before the war was all tied to trump's tariffs

hmm

illegal tariffs, right. Right. And this was even before the war with the Gulf of Strait. But let's get back to the issue of this uh big, beautiful bill, the big, beautiful bill. Um, and Representative Kelly, uh, I wanted to just ask you, I I I think you represent Greenville, is that correct?

I do, yes.

Uh, and do you represent uh UPMC Horizon Hospital in Greenville?

Uh, well, you know what, I I don't recognize that hospital.

ok well upmc horizon you know i actually tend to know all of the different hospitals in my district and my state because they're all so important right and i think that the rural hospitals are incredibly important uh and upmc horizon is one of the dozen of hospitals there's a dozen a dozen hospitals in pennsylvania that's at risk of closure because of the one big beautiful bill um in fact a recent report commissioned by the hospital health system association of pennsylvania this is pennsylvania uh said one of the nation's largest state hospital associations do you know that association

no tell me

uh well it's a hospital health system association of pennsylvania i don't know if they've come to uh meet with you but my hospitals from new mexico come to meet with me and they said that your bill uh that you're trying to rename now

yeah those those are figures you may have ma'am i don't have those figures but uh if we're talking about the working families tax cuts what where is it that you wanna go with the hospitals

well the working i love the fact that they changed the name what the fact that you changed the name why did you have to change the name you thought it was a big beautiful bill uh and so i'm going with it because medicaid reimbursements i'm quoting nicole stallings do you know nicole stallings no you don't know nicole stallings from pennsylvania

who i'm sorry who

nicole stallings she is the executive director of the hospital health care system of pennsylvania

no i don't know her

well i'm gonna read a quote medicaid reimbursements could drop to sixty four cents for every dollar of care provided for and that's why you're gonna lose so many people so that's why we i'm going to this because this is a direct result of your bill uh which now you wanna have a new name for uh in your district alone twenty two thousand people are gonna lose coverage uh how many people do you represent how many people do you represent

well ma'am ma'am you know what if you wanna share that information with me i'd like to see it i don't know what the source of your information

oh yeah i will i will

so we'll be glad to take a look at it

do we have it right here actually uh we will hand it over because these are things that i think you would wanna know uh how many people do you represent

yeah same as you three quarters of a million people

yeah so twenty two thousand that's a lot that means that anytime you go into a room uh you're gonna basically be looking at uh a room this size you're gonna be looking at two or three people who are losing their health insurance coverage and i think that that's really important i wanted to go into something else uh uh president trump Um, he recently said that because of this war that we were so heatedly debating earlier and it's in fact on gas prices, he said, um, open quote, "it's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, and Medicare, all these individual things. Uh, you can't do it on the federal. Uh, we have to take care of one thing, military protection. But all these little things, all these little scams that have taken place

are those your words or his

those are president trump's words do you agree with that do you

all these little things and all these little things so these things that we can't really care about i think he said to this go to the states i don't think he's

do you

all these

i don't think he said that we shouldn't be taking care of them

right well we we're in congress and it's our job to take decisions about where we gonna use our federal money for

ok

so do you agree with him that we shouldn't be using federal money for medicare medicay daycare oh do you don't know your bill do you don't know your bill your work your bill your your bill cut cut medicaid the way it paid for those tax medicaid the way it paid for those tax

No, no, no.

is by cutting Medicaid. You don't know that?

No, I, no, I know what, I I don't follow your district as much

Rep- Representative Sanchez

as you probably follow my district so I don't know what it looks like in your district I I really when you're talking about these things this is something that you've decided to to light on and say this is what we're talking about these people are losing their their benefits I don't I don't follow that line of thinking cause I don't think it's entirely correct and I don't know what your sources are.

No. Well I I just told you where this resources are. They're from U hospital and healthcare associations and you know what we're gonna make sure that we print that actually i have it right here i will provide it to you uh representative uh sanchez will you hand this to this report which i hope you care about what happens to the people in district and i'll tell you what happens to the people in my district we're gonna lose we're gonna lose

yeah i care about my district i care about your district i care about all the people in united states so

we we're gonna lose six world

What do you what what?

So I six. Six.

What about it?

We're gonna lose them.

Why you

They're gonna close because of the one big beautiful bill, which is only beautiful if you're a billionaire, because you took the money from Medicaid, you took the money from SNAP, you took the money from these programs that serve communities in districts like mine, and throughout Pennsylvania, and you used it to pay for taxes. Representative Sanchez, can you sort of, it sounds like the uh, you know, there's a little confusion about what that bill did. Can you clarify on that?

Sure, yeah. There were huge cuts to um the ACA um tax subsidies, there were huge cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates, and what I think people don't seem to realize is that rural hospitals disproportionately rely on the Medicaid um payments, in order to stay open and keep their doors open. So it doesn't just matter to the person on Medicare or Medicaid, um, because the rest of the community has those services because the hospital can afford them. When you have these deep cuts to these programs, um, they start shuttering specialties, and the very first to go is generally, um, OBGYN, labor and delivery. Um, that means that many women now are not gonna have access to that kind of, um, health care that they need. And, you know, If you're in a car accident and you need an emergency room, but because the Medicaid cuts made the hospital go under, you have to travel an hour to get the care that normally you would travel ten minutes to, um, that's gonna mean very bad outcomes and possibly deaths as a result of the fact that these deep, deep cuts put, um, hospitals in a untenable position of keeping their doors open.

Yeah, and I think that all of this discussion is about priorities, right? The, The reason I uh quoted President Trump and what he thinks we should be spending money on, which is his war uh in Iran, is because that's his priority, right? He's willing to spend billions uh on his war. Uh, we've already spent twenty five billion dollars. Like, that twenty five billion? That that would have kept all of these hospitals I'm talking about, uh, it could have really helped keep them open.

Mm.

the issue that we're talking about is where are your priorities are your priorities pursuing a war in iran or your priorities making sure that we have healthcare for americans and that's the issue that we are raising today now uh representative sanchez i am the last democrat uh i think on the panel is there anything else you wanna clarify about anything that was discussed today

yeah i just wanna mention that You know, there is one other issue that is really nasty that is in this bill, and that is it purports to try to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing government services, but many of these government programs, um, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for, but this is the first time that Congress is taking away senior citizens' Medicare benefits, um, because they are now making naturalized citizens, uh, ineligible, um, for Medicare, the Medicare

Well, thank you very much, and I with that I yield back. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Generally yields back. Uh, just to clarify a couple of points, uh, the name of the bill was changed by Senator Schumer by a motion on the floor of the Senate. It became HR one, the act, in order to make clarification for the public. It then it it was adopted by many on a Republican side, the moniker of the working families and tax cuts so that people could keep track of what the bill was because there are so many HR ones that one every term that floats around. And so that was the the clarification. In regard to uh some of the Medicaid language that happened, and there's there's a lot of things moving parts because it was a big bill. Um, what happened was there was an I don't I can't speak to other states, but in Virginia they previously, before Medicaid expansion, had not had what is sometimes called a sick tax or a provider tax. Virginia created one to pay its portion of its ten percent portion. of Medicaid expansion, but of course then the hospitals get reimbursed or the state gets reimbursed for the tax that the hospitals pay and it re it gives it back to the hospitals, currently in essence making it so Virginia's never paid its ten percent share. The tax went from allowed by the federal government to be reimbursed from five point nine nine or roughly six percent to if I remember correctly about three point five percent over a period of years by Senate action. And that's what many of the outside Absolutely not. Absolutely not. and we will take a brief recess before the next panel. What? What was that? Oh. Ralph, I'm sorry.

It's supposed to be the

Not the end. I've I've I've missed you, Ralph. No, no, no. I'm sorry. You didn't have any questions, alright. Alright, and we're just changing panels to the recess will be about thirty seconds, apparently.

Okay, so this is supposed to be the end.

Oh, what is this? Wow. So, what are we? Oh, oh, that's a lot. i have one hundred percent

so it's a good thing i have one hundred percent

that's just right there pretty sure

hmm

doesn't look like i'm going

alright

has she taken over

alright

i told you she'll understand what i mean what did i put oh it's the phone

it's probably dead oh my

I now welcome our third panel, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin from the Committee on Judiciary. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Jordan, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you. Thank you. madam chair uh the judiciary committee has conducted extensive oversight of the FISA program and we've seen a huge change from just a few years ago when congress last reauthorized section seven O two in the reforming intelligence and securing america act that law contained fifty six different reforms to the FISA uh law including title one and seven O two which is up uh as we all know for reauthorization now included new training process approval requirements before running a U. S. There were audit requirements, including uh audit uh requirements and accountability measures for those who misused the program, and enhanced reporting and transparency. In fact, we get some reports now on the number of US persons who were searched in the database, um, every quarter. Uh, these reporting and transparency requirements, such as allowing certain members of Congress and staff to attend foreign intelligence court proceedings. And the results are good. In twenty twenty one, before Rissa was enacted, the FBI reportedly uh, reported conducting nearly three million US person queries. An audit of those queries found that two hundred and seventy eight thousand times they did not comply with the rules. I think this is important. Just a few years ago, because of what we were we're doing requesting the inspector general to look at, we found that they were doing three million queries in one year, and two hundred and seventy eight thousand times in that respective year, they didn't follow the rules. They didn't follow their own rules. fbi agents ran queries on protesters donors to congressional campaigns, public officials, journalists, colleagues, and ex-girlfriends. But today, the story is totally different. Totally different. In the year after we passed our law, so last year. The fbi reported conducting just nine thousand and eighty nine us person queries, from three million to nine thousand. Of those nine thousand, hundred and twenty seven did not comply with the rules. And most of those a hundred and twenty seven were clerical errors, typo errors, when they were going through. the process. Twenty twenty-six is not twenty twenty-four. Thanks to Rissa, improper queries have fallen from the recent high of two hundred and seventy-eight thousand, to a hundred and twenty-seven. And due to the improved reporting required by the law, Congress has more insight than ever into the program's operation. Today, US person queries conducted by the FBI are audited to ensure compliance with applicable requirements and standard. The results of those audits and other information are provided to Congress on an annual, semi-annual, and as i said earlier even quarterly basis we're also all aware of the state of the world right now multiple recent isis inspired attacks here in the united states military operations in both venezuela and iran the seven O two program is incredibly important for protecting our national security and advancing our interest abroad in light of the progress that has been made and the threats we face we think a temporary short term extension of the program makes sense now that does not mean our job is over judiciary committee will continue to conduct aggressive oversight of fisa just like we've done for the past five years and we will continue to work on some things that we think will be helpful in the future but again twenty twenty six is not twenty twenty four and a short term clean extension of the seven O two uh part of fisa law is an acceptable outcome for the situation that we find ourselves in i think it's interesting that we are talking maybe i'll finish with this madam chair that we are talking months not years, we're not talking a ten year reauthorization, we're not talking a five year reauthorization, we're talking eighteen months after fifty-six reforms that have definitely worked while we're facing the threats that we face and while we're involved in the military conflicts that we're involved with. Again, I would urge a yes vote for uh the legislation, with that, we yield back.

Thank you, Chairman Jordan. Ranking member Raskin, you're up next.

Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, and uh thank you, Mr. McGovern. Uh, I also wanna thank uh my friend Chairman Jordan who's really done more to educate me on FISA seven O two than anybody um but I want to ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing President Trump and Stephen Miller's so-called clean extension of section seven O two of FISA the clean extension is a dirty deal the bill before us today leaves the Trump administration in charge of policing its own abuses of this sweeping authority that is going to be unacceptable to the American people who understand how our privacy rights and civil liberties are being trampled every day. FISA needs independent guardrails and my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee acknowledge as much. Simply put, we must reform FISA to protect our privacy and civil liberties and ensure that section seven O two will not be used to spy illegally on Americans. Many of you know that I voted in twenty twenty four with most House Democrats and most House Republicans to reauthorize section seven O two without warrant requirement. At the time I was persuaded that the specific reforms adopted by the Biden administration and codified in the twenty twenty-four reauthorization, as the chairman explains, would provide sufficient safeguards against government abuse of the privacy rights and civil liberties of the people. These reforms relied on internal watchdogs to keep the intelligence agencies in line and on the administration to accurately report its own abuses to Congress and to the courts. But those reforms now depend on Trump administration officials to respect the law, which is, I am afraid, oxymoronic, if not just moronic. After returning to the White House, Donald Trump quickly removed the Office of Internal Auditing, the internal watchdogs, charged with verifying FBI's representations that the reforms are actually being put into place. President Trump then illegally fired a majority of the members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which was set up as an independent body to guarantee the privacy and civil liber- liberties of the people in the operation of FISA. The Department of Justice then reassigned other key compliance personnel. The FBI shut down its independent compliance office. The administration's recent claim that FBI compliance exceeded ninety-nine percent in both twenty twenty four and twenty twenty five might be true but the people charged with checking this claim are gone and even one percent non-compliance if they are to be trusted could mean that the data of thousands of American citizens has been illegally accessed and compromised by the FBI and the truth is that the FBI has no idea how many times its analysts have accessed US person information in the last year as we speak the intelligence community is using a system that the FISA court himself has deemed unlawful and inconsistent with the statute. The details of this case remain inexplicably classified, and the DOJ seems to be waiting until the last possible minute to indicate whether the government will fix this problem or appeal the decision. But the point is that the agencies appear to have constructed a way to work around the prior guardrails that we've put in place and neither DOJ nor ODNI has any way to count how many times that workaround has actually Ninety-nine percent compliance, maybe, but only if you think the FBI has come up with a way to give us an accurate count, and only if you trust Kash Patel to give us an honest self-assessment in the first place. Look, times have changed since twenty twenty four. The watchdogs are gone. We cannot take at face value the representations of an administration that routinely violates Americans' constitutional rights, lies to federal judges, and defies court orders. Those who argue for a blank check are telling the American people they can rely on Kash Patel to report to Congress when the FBI abuses its seven O two authorities. Can we really trust them to operate section seven O two consistent with the law? Without proper guard guardrails, US person information is ripe for abuse. It can and has been abused to spy on American citizens. In twenty twenty two, the FISA court detailed an historical pattern of noncompliance inquiries queries of the FBI improper searches swept in elected officials, campaign donors and Black Lives Matter protesters among others. President Trump has made it clear he's in favor of mass surveillance. Uh his administration has built profiles on American citizens, demanded that AI companies assist the government in mass surveillance, and paid Palantir hundreds of millions of dollars to build a mega database of Americans' personal data. The president has made clear he sees FISA as a tool a president abuse to spy on his political opponents how can we possibly trust him to operate section seven O two consistent with the law Madam Chair we've got time to get this right voting no on the clean reauthorization does not mean seven O two suddenly turns off in April FISA allows existing certifications to continue past the sunset and the FISA court has certified seven O two programs through March of next year it's nonsensical to think that the administration which has gutted so many internal oversight functions engaged in mass surveillance, and daily violates people's rights, can be trusted to police itself with this sweeping authority. Congress must enact strong guardrails on seven O two. Let's start by opposing a clean reauthorization. I will vote no when this comes to the floor later this week. If it does, I encourage my colleagues to do the same. And I thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Raskin. Um, Mr. Jordan, you want to respond to anything that Mr. Raskin

uh well my my my friend from maryland talked about all these abuses all the abuses happened when democrats were were in the white house i mean the numbers i gave you the two hundred and seventy eight thousand times they didn't follow the rules that was in the the previous administration go back to title one go back to twenty sixteen we all know what happened we all know that the the clinton campaign the democrat campaign hired the law firm perkins cooey who hired the public relations firm fusion gps who hired a foreigner christopher steele who then wrote a document, they gave the fancy name dossier, that was used by the Obama administration, the Comey FBI, to go take it to the FISA court. Again, this is title one, but this was abuse, took to the secret court, lied to the court, got the warrant to go spy on the other party's campaign. That happened in American politics, in American election. So, um, you know, we, you talk about times have changed, they have. We went from two hundred and seventy-eight thousand times this this, the FI the seven O two program was abused, where they didn't follow the rules, to a hundred and twenty i would argue that's a result of the good work of the congress and the RISA act we passed two years ago they had the fifty six reform so yeah times have changed i think they've changed for the much better and that's why i'm not opposed to a short term eighteen month extension

um what what is your response to mister raskin saying that the um we're not facing a deadline um of uh april twenty but that um this can go on because we've heard this today.

The FISA court, yeah. Have we reauthorized the rules? Uh, I've heard that argument, I think uh I I never try to get in too many debates with the constitutional law professor, Mister Raskin, but you know that's gonna get challenged in court. If we don't reauthorize the law, and there's no reauthorization of the seven O two program, and the administration is simply banking on what the FISA court said when they approved the rules presented to the FISA i think that's gonna get challenged in court we probably don't want that when they're we're in the middle of two conflicts and we've had multiple um multiple terrorist attacks and and and threats here on the homeland so i think that is a big concern and i would argue better to reauthorize much better to reauthorize that's what the deadline is next next tuesday so i would argue we should do that versus going to court and having the the the fight in the court

uh one more question can you expand on the non-compliant queries conducted by the fbi that were discovered due to the accountability reforms implemented from reissa

well uh the so i think you're asking now that we've passed the bill there's been a handful most of those were just typos different clerical mistakes in the process they go they gotta get approval from someone maybe they didn't get the the the official sign off from someone before they did the it's it's could be those kind of thing so it's relatively minor versus what we saw before when they They were doing searches of members of Congress. They were doing searches on donors, on journalists, on Black Lives Matter people, on people who were here January sixth. So they they were doing those kind of things which I know my, the the the ranking member would agree, that is, that's not how it works in in our, under our our constitution. So um those are the concerns now. And even better now we have consequences if you're a member uh if if you're an employee of the FBI and you engage in doing things wrong, you can be held

And, and what, what are those penalties?

All the way up to termination, it could be, it could be termination. Now, so, so those are, those are, you know, first did, did you not follow, there's, there could be marks on their record or it could be terminated if they're not following the rules, that are getting proved by the court before they, uh, on the, on the front-end.

Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

You bet.

Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.

Yeah, no, I, I, I have a tough time believing that this administration, um, cares about account. accountability. Um, you know, I'm I I I can't get over the fact that they pardoned everybody who attacked this building on January sixth. I'll never get over that. They're beating up cops and and with almost no resistance from the Republicans here. Um, and, you know, when you talk about short-term extensions, I I mean, why do we we talk about short-term extensions up here? I think about a month, you know, or six weeks or eight weeks. I don't think about a year and a half. That doesn't strike me as a short-term ex- extension. But before I get to my questions, Mr. Raskin, do you have anything you wanna add?

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Um, well first of all, I'd I take your point about a short-term extension being something like a week. We talk about here two weeks, but eighteen months seems like a lot longer.

A year and a half.

It seems like an attempt to entrench uh this law without the protections that a lot of people on a bipartisan basis think we need. I guess, you know, my reaction to Mr. Jordan uh I think reflects the whole reason why we need to have a bill of rights and categorical rights, because you know when your party's in you you kind of see no wrong. And I I'm not putting this on on my friend Mr. Jordan, I'm saying everybody, right? It's very easy, I mean go back to you know Jefferson and the the Democrat Republicans versus the Federalists. When John Adams was in they could see everything wrong that Adams was doing the alien and sedition acts and attacking people's civil liberties and privacy rights and then when Jefferson was president the other side saw everything that they were doing wrong in terms of curtailing people's rights that's why we need the law because the human mind is a fragile instrument we see things through our own perspective and so you know I want to thank Mister Jordan who really educated me a lot about what's really going on with FISA and seven O two, and why it's so important to have uh these protections built into the process And what we've gotten instead, as I pointed out, was a dismantling of the Office of Internal Auditing, a sacking of, I think, every member but one of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and then a transfer out of the personnel who are actually looking at it. So that sets us up ripe for abuse. And that would be true regardless of who's president, but especially, I would say, from my perspective, a president who has done so much to trample the civil rights and civil liberties of law firms, lawyers, colleges, universities, immigrants, citizens protesting in Minnesota, it just doesn't show the kind of sensitivity to people's, uh, privacy rights and civil liberties rights that we need.

Let me, uh, Mister Jordan, let me, let me ask you, um, I mean, we're, we're the Rules Committee, I mean, twenty, I think twenty-five amendments have been submitted to this committee. Um, you know, the, the issue is, you know, for this committee, um, you know, and obviously, um, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, your voice matters here, um with the with the majority, I mean um uh do you support a a a full um an open debate on all those amendments, and and specifically do you support the Biggs amendment number three uh the warrant requirement, is that something you support?

I'm I'm for, I mean you that's up to you guys decide what what amendments

Well the it's it's not really not up to us, and that's a good capo that people do this all the time,

I thought that's how it works,

I mean everything is everything is carefully coordinated,

the rules committee decides what rules how the rules works and what amendments are made in order.

I mean but but but do you support the Biggs amendment?

i'm for i'm for a clean uh reauthorization as i said before because uh you know i understand you guys said uh clean short term is is a shorter time period but eighteen months is one of the shortest reauthorizations i've ever seen so

well that's a year and a half that's too long for me but do you the question i have asked was not whether a year and a half is too long or not the question is do you support the big's amendment uh number three uh the warm requirement and um and and i don't you don't wanna seem to answer that but i mean

no i'm i'm i'm fine with a clean as i said before i'm fine with a clean now

are you going oh so so you so you you do not support

If if if the reforms that we put in place,

You do not support it.

if we find out there's abuse in the future,

Right.

we may have to come,

So, are you

we may have to re-look at that thing. I I get that.

So

But I am satisfied with the position we're in right now,

So the answer is yeah. So you do not support,

clean reauthorization is fine.

you, alright, so you do not, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, uh, does not support the Biggs Amendment number three.

As I've said multiple times, I'm fine with the clean reauthorization for short term.

Yeah, but yeah, yeah, alright. So, and I I guess the question is, you know, clean extension or not, I mean, would you at least support allowing the Biggs Amendment to get an up or down vote on the floor? I mean, why can't, why can't we in the house decide this? why why why why is it up to you and

well i think you gonna get a chance later later this evening you get a chance to vote you guys are gonna decide

how how i where on the floor

no right here you get to decide what amendments are in order

yo i know i know how to vote but i don't know the i we have one two three four compared to nine i mean i could tell you how how this is gonna work and what works out

well when you guys are in charge i think it was nine to four just the other way around that's how it works

yeah yeah well yeah and and you know what and and i would i would vote to make the bigs amendment in order the question is the question is do you believe that we should have an up or down vote on this and the answer is

i mean i leave

i i i take that as a no i take that as a no i you know what i mean

that's a

you know we all talk about democracy and uh you know that uh you know this that we're supposed to be a model for the rest of the world and we're supposed to debate important issues seriously and passionately uh but again we we you know under republican leadership this has become the most closed congress in history you know more bills go to the floor with no amendments in order and on something like pfizer on issues of warrants on issues of privacy I mean people feel strongly about that, not just people on the Judiciary Committee,

I understand.

not just people on the Rules Committee or on the Intelligence Committee, but others feel strongly about it. And the idea that somehow it's an imposition to ask that we debate and vote on it, on the House floor, that everybody have that opportunity, that that's just too much? Boy, this place is, you know

I didn't use imposition, I didn't use that word, yeah.

Well, I mean, you're b- you're you're basically saying no. Mister Raskin?

But I think the House of Representatives should absolutely debate that, discuss it, analyze it, it and vote on it and um I think you know that that would be perfectly within our power and rights and duty to send that forward um you know it's interesting a a number of courts including the FISA court have found that a search warrant requirement is not constitutionally required in this context the supreme court has not opined on it and analyzed um the whole issue but um

Right.

itself should be debating and trying to, uh, trying to understand. This is a, uh, a time when people's civil liberties and people's civil rights really are under attack and I think that we should be debating the critical thing is that, one way or another, we, we need to have judges involved before there are searches of American persons taking place. You know, even if the courts are right that you don't need to have a warrant, at the very least a judge has got to be interposed between the FBI and just doing a search of Americans.

And, and going back to, to the bigs amendment just for a second i mean correct correct me if my mind is failing me but uh we have voted on that in previously right

yes indeed

and and if i remember correctly it was a tie vote

um

twelve to twelve

yeah

yeah and you know um how did you vote on that

i voted for it

yeah you voted for but now you're against it

well it's it's funny how things change because i think mister raskin voted against it now he's the president

i voted against it and now i'm for it so and it which might explain why we need it um yeah yes

i voted for

so god bless him

i guess i'm the only consistent one here

how is it

yeah

i voted i voted for it after we saw two hundred and seventy eight thousand abuses of the rules their own rules now we have much less abuse much problem a hundred and twenty seven mostly clear so things have changed for the better and i'm saying short term

i i i

i can live with that and if things get bad again i'll be right back here advocating for additional change

if i could address that i mean i you know um um gullibility is not a quality i usually associate with mister jordan but i don't know how he knows that the issues have it seems like he's taking the the word of kash patel because all of the real monitors and watchdogs have been fired and sacked and driven out of the building

i take the word of the inspector general

so

yeah

um well

something we all agree with inspector general is do the work in all these agencies

it's

well

well if i can if i can reclaim my time i guess the point i'm trying to make

the this

is that it was a tie vote previously um and you know it's it's clear that people feel have strong opinions about this um and it's clear

well i i don't know about well i don't know about

well i mean i i i would i would say maybe the speaker could could make the the judgment but every time he's asked by a uh by a reporter about any question he says he knows doesn't know anything about it so i i i'm not sure whether he'd he'd weigh in on this or or not i'm just simply saying that this is an important matter to people um but quite frankly not just democrats but for a lot of republicans

but

um and i know there are lot of republicans that would vote for the biggs amendment um including mister biggs who will who would lead the charge but i mean i know lot of republicans would this is this is not like a

yeah well

you know uh a side issue all all i'm suggesting is that we ought to have a here's a radical idea we ought to debate it and vote on it

yeah

you know and that's my recommendation clearly

i'm not saying it's not an important matter i think it is important matter it's why i spent that's why i've spent years years

but let's just take a look if it's if it's important we should vote on it

reforming this program and we have done a number of reforms that all of us participated in getting it done and i think that has made a world of difference and for a short term eighteen month extension at the point we find ourselves in america right now with conflicts going on overseas with terrorist attacks on the country i think this is important because it's a foreign foreign intelligence surveillance program

well it

we need to be listening to what foreigners are might be up to what they might try to do to our country

if if if if if if you're if you're so convinced that everybody believes that this bill is perfect then you know put the bigs amendment uh bigs amendment on the floor and let people vote it down if that's the is that the case? That's all I'm saying. Mr. Raskin?

Well, um, wartime is the time when people's civil liberties and privacy rights are most offended and most violated. Um, so this would suggest the fact that we're in a war, um, and indeed a war that was never declared by Congress, has never been authorized by Congress, um, suggests to me that we need to zealously protect the civil liberties and civil rights of the people.

Well, let's vote on this stuff. I yield back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Miss Fischbach, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and um you know, there have been serious concerns about um about the abuse of some of these things in the past, and I think you pointed out very um very well that they were of the past administration. And there was uh numerous, fifty-six as I recall, um in twenty twenty four, we did those reforms, they are taking place now, um and I appreciate them. Uh there's the the increased transparency, oversight, accountability there's a lot going on there and very helpful uh reforms so i appreciate that um and and so i i do support the the short term clean extension cause i think it makes sense at this point and um mister chair i was just wondering if maybe you know you mentioned uh you you kind of briefly mentioned you know maybe some military actions going on or military things going on and

mmm

can you speak about why um this extension is so important right now and and given the dhs uh democrat shutdown right now and um so i'm wondering if you could maybe talk about the importance of it with those things going on

well no no great point i mean we we can't necessarily say this can't talk about it much in this room but we've all been to the to the briefings where we hear from key people in the administration the the director of the cia the director of the fbi head of odni the the chairman of the joint chiefs and they all talk about how important this this program is we want our government to listen to what bad guys are doing overseas i would say this is a foreign intelligence surveillance act two seconds title one seven O two so we want that to happen we are concerned about when when american when there's queries done on americans and that's why we put the fifty six reforms in and we're gonna continue to watch this uh as i said before but you have this environment that we're in involved in venezuela this military conflict in in iran the numerous threats we've had here and and terrorist attacks we've had here in the united states you have all this going on and oh by the way the democrats have shut down part of dhs for what fifty fifty a days so um i think that is that in that environment i think that just underscores what we've what we've talked about already

and thank you mr. chair and i think given uh what you've just mentioned but the environment and situations we are in right now this and it's a short term eighteen months um and making sure that we have this taken care of by april twentieth um i think is incredibly important so i thank you for bringing it forward and i yield back

good thank you

thank you Miss Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, for the last three years, reforming FISA has been one of the rare areas of bipartisan agreement on the Judiciary Committee. So, I am a little disappointed to see Mister Jordan's change of heart, because he has been a steadfast supporter of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. Um, for anyone not convinced about the need to strengthen the Fourth Amendment, and the need to re-evaluate uh, the laws governing intel collection, right? now under the trump administration we're seeing precisely the kinds of abuses that are made possible when congress gives up too much authority to the government, allowing it to survey its citizens. We have seen under the authority of national security presidential memo seven, which was issued last September, the trump administration weaponizing the government to spy on and target American citizens on the basis of their speech. They're surveilling protesters um who oppose the administration. policies, they're surveilling people who have beliefs that conservatives simply don't like. These are the types of abuses that concern the drafters of the Bill of Rights, and I think they'd be horrified to see what's happening in America today. Um, look, we all share concerns about our national security, particularly as the president has started a war in the Middle East without authorization and apparently without any clear goals or objectives. Um, and we're also concerned about national security because for six weeks or more, um, our House Republican colleagues have refused to fund DHS. They have rejected a unanimous, um, Senate bill that would have funded DHS. They have refused to take yes for an answer. So, yes, there are legitimate national security concerns. But, during both the last FISA reauthorization and today, there are sensible reforms on the table to ensure that we continue to collect valuable intelligence while also preserving Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. And so those reforms should be allowed a vote. I oppose the bill as it is. I would ask the Chair and the majority that as we consider the rule later today, we make an order the amendments that have been mentioned, Mister Biggs, number three amendment, which would have a warrant requirement, and his number four amendment, which would prevent the government from buying bulk data, again, without a warrant when, when targeting individuals. Mister Raskin, is there anything else you want to add?

Um, b- I thought you captured it nicely, Miss. And I would say it's easy to support oversight and scrutiny when the other team is in power. And we passed all of those dozens of bipartisan reforms together when President Biden, uh, was in office, and we began to make progress on an inherently vulnerable, um, context within the, within FISA, um, but President Trump came in, dismantled the Office of Internal Auditing, dismantled the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight ousted the critical monitors, um, clearly views it, um, as a place where there was political abuse before and thinks it's ripe as an instrument for political abuse. And, um, I, you know, I'm willing to say that it is, uh, an instrument that we must protect against any president and any team that gets in. And so, uh, but I would definitely oppose a clean, uh, re-arch. authorization and I know that we can do a lot better than that and I know that we do have in substance significant majorities of the house of representatives who support if not a search warrant requirement in every case certainly substantial reform to what's taking place now.

Well and we we have seen the abuses in a variety of contexts and certainly as members of the judiciary committee we have seen um representatives of the administration be less than forthcoming when asking

Thank you, Miss Gendlin. Uh, Mister Scott, you're recognized.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And um, Mister Jordan, Mister Raskin, uh, welcome to the Rules Committee. Uh, when we're talking about seven O two, um, we are talking about terrorism cartels drug dealers am i is that a fair statement from both would both of you agree with that

yep

terror terrorism primarily not uh and so i just um in in most of our questions in the past have gotten around the conduct of the fbi is that a fair statement

mmm

and and today after the reforms that the majority of us voted for um the fbi is prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime. Right? They can't just go looking for something to arrest somebody with. And I'm I'm thankful that we

Right.

passed that. And they can only access FISA seven O two if the foreign, the section seven O two target is relevant to an existing open, predicated full national security investigation. Is that accurate?

Yes.

has to be a full investigation going before the fbi can use seven O two

yeah they can't

national security related investigation

it right it can't just be some static situation where they go oh i'm gonna search austin scott which is things that happened in the past

absolutely they happened in the past and um if they happened for me by the way i didn't set myself up for a big day like a

no i was just saying it as an example i'm sorry

um it would have been a pretty boring search i'm afraid Um, today, now prior to what w- the the reforms we adopted, a third to a fourth of the agents at the FBI had access to the database, correct?

It was a huge number. The the one estimate we heard in a briefing three years ago was potentially ten thousand agents could access the database.

It's it's it's less than it's it's three thousand agents today,

It's significantly smaller.

right? It's it's it's less than six percent. Um, and they don't even have access to all of the database. Correct?

Yes.

My my my my point is this. We Everybody's agree We all agree on that, Mister Raskin, like every has anything I said not been accurate?

Well, but I'll just say this, we don't know a lot about what's taking place right now. So for example when when you talk about the reduction in the number of queries, or who's got the right to do it, there are other things that are not being defined as queries that are still taking place. There are searches, there are reviews, there are other things that are happening, and this is the problem with not having meaningful oversight.

I'm, I um, that's a, I just wanna get back to the, what we agree, I, I hear you. And if that's happening, then, then I expect Chairman Jordan would work.

Hmm.

Is that is that fair enough?

Very fair.

I'm I mean none of none of us want that. None of us on this committee,

Right.

on the intelligence committee, or any other committee want them operating outside of the law. But I I again want to get back to uh the FBI is prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime, the FBI can only access FISA seven O two data if the foreign target is relevant to an existing open, predicated full national security investigation. We're we're talking about terrorism.

Forgive me, are you referring to a foreign target or an American citizen, a US person?

They they they can only query if the foreign target. It Mr. Jordan.

All that's right, but they could they could query the American's name. In the context of all that,

That's correct.

an ongoing predicated investigation, as I said before, what was happening prior was completely traumatic situation not the investigation i'm gonna search a congressman i'm gonna search donors i'm gonna search journalists i'm gonna search my ex-girlfriend that was the kind of baloney that was going on prior

that's right i agree with you and and um but there are times when a foreign target may be in communications with a us citizen that it would be necessary to move expeditiously to stop a terrorist attack in

yes and and there may be

is that what you're saying

they may wanna move expeditiously on the american because the american may not know they're somehow engaged in something they wanna warn and give them a sort of a preemptive like hey we need to let you know this

that that's correct uh and i i just say this to say this this is um uh uh a lesson is the point was made that you know who voted for what last time this is an important tool for american citizen security and i do think that Rissa did a very good job of making sure that we balance the protection of american citizens stopping the abuses that we had seen in the past and protecting americans' constitutional rights and i do think that we need to have this vote on the extension and then I expect that the things will continue and if we see any abuses over the next eighteen months then I imagine the the backlash from that would be pretty extreme for anybody at the FBI that did that and I will tell you, Mister Raskin, I think you would see Republicans including this one, that if there were any abuses from the FBI lining up for very serious consequences to the people that abuse the constitutional rights of any American citizen. And so I'll just, Mister Jordan, do you have anything else that you would like to say?

No, that was that was well said,

Um

I would just point out, and I should have said this earlier, but I was I was thinking about title one and seven O two. There are criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully disclosure of classified information and and stuff related to seven O two. So there are some criminal penalties we put in in in two years ago that I think are positive as well.

That that's correct. And I and I do think that there needs to be a re- review of the incident. I do think that if you're, you know, if you're actua thank you

thank you mister scott miss elijah fernandez you're recognized

thank you very much uh and i- and as i'm sitting here and like investigating and understanding like what this bill does, it it strikes me um chairman um do you think the federal government should be able to access and gather our medical records?

i think it's against the law right now, i don't think so, no. i don't i'm no i'm not for that.

in in general do you do you think that would be right that we'd have the federal government accessing and gathering and compiling uh our medical records?

no i i'm i don't like the federal government telling us what we can say tell us what we can tweet getting into our privacy and like that at all it's why we have the bill of rights and you have it

yeah you don't yeah you don't like it at all but the reality is it's happening right now uh and that's because uh under this law and i think it is an issue of what the law is and that's our job is to decide what the law is right now we have the data broker's uh loophole where the federal government is able to amass this information by buying it from others, right? Am I correct in understanding it that way?

Yeah, and that's why last Congress, and I think we're working on that bill, this Congress as well, out of our committee, uh, given the name fourth amendment's not for sale, any anything that would require a warrant that would otherwise require a warrant from government, government can't just go buy that information. And so we've we've passed that before,

But

we'll look to pass it again,

But,

I I'm trying to figure if we I don't think we have yet.

yeah, but we don't it's not in this clean it's not in this reauthorization, and I think that that's the problem, because we know that that's happened, I I think that uh the the question is uh the the statement made by uh uh Mister Scott was if we've seen abuses then we should do something about it, but we've already seen these abuses. Uh, you know, it's not hypothetical. So, in one instance, data brokers sold private location data from around six hundred planned parenthood locations, across forty-eight states to an anti-abortion political group that used it to target misinformation to women. Uh, and another example, Texas law enforcement exploited data broker footage for more than eighty-th- three thousand automatic license plate reader cameras. Uh, we have an instance in Georgia, uh, where, uh, data was gathered and then the f- the law enforcement used it to prosecute a woman, uh, who had had a miscarriage. And whether or not you agree with this particular subject, whether you're allowed to deal with miscarriages. You know, I think we should. I think women's health should be protected. The law doesn't presently provide, and we're gonna be addressing this. And then, this is my concern, and Ranking Member Raskin, I mean, there need to be reforms, uh, now. Right? Because otherwise we're gonna have eighteen months without any reforms in guardrails as I see this bill. Is that correct?

This is a time of tremendous danger for people people's civil liberties and their civil rights. Um, and I I know my friends across the aisle thought, uh, it was serious under President Biden. Well, um, uh, you know, that pales by contrast to what we're living through today in terms of the government, weaponizing the Justice Department, prosecuting or trying to prosecute members of Congress, um, going after people identified by the President as his political foes, um, and using the government in a completely partisan and subjective way. And I just think there are vast millions of Americans, if not the vast majority of Americans, who would not trust, uh, this government with our privacy rights and with our civil liberties like this. We need to build the protections in. And, again, I say it with all due respect that this should be for all administrations, but there are lots of people who feel it

and we should not have the government spying on its citizens its its residents and that's what's happening here uh and so it might be that this administration's actions sorta really tell you abuses are happening so we should act now so that it then applies to all further administration

right well that's right and uh you know the the problem with well let's take eighteen months and then see what happens um is a lot can happen in that time and we're not gonna know what's happening i mean you know uh mister jordan uh had his uh phone records um they were revisited or i don't know reviewed by the government a government he didn't find out for several years i think that that was taking place so

but that was that was subject to a warrant right that was subject that wasn't just as as am i correct in saying yeah

well there was a i think there was a process there he'll explain exactly what happened but the the point is that um and this has happened again on both sides on all sides so i'm trying to lift it just

Yeah,

Yeah.

and I I really liked it last time when we had a Uh, I I told them I thought I was living in an alternate universe, uh, when we were pushing for, uh, affidavits, and we were pushing for things to protect privacy, and we had agreement across the aisle among certain of us, and I wish we were back in that position and weren't saying, we have to do it now, we've pushed ourselves up the deadline, and not like a short extension, eighteen months? That's a long time where a lot of damage can be done to people's personal data. But I will, unless there's

Urgency is something I want to yield back. Well, just on that eighteen month point, I mean, it it feels to me like I I don't know exactly where the eighteen month, you know, time came from, but it seems to me like it's saying to the administration, okay, you get eighteen months more to do what you want to do, Don't use it. and then we'll talk about what happens in the future. Yeah. In meantime, there's no emergency, um, in terms of renewing this because the present certifications are going to be lasting for a long time so we've got time to work this out.

well uh i did yield back and i do appreciate your smile cause i i mean it just feels like you are in a different place than you were last time and we'll we'll yield back

to point out the the the examples you raised on the government purchasing material most of those are outside of seven O two most of those are law enforcement and we so when we passed the bill last year we worked with local law enforcement where does it make sense for them to be able to purchase certain information but not others that would that would uh you know we think violate the fourth amendment so um that is much broader than than than seven O two

yeah yeah well problem is is that you know social security data was released i mean this is an administration that has released so much private information about uh uh uh americans that it is alarming and scary and with that i yield back madam chair

thank you miss leisure fernandez mister griffiths you're recognized

thank you very much uh chairman uh jordan is there anything else you wanted to add uh in response to prior uh alright I have to tell you, I I'm really concerned. I know it's seven O two. Um, I've been to the briefings in the previous administration when we were talking hundreds of thousands. I've been here where we're talking about I think your terminology was a a handful and I think that's accurate. So there's no question in my mind that this administration is doing what it's supposed to. That said, I I worry about civil liberties. Uh, I've been a student of uh the Wilkes-Ide and John Wilkes and the whole creation of our constitutional freedom from government intrusion. And I'm very, very concerned and I and unfortunately I'm finding myself drawn to arguments on both sides, uh, because it is a close call for me. Uh, but, uh, what can you do to reassure me besides telling me that this administration is doing and it has been doing the right thing, and will continue to do, I hope. What can you do to reassure those of us who are a little little concerned but Uh, I mean, why why should it be clean when we could be looking at uh you know some amicus uh

yeah

in interventions not on case by not on a case here and there but on all cases we're looking at uh

mmm

perhaps uh you know specialized warrants and then notification to people so they have a right to defend maybe not in the first instance but certainly somewhere down the road where they can say wait a minute why did you take my property my my privacy and my information

um uh i would just say maybe maybe a few quick thoughts one is you know i know the democrats are making different argument but we we've been around congress for a while you've been around congress for a while normally you reauthorize things for several years this is eighteen months so uh while they might wanna say that's a long time i think that's

mmm

relatively short time period uh remember the one we voted on two years ago with all the reforms was two years and we're just now starting to see all those reforms and the and the and the positive impact they've had so uh it it's short term those reforms are there second um i think you know the the other side likes to criticize the current fbi but it was that fbi director who first gave us the information about all the abuses happening in title one of eisenhower he wrote the memorandum we don't know about what took place with the dossier how a foreign authored document was laundered by one campaign to the fbi and then used as a basis to go spy on the other party's campaign that's crazy but that happened and it was kash patel director patel who wrote that document and figured out what was going on and at the time we were told oh no you guys are all crazy well turn out to be all true And that was the beginning of it all. So, uh, that that's the guy you have now at the FBI who's, uh, I I mean, responsible for the reforms, uh, we have seen. And then third, I would just say like there are good people in Congress like you and everyone else in this who But I I I think everyone's motives in here are genuinely they're genuinely concerned about protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment.

So you believe if we find out there are problems that we could get the votes at the end

Um.

of the eighteen months if need be no matter who's in charge.

I know the I know the amount of I know the amount of work that we've done on judiciary. And and start it off. but what we've done and then how that is as the general lady was as as miss uh ledger fernandez was talking about how we came together in a bipartisan way to get the fifty six reforms and and and things we did last year uh and how we almost you know the the vote was two twelve two twelve um so i know that this congress is committed to protecting american civil liberties but in the situation we're in i don't think it's too much to say short term when the commander in chief at a time we're in two military uh, military operations for a short-term extension of something that we've reformed, dramatically. I don't think that's too much to ask. And if there are additional problems in the next eighteen months, well by golly we'll dig into it, and we'll address it in a bipartisan way and fix it.

Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, you're back.

Mister Norman, you're recognized.

Thank both of you for coming. Congressman Jordan, you know, we've all seen the issues you had with unlawful investigations, unlawful document violating every right that you had. Scott uh, Perry, the same way.

Mm-hmm.

Do you really think one of one is are there consequences uh moving forward for those who violate that are on the books that are immediate that I know the the numbers that can access files queries are limited but what keeps them in in check with with with

One, Congress is watching. Much closer now, Congress is watching what they do. So we get the reports about what happened,

Yep.

how many searches, who did it, we get them quarterly now. Uh, second, when it comes to title one, we can go in and like we have certain people cleared from on our committee, certain lawyers on our committee staff who can go in there, we can go in there. So with a just much greater access, accountability process involved. And if someone's violating those process, there are there are penalties that they're subject

Well everywhere I everywhere I go people are wanting consequences, not long drawn out hearings from they said, you know, you have all these hearings, you get,

OK.

you know, the the the ones on the, on the stand get scorched, but there's no, there's there's no consequences for anybody.

Yeah. The only the the well, it's it's funny you say that, because that's the number one question I get as I'm traveling around the country, it's like, and and you were you were more diplomatic about the way you said it, uh uh but most people just look at me like, hey Jordan, when is someone going to jail?

Correct.

Uh and and I'm like, we can't prosecute anyone, all we can do is do the oversight and and propose legislation, pass legislation and and and go from there and we can do referrals if we think so, if some of

good thank you i yield back

miss m- mr. Norman would you yield us something

oh yeah

Mister Chairman, you went over fairly quickly the oversight that occurs by the committee and by Congress.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Would you mind going over that again, I think a little more slowly, because I I think that's a very important part of the reforms that were done, and I think it would

Yeah, I just wanna make sure.

be good for all of our members to hear what you said mister raskin has implied that there isn't any oversight going on and i think it would be helpful the role of congress in the oversight particularly

ok so on the front-end to do the search there is certain protocols and processes in place that have to be approved it's not just be one person ten thousand agents just you know hitting the system uh it has to be first of all within all the framework of what uh representative scott talked about in that kind of investigation that's going on Um, then there's process in place, you gotta get sign off from certain superiors and others in the FBI before you can do the search or the or the query. Um, so there's approval requirements, there's training on the front-end, process and approval requirements on the front-end. And then there's a then there's accountability where they can give, they have to give us reports what's going on. And we have the ability to go in and talk to them both on the title-one and on and on seven-two. So the reporting, the transparency, the training and the process and the uh approval up front before you can do the searches all that was in these multiple reforms we did two years ago to the bill

and to clarify you said we have the ability is that indeed being done uh the the oversight is being done it isn't just that you have the ability to do it

yeah uh

but your staff

information comes to us we can send staff into particularly on the title one side we can send staff into um uh Fies a court. And um, so all that is is is now. And these, and the reports, I remember we had the debate in the committee, in the market bin committee a couple of years ago. Um, I think we had an annual report requirement and that was, that was no, we had a member offer the amendment and it was agreed on in a bipartisan way, to to shorten that time frame to semi-annual and quarterly reports that we get.

Um, thank you, Mister Norman, for yielding your yield back. Um, Mister jack you're recognized

mr. chairman i just was hoping you could uh for the record and also for my own uh knowledge sake you mentioned some of the reforms that were adopted back in i think twenty twenty four

yeah

i think they're pretty expansive as it relates to protecting uh the rights of americans and and could potentially ash wash concerns of some of our colleagues so would welcome you walking through some of those reforms for myself and others

yeah it's it's like as i said as i said before and sometimes it's easier to tell the story cause i don't i don't know if you were in here uh representative when

um um yeah

during the opening statements but to look at the numbers so initially few years ago there were upwards of ten thousand fbi agents who could search the database um we know from the the ig and the reports we got that that process was abused in major ways um where they were looking at members of congress donors journalist um i always use the example of ex-girlfriends they were looking which is not part of any investigation arising from actual foreign intelligence that they got while surveilling a foreigner so the number who can actually query the system much smaller today the abuses that took place or the number of queries actually done in twenty twenty one were three million now it's it's down to last year nine thousand um and the number of abuses when it was three million in twenty twenty one was two hundred and seventy eight thousand times they didn't follow their rules and we think and now now it's that that number is one twenty seven but most of those were some of the clerical things as i was talking about the process you have to go on the front-end maybe someone didn't get approval of both the people he asked to get approval of before he searched the database got only one sign up for it those kind of things were the were were that number so um we think all the the front-end process front-end approval limited number who can do it

thank you i yield back

thank you thank you mister jack thank you mr. jack oh mister neguse You're recognized.

Well, thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate that, and I certainly wouldn't wanna miss the opportunity to to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member and the chairman of my uh my committee. Uh, Chairman Jordan, I suspect ranking member McGovern has already asked you this question, but I will just preface by saying uh, I thought I had seen everything in the House of Representatives, but I never thought I'd see the day that Jim Jordan would be championing a clean, a quote, reauthorization of faiza that was not

different program today

not on my bingo list what was that

different different program today

different party it sounds like david different president

no no no no different totally different totally different situation today

what i one question i guess i've been struggling with is why eighteen months clearly there's a lot of consternation about faiza there's a real desire by a lot of your members members on the republican side members on the democratic side rick and member raskin and others about potential changes that are to be made i just wonder why are we landing on eighteen months

um i don't know they have it yeah well i actually think it's pretty short cause most time we

this is pretty long

authorize things for five years six years seven years eight years

how long is a national defense authorization act reauthorization

well that's that's an annual thing of course yeah yeah

twelve months annual deal right so i i don't know you you're describing this is would you describe the

compared compared this lot of other things we done around and certainly this was a lot i remember when i first got to congress it was lot longer than eighteen months, i don't know what it was i think it was four year

that's true i guess i i guess i would query whether or not and i don't know if frankie remember ask if you thought about this but it just it strikes me that would query whether or not and i don't know if frankie remember asking if you thought about this but it just it strikes me that a reauthorization uh reauthorization that that a lot a lot with the expiration that's been outlined uh in the court ruling right which i guess is next march i guess is it

march twenty seventh yeah

yeah mar- i i doesn't i don't quite understand why we wouldn't just time the reauthorizations to to perhaps mimic that schedule

well it's not

and i and i suspect that that would uh

i i don't know i i actually do not know that um i don't know if the ranking member does either but it's i don't know why the the court does it when they do it they reauthorize it for a year that's run too cause they did it on march twenty seventh so it must go to march twenty sixth next year and of course right now the time line we're on is april twentieth so um

yeah

i don't know i don't know why it doesn't that they don't say

fair enough well i i mean based on some public reporting it suggests that there's some members of your conference that are on their way to the white house to have a conversation with the president about this particular legislation and uh maybe if they're checking their phones and or they're watching this debate i would just uh say to them and and throw this idea into the atmosphere that eighteen months is awfully long

and it's i would would think eminently reasonable to suggest a shorter time line uh perhaps an annualized one but in any event i know we you all have had a fulsome debate on this right remember my government

well when

no i just think it's gonna be a long night

you're

ok got it got it

ok

mmm

we'll win we'll win

uh i will uh i will stop there i will yield back to the chairwoman

oh that's amazing

thank you mister mr. Lagoose mister langworthy you're recognized

um i i think i agree we've had a a a full debate here uh i don't have any additional questions but uh thank you both for coming

alright thank you Well, um,

Wow.

everybody's heard the the, um, uh, bells for voting. I believe, Mister Himes, do you wish to speak? OK. Well, I would say that our witnesses are excused. If there's no further,

Thank you. Thank you.

um, questions of our witnesses, then you're excused and we'll recognize Mister Himes. uh no i'm gonna we're gonna let you come out

thank you madam chair i'll uh i know we're under time pressure so i'll be quick here um

ok

uh i'm pleased to be yep

ho- hold on just a second so we can hear you

hey jim

go ahead

so i'm pleased to be here to testify in favor of my amendment to the pfizer seven O two reauthorization legislation the house intends to consider tomorrow i'll begin by saying that it is critical critical that we reauthorize pfizer pfizer seven O two It is our most important intelligence authority and it is used every day by professionals across the intelligence community to keep Americans safe and advance our national security. There is simply no alternative to section seven O two, and allowing it to expire would be devastating. Under Joe Biden, the president's advisory board said that allowing this authority to expire would be the worst intelligence failure of our era. I want my colleagues to contemplate what those words mean. If we have an up or down vote on reauthorization tomorrow, I will vote to reauthorize because it is truly that important. With that said, I'm disappointed in the process, or lack thereof, that we have undertaken during this reauthorization. Two years ago, con- when Congress last considered reauthorizing seven O two, there were numerous hearings, months of classified briefings, markups, and a healthy debate on the floor about reauthorization, including amendments. We've had nearly none of that this time around, and I think that's unfortunate. And while I have had productive conversations with Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Raskin, and many other members were nonetheless looking at a clean reauthorization, rather than a serious debate about reforms. I offered my amendment to show that there is another way. This amendment would address what has long been the most controversial aspect of section seven O two, the FBI's authority to query seven O two databases, the seven O two database, with selectors for US person. This amendment would create a judicial process, whereby the DOJ would request FISA court permission review content returned by US person queries, while including exceptions for certain types of queries and exe- exigent circumstances. This deals with the problem with a full Fourth Amendment warrant, which is that if you have to show probable cause to a judge and get a Fourth Amendment warrant, all defensive queries go away. What's a defensive query? Terrorists are talking about Jim Himes. Is that because Jim Himes is a terrorist? Maybe, and if so, you got evidence? Get a warrant. But maybe they're targeting Jim Himes. That's a defensive query that goes away with a full-blown, Biggs Amendment, Fourth Amendment, uh, requirement. So this amendment is allowed to is designed to allow the FBI to conduct the queries of lawfully condu uh collected foreign intelligence that they need to conduct uh and defend Americans against threats. But by putting the FISA court in the process, rather than simply approvals and reviews at the FBI and DOJ, and I'll remind my colleagues that this is the most heavily overseen collection program there, overseen by all three branches of government, this will increase the confidence that queries are done only for proper and compliant foreign intelligence purposes. The hour's getting late, but there's still a path forward for Congress to consider bipartisan reforms. I think this amendment would actually result in a much larger yes vote on FISA reauthorization and it will increase the confidence that these powers cannot be misused. I hope the House takes the opportunity to make this amendment in order and have a real debate on reform. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, Mister Ranking Member.

Thank you, Mister Himes. I don't have any questions, Mister Scott.

I I don't have any questions. I will say this about Mister Himes. He's a member of the committee that I serve with. He certainly uh diligent, intelligent, and um I appreciate him and working with him uh on on the on HPSI. Uh That's all. That's it.

I think

Please uh keep talking Mister Scott Willa. I'm the ranking member of the committee, yes ma'am.

Your fee is going up.

I thank the gentleman and um and I appreciate his leadership, and I have no questions.

You're welcome. No uh no thank you and and thank you for

Yeah, Yeah, and if I may, and if I may, just with mispleasure, just with misspleasure, Fernandez, Fernandez, I very much appreciate you bringing up the purchase I very much appreciate you bringing up the purchase of commercially available data by any government entity. of commercially available data by any government entity. That's a really important thing that this Congress should be debating, That's a really important thing that this Congress should be debating, but it's but it important that uh uh my colleagues understand that that's a really important debate that has absolutely nothing to do with pfizer seven O two. pfizer seven O two does not authorize any purchase of any commercially available data.

uh you're back

thank you um mister hymes there's no one else to ask you any questions i believe you're excused

thank you

is there anyone else seeking to testify on hr six four O nine hr six three eight seven hr six three nine eight H res one one five six or h r s eight eight zero three five. Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. Without objection, the committee stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair. oh wait oh my god oh wait you i just need to stop here speak of what ok alright the committee will reconvene

no

the chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from new york mr. langworthy

thank you madam chair i'm i move the committee grant hr sixty three eighty seven hr sixty three ninety eight and hr sixty four zero nine closed rules the rule waives all points of order against consideration of each such bill the rule provides that each such bill shall be considered as read the rule waives all points of order against provisions in each such bill the rule provides one hour of general debate on each such bill 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 each such bill one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H res eleven fifty-six, expressing support for tax policies that support working families under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order, without intervention of any point of order, to consider H res eleven fifty-six. The rule provides that H res eleven fifty-six shall be considered as read. And finally,

thank you very much mister langworthy you've now heard the motion is there any discussion or amendment to the rule

there's a lot i wanna say but no

ok hearing no further discussion the questions on the motion from the gentlemen from new york all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye

aye all those opposed say no

no

in the opinion chair the ayes have it the motion is agreed to

hmm as for roll call

mister mcgovern request a roll call um the clerk will call the roll

mrs. fischbach

yes

mrs. fischbach aye mr. norman mr. roy mrs. Houchin mrs. Houchin aye mr. langworthy

aye aye

mr. langworthy aye mr. scott

aye

mr. scott aye mr. griffith mister jack

aye

mister jack aye mister mcgovern

no

mister mcgovern no miss scantlin

no

miss scantlin no mister neguse

no

mister neguse no miss letra fernandez

no

madam chair

aye

madam chair aye

the clerk will report the total

six yeas four nays

the ayes have it the motion to report is agreed to representative langworthy will be managing the rule for the majority

mister negus with a minority

chair will now be in receipt of a motion from the general room from georgia mister scott

madam chair i move the committee grant a closed rule for hr eighty thirty five to amend the FISA amendments act of two thousand eight to extend the authorities of title seven of the foreign intelligence surveillance act of nineteen seventy eight through october twentieth twenty twenty seven and for other purposes the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill the rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read the rule waives all points of order against provisions of the bill The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairing ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees and the chairing ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence or their respective designees finally the rule provides one motion to recommit.

Thank you very much, Mister Scott. Um. You've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?

I just say, Mister M- Madam Chair, that I can't believe This is wrong. Uh, and so I urge people to vote no on this uh motion and uh hopefully we can open this up so that everybody in this Congress can have a chance to weigh in on this issue. So, I yield back.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Any further discussion? Miss Leisure-Fernandez.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number three to HR eighty thirty five, offered by representative bigs which creates a warrant requirement for searching the communications or other information of united states persons acquired under section seven O two of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. Madam chair, this amendment follows up on what my ranking member noted, that we should be able to vote on these important matters. It would require a warrant to search for information on US persons in the seven O two database. This an important issue which is about our privacy and what are we gonna allow as a government to do and not only that but this amendment has been supported by members of this committee and it is very disappointing to see that the three members most likely to vote for this amendment happen to not be here if they you have the courage of your convictions you should show up and allow the to have a vote on this amendment. And I would notice that a very similar amendment had a healthy debate and had a vote last time round. So I urge this committee to take that into account, to let the House of Representatives vote on these important issues about how much government surveillance are we gonna allow and what kind of protections will we ensure for those living and working on the United States. And with that, uh, Madam Chair, I yield back and urge everybody to vote for my amendment.

Miss Canlan, you're recognized.

I just wanna speak in support of the amendment. I think it is really critical. It's one of our most basic constitutional rights. One of the reasons why our country was formed is that the government doesn't have the power to search or seize um, the private communications, and or the property, et cetera, of American citizens without a warrant. This is a matter that should be fully and fairly debated. We should not be kicking the can down the road for another year and a half without addressing this issue. So I totally support the amendment and hope that the entire House has has the chance to vote on it.

Madam Chair.

Thank you. You're back.

Um

Ms. Alge-

Ms. Alge- Thank you. Madam Chair, I'm concerned about this amendment, um, because it applies broadly, the warrant requirement in this amendment applies broadly to US persons, not strictly to US citizens. And if we were to, um, have this amendment be adopted, we would we would potentially be allowing for anyone who's on US soil, including terrorist organizations and illegal immigrants maybe engaging in terroristic behavior, uh, we would be opening up those persons on US soil also to an additional warrant requirement. It's not limited only to US citizens, uh, and that's a huge concern for our national security. Um, a terror cell might as well just open up shop on US soil to avoid, uh, FISA. Uh, and, um, I am opposed to this amendment. I would encourage others, uh, to vote no. I yield back.

Is there further discussion, Mr. Neguse?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just simply say, and I know that the hour is late, so I'll be brief, but I recognize uh that a general woman from Indiana uh has views on this particular issue as she's articulated, and I don't doubt her sincerity. I think that those arguments ought to be made on the House floor. Well, we ought to have a debate on the House floor and be able to consider this amendment and have an up or down vote in the same way that we did two years ago. Uh, this amendment, as you'll remember, Madam Chair, highly contested and ultimately probably the closest vote that I can recall in my time in Congress. I think it merits consideration by the full body, uh, irrespective of how one might feel about the amendment. I voted against the amendment

Will the gentleman will the gentleman yield?

years ago, but I'm happy to.

Thank you. Um, I think my concern, uh, here is that, um. Even in the discussion tonight, we've heard people say that this applies to U. S. citizens and U. S. citizens are included in U. S. personal but so are terrorists. So I think it would be very dangerous for for us to have a vote on the floor for this. If the if the warrant requirement were only applicable to US citizens, then I think that's worthy of debate on the floor. But we're opening up uh the United States to serious threats if we allow for uh an

So

amendment to go through that would potentially uh add a warrant requirement requirement for US persons and that

uh ok but you i hear you and um i would say and i may be wrong on this so i don't i would welcome the clarification is this different than the amendment from two years ago

i cannot remember that

my my understanding is that this amendment is the exact same

but

as the amendment that we but i'm but maybe i'm wrong

it is

ok so yeah i mean i think so to your point uh miss howchun i recognize again the sincerity of your views i don't think that debate about the amendment would be dangerous. We had that debate two years ago, we had an up or down vote, and ultimately your argument, the argument you articulated, which by the way I think was supported by a lot of folks on my side of the aisle as well, won the day, last time, including I voted for the against the amendment. So I'm not I'm just simply saying that it's not dangerous for us to have that debate on the floor. And I I would uh yield to the generalman from New Mexico.

And and I think an important point is that we had a vote two years ago, we also now know, uh as we were had the debate uh today in terms of the presentation of the of the uh the bill itself is that we have learned things in the last two years so the debate might be different they're thinking national security uh that people might have might wanna change their mind either way

right

uh and so that is the issue is are we gonna let the house of representatives vote on these issues of great importance to our national security to the privacy to the whole reasons why the united states was created in the first place to limit government interference in our lives those are worthy debates that should be had on the house floor that is why we are here we are the people according to john adams who are the closest to the people who are supposed to look feel and act for the people cause we go out and we meet with them on a regular basis and so we should be able to have these debates let us debate it many of your yeah members feel strongly about this and that might be why they're not here today But they feel strongly about that. Let them make those argument. Let others, like some of our members, who don't think we should stop this, make those arguments. Let us have the debate. It's the job of the United States House of Representatives to debate these issues and vote on them. We should let it go to the floor of the House. And thank you, uh, Representative, for allowing me to clarify that.

I thank the General Manager. I yield back, uh, to the Chairwoman.

Is there further discussion or debate?

Madam Madam Chair, just very briefly,

Mister Scott.

I just, I just i also wanna remind anybody who is watching tonight and the members of the committee uh the fbi can only access fisa seven O two data if the foreign section seven O two target is relevant to an existing open predicated full national security investigation we are talking about law enforcement specifically our fbi

further discussion hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye those opposed say no

no

no miss ledger fernandez requests a recorded vote the clerk will call the roll

mrs. fishbach

no

mrs. fishbach mr. roy mrs. houchin mrs. houchin no mr. langworthy

no no

mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i am miss ganlin miss ganlin i am mr. neguse

aye aye

mr. neguse i am mr. lettre fernandez

aye

miss lettre fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total the no's have it the amendments not agreed to are there further amendments or is there further discussion or amendments Hearing none, no further discussion. The questions on the motion from the gentlemen from Georgia. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed say no.

No. Aye. Aye.

In the opinion that you hear, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

Can I ask for a roll call?

Mister McGowan requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach, aye. Mister Norman. Mister Roy. Mrs. Houchen.

Yes.

Mrs. Houchen, aye. Mister Langworthy.

Yes.

Mister Langworthy, aye. Mister Scott.

Aye.

Mister Scott. aye mr. griffith mister jack

aye

mister jack aye mister mcgovern

no

mr. mcgovern no miss scanlon miss scanlon no mr. neguse

no

mr. neguse no miss ledger-fernandez miss ledger-fernandez no madam chair

aye

madam chair aye

the clerk will report the total

six yays four nays

the ayes have it the motion to report is agreed to representative scott will be managing this rule for the majority

and this is for minority

mr. neguse for the minority without objection The committee is adjourned.