Bills on Northeast Lobsterman, Mining, Economic and Academic Freedom, Socialism

I'll wait for you guys. Yeah.

Here we go.

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today the rules committee is convening to consider four measures, H R forty-seven ninety-five, H R fifteen O one, H R ninety-four thirty-six and H res H. R. forty-seven ninety-five, the bipartisan Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of twenty twenty-five would prohibit colleges and universities from receiving federal student aid if they engage in commercial and academic boycotts, dictated by those in the boycott sanction divest BDS movement. This bipartisan legislation requires colleges and universities to certify annually that the institution is not engaged in a non- expressive commercial boycott of Israel or forgo ability to receive federal financial student aid. H R forty seven ninety five also requires colleges and universities who are a recipient recipients of title six funding to not allow academic boycotts, but instead engage in academic exchange reciprocity. Let's be clear, these heinous acts weren't just a matter for last Congress or yesterday year. They are in ongoing and reaching new heights of unapologetic boldness. In a shocking exposition over the summer, a tenured professor at Stony Brook University filmed himself accosting patrons at a local restaurant with antisemetic anti-semitic harassment. We've seen it through the repeated anti-semitic tropes, coming from internet personalities like Hassan, Peicher, and others. The prescription to this issue is legislation that has teeth, legislation that makes clear that these concrete campaigns of anti-semitism in the form of BDS boycotts have no place in any facet of civil society, and works to extirpate it entirely. Let's be clear about the facts with respect to this legislation. Israel has been designated as a, quote, major strategic partner, end quote, of the United States, which is a unique designation in the twenty fourteen United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, signed by President Obama and introduced by former Senator Barbara Boxer. Safeguarding taxpayer funds from campaigns to strategically boycott our major strategic partner is a logical next given the volume and intensity of boycott campaigns. And despite what opponents may assert, these BDS campaigns are not illusionary. During the twenty-three, twenty-four academic year at least, eighty-six BDS resolutions were considered across undergraduate, graduate and professional student organizations and faculty unions. Seventy-seven passed and nine were voted down. Faculty members in Northwestern's provost were willing to appease encampment organis organization organisers in their efforts to demand the university boycott Sabra Hamas because of the brand's perceived association with Israel the Evergreen State College in Washington reached an agreement to address divestment from companies that profit from the quote, occupation of Palestinian territories end quote and a myriad of academic boycotts of Israel have taken root across the United States, including a concession by UC Riverside to end its business school study abroad program in Israel after demands by activists. One leading professor at Georgetown's title, six supported National Resource Center, NRC, has actively pursued a full academic boycott of Israel. In twenty four fourteen, six taxpayers supported nr c directors signed a letter endorsing an academic academic boycott of israel these boycotts are real prolific and not non events they're discriminating against israel israeli students and israelis the bipartisan legislation before us today that i'm proud to author is one such prescription i believe will make a positive impact in the fight against anti-semitism In addition, I thank the co-author of this legislation, Representative Josh Gottheimer, for his leadership in advancing this critical legislation. I also thank Chairman Walbert for advancing this bill through committee and for ranking member Scott's vote to advance the bill. H R fifteen O one, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of twenty twenty-five would permanently include broader mining projects and mineral processing activities as quote covered projects end quote eligible for the FAST-forty-one process, which allows them to be considered for streamlining permits. The result, stronger generate operating capacities for domestic mining operations, renewed supply chain resilience, and broader energy security for the United States. Further, H R fifteen O one prohibits future administrations from implementing rules that would narrow the scope of quote " covered" end projects, end quote, which would severely impede domestic mineral investment and resource independence. H. R. ninety-four thirty-six would amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, twenty twenty-three to extend the period for which certain regulations concerning the North Atlantic right whale are effective. Extending the regulatory pause of protections for the North Atlantic right whale which is one of the most endangered marine mammals in the world, is ultimately in the best interest of both whales and fishermen. The pause on these regulations isn't about choosing fishermen over whales. Rather, this bill takes a proactive approach by allowing scientists, fishermen and government agencies the necessary time study and refine protections rather than rushing to an inadequate solution. This bill doesn't abandon conservation, it simply allows for a more thorough review of measures that can reduce whale entanglements in fishing gear, providing time for solutions that protect both whales and fishermen. Finally, we'll turn to HREs fourteen ninety, a resolution that condemns and denounces socialism in all its forms. Here's the indisputable fact. There's a resurgence of socialism across America, which poses a threat to the constitutional and societal order that has always thrived within our nation. Those who carry the banner for socialism are wildly ignorant of history. They don't live in reality. They believe that life under socialism is some sort of utopia. where everyone can thrive and the sun is always shining. In reality, where everyone else operates, we understand that life under socialism is a hellscape. There will be socialists elected to Congress next year. We know this to be true. And there are crackpot political organizations like the so-called Democratic Socialists of America that want Congress to be overrun with people who want to see America and its institutions burn to the ground. Among many other principles that are fundamentally anti-American, the democratic socialists of America believe in extending full voting rights to people with criminal convictions and non-citizens. This resolution gives every member a chance to be on record. Do you stand for non-citizen voting in our federal elections, including foreign agents? Or do you believe that voting is a privilege and right reserved for those who have pledged allegiance to the United States? We want safe, secure and reliable elections in our nation, and we should do everything we can to ensure that, everything. With that, I now yield to the ranking member for any comments that he wishes to make. And I wish a belated happy birthday to Congresswoman Scanlon.

Well, thank you, uh, Madam Chair. um and it's great to see you um and i also wanna wish a belated happy birthday uh to my colleague from pennsylvania look it we just spent a month back home hopefully meeting with and listening to our constituents i know i did and i'll tell you everywhere i went people told me the same thing everything cost too damn much so i was genuinely curious to see what my republican colleagues would bring to the floor our first week back And now we know. Apparently their big agenda item this week is a non-binding do-nothing resolution to condemn socialism. Again. Didn't we basically already do this measure uh uh last November? I mean, you can't make this stuff up. Families are getting clobbered by higher prices, and republicans come back waving around a meaningless resolution yelling " socialism". It's like, you think if you say the word enough times, people will forget how much their grocery bill is. And I have bad news for you guys, they won't. Families are getting hammered at the grocery store. Rent is through the roof. Electric bills are up. Gas is more expensive because of this illegal reckless war with Iran. Healthcare premiums have exploded because Republicans refused to extend ACA tax credits. Did you know that the average family has had to spend nearly four thousand extra dollars on everyday goods and services since donald trump took office a four thousand dollar trump tax that's a hell of a lot of money uh people have to pay because of this president's policies people need help and they need relief but judging by this agenda i have to wonder whether some of my republican colleagues held a single town hall all summer certainly the people who scheduled these bills for the floor didn't now we've got this silly non binding resolution with no force of law that will lower exactly zero grocery bills zero rents zero electric bills zero healthcare premiums then there is a bill hunting for the latest culture war fight on college campuses even though apparently nobody nobody can point to a single university actually doing what this bill supposedly prohibits and there's a bill delaying protections for endangered whales in the north atlantic uh and there's another giveaway to the mining industry that weakens environmental review i mean seriously that's the big comeback agenda because because i can tell you that regular people want groceries to cost less they want healthcare they can afford and they want lower energy bills they want us to stop wasting money on a reckless war and stop pursuing trade policies that make everything they buy more expensive i mean these are not complicated requests people work hard they pay their taxes and they're trying to take care of their families and then they look at washington and wonder why the people running this place seem so obsessed with things that won't make their lives even a little bit easier republicans had an entire month to go home and to listen Either they didn't hear what people were saying, or they heard them loud and clear, and just don't give a damn. November can't come soon enough. Uh, you're back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman from the House Natural Resources Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes and address all legislation in your committee's jurisdiction in that time. Chairman Westermann, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's good to be here on the first day back from August with this opportunity to testify on two bills from the Natural Resources Committee, H. R. fifteen O one, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of twenty twenty five, and H. R. ninety-four thirty-six, the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of twenty twenty-six. And Madam Chair, I'll just start off by saying these two bills are classic examples of how we help everyday Americans who are trying to earn a living and who are trying to bring the cost of things down. Uh, the lobster bill affects an i- uh, an industry in Maine. It's a two billion dollar industry and seventeen thousand five hundred jobs in the state of Maine. It's no secret that we've become extraordinarily dependent upon China for mineral resources which uh they can control the price of what the components are that go into most everything we buy anymore. So these two bills are a Republican conservative solution to making people's lives um more affordable. on the income side and on the uh the expense side. It's not a government handout. That's that's the easy way that we often see when things get tough, we just spend some more federal money to try to bail somebody out. But H R fifteen O one, sponsored by Repres- Representative Shreve, would add mining and mineral processing as covered projects eligible for the FAST-forty-one permitting process. It would also prohibit any future administration from finalizing a Biden-era proposed rule, to narrow fast forty-one coverage for mining projects to only critical mineral mining projects. Minerals are essential to our everyday lives, and every sector of our economy is dependent on them. The question of the twenty-first century is not whether we should mine, it's whether the United States will do so safely and responsibly, at home, or whether our adversaries were will unduly control the mineral supply chain from abroad using poor labor and poor environmental standards and causing the prices of our goods to go up, while keeping Americans from having great jobs. President Trump and House Republicans have prioritized strengthening our domestic mineral supply chain to reduce our reliance on foreign adversaries. Under this administration, The Permitting Council has published fifty-nine mining projects on the FAST forty-one dashboard. Twenty-one mining projects have completed the federal permitting process under the dashboard. In contrast, the Biden Administration completed zero mining projects under FAST forty-one. Codifying eligibility for mining and mineral processing projects in the FAST forty-one permitting process would create transparency and predictability. grow our domestic mineral supply, create American jobs, spur technological innovation, and bolster industrial and economic competitiveness. If the United States is to maintain its leadership in the mining sector, we must pass this legislation to secure our mineral supply chains for our economic and our national security. Our next bill, H. R. ninety-four thirty-six, the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act, It's sponsored by Representative Mike Lawler from New York, and it's also a bill that Representative Jared Golden from Maine has worked on extensively. This legislation will protect the American lobster fishery from regulatory overreach that threatens to shut down one of America's most iconic fisheries. Last year in Maine, lobster accounted for seventy-five percent of the value of the State's commercial fisheries and as I mentioned earlier it supported two billion dollars in economic activity and seventeen thousand five hundred jobs across its fleet and shoreside operations. For nearly thirty years, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction team has overseen the Maine lobster and Jonah crab fisheries, implementing take reduction plans to minimize the fishery impacts on right whales. Despite the fishery's success in dramatically reducing its impact on right whales, these American fishermen have faced regulatory whiplash for decades. Frivolous legislation created four different regulatory regimes governing the fishery between twenty ten and twenty twenty one. After further litigation from radical environmental organizations, NOAA was poised to impose crippling regulations that could have shut down this iconic fishery. Fortunately, Congress enacted a regulatory pause through twenty twenty eight, providing ESA and MMPA coverage for the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries under the twenty twenty one biological opinion. This pause was necessary to conduct scientific research to further protect the right whale, and support a robust fishery. Since this pause took effect, more than ninety million dollars has been invested in these efforts. However, more time is needed to get this right. The bill before us today would extend the current pause through twenty thirty-five, giving the scientific community, the regulated industry, and fishery managers time to craft appropriate regulations to protect right whales and safeguard this iconic fishery. I urge the committee to report an appropriate rule so these bills may be considered in the House. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, now I recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his time of comment.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chairman, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee. I urge you to reject HR ninety-four thirty-six and HR fifteen O one. fishing communities around our country right now are suffering from president trump's disastrous fisheries policies and chaotic trade wars unfortunately house republicans aren't fighting for fishing communities they prefer scapegoating a critically endangered whale rather than doing their job to reign in this lawless president the north atlantic right whale is a species on the knife's edge of extinction just three hundred and eighty of these magnificent animals are left on earth, a fragile population that includes a mere seventy breeding females. There's so few of these whales that scientists literally know each one of them by name, and track each one of them. They know when one dies. And they can see evidence of entanglements on about eighty-five percent of those that die. Every injury lowers the species' fertility rate. Every death pushes the right whale closer to irreversible extinction. Now this is not just a main issue. These whales migrate up and down the Atlantic coast, from summer feeding habitat in Canada to their calving grounds in Florida and Georgia, where they're, they are beloved as Georgia's state marine mammal. Their survival depends on the efforts of communities up and down this migratory route, along the entire Atlantic coast. H R ninety-four thirty-six would extend a risky waiver through December of twenty thirty five. It gives lobster and crab fisheries a free pass to use gear with ropes that entangle, injure and kill too many whales, unfairly burdening other users with this species' recovery. In late twenty twenty two, Congress inappropriately declared existing gear rules sufficient to protect whales and they stopped any additional measures to adequately protect whales, until twenty. even though too many whales are dying of gear entanglements every year. Under this deal, a collaborative team of scientists, states, fishermen and conservationists was tasked with using this six-year window to collect data and to build consensus-based management rules for twenty twenty nine. Now, we should be letting that process play out for another two years, and then responsibly reviewing the data, But unfortunately, this bill arbitrarily adds another seven year delay on top of that. This is tantamount to legislating extinction. Since twenty twenty-two, at least fifty-five North Atlantic great whales have been killed or severely injured, including thirty-one from entanglements. We're losing too many whales every year to ensure a sustainable recovery. Fortunately, we have an alternative. Ropeless on-demand fishing gear has already hauled in over a million pounds of sustainably caught seafood, consumers, nine different companies have pioneered products positioning the US to become potentially a global leader in this emerging market. H R thirty-four thirty-six would shut all of that down and squander this opportunity. Extending the moratorium to twenty thirty-five is not about giving regulators more data or industry an extended transition window, it is an exercise in running out the clock on a species that simply has no time left. Now turning to H. R. fifteen O one. This bill does nothing to address our critical mineral supply chain challenges. It simply codifies current regulations that allow the administration to pick and choose mineral projects to fast-track for permitting, whether or not those projects serve our national interest. Codifying these regulations as is doubles down on the fundamentally flawed mining law of eighteen seventy-two. Rubber-stamping fast-track permitting procedures that undermine tribal sovereignty and make it harder for courts to stop projects that threaten public lands or public health. You just need to follow the money to see who's really benefiting from this administration's mining free-for-all. This administration has pumped billions of dollars into mining projects that just so happen to have ties to administration officials or major donors, sending stock prices skyrocketing, even when there are major questions about the viability of those projects. One project connected to the president's son couldn't make it through the due diligence standard of this administration's department of defense and had to withdraw from an eighty million dollar conditional loan after pentagon officials reportedly raised serious doubts about the company's viability but uh that wasn't the end within days the company was given twenty five million in taxpayer dollars through another program with even less scrutiny this is corruption plain and simple everyone here knows it but too many continue to look away. It's a waste of taxpayer resources. Instead of targeting minerals projects that serve actual national needs, committee Republicans voted down every Democratic amendment to make this bill work in the public interest. And we tried. Amendments that would limit fast-tracking to critical mining projects, protect tribal sovereignty in permitting, and block projects that are owned by foreign adversaries from accessing this fact fast-track. As is, the bill simply codifies another tool for this administration to abuse, and they will. I urge this committee to reject both bills, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now, we'll get to members of the committee. Uh, Miss Fischbach, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and um, Chairman Westerman, maybe we could refocus on why is it important to give mining projects the same expedited permitting treatment treatment as other major infrastructure projects.

Qu- quite simply because minerals, and especially critical minerals, are so critical to our country's economy and to our national security. And I have here the, uh, USGS and Commerce report, the Mineral Mineral Commodity Summary for twenty- twenty-six, something I refer to often. They've been doing this publication for years. And if you - if you look at this first chart they've got here, this is something every American needs to understand. This first column shows that we have about a hundred and forty billion dollars of mined material. That's not just critical mineral, that's everything from aggregate to platinum and palladium. a hundred and forty billion dollars net of imports and exports. When that material gets processed in American processing facilities, it's worth a trillion dollars, just under a trillion dollars. That's what the second column shows. The last column shows that when that material goes into our economy, it generates four trillion dollars of GDP from a hundred and forty billion dollars worth of mine material. now this book also has another interesting chart everything in the blue and these are our critical minerals is something we depend on a foreign country for and the the tops top is obviously too small but if you could look down through here there's one name that appears over and over and over and that's china The good news is, is we have these deposits in our country, in sufficient quantities to mine. Literally spread out all over our country. The problem is, over the years we've heard of NIMBY not in my backyard. But we've gone from NIMBY to people being bananas. And banana is build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. And our permitting laws have been weaponized to stop us from using our resources, from releasing our wealth, from creating American jobs. You know, four trillion dollars of GDP? Take seventeen and a half percent of that and that's the impact on the Federal Treasury. So that's about the the percentage of the GDP that goes into federal taxes. Our security literally depends on these these minerals. Again, we're blessed with them. We should be utilizing the deposits that we have, we mine, safer, healthier, no human rights violations, than anywhere else in the world. But those minerals don't do us any good when they're in the ground. And if there was ever a time that we need to lead the world, not just in getting them out of the ground, column one in that chart, but processing them into refined material, we can't build processing plants in this country anymore in a timely manner. Uh, so all of that's moved offshore, where they do it without near the environmental, uh, guidelines that we have here. And as a result, the manufacturing's followed it. So this is a big issue. And just - we're not doing away with the environmental - the environmental permitting process - we're putting it under FAST-forty-one so you can do it in a timely manner and this administration is using - But we need to codify it so that moving forward, mining can fall under the Fast-forty-one process.

And thank you. That incredibly informative and and educational for many of us. Uh, so, Mister Chairman, thank you, and I think you made your case very strongly for that this makes sense, to do this in a reasonable timely manner, and that you uh there is there is growth for the GDP and for the economy involved, and it's a national security issue. So, i i think you made the case for this bill and so i appreciate you bringing it forward and i support the bill and i yield

thank you

the gentlelady yields back now recognizes gentleman mr. mcgovern for his time

listen how many did you wanna respond to any of that

yes thank you um you know lost in all of that is the reality that mining projects right now are eligible for fast forty one already are lots of them are being added to the fast forty one dashboard Uh, all this bill does is codify that existing eligibility, but then it does something else that should be very troubling to all of us. It prevents this administration or future administrations from prioritizing actual critical minerals in other words it's putting sand and gravel on the same plane as all of these other things that we're so concerned about competing with China for. Uh, it is a free-for-all for all types of mining. That's what this does under the pretext that somehow mining projects can't be added to project, or to FAST forty-one, which they actually can.

So who wants this? The mining industry?

Sure.

Yeah, right? I mean, I mean that's, that's one of the frustrations that I heard when I was back home, is that people kind of see this Congress and this administration as prioritizing, you know, uh, big money special interest over what regular people want. I mean, everywhere you go, not just in my district but all across the country, people say things are too damn expensive what are you doing to lower prices and then we come and we give a big wet kiss to the mining industry and on the um on the on the on the uh yeah on the uh issue of um uh you know protecting the uh the the whales i mean i think i wanna make sure i understand this the delay that we you talked about right is is is at least another two years right under current law we're guessing yeah under current laws another two years right So it's like it's not like it's not up right now.

Right.

It's another another two years. Uh, and this would basically make it another thirteen years, uh, it might

This would jump the gun before that process had even had a chance to deliver what it

Right.

promised which is all of this data and consensus rulemaking that was supposed to come out this would interrupt that.

And w- and we have invested a lot of taxpayer money into trying to find better ways to avoid, uh, catching these right whales and, right? I mean, we have there's all this new technology that's being developed and and new ways to do this in a way yeah i i'm just trying to wonder i wonder why we're

yeah

we're moving this bill right now i wonder if it has anything to do with susan collins uh in maine versus um you know uh you know something that is urgent that we need to deal with right now again i gotta tell you i mean i said in my opening statement people want us to address the issue of affordability people can't afford their rents they can't um people can't afford their groceries these tariffs are out of control um i mean we're now picking a fight with our neighbor an ally canada which is embarrassing um and here's the problem with all these fights with all this bullying uh that's going on right now um it's gonna be hard to repair the damage because then you have to rebuild the trust uh and i i i gotta tell you i mean our allies and our friends people who have had good relations with for years you know our at the end of this administration's you know bullying tactics um and they and you know you talk about you worry about china those we're we're we're pushing our allies toward china uh we we we ought to be trying to strengthen our economic ties with our allies we're pushing them to china uh anyway i it this is disappointing that we're doing nothing to address the concerns that we all hear when we go back home uh you know again helping uh uh a vulnerable republican senator hold on to her seat and uh you know and rewarding a uh you know a big money donor uh i i think is the wrong set of priorities but uh in any event i thank you both for being here i yield back

gentleman yields back now recognize the gentleman from new york mr. langworthy for his time

thank you very much mr. chairman um as we know critical minerals are the backbone of the modern economy and they're essential from everything from our defense systems and advanced technology to our energy production and american manufacturing uh but many of those resources are right behind under our feet but we can't get to them because of red tape and delays uh we should be developing those here at home i see it in western new york and the southern tier in my district and we know how important strong manufacturing is to good paying jobs in our local economy and those manufacturers were require and depend on a reliable supply chain. Uh, Chairman Westerman, how do permitting delays affect our ability to compete with China on critical minerals, and how would this bill help strengthen domestic mining and processing?

Uh, thank you for that uh question, Mister Langworthy. And I I think you hit right at the the core of the problem, is that permitting delays do um stop projects and then they ultimately drive investors away to Think if you've you know, the average NEPA process takes four and a half years, but for mining you measure that in decades, you know, twenty to thirty years to go through the process to open a new mine. So who can tither capital up that long without investing it? And then you have so many instances of people trying to go through the process and then just giving up and losing money that they've put into the project. So it's like trick me once my fault or your fault trick me twice and it's it's my fault. So this throws a wet towel on investments to do mining. And again, when we mine in this country, we have a hard time processing the material that we mine because we can't build new, uh, smelters and processing plants. So sometimes even what we mine here gets shipped overseas to get processed. And it's such a huge economic driver in the the rural communities that I represent. You talked about Western New York. Yeah, this a lot of these places are where these minerals reside. That means jobs. It means being able to earn a good living, to raise your family, to build your community, and to just go to work every day and be a productive citizen. If you if somebody far away is saying, no, you can't touch these resources here, then you're denying people the opportunity to provide for themselves. You're denying them the opportunity to make a good living so they can, um, can have the things that other people have. So it's a it's a huge issue for our economy and for our national defense. And, again, I want to point out the administration can use fast forty-one on mining. This administration has used it forty-nine times. The Biden administration used it zero times. So this political ping pong with permitting is detrimental to the long-term goal of having a reliable and sustainable mining process that works in our country. So it is imperative that Congress act. We shouldn't just step back and say, oh, whatever administration comes in, that's what we'll we will live with. Let's give working people and investors an opportunity, regardless of who the administration is, to have a fair shot at getting a permit to develop the resources where they live.

Yeah, I I during August I met with, uh, several labor unions and and they identified permitting reform as something that we desperately need in this country to get projects off the ground and and to create good paying jobs um you're exactly right we have the resources we have the workers we have the know-how right here in the united states of america and if we're serious about strengthening our supply chains in competing we need to cut the red tape and start producing more of these critical minerals right here at home and i appreciate the committee's

and

work you uh you'll do your

and i would like to say this isn't even permitting reform this is just

right

giving another industry access to a permitting process that works that could work a lot better if we actually did permitting reform

Which we need.

Yes. Um, and also Madam Chair, or Mister Chair, um, I ask you unanimous consent to submit this to the record.

Without objection, so ordered. Oh, then what's the date on the report?

Um, twenty twenty six, the mineral commodity summaries.

Ah. Thank you.

I I do appreciate the Natural Resources Committee's

So ordered.

work on this legislation and I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Gentleman yields back, now recognizes gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Miss Gannon for her time.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman. Um, uh, you know, the two bills before us seem to be doubling down on what we're seeing both from this administration and from this House majority, which is a very one-sided approach to natural resources, to our economy, that it's all about what can the investors get, um, it's all about the money. And one of our functions, I believe, in in Congress is to balance heating concerns and that's what this legislation would do away with it would do away with the ability of the public to say woah hold on a minute we don't want this mining that's going to foul our water or our air or our neighborhood or whatever it's taking away some of the protections that it's government's business to put in place um and that's certainly something we see over and over again the emphasis on the immediacy of making a buck as opposed to the long-term damage that we're seeing to our environment. Um, uh, mister Hoffman, can you talk a little bit about this mining act, because there already are fast-track permitting processes for some of these critical minerals, aren't there?

Well, there are, and and the truth is, under the eighteen seventy-two mining act that controls most of this, um, there's there's just an enormous set of of privileges.

Mm-hmm.

that have been granted to the mining industry. I wanna um correct my friend from Arkansas on one thing. Um, it is true the Trump administration has added fifty-five mining projects to the FAST-forty-one dashboard, but there were six, there are six right now left over from the Biden administration. Now why did the Biden administration only have six and Trump has fifty-five? Because they were prioritizing.

Mm-hmm.

They were looking at projects that actually did involve critical minerals, that did advance our national security interest and what this legislation does is tie the hands of this administration or future administrations to not do that anymore, to treat all mining projects as if they are somehow critical minerals that we need for national security interest and should therefore have the benefit of the this expedited process.

And that that does seem to be one of the essential problems with this type of legislation this type of approach by this administration which is prioritizing the desires of those who are gonna make money off it and not necessarily prioritizing our communities which have to bear the brunt of some of this activity do i have that right

exactly yeah um the the eighteen seventy-two mining law uh already gives mining interests sort of super rights above all other stakeholders tribal sovereignty is something that only happens at the very end it's been interpreted by agencies to be much less meaningful in it than in other types of environmental reviews. So it it's already a stacked deck.

Mm-hmm.

Fast forty-one simply makes the stacked deck move faster.

OK. Sounds an awful lot like we need to have some conversations with the Lorax about this law because it's really,

Who speaks for the trees?

um Yeah. Um, we've also got this Lobsterman Protection Act. Now, am I correct that there are um, there is technol- technology and equipment out there that would benefit both the lobstering industry and the right whales.

There is. And under existing law, we've got two more years to allow this process to run its course, to allow experts and stakeholders to continue proving up this technology, gathering data, making consensus recommendations that could be put into regulations in twenty twenty nine. This bill jumps the gun and stops all of that. and grants another seven year free pass to use the old rope-based gear that we know is entangling and killing whales. Why do that? Well, uh, Mister McGovern was just asking about this a moment ago. Uh, it it may also be because this gear, the the new technology is starting to prove itself pretty well.

Mm-hmm.

It's actually being demonstrated. It's produced over a million tons of safe, sustainable, uh, seafood, including for lobstermen and crab fishermen. So, this is the future, and we have an opportunity here in the United States to actually lead the world in it, in perfecting this technology, but we're gonna instead go back to the stuff that we know is helping put Northern Atlantic right whales on a path to extinction.

And how many did you say there are at this point?

Three hundred and eighty, and they scientists know every one of them by name.

OK. OK, that, it seems like it would be preferable to go with a win-win situation. for both the whales and the lobstermen. Guess my last question, uh, Natural Resources Committee deals with our natural resources, it deals with waterways, it deals with our Native American population. Has that committee held any hearings on how our Native American tribes feel about the renaming of Lake Ontario?

Absolutely none.

OK. I grew up in that region, was actually up there last week and there are a lot of opinions up there, not very favorable. Um. OK, thank you. Maybe in the future.

General, if he yields back now, recognize myself for my time and I would, uh, say to the chairman that, uh, I went back to my district as so many of us did during this, uh, most recent, uh, period. And, uh, surprisingly, one of my local television stations did a whole program on, uh, the mining, uh, engineering degree at Virginia Tech and how they were really thrilled that, uh, that all was going well and that they had not as some universities did abandon their uh mining uh program and they interviewed two young ladies who were pursuing uh careers there uh thought that was very interesting so sometimes you know we hear different things from different parts of the country but when folks say they went back home and nobody was talking about mining critical minerals it didn't come to my district cause it was on the news it wasn't it wasn't just that i held meetings about it and then i went to a meeting at virginia tech and it was on it actually was on drones But several of the professors came up and were just giddy with the fact that we are actually starting to look at mining uh, things in this country, and of course, uh, you you raised the issue of making sure that we can process them to some of the smelting and that type of thing in this country as well. And you held up a chart that showed a trillion dollars uh of benefit if we do it in this country. And then of course, i- i- that translated into four trillion in the economy. But that trillion dollars, if we have to ship everything off to, uh, Asia, particularly China, that's a trillion dollars goes into their economy, isn't it?

Absolutely, and that's American jobs, that's American wealth, that we're exporting with those critical minerals. Those, that could be held right here in this country. And I will also say, Mister Chairman, that, um, Virginia Tech's an excellent engineering school, I say that as an as an engineer, And also in my district we have a huge deposit of lithium on private land that's in water that can be pumped out of the ground, taken out of the lithium, and the water pumped back in the ground. You can't get much more environmentally friendly for mining on that, but you still have permitting obstacles on building a - a lithium refinery, and then hopefully we'll be able to build lithium battery plants. Uh, but you have to have a permit to do all of that. And also to move that brown water from where it's pulled out of the ground, you need something called a pop line. And as you know, it's very difficult to build a pop line in our country.

Yeah, and, uh, I couldn't help but think also that if we're mining these, uh, minerals here, doing it in a more, uh, robust way, doing it more efficiently, adding those jobs to the economy uh while it wasn't on this break in a previous break i was talking with the manufacturing concern in my district where they specifically talked about how they were having trouble getting one of the uh critical ingredients for something that they manufactured cause they had to buy it from sources overseas in that case it was asia but not necessarily china but the bottom line was was that if we were doing that in this country they'd may have be a whole lot easier to get uh those supplies, am I not correct, and then have a follow-up on that.

Uh, you're you're

Yes, do do well.

You're correct, and I also want to point something else out, it was mentioned that Fast forty-one would apply to things that aren't on the critical minerals list. But it would, it would, and those things are things that affect the cost of things we use here in our country. I visited a

Right, going next, yeah.

I visited a Portland cement plant in my district. Yeah, the the amount of Portland cement that we make in the United States on a bar chart is down here and China's up here we import a lot of Portland cement if you're building a house, it's got a lot of Portland cement in it in the foundations the aggregate that goes into uh concrete and asphalt that all has to get mined somewhere and if it's not mined locally the price goes up exponentially So, these are things that affect the everyday cost of things that are important to Americans all across the country.

And that was the point I was gonna go to next, is is if we're able to mine it here, that means we can make it here, that means the costs are gonna go down, and that affects affordability for the average American, doesn't it?

Exactly.

Absolutely. Well, I appreciate it very much, and uh, I look forward to seeing that bill on the floor. And with that, I will yield back and now recognize Uh, the gentleman from Colorado, Mister Nguz for his time.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Good to be back. Uh, thank you, Chairman Westerman and ranking member Hoffman for your testimony and for being here uh today. Uh, Chairman Westerman, do you know what day we left session?

Was at the end of July. I can't not remember the exact All right.

July twenty third.

I'll trust you on that.

So, it's been thirty eight days. Sound about right?

Sounds about right.

Okay,

I'll trust your math.

so thir- thirty-eight days, the house had been out of session. Uh, I was doing a little Googling before this and I saw you were back in Arkansas. For some of the break, right?

I was, yeah.

All right, and and visiting with constituents?

Exactly.

All right. I think I read an article that said you were in Eldorado, rural part of your district.

Well, all of my districts were rural, but yeah.

Uh, similar to mine. I imagine you had a chance to talk to a lot of constituents back home.

I did, yeah.

And I assume that they wanted to talk to you about healthcare, fair enough.

They they talk about a lot of things, but one one thing they wanted to talk about,

Gas prices?

especially down in El Dorado

Oh no, but let me let me get let me ask you, uh,

All right.

three specific gas prices. Uh, let me tell you my experience. I was in Colorado. So I was visiting with a lot of constituents. Gas prices came up quite a bit. Healthcare came up quite a bit. Jobs, economic opportunity came about a lot. I assume that's similar to your experience, right?

Absolutely,

Okay.

and uh in El Dorado they actually produce oil and gas.

How many of your constituents brought up the North Atlantic right whale?

N zero, but

Zero. Now let me tell you,

but

m- let me tell you, mister Weston,

but I'm chairman of a committee that has jurisdiction over it.

not, oh I hear you. But here's the thing. Nobody in my district brought that up either. When I was back home, I did a bunch of town halls. No one said, Congressman Negus, you oughta go back to Washington DC and make it your priority. The very first bill, after a thirty day, eight day recess, oughta be a bill undermining environmental protections for the three hundred and eighty North Atlantic right whales that are left in existence on planet Earth. That's House Republicans' top priority. I'm back in the Rules Committee,

That

I've been here for five minutes,

that's

and the very first bill that I have to consider is a bill that would eliminate uh protections for the North Atlantic right whale and I just, I can't imagine how that's a priority for the people in Arkansas or Colorado.

Well that's that's your perspective. This is a bill that would protect a two billion dollar part of Maine's economy and seventeen thousand five hundred lobster fishermen. And by the way, do you know how many how many right whales have died this year? There's there's three hundred. I did well, you tell me. Ha- zero because of fishing equipment from Maine. So, uh, my understanding Two total, one one Go ahead. that was undetermined what caused its death. It wasn't fishing equipment. And another one that was tangled up in Canadian fishing equipment. So my understanding, and I'll I'll give the rank and balance.

an opportunity to correct this if I'm wrong. My understanding is that fifty-five North Atlantic right whales have been killed, injured, or found in poor health since Republicans' last delayed action in protecting the North Atlantic right whale.

Yeah.

Is that right?

That is, that is correct,

Okay.

Mister Nguzen, they can't always tell the exact cause of death, but they find signs of entanglement in most of these cases.

Yeah. Uh, and I just I understand that obviously there's a difference of opinion with respect to the um underlying nature of this delay that Republicans want to pursue I'm just suggesting to you Mister Westerman that of all of the bills to take up on the very first day after a thirty-eight day recess for House Republicans this strikes me as uh as an odd one. But in any I'm not I'm not in charge I that wasn't a question.

Even even though it's

I w I'm not in charge of the floor calendar, so

Yeah.

Um, I will move on. I do wanna talk about the mining bill. I presume that part of the basis for this bill is a desire on your part, and I think a desire on others to reduce the reliance on foreign mining partnerships and arrangements. Is that a fair statement, or

Are are you asking me?

Yes, sir. Yeah.

yes, it's to be more um independent on being able to produce the minerals and resources that we need. And I think this should be a bipartisan issue, just like the lobster fisherman bill is bipartisan with

But explain to me I

representative Jarek Goldin cosponsoring the bill.

Larry, uh, but I'm on the mining piece that I'm trying to just kind of have you dig a little bit deeper on. Explain to me the impetus. The the point here is you want the United States to be able to be more self-sufficient with respect to domestic mining so that from national security perspective the united states isn't relying on countries that may or may not be allies nato uh countries from the central airspace

and and so that states like colorado with large mineral

but uh

deposits and the colorado school of mines which is a

i hear you is my statement wrong or am i not you feel like you don't wanna agree to my statement

famous mining school no i i already agreed with it we want to be more reliant on domestic production

are you worried about folks within the administration, connected to the administration, making a whole lot of money off of foreign mining excursions? That's something that

I'm I'm worry I'm focused on producing minerals,

you're concerned about?

not just mining them but refining them and manufacturing in the United States.

You said that part. I understand. You said that part, but so you're not concerned about a lot of people making a lot of money on foreign mining

I I don't know what you're talking about specifically.

Let me let me explain and give you some background. Do you read the New York Times? I don't know, you probably

It doesn't come to Arkansas, no I just

Doesn't come to Arkansas?

No I read I read the Arkansas Democrat Gazette,

Okay, I'll get you a copy of this article.

the Wall Street Journal mostly, yeah.

This is a the headline is Trump cut a billion dollar mining deal. His sons stand to profit. The article is about a project in rural Kazakhstan. one point six billion dollars in federal financing for an american company and i'll just quote this investors which with a firm that is housed or quote that is housed at trump tower in new york and partly owned by the president's two eldest sons and then it goes on to say join with other partners to take a twenty percent stake in a corporate entity related to the kazakhstan project does that concern you like it strikes me that given your statements about foreign mining and the need for the united states to wean off our uh you know foreign entanglements that this might be part of it that you don't wanna see the trump family

yeah well if you if you if you if you think about that i'm not sure what they were mining you may know what mineral were they mining there

making money hand over fist on a foreign mining company

probably maybe uranium because we've banned uranium mining in the united states for all intents and purposes and we're heavily dependent on russia and kazakhstan for uranium coming into our country It would be nice if mining companies could actually build in the United States and didn't take their investments overseas.

Could we convince you, perhaps uh, I know the ranking member has raised the alarm about this deal, it seems like you're concerned about foreign mining entanglements. Maybe we can convince you to join with us in investigating and getting to the bottom of why Donald Trump's sons are making tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars off a foreign mining deal that the President apparently approved in Kazakhstan.

Maybe that they couldn't invest here in the United States.

Right, can you remember? How often do you care to expand?

Like you either care about dev- developing an independent critical supply chain or you don't. Uh, you don't give free passes for this kind of grift and corruption because it's the President's family and suggests that it's just too hard to invest here, in the United States.

Yeah, I mean, I I couldn't agree with you more. I appreciate the chairman's statements about wanting to create more opportunities perhaps for folks connected to the trump family to make money here domestically um i would say we ought to get to the bottom of this corruption this is unconscionable and the united states congress ought to be digging into it the american people deserve an answer so in any event uh i will yield back now it's my time i thank the chairman

the gentleman yields back now recognize the gentleman from south carolina

Mister Westman, you know, it's interesting, you're talking about getting to the bottom of the Trump dollars. Was the same true of Hunter Biden? Did they wanna see paperwork from Ukraine? Was the same true of Barack Obama when he gave money to Iran? They wanna f- would they wanna get to the bottom of that? Uh, if i- i- i- if they wanted to get to financial statements and see what exactly was invested they'd find that, I would assume. But um, Anyway, on on the on the mining and on the uh critical minerals, I was in a plant in South Carolina that uh they'd copper was something that was real critical to their product. And you're right, permitting is it's time is money. Have you ever heard of a of a permit of a uh permitting cost being scaled back? They only add to it. Cong- Congress is guilty on both sides, Republican and Democrat. Time's money. And um, to get a plant built here of any kind, not just minerals, but you mentioned Portland cement,

Yeah.

try getting a plant built. You can't do it. China doesn't have that problem. They're our enemy. So I I don't really have a question uh, unless you wanna expand on what you were asking.

You you well you brought up some good points there. Copper is something we should be talking about. The the World Bank has estimated that by twenty forty-five, twenty fifty, We will need twice as much copper as it as has been mined in the history of the world, with all the electrification that's happening. The United States has two copper smelters. China has sixty plus. As far back as the nineteen nineties, it's not that long ago, we produced three times more copper than China. Today they produce eleven times more than we do. You can't electrify things without copper. So, absolutely, we need to do more copper here in the United States. When you look at the permitting process, and I c- I came from an engineering background where I actually had to go through these permitting processes. The government seems to have this idea that the more you regulate something, the better job you're doing. And we get to this point of diminishing returns where they just lower the emission rate a little bit more. and they cause the cost to go up exponentially. Uh, a classic example is the Biden rule on PM two point five, particulate matter two point five microns or or smaller. The current air discharge regulation says that you cannot discharge air with more than twelve micrograms per liter of particulate matter below two point five microns. So what does that mean? I challenge anybody to open up a weather app on your phone, and it'll show you the air pollutants, and it's extremely difficult to find PM two point five at twelve or below right now. It's probably fifty or sixty here in Washington DC, and that's just the ambient air. You go to the most remote places in our country and it's gonna be above PM two point five. So what did EPA do? They said, " If twelve point fi- or if twelve is good, let's make it nine." Just lowering it three micrograms per liter. Your typical manufacturing plant, that means millions or tens of millions of dollars worth of new equipment to take out or to make the air cleaner on the output than what they pulled into the plant to begin with. We've lost our compass and we've lost our common sense, and we're driving American industry into the ground and we're shifting that industry overseas, and becoming more and more dependent on resources from other countries.

Copper's used in every piece of wire, every battery, every construction project, and you basically stop it, they can't get copper uh at a reasonable price. And you talking about uh, you know, killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, you know, the to demagogue profit, i think when you make a profit you pay taxes on it don't you

that's the idea

unless it's illegal unless it's something you can't trace so uh no i would i would thank you for putting this up i'll be supporting on the floor and um appreciate you doing it yield back

thank you representative norman

gentleman yields back now recognize the general lady from new mexico miss ledger fernandez

uh thank you very much and thank you chair and ranking member for being here uh you know chairman you and i uh we're in agreement that we think uh that we should have faster permitting right that things should move faster i come to that from i wanna see more renewable energy we have a lot of renewable energy projects in my state uh and uh uh uh i take it that what you're saying is by adding uh these uh mining uh to fast forty one we're gonna give companies a significant advantage to complete their projects more quickly is that the goal here Mister Chairman.

Y yes, hopefully it would result in projects happening faster, and adhering to the environmental regulations,

Right.

not exempting ex- our environmental regulations, just going through the process faster.

And this is a benefit, right? This could help make the companies be more profitable, uh, get get more minerals out. That's your goal, right? Is this is gonna help the companies.

The the goal is to make the US less dependent on foreign minerals.

Ah, less dependent on foreign minerals. As and you raised over and over again, Mister Chairman. in the conversations about uh how often uh China is mentioned in that report you provided uh and how bad it is that the People's Republic of China is doing so much of this. Uh and as you know, one of my issues is why are we gonna give China an advantage to something like fast forty-one here in the United States with our minerals. So why why won't you accept my suggested amendments that we do not give foreign adversaries like China uh benefits an access to our minerals. I people don't know that they don't pay a dime for our royalties. Uh but you're gonna be opening up you refuse to restrict access uh to China like you you cuz you don't accept my amendments, cuz you don't accept my suggestion,

No.

you do not restrict China getting a for hold here in the United States on our minerals.

Yeah, now that's a that's a cute amendment that would undermine the whole rule, because we know that these companies are traded on the stock market, and if we put a rule in here that says that pick your number, if ten percent of the company is owned by China, Chinese investors will buy ten point zero one percent, and they will that will restrict mining here in our country. So i agree we need to take um the ability from chinese investors to to mine and profit from our minerals but that amendment is not the way to do it

but i don't think the amendment is cute i think the amendment actually would go to an issue that we're facing which is if we think that china uh should not have a fo hold in our mining industry we should do something about it and uh the republicans refuse to do something about it other than they talk about it a lot. They complain about China a lot. But then when it comes time to actually say, let's make sure we protect American interests, you don't do anything. And and that is my problem with what we've done there. And maybe it's because, you know, uh, later on we'll be talking about uh uh uh anti-socialism, uh, but, you know, this president actually loves President Xi. He loves to call him brilliant. He loves the fact that he's he calls him a brilliant guy. who controls one point four billion people with an iron fist he's a brilliant guy i mean those are comments of uh president trump about shipping he clearly uh adores the man and uh but i think that there is another aspect to this that was brought up that by my colleague representative neguse which is the aspect of corruption uh that we need to address and the aspect of selling off american lands and public lands and uh we see it happening in the context as he raised with regards to the president's family uh and we see it in the context of most recently uh some of our most treasured public lands being offered up for sale i can remember can can you speak to the concerns that we think we should be raising and the the american public think we should be raising about protecting our public lands and public resources so they're not given away to the highest bidder or friends of president trump

yeah i i wanna thank the gentlelady from new mexico and this this comes up all the time in mining legislation before our natural resources committee not just on this bill to move mining projects into fast forty one but in all types of mining projects and environmental streamlining proposals that we have seen you have tried repeatedly to insert common sense amendments that would simply say if you are a foreign adversary you don't get the benefit of mining for free with all of this streamlining and all of these subsidies and other things on our public lands and extracting our public mineral estate from the United States of America and taking it overseas and doing who knows what with it. You've just tried to put some guardrails on all of that and been rejected at every turn. I find it fanciful, at best, to say the reason for that is because if you set an ownership threshold, that Chinese companies will move billions, maybe trillions of dollars into our economy, buy up stock in all of our mining companies in order to grind them to a halt. I don't think anyone in the business world really operates that way, but I think we've Well, it's just preposterous on its face.

Not how it works.

it's just preposterous

and and and and the and the reality is there are companies there are you know i i come from a state that has a lot of mining and we have we have domestic companies doing some of that mining and so i think that uh to actually prioritize domestically

yeah

owned corporations and companies makes sense and have you uh you know republicans keep refusing to do that and that that's my problem with this legislation and uh my other problem is like i don't want them uh selling off uh yosemite national park to uh trump stoners i mean this level of i'm i i don't know what to call it right cause we have we have you know we have white blue collar crime white collar crime like we're starting to see gold collared crime with regards to the way in which

yeah

this administration is using its powers

yeah

to benefit the wealthiest corporations his own family and wealthy donors. Uh, and I I I think it's outrageous. Uh,

Yeah, but

the, I am the last uh, um, uh, Democrat. If there was anything else you want to add to this discussion.

Well, I couldn't agree more, uh, with the gentlelady. We're seeing it really in all aspects of our public land management, all aspects of environmental policy. Uh, we're just seeing two different rules. Uh, a very permissive standard for these moneyed interests that happen to be close to this president and this administration, Uh, and then a rule of law that is selectively applied against others who, uh, may be less politically or financially favored. So, um, it is looking us right in the face with this legislation that looks away from all of these grifts and corruption schemes by people in Donald Trump's own family, uh, and continues to hand out gifts in public policy and public resources to these folks. So, um, it is it is glaring, it is unlike anything we have seen in this country. I think the corruption makes teapot dome look like a quaint affair, and I thank the gentlelady for trying to put some guardrails in place.

Uh, thank you, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Did did you have anything you wanted to say as a closing statement, Mr. Chairman?

Uh, I just wanted to, uh, clarify that this is a process that's already in existence, FAST-forty-one. It's streamlining, permitting. It doesn't have anything to do with financial services rules on who can invest. Doesn't have anything to do with judiciary rules on corruption. It's focused on streamlining so that we can produce more materials in the United States and be less dependent on foreign countries and grow our economy instead of other countries' economies.

Mr. Hoffman.

Yeah, thank you, Mister Chairman. Mining projects can already be added to the FAST-forty-one dashboard. It's as simple as that. All this bill does is tie the hands of this administration and future administrations to keep them from using common sense, to keep them from prioritizing, to keep them from making sure that only projects that advance our national security interests uh benefit from this streamlining. In other words, they are opening Pandora's box for all manner of mining and this is just a giveaway that makes no sense i yield back

alright i appreciate the two gentlemen being here and uh this ends our first panel and the questions for members of the committee i will now uh as as they withdraw we'll we'll now recognize our second panel when when they've cleared out a wee bit and uh Thought I saw Joe Wilson here earlier. He's in the back. So if Mister Wilson and Mister Scott will come forward.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, we're gonna call him in a moment, And now welcome our Our second panel, Representative Wilson and Ranking Member Scott from the House Education and Workforce Committee your full statements will be submitted for the record, and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Wilson, you're now recognized for your testimony. And then we turn on

Even better now you can hear. Okay, I think. Okay. Israel is recognized as a major strategic partner of the United States, a designation established in the two thousand and fourteen United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act. The bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama and introduced by former Democrat Senator from California, Barbara Boxer. The bill was passed by unanimous consent in the House and by voice vote uh in the House also. Despite Israel's strong relationship with the United States, it continues to be attacked by its opponents. Unfortunately, this opposition extends to harmful efforts on university campuses to boycott Israel or Israel-related individuals, organizations, and businesses. This sadly has been correlated with an alarming rise of anti-semitism on American college and university campuses, a trend that has accelerated in recent years. The combat anti-semitate anti-semit anti-semitism movement reported five hundred and thirty-one anti-semitic incidents in the U. S. on college and university campuses in twenty twenty five. A significant amount of unrest on campuses has resulted from efforts by anti-Israel radicals to coerce institutions into vesting from and boycotting Israel. Boycotts of Israel, which are anti-semitic in design and discriminatory in their effect, have been weaponized to isolate Jewish students, silate, silence Jewish faculty, and cut American universities off from invaluable intellectual and research partnerships with Israeli academic institutions. These boycotts promote anti-semitic atmosphere on campus. nothing to help education as they are inspired by foreign influences. I'm grateful for the leadership of Congressman Ralph Norman, who has been here a few minutes ago, to address the interference of America with foreign influence by his closing of the Confucian Institutes of the Chinese Communist Party across United States. I am pleased to come before the Rules Committee with H. R. forty-seven O five, protect the economic and ac Academic Freedom Act of twenty twenty five, courageously introduced by our Chair, Virginia Fox, and also bipartisan with Congressman Josh Greithamer of New Jersey. H. R. forty-seven ninety-five ensures that schools participating in federal st- say student aid programs do not engage in non- expressive commercial boycotts of uh Israel. This includes refusing to do business with Israel or terminating existing business relationships. for reasons unrelated to the ordinary business considerations. The bill also requires the schools receiving funds for international education under title six of the Higher Education Act, to treat partnerships, exchanges and collaborations with academic programs in Israel to do the same as academic programs of other nations. Finally, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that limiting cooperation or partnerships with Israel does not serve the security, stability and economic vitality of the United States. I will also note that this does not restrict the ability of institutions to express opinions that are protected by the First Amendment. There is substantial court precedent on this, and additionally nearly forty States have laws or executive orders relating to commercial activities and boycotts of Israel. So there is precedent that such laws do not violate the First Amendment. The bill ensures that we protect the strong and unique relationship between Israel and the United States. It also sends a message of support to Jewish students and helps ensure that institutions do not surrender to radical demands. Our colleges and universities should remain places of learning and intellectual freedom not hotbeds of anti-semitism or discriminatory boycotts that hurt Jewish students and faculty thank you and I welcome any questions you may have I yield back.

Chairman yields back, now recognize Ranking Member Scott for his time in front of the Rules Committee.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and members of the committees,

Thank you.

good to see you. Uh, today we find ourselves here again purportedly to address anti-semitism in American higher education, and while we should be able to agree that there is that anti-semitism in higher education should not be tolerated, the fact is that my colleagues on the other side have been curiously quiet or selectively certainly or selectively about addressing anti-semitism when it does occur. We can recall that President Trump declared that there were fine people on both sides when a bunch of white supremacists in their Unite the Right rally marched in the University of Virginia's campus chanting " Jews will not replace us". The colleagues on the other side were also silent as numerous reports regarding college republicans were openly promoting their hatred of Jewish people among other groups and we've seen that other incidences like that have not been uh commented on. All the while this has been going on, my colleagues have not told the President to stop firing lawyers at the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, the agency responsible for investigating claims of anti-semitism in education. My colleagues on the other side were certainly mum on how this administration was dis- is dismissing title six disparate impact analysis. And that's a very tool necessary to address practices and policies that may look facially neutral but do in fact discriminate against protected classes under the law. With that said, let me turn to the act there's a bill before us, H. R. forty-seven ninety-five, the so-called Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, would amend the Higher Education Act by placing new conditions on colleges and universities that receive federal uh higher education funding. Uh one provision would uh require colleges and universities that receive title six funding for international education and language programs to certify each year that their students and faculty can participate in academic programs in Israel, just as they can in other countries, and that Israeli students and faculty are treated the same as those from other countries. It's certainly not uh not controversial. But under the bill, institutions reti receiving title four federal student aid funding would be legally required to certify that they're not engaged in a non- expressive commercial boycott of Israel. And while the bill does not name a boycott, the best sanctions, a BDS movement in its efforts to, its efforts are clearly directed at that student-led movement. Now we can't have a meaningful discussion of the bill without also acknowledging that there has not been a single case of an American college or university administration adopting the BDS movement policies that are described in the bill. Not one. Yet it appears that the bill's sponsors are conflating student or some faculty support for the BDS movement with the policies of the colleges and universities they attend or work at. These are very two two very different things. And Congress should be careful not to treat the expressive views or activities of individual students as the official position of the schools they attend. Furthermore, we know the bill is intended to d- wh- while we know the bill is intended to target BDS movement, it is not clear whether a school that even joins the BDF movement would even be covered by the text of the bill. The bill implicates quote " non- expressive boycotts", and that kind of confusing language is there for a reason If it is an expressive boycott, it would be protected by the First Amendment. BDS by its very nature is designed to express disapproval with the actions of the State of Israel. If a college or university came out and publicly said it was joining BDS, most people would agree that that announcement and any such activity that it pulled from it would clearly be expressive, and therefore out of the scope of the bill. And as expressive activity, the school's funding would be protected under the First Amendment. But again, no college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway. So simply put, the bill does not respond to any ongoing or existing higher education policy of boycotting Israel. Nevertheless, it would create new federal requirements intended to prevent institutions from adopting such policies in the future. So I want to be clear, the bill does not solve a problem. It anticipates a problem that does not presently exist. Moreover, as we examine the bill, uh, members should be careful to consider how these new federal requirements would operate in practice, a potential negative effect on institutions receiving federal funding and whether the bill is misusing power derived from the Constitution's Constitution's spending clause to illegally sanctioned First Amendment protected speech, particularly that of of of students. And so as written, the bill presents serious first amendment problems along with improperly eliminating uh limiting academic freedom. I'd hope these problems with the bill would have been addressed after mark-up but they weren't and I therefore would be opposing the bill. Thank you Madam Chair, and at your back.

Thank you Mister Scott, thank you Mister Wilson for being here. Um uh Miss Fishback, do you have any questions?

Yes, thank you Madam Chair, and it i i just wanna say as we're talking about this you know anti-semitism should not and should never be tolerated absolutely never and it can't be particularly on our on our college campuses and and just to point out unfortunately um in the twenty twenty four to twenty five uh academic uh school year there was i believe twenty three over twenty three hundred incidences of attacks reported um by students and so i think this is incredibly timely and because we just we should be anticipating um issues and problems and trying to stop them particularly when we are talking about uh individuals being and and a entire religion being attacked and so i just wanted to um ask uh mr. wilson why why is it so important to insure that universities receiving federal tax payers do not participate in discriminatory boycotts against Israel.

It it

And indeed, Congresswoman, thank you for that question, and uh I I want to uh point out that I appreciate you bringing up too, uh that you should anticipate, it's called deterrence. And so we want to deter uh actions that could occur. And then uh sadly uh with uh what's been referred to uh as the events in Charlottesville, and as a uh, person who attended JAG school at Charlottesville, I really like, um, the Charlottesville community, and so we found out that later that was financed by the Southern Poverty Law Center to create its falsified reason for existence. And, again, how sad that is. But aside from that, indeed, uh, universities should be places where, uh, students are there to learn and, uh, to, uh, not be concerned about their safety and you've referred to it there have been hundreds of incidents of anti-semitic conduct towards students and then hey, I'm I'm really grateful hey, uh, Republican women do good, okay? Uh, uh, you, uh, chairwoman Fox, Elise Stefanik, uh, it was uh, uh, Elise who actually had the President Kelly Kornbruth uh K Sally Kornbruth of MIT, and and I want to quote her exactly, because it's inconceivable in the free world that this would occur. She said that anti-semitic depends on the context. It, which is um, a elimination of the Jewish people. That, that was her, I, I, I, uh, and hey, now she's no longer president of MIT. But um, this needs to be a deterrence and that's what this, uh, uh, bipartisan, uh, bill provides. And, uh, boycott, divestment, and sanctions, no matter how you look at it, when you actually look at, uh, the persons who are promoting this, uh, it is the existence of Israel, is what they're talking about. uh and um to be uh in place of uh the existence and even in the New York Times, they had a a direct quote, amazingly enough from a top BDS spokesman, that uh Israel could exist but not in Palestine, uh which means not exist. So with that in uh mind and BDS and their background, uh indeed it it uh promotes anti-semitism on college campuses, uh and over and over again, title six, it advances international uh education and includes equipping students with necessary uh background. But Israel is a key uh ally of America uh as a democracy and uh that it should be um providing that uh the Title Six programs uh should be uh not uh paid for by federal uh taxpayers uh if um if there's anti-semitism. And so that BDS really is um such a code uh sadly and uh that most people understand a code of anti-semitism.

And and thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is absolutely critical. It is a timely bill because we do absolutely need to anticipate if there a any kind of problem there maybe because anti-semitism cannot be tolerated, period.

yes

and we need to be doing these kinds of things to protect those twenty three hundred students who uh experience those incidents those attacks

yes

so thank you very much for bringing the bill forward and i give back

thank you

thank you miss skinland you're recognized

thank you uh it's another through the looking glass kind of a day here we're talking about a strawman that our republican colleagues have propped up when there's never been a single case where a college or university has done what this bill would prevent. But it is designed to say, " Oh my goodness, there's a problem here." Maybe just like that Communist strawman that we keep, uh, hearing about. There's nothing forward-looking happening in this Congress under this Republican, uh, majority. They're just trying to divide people and set up these fear-based uh, strum it so they can knock them down without actually accomplishing anyone. You know, we've got this bill that's attacking an issue that has never occurred. Instead of addressing the real challenges that are facing American students and families and colleges and universities, um, you know, we're this would chill academic discussions and condition access to critical federal student aid dollars dollars that should be focused on helping students get an education, not use to leverage the latest boogeyman that that our republican colleagues are putting together, because there's certainly no shortage of real problems in higher education that congress should be addressing. Congress is unaffordable for far too many families. Students are graduating under mountains of debt. And and we hear obviously we should be combating anti-semitism. But how do you do that when the Trump administration has dismantled the Department of Education and fired all the folks at the Office of Civil Rights who are in charge of investigating discrimination in our uh in our universities, colleges, and in our K through twelve schools. So, um, you know, i- i- it's just nonsensical and it doesn't actually accomplish anything. I mean, we should be instead dealing with the fact that the administration is freezing and disrupting critical research funding. Uh, I heard about that at both of the town halls I ha- I held last week. Um, I know our Republican colleagues, there's been reporting that they're not holding town halls, but if they held town halls, they would hear from the folks in their communities who are unable to work on the research that makes Americans safer and healthier and helps our education institutions be among the best in the world and instead that's getting cut these are real problems and i don't think that the bill we are addressing here today is targeted at a real problem i think it's targeted at stirring up division and and not actually dealing with real issues um representative scott ranking member scott when students are struggling with the cost of higher education what would you identify as the most pressing challenges that congress should be congress should be dealing with with respect to higher education

well getting access to higher education is so important and the cost has gotten out of control the cost um and ability for students to pay for their education is now a challenge so much of a challenge that too many students are calculating that it's just not worth it

mmm

they qualify academically qualify for college and don't go cause it's just not worth it it's just too expensive

oh

um in nineteen sixty five president johnson signed the higher education act and said essentially that any student at any state could apply to any college in a university and not be turned away because the family is poor and at that point the pell grant covered about eighty percent of the cost of going to a state college you could work a part-time job during during the school year, full-time job during the summer, and you work your way through college essentially with no debt.

Mm-hmm.

Now the Pell Grant, it's not eighty percent, it's around twenty-five or thirty percent of the cost. You've gotta borrow the rest and take on crushing debt in order to go. Uh, that's not fair and it's um a a new situation and the big ugly bill from last year, limited what they can uh borrow in certain making it impossible for low income students to achieve what they could have achieved if they hadn't limited the uh ability to pay. So access I think is the um uh number one uh number one issue. The discrimination on campus needs to be dealt with.

Mm-hmm.

Uh we have s- people commiting from the side without um and at the same time, as you have pointed out, the office and the federal government that deals with discrimination on campus is the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education. And uh the other side of the aisle is just watch the president decimate that office, take it out of the Department of Education, um and essentially um uh not have the personnel there to take on the cases. So you can complain about the discrimination,

Mm-hmm.

but you have eliminated the ability to do anything about it.

I I couldn't agree more. I mean, if you are concer- if you are genuinely concerned about anti-semitism and other discrimination on college campuses, you should be propping up tools that would deal with that discrimination. And instead we've seen this House majority just give a free pass to the administration gutting the Office of Civil Rights. They fired every single member of the, every single lawyer in the Office of Civil Rights in Philadelphia. There is now no Office of Civil Rights in Philadelphia. and we have colleges everywhere. And and to your point about um the real pressing issues of access and cost of higher education I've got sixteen colleges and universities in my district, and every single one of them has a food pantry because students can't afford to eat and pay their tuition. And with gas prices going up, I'm hearing when I'm out in the community that they have to make a decision about whether to come to class because they can't afford the gas, or whether to eat, I mean it just the pressures on our student community are so great, and nothing that this Congress is doing is making them any better. So, thank you for your, yeah.

Well in in term in terms of discrimination, there's another thing the administration is doing, which is, you know, a kind of technical legal issue, and that is eliminating all the disparate impact cases.

Yes.

That's a case where you can prove that a group has been discriminated against, but the pro- p- policy that um provokes the discrimination looks

Mm-hmm.

But in effect, it has a discriminatory impact. Um, they're requiring, they're eliminating all of those cases unless you can show intent. A lot of the cases, there is no intent.

Mm-hmm.

You didn't mean to discriminate, you just did.

Mm-hmm.

And you ought to deal with those cases of discrimination. The other cases where they did intend to discriminate, you just can't prove it.

Mm-hmm.

Well, they'll get rid of those cases too. Cuz if you can't prove it, it looks like an unintentional um uh discrimination uh that allows discrimination to go on and be unaddressed because this administration has taken a whole category of um discrimination cases and just dismissed them all

thank you important point I yield back

thank you Miss Gendlin Mister Griffith you're recognized

Mister Wilson is there anything you wanna say in response at this time?

to what you've heard thus far. Well, thank you.

Hey, thank you very much indeed. Um, I'm glad that we do agree, uh, Congressman Scanlon and, uh, Chairman Scott, uh, to, uh, oppose discrimination, uh, and I'm really pleased that what the President's doing is actually devolving power back to the schools to the States that the actually education should be a local issue, not a federal. And with that, additionally, uh, I'm confident that States will address this, we've and we must have a deterrence. to anti-semitism and to indicate that, uh, this is a, uh, issue that doesn't exist, uh, indeed it does. Uh, and we can see it by the, uh, BDS movement itself and the statements, uh, from their, uh, colleagues and just over and over again it's, it's really clear that, uh, anti-semitism is an issue that, uh, many of us, uh, hey, I'm so grateful in, uh, my home state, uh, that, uh, there has not been, to my knowledge, uh, any, uh, indication of anti-semitism. Uh, but at the same time, we see, as I indicated from the MIT President, who made that absurd statement that it depended on the context of, uh, anti-semitism, uh, which is a good reason she's not there now. But with that in mind, uh, we need to be a deterrence, uh, to anti-semitism, not, uh, d- not ignore that it is occurring and could occur, but we must stop it. Thank you.

I appreciate that. And, you know, it's kind of interesting, um, in a in a I'm sitting here thinking it through. I agree with you that uh there is an issue and that this bill addresses that issue, but let's take my colleagues on the other side of the aisle uh and their argument, and that is the the the bill does nothing and there's nothing to see here, there is no issue. So would you not agree with me, then there's no harm in passing it.

You know, you know, I've actually thought of that too. I saw that, that if it's not gonna bother anything, uh hey, all the more reason to uh, support Chairwoman Virginia Fox and Congressman Greithammer's bill.

And it and it and it puts down it lays down a marker that says we're against anti-semitism.

We're against anti-semitism, but again I want to go back to it's a deterrence. Uh, we need to stop it in the future. And this is would have a, uh, I think, a really significant impact. It may be perceived by others not to have an impact, but I think the press the presence of, uh, Chairwoman Fox by identifying this is a deterrence.

I agree, you're back.

Thank you, Miss Leslie Fernandez.

Hello, Adam Chair, hello.

How are you?

I am fine, good to see you.

Good to see you.

It is interesting, you know, I it is good to see my colleagues. I might have problems at other things that we're doing, but it's good to see my colleague.

Oh no, we love seeing you.

Mm.

Well, yeah, Representative Wilson, I I I don't know if I heard correctly, but I think you said something like, fortunately in my universities, we haven't seen this antisemitism but the reality is you know if you go and sit with jewish students as i did at the university of new mexico after october seventh you will hear people share their concerns about antisemitism but what that takes is showing up and listening right it's showing up and listening that we are not teaching about the holocaust we're not teaching about what happened in world war two we're not making sure that people know the long history of anti-semitism that has coursed through um so many of our countries over centuries and decades. Uh, and I guess the problem I have with this bill is it doesn't appear to provide any resources to prevent or investigate hate crimes. Is that correct? Does this bill provide any resource, actual resources to prevent or investigate hate crimes?

To me, it's a deterrence. And the way you do that is to identify that, uh, there will not be funding, uh, if there is conduct that could be determined to be discriminatory.

Are there any resources in this bill to investigate hate crimes?

But it's a deterrence.

Deterrence. Uh, so I'm really disappointed that we have legislation before us that really doesn't get to uh I think what a key thing is, which is is providing um the resources that our uh Office of Civil Rights uh m- is needed over at the Department of Education. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back at under two minutes.

Gonna give you a gold star. Um, I I I only wanna make one quick remark, and that is that to say BDS boy guards haven't been agreed to uh or haven't haven't been a problem is just not true because during the twenty three twenty four academic years i said in my opening statement least eighty six b d s resolutions were considered across undergraduate uh and graduate professional student organizations and faculty unions seventy seven passed and nine were voted down thank you gentlemen very much for coming um seeing

well madam chair

the questions

ma- could i

seeing no further yes

could i make a quick comment on that can i make a quick comment on that

ok

the uh student body organizations and not the administration you can't

i understand that i understand that

you you and and and i did wanna uh make sure that we didn't let the idea that the unite the right rally was funded by the southern poverty law law center go by uncommented on um i don't know where that came from

uh thank you very much uh you all are excused

oh thank you i can't believe i disagreed with the chairman your person

you see oh sorry

i now welcome our third panel

third panel

chairman style

class

and ranking member morelli

mmm

thank you welcome

from the committee on house administration

thank you thank you my name is sophie um no i'm a little bit sorry

same thing

can you sit here for a minute

can you sit here for a minute can you help me put this back in the living room yeah

it's okay

no you don't need to put it back in the living room

i guess we'll go in like this

this is rough bed i know where you yeah

bert

i'm sorry i'm sorry

this is good this is good

she's never been around like this before yeah is it bad here yeah

yeah

it's fine oh yeah oh yeah i'm doing very well i'll be in a good August yeah too much work thank you guys it's pretty slow It's all good. Your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Stile, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you very much, Chairman Fox, uh, ranking member, members of the committee. Uh, thank you for inviting me today in support of HREZ fourteen ninety. I also want to thank Representative Crank for bringing forward this critical resolution. Socialism has no place in the United States of America. Hard work and merit are the backbone of the American dream, not socialized outcomes or government control. Let's be honest, our nation's at a crossroad. We can down we can go down the path of big government and socialist policies, or we can keep fighting to shrink government and help American people keep more of the hard-earned money that they earned. Across the nation, socialist policies are are increasingly dominating Democrat politics. Socialist Socialist candidates are competing for and winning Democratic nominations for key offices at the local, state, and federal level. The mayor of our nation's largest city, as we know, is a Socialist. A current US Senator and a leading candidate for the twenty-twenty Democratic nomination for President, a Socialist. Members of the House openly support the radical policies of the Democratic Socialist the Democrat Socialist of America platform. The resolution before us today condemns the DSA platform. It calls for radical changes to our elections. The DSA platform includes requiring ranked-choice voting for all elections. It also supports giving the right to vote to incarcerated criminals and more than twelve million non-citizens. These radical policies would undermine the integrity of the American election and destroy our democratic system. Now contrast the DSA platform with the Republicans' supported legislation. We believe American elections are for American citizens only. We're focused on making it easy to vote and hard to cheat. Our goal is to strengthen election integrity by passing common sense reforms, like the Save America Act, to require photo ID to vote and ensure that only US citizens are voting in our elections. Not surprisingly, the DSA opposes these common sense ideas because they have fundamentally opposed securing our elections. It's often said that socialism is easy to elect, and but nearly impossible to remove. That's because social socialist ideology concentrates power in a way that has led to totalitarian rule time and time again. Socialist policies are responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people worldwide. Here at home, DSA leaders have repeatedly described our bicameral federal republic as inherently undemocratic. Make no t- make no mistake. Given the chance, socialists will abolish our democratic system. These resolutions reject and condemn these radical socialist policies, recommits Congress's commitment to upholding the constitution, and reaffirms our duty to ensure the American elections are free, fair, and secure. I urge members of this committee to support this important resolution. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much. Mister Morelle, you're recognized.

Thank you, uh, Chairwoman Fox and ranking member McGovern and members of the committee. It's always, uh, nice to be back on the Rules Committee. Uh, I will be honest, I find it puzzling we're here today debating this resolution. After zero floor activity for the last five weeks, House Republicans are now bringing to the floor a nine non-binding resolution calling for enactment of the Save America Act. And in an ironic twist that would be comical, If it weren't so sinister, this legislation stokes fears of a repressive totalitarian dictatorship, while in the same breath affirms the Republicans' obsession with destroying Americans' right to vote, the same House Republicans that have ceded the entirety of Congress's constitutional authority to one man. This is absurd. This resolution asks the House to condemn government ownership of private industry. Yet under Donald Trump, the Federal Government has spent almost twenty-eight billion dollars acquiring stakes in dozens of private companies. I'm a proud capitalist. If my Republican colleagues want to debate socialism, they should start with the shareholder-in-chief in the Oval Office. After hearing from constituents about the affordability crisis in America, and the corruption of this administration for the past five weeks, my Republican colleagues are bringing a non-binding resolution to the floor. They're wasting time on a vote for a resolution condemning a political philosophy which has already passed this body, that resolution, and calling for the enactment of a bill that has already passed the House, a bill that would make it harder for women and veterans to vote, a bill that would essentially gut a mail and on-line voter registration, and a bill that would force States to hand over voter roles to President Trump's Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised we're here today, because one thing is clear, as costs skyrocket, Republicans are afraid to face their constituents at the ballot box. The White House and congressional Republicans have failed the American people, and the only remaining option is to try to keep Americans from voting at all. They want bills like the Save America Act to disrupt election administration and keep millions of eligible voters away from the polls. The President has issued illegal executive orders to block ballot access for millions of Americans including an unlawful attempt to weaponize United States Postal Service and eviscerate vote-by-mail regimes in States across the country. This administration has defunded and gutting gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agent, CISA, and its support for election administrators. And of course the President and his allies continue to actively spread mis- and disinformation about the integrity of our elections. House Democrats will continue to fight back because despite these continued efforts by the President and his allies, Our elections are safe and secure. State and local election administrators, Democrats and Republicans, not the President, will continue to run elections across the country. The courts will continue to reject unlawful attempts by the Department of Justice to force States to turn over voter rolls. As of earlier this month, the Department of Justice's record in these cases is now O for twenty-three. House Democrats' objectives are straightforward. Every eligible American must have a meaningful opportunity to cast a ballot, and these ballots must be counted fairly and accurately. There is nothing more important in this moment than our collective efforts to ensure Americans are given every opportunity to render their verdict in November. And despite best efforts of House Republicans, we are going to make sure that happens. Madam Chair, in a recent poll, Congress was found to have a fifteen percent approval rating, fifteen percent of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing today. Some might understandably think that number is low, but after participating in this absurd exercise today, I'm surprised it's that high. Because with due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, with a symbolic resolution, Committee Republicans are seeking to advance today do anything to lower gas prices, with this pure messaging bill do anything to make your groceries less expensive, with this resolution do anything to hold the crooks in the White House accountable. The answer is simple, it would not. Promises have been made to the American people, but they have not been kept. The American people deserve better than this. I have offered an amendment to this bill that would immediately prohibit members, officers, and employees of the house from trading stocks and participating in prediction markets, a measure that would actually stop members of the body from profiting off their position in government. I hope the committee will make this amendment in order with that. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. and then you'll be at the balance of my time

thank you mister morelli mister mcgovern i recognize you first

well oh thank you uh madam chair um you know i'm i'm listening to this and uh i'm kind of in disbelief uh you know um you know when i was home everybody was talking about how expensive everything is and what are you doing to lower prices i mean you concerned about rising gas or you concerned about grocery prices you know, don't worry, uh, Republicans in Congress are passing another non-binding resolution condemning socialism. Uh, can't afford your rent, can't afford your health care. Uh, don't worry about it. Republicans are laser-focused on condemning socialism. Um, and, uh, I mean, you guys have had all of August to come up with some real tangible plans to lower prices, at least to make believe like you care about lowering prices, and instead here we are wasting everyone's time uh voting on unrelated nonsense um that has no force of law by the way i mean this is absurd that we're doing this this is absurd and uh i mean it's it is what it is you guys have made a decision that uh you stand for nothing that uh that my constituents care about in terms of addressing the affordability crisis so this is what we get non binding resolutions

Thank you, Mister Langworthy. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, as a New Yorker I've seen firsthand the alarming rise of socialism, you know, that's started in New York, For years families in western New York have watched one party rule and all beneath pile on more taxes, more mandates, more government control, while hard-working taxpayers are left to foot the bill. And now, downstate we've watched the socialist left move more from the activist fringe into positions of real serious political power. And anyone thinks that these ideas are gonna stay confined to New York City is sadly mistaken and they're not paying attention. the democratic socialists of america are telling us exactly what they wanna do they wanna fundamentally reshape our institutions and they're openly advocating allowing non-citizens to vote in american elections uh chairman style we've heard a lot of criticism from the other side of the aisle about this resolution i wanna give you a chance to respond to clear anything up for the committee

uh thank you very much mr. langworthy no i think this resolution is actually really important people have referenced it uh is not being I think it's actually really important to highlight the distinction here and what happens uh if democratic socialists are elected and are driving the train here in the house of representatives uh on a whole host of issues there's reference about energy prices earlier the green new deal policies the democratic socialists of america uh are atrocious uh this resolution focuses in large part on election law about making sure for example that we have photo id so that people are who they say they are uh democratic social America wanna uh abolish the system in which we elect the president to allow congress to election of course they wanna abolish the senate so it just be one body um this is at the core of what our democracy is i think it's really important to understand the distinction the contrast between where those on the radical left stand and where common sense is

well we've seen socialism fail every place it's ever been tried if they have a case could dress it up with new slogans and

thank you mr. langworthy thank you mister langworthy Miss Ganlin, you're recognized.

Thank you. Um, so House Republicans have the majority. We've been out of session for weeks and weeks and weeks, and we get to come back so that they can put another resolution on the House floor to condemn socialism, a non-binding resolution. I mean, families across our country are struggling with the cost groceries and housing and healthcare and utilities. And when I met with my constituents at town halls while we were home, and you remember what town halls are, because I know it's like against the Republican creed to have them. Um, no one, literally no one was asking us to pass another, another non-binding resolution to con- to condemn socialism. What they did wanna know is what are we gonna do about social security running out of money? Because they wanna know how we're gonna make sure that Social Security and Medicare, the earned benefits that they have been contributing to with every paycheck, will still exist when they need them. So instead, we're here, we're wasting taxpayer resources, valuable floor time, to consider another click-bait resolution that would solve none of these issues. I mean, I think this bill should be exhibit A for why civic ed education is so desperately needed in this country when one of our major parties is trying to repeat history and invoke McCarthyism again. I mean, McCarthyism was reckless, unsupported accusations of disloyalty and communist sympathies uh in order to silence political opponents. That's about all this is. Let's scare people with yet another boogeyman and not do anything about it, not really self, scare people. And as the ranking member mentioned, no administration in our history has engaged in more socialist behavior than this one. At this count, the Trump administration has forced more than thirty private and publicly traded, um, owned co- companies to turn over equity and ownership to the government. Isn't that what socialism is? It's government-owned means of production. And here we've got Westinghouse, US Steel, other sectors, including semiconductors, rare earth minerals, Venezuelan oil. The government is all of a sudden in the business of running all these companies. And finally, at the end of the day, uh, this is just being used as another vehicle to promote Republicans' voter suppression bill, the Save Act. It's a massive voter disenfranchisement bill that would prevent hundreds of thousands of American citizens from being able to vote. It's such a bad bill that even though the House has pay- has passed it, um, even though it's gonna hurt a lot of their constituents, particularly in rural areas, uh, Senate Republicans have refused to go along with this obviously bad bill. And I would remind my Pennsylvania constituents, that if this save act were to pass you could no longer register to vote using just your Pennsylvania driver's license because that Pennsylvania driver's license does not have proof of citizenship on it so you're going to have to go to the trouble and expense of also getting a passport which less than fifty percent of Pennsylvanians currently hold or gathering additional documents just to register to vote and that includes if you need to change your registration because you move or you change parties. So, if meaningless, partisan, non-binding resolutions are all that our Republican members of Congress can offer, maybe they should consider another line of work. But please don't waste our time, and the people's time and money, with another non-binding resolution that doesn't solve real problems. Uh, Ranking Member Morelli, uh, I am very, very concerned about the endorsement of the Save Act, which is, you pointed out, has already passed the House. um that is contained in this bill can you just remind folks um how some of the most burdensome provisions in that act would actually prevent people from voting including veterans married women young people who move

i'm sorry documentary proof of citizenship makes it harder uh for many groups we've already identified how

mmm

for women particularly who have a different last name at the time of their birth uh them were they to register

mmm

with a married name they'd have to now not only provide proof of citizenship a birth certificate passport which we've you know, explained in the past half of Americans don't have a passport. Um, if your name is different, though, you'd have to describe why your name is different, either have a marriage license or an affidavit indicating that you are the same person in both documents. Uh, makes it harder to mail in voting. Again, depending on which version we're talking about. It changes, uh, pretty frequently. Uh, but this is all part of a larger issue, which is the Save America Act, the executive orders which the President continues to issue, uh, that have been determined to be, uh, so far. illegal, uh, which have come under heavy criticism by Republicans in States that typically, and I note that Colorado, Mister Neguse's state, uh, Miss Ledger-Fernandez in in New Mexico, they rely far more on mail-in voting. And again, the President voted just a couple weeks ago by mail, even as he's criticizing mail as being fraudulent and proed, uh, prone to fraud. So all these are efforts, um, make it harder for students to vote because they won't have the proper ID. make it harder for women, make it harder for black and brown people. I think when you fear the verdict of the American people, which is clearly the case, um, you'll do anything you can to make it harder for certain people to vote and to really look towards people who you consider in your base. Although, again, the meddling, and I, I, you know, the governor of Wyoming,

Mm-hmm.

um, hardly a bastion of anti-Trump liberalism, described DOJ's officials meddling in their recent primaries as aggressive, unexpected, disruptive. A Republican official in Pennsylvania similarly warned that the president's executive order would inject uncertainty and confusion into the legislative process resulting in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The Republican governor of Utah made it clear federal elections are quote " in the purview of the States and not the President." So, he's facing some headwinds, but not here in Congress, but certainly by those state leaders who have to conduct state-run elections.

Well, it it is just kind of a disappointing uh return to congress this week when we've got bill after bill which is setting up problems that don't exist just as opportunities for political rhetoric to try to win some elections when uh our colleagues appear to be somewhat on the ropes because people don't like the policies they're pushing uh thank you for your testimony i yield back

thank you miss scanlon um mister scott you're recognized.

thank you madam chair i mean this seems pretty simple to me socialism is bad and only united state citizens should vote in united states elections am i missing something mister stile i mean

i i think you're hitting it on the head this is pretty straight forward if you don't like socialism it's an easy yes vote

yeah i i agree i mean i'm you know the socialist democrats of america i have i have kind of watched you know, and discussed with what's happened in the democratic primaries, as as i've watched people who i know and i like, who i have a different political philosophy than they do, have been torched by the socialist uh, democrats of america. And uh, michigan is a perfect example of it. Uh, the member of the house ran, she's a she's a good person, smart person, um, extremely liberal, um, just wasn't belligerent enough for the Socialist Democrats of America. And now, um, you do have a a true socialist, uh, i- as their nominee, and look, as a Republican, I'm thankful that you, that you have that true socialist. I I guess in November only I'd like to see the best members of both parties pushing forward to, uh, the November election. I think that's what um would be best for the country but i i mean i seems to me it's pretty easy socialism is bad only us citizens should be allowed to vote in us elections and so uh mister stile if you have anything else to add you're welcome to other than that i'll say it again socialism is bad only us citizens should be allowed to vote in us elections i mean mister ellie do you disagree with that Statement.

I don't. I would say this, that that's already the law, uh, the Save America Act, even though my objections to it has already passed the House, and a resolution, uh, condemning socialism's already passed the House. We're back here after a five-week break where Americans are suffering to pass a non-binding resolution which does things we've already done here I mean this is I I can't imagine most Americans with all due respect would think that this is the thing we ought to be doing restating what we've already done. and ignoring the challenges they face, but that's

And and so and so it I again, it was very simple. Socialism is bad, you can't even say that, and only US citizens should vote in US elections and you refused to say that, and so,

No, I didn't. I actually actually respectfully,

Mr. Don

uh, I actually voted in favor of the resolution condemning socialism. I said I'm a proud capitalist. Now, members of my party may disagree, but that's fine, but we've already done it here, we've already passed that resolution, and as it relates to the save act, It's not simply voter ID and it's not simply having US citizens vote in elections. This is a whole list of things that would make it so much harder to register to vote and to vote. So I but

Well, we we believe in protecting the integrity of the elections. Uh, I heard these same complaints in the state of Georgia over and over and over again. I watched woke one MLB pull ball games out of the state of Georgia and with the changes that we made to our election cycle. And you know what? or election rules, and you know what? A Republican governor and a Democrat US senator were elected on the the same ballots and that's what happens when you have integrity in your in your election. And you know, uh, I thought woke one point O or whatever you call it was crazy. I guess woke p two point O is the is the Socialist Democrat of America's uh second swing uh at the ball but Madam Chair I'm gonna I'm gonna yield the remainder of my time, so that we can um, move on and hopefully defeat woke two point O.

Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Mr. Neguse, you're recognized.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chair. I I would say I'm going to resist the temptation to talk about Senate nominees uh with all respect to my colleague from Georgia, because I suspect we could have a very fulsome conversation about the Republican nominee for the United States Senate in the state of Georgia, somebody who's embroiled in controversy after controversy. including in just the last twenty-four hours, but I digress, we'll keep the politics out of this august chamber. What I would say is that everyone understands the score. The ranking member articulated it well. We voted on a non-binding resolution regarding socialism a year ago. We did the same two years before that. There is no doubt that Republicans have decided to put before the House, a non-binding resolution condemning socialism as a political tool in advance of the November third election. It is what it is. I get it. I understand my colleagues' uh, motives, and I suspect the American people will see through it. W- I guess time will tell, but I imagine six months from now, I hope, uh, that I have the opportunity to serve on the rules committee, and, uh, perhaps I'll be sitting on that side, and I can remind my colleagues of how they squandered squandered, totally squandered the waning days of their majority on non-binding resolutions, but in any event, uh, to each their own. So, Mister Stile, this resolution condemns socialism, correct?

I'd say so.

Okay. What is socialism?

I, well, in particular, Democratic Socialist America, they have a handy little printout with a program.

Define socialism.

I I'd go through their policies, sir.

Just to give you a minute.

I'm noting that Democratic Socialist America,

Okay, okay, okay, Mister Stile.

They got a Green New Deal, end mass incarceration,

Mister Stile, I'll go back.

feminism for all, you can keep flipping through.

Yeah, I guess it's easier. I

I'll get you a copy.

It's clear to me you can't define total.

I'm literally handing you a document,

I'm an a

sir, with with all of the all of the highlights that the DSA has produced.

Okay. Let's try it this way. What is capitalism? What is capitalism?

This is a debate between the Democratic Socialists and America's platform.

What is capitalism? What is capitalism?

Capitalism is the economic system we operate in the United States.

that that's your ain't define it what is capitalism like these aren't trick questions you're very smart man what is capitalism to you free market right or am i

yeah free market i'll go with you

ok glad i could help you with that

right

define socialism what is socialism to you we can get a diction a dictionary definition of it

you pull up if you got it go right ahead sir

ok any any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods that's merriam-webster's dictionary definition of socialism

i

right

uh uh i trust that that that it is i don't know if i i trust you

is owning the means of i mean you're here condemning it i you don't have to know

you you said right you have the definition i just said i assume what you read is correct i can't validate i assume you're you're reading it correctly

this seems it this seems absurd to me mister stile if i asked the chairwoman to define socialism She's not going to give this rigamarou. She's gonna say, I didn't ask you,

That's not terrible rigamarou.

no, I didn't ask you,

I'm actually giving you the definition of the democratic socialists of America.

I didn't ask you a question, Mr. Stile. Did not ask you a question.

Got it.

Uh, perhaps I can ask one of my colleagues. Maybe one of my Republican colleagues on the side of the aisle if they'll engage in a colloquy cuz I think they'll answer the question more honestly than Mr. Stile will. I if they'll define what does socialism mean to them? I'm just trying to understand the definition of socialism so that we're all operating off of the same understanding. That's it. And I thought that Mister Stile, given his passion for condemning socialism, would be very eager to give me a very simple definition of it. That's it. Can anyone here just tell me what we're can you define socialism?

Mister Nagus,

Yes, we have.

let's let's just state, I don't know how the attorneys exactly do it in court, but let's just say we accept the definition you gave from Merriam-Webb.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you. i did not think it would be this hard to get the people who are wanting to condemn socialism to define socialism so ok so now cut about five minutes of my question there so going back to you mister stile socialism owning the means of production right

that's a piece of it yeah

ok what would you call the trump administration acquiring a ten percent equity stake in intel a fifteen percent stake in rare earth producer MP materials and a ten percent stake in Lithium, Americas and Trilogy meals, metals,

That's right.

excuse me.

It's an American first policy to make sure we cannot compete China.

Do you believe that the government should own grocery stores?

Uh, no.

That would be socialist to you?

I think that would be a type of overreach of the federal government, absolutely.

Would that be socialist to you?

That'd be a form of socialism, yeah.

Okay. And if Donald Trump announces tomorrow that he's gonna take a twenty percent equity stake in Kroger, Would that be socialism to you?

I'd wanna see the details of the but

Oh, you'd wanna see the details.

what I what no but understand the understand understand the understand the difference.

I understand. What what percentage would it be, at what percentage is it become socialism?

You would what what for for the folks watching at home,

Fifty percent? Eighty percent? Ninety percent?

watch the sleight of hand, because I think this is really important.

Slight of hand. I'm asking a honest question. I asked you,

No but I what I

you said if government owns grocery stores, that would be socialist. But if, of course, Donald Trump were to announce an equity stake in a grocery store,

No, it's

well I'd have to really see the details because we all know the play if i mentioned anybody else but donald trump you would have answered it a different way

that's a foreign policy important to the federal government

i was gonna ask you to please not say the last word ok

it's

sure go ahead

i i think there is a a meaningful and substantive role of your federal government as it relates to foreign policy and national defense i think that's why we look at the national defense production act as a mechanism that

that's kroger i mentioned grocery store company i didn't ask you about mining

you you can either give me you can either let me respond or you can control the time,

what does kroger have to do with foreign policy

it's got everybody like you do you you were jumping right between areas of foreign policy,

Mm.

rare earth materials,

Sure.

oil right?

Okay.

These are have national policy and national security interests at stake, which is why we have the Defense Production Act,

Fine.

which gives the federal government certain roles

Sure.

that are non-traditional in the capitalist system.

So let's talk about grocery stores.

So understand that. And then the question is, we're on that dial. And so the question then maybe becomes, some folks on your side of the aisle would like to have government-run grocery stores. I think that's nuts.

And if the President of the United States announced that the united states government was taking a ten percent twenty percent thirty percent equity stake in

i don't think he is you're you're playing the hypothetical game you can play it all day long

if if if he would

hypothetical he's speaking equity ownership

he's he's

is

kroger

i'm sorry

this is and when you ask this style of question

kroger

i'm getting interrupted here madam chair so i was not asking you

would you let him answer cause he was trying to answer you when you asked the question he tried to answer you and you were talking over it so i'm just gonna ask the two of you

that that madam chair

to let's get on with this, ask a question, let Mister Stile answer it, or Mister Stile, if you don't wanna answer it, say so. Thank you. Please.

As I said at the outset, I asked you a very simple question, you answered it. That the government owning grocery stores would be socialist in your view.

Yeah.

I then posed the question as to whether or not the President announcing that the United States government would take a ten percent or twenty percent equity stake in one of the largest national retailers in our country, whether that would be socialist. You said, " I'd have to know the details."

No, you he's not doing that.

You th- hold on, I'm not, I didn't pose the question yet. So let's respect the chairwoman's request here.

All right. Pose away.

So, you then answered, and and took us down the road of the justifications with respect to national security and foreign mining and all the rest. So we are back to square one. As you said, you said very clearly, there are people in my party who believe the government's should own grocery stores, and I'm trying to get a better sense as to whether or not you agree, and I sense that if Donald Trump were to announce that he believes it's the right thing to do, that you would agree. You have an opportunity to tell me no, that if the president announced a ten or twenty percent equity stake in a national grocer, that you would not support that, you believe that's socialist.

I think there would need to be a national security rationale for the action, I don't see any in your hypothetical,

A national security action.

I don't see a a national security purpose.

Okay, that's helpful answer.

Do you? I it's a hypothetical, so you're We're entering

Helpful answer.

silly season, that's fine.

Helpful answer.

Okay.

So, the test for you as to whether or not the US government acquiring a stake in any American company or any American industry as to whether or not that is socialist is whether or not there's any kind of national security implication and essentially, the United States government can, you know, so long as they can put together this cogent rationale, Donald Trump can take equity stakes in whatever companies he deems necessary the US government, I should say, taking equity stakes that he's initiating. As long as that national security prerogative is established, is that a safe

No, I think you're wildly overstating it.

Wildly overstating it, OK.

Yes.

Well, I would just simply suggest to you that if the chairman of the committee that is pursuing this resolution can't define socialism, Madam Chair,

I did.

and if the, I'm not ask- this is, I'm talking to the chair, very clearly. And if the chairman of the committee uh cannot in my view distinguish between the socialist way in which this president is currently operating acquiring on behalf of the united states government massive equity interest in company after company after company in an unprecedented way a way that no president of the modern era of our country has done that perhaps this resolution isn't ready for prime time but in any event uh i know that will probably uh not be convincing to the chairwoman so i will yield back the balance of my time.

uh thank you very much mr. neguse um mr. let me see i believe mr. jack you are recognized

no i just wanna thank the chairman um for his testimony in leadership throughout this and uh what i'll say too just to echo your comments at the outset madam chairwoman uh we've talked at length and we've seen at length what's happened at democrat primaries week after week after week And um I can understand why uh many on the other side of the aisle are concerned. As they look ahead to primaries next year, um this is a very effective resolution. I look forward to seeing uh our colleagues vote on it. I think it'll be very illustrative and I'll just offer the Chairman an opportunity to to close as it relates to what will happen when this vote happens. Well how should voters look at that? How should people receive that? Um when they see the scoreboard for the uh the vote on this resolution later this week.

I mean, the resolution is incredibly straightforward, it lays out the policy priorities of the democratic socialists of America. Lays them out in actual policies, not some abstract concept of what is, like you're an academic professor. It's what is socialism? And it walks right through what the DSA supports. And either you agree with that, as many on the far left do, or you oppose that. It's very clear. You either oppose socialism, and you vote in support of the resolution, or you are one of the DSA members that actually believes all this stuff that is in their materials. We could go through every single one of them. We highlighted in this case the the ones relevant to election law, which should scare the heck out of people, that we would end the election of the president of the United States of America as we know it, that we would allow Congress to elect the president. We hear all rigmarole about democracy from our colleagues on the left. Their platform wants to end how we elect the president of the United States. They wanna abolish the Senate. They want one body. They want control. They want a consolidation of the control. And this is the opportunity for people to put up or shut up. They can go down and everybody can vote. We can condemn socialism. But I watch, watch the board. And I suspect that we will not have that. That we will have many members of the left who either support this, or are scared out of their minds of the left wing of their party. And we've seen that play out in my home state of Wisconsin,

Yeah.

in a gubernatorial primary that took place uh over this August recess, where it was a race to the radical left with one position only being one step further for wanting to abolish Thanksgiving. That was the definition of how far left can we go? And what I encourage people to do is actually to read the platform, the program of the Democratic Socialists of America, to get a firm understanding of the direction that they wanna take our country. i think that's actually why this this resolution before us is so important and why voting yes on this resolution is so essential

you're back uh you're back madam chair

thank you very much misleasure fernandez you're recognized

thank you madam chair uh you know and and i'm looking at the resolution and it has a couple of uh of things in it that i think the american public should know one is that it resolves the the uh house of representatives open quote condemns and denounces socialism in all its forms so the fact that the chair doesn't even know what the definition of socialism is is a little bit concerning especially because when we saw this resolution come before us last time, the sponsor said things like Medicaid and social security and things that we rely on, and that Americans expect our government to provide would fall within this definition. Uh, so that is concerning because I think Americans want government to do certain things. They want government to help with health care. Uh, they want government to make sure social security survives, and Democrats actually have a plan to do that. Uh, and they do want to oppose, uh, another part of your resolution that says, uh, we, you know, that condemns a concentration of power. And if you don't know that, Mister, uh, uh, Chairman, that's actually in the first line of your resolution. And part of my problem is we should be condemning the concentration of power. But right now, the concentration of power is in the president. And let's look at what had has resulted. Uh, Chairman Steele, do you know what the increase in the cost of fuel oil has been over the last year?

Uh, Wisconsin doesn't use fuel oil, it's mostly the Northeast where they failed to put in place pipelines, so I actually don't know the price.

Oh, you don't know.

No, it's it's rarely used in Wisconsin.

Oh, it's about pipelines. Well, it's not about pipelines. There's been thirty nine point ten percent,

Fuel oil is mostly used in the Northeast.

that is year after year and it's not pipelines,

What?

there has been a twenty five point three twenty five point three percent increase in unleaded regular, uh gasoline all types, uh do you know what how gasoline has gone up? Oh uh.

It was uh three fifty nine when it filled up in Wisconsin yesterday.

That's about tw- and from a year ago it's about uh close to twenty five percent. And these I'm gonna look for

And a lot less than when Joe Biden was in office,

Oh no, this is the

which is really positive.

Last twelve months. This is the last twelve months,

Yeah.

and I am I am I am Mr. Chairman Steele,

Yeah. So the prices are a lot lower than when Joe Biden was in office.

I am reading from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the twelve month percentage change in fact uh Madam Chair I'd like to enter this into the record.

Without objection.

So this is not about what happened since because of Biden, this has been what's happened from Trump, right? And uh Chairman Steele Who's supposed to uh approve of tariffs under our constitution, the president or the congress?

In certain situations, congress is given authority to the executive, again usually related to national security interests, otherwise the power resides with congress.

Congress, yeah, it's with congress. Uh, republicans have failed to reign this president with regards to tariffs. Uh, with regards to war, uh, republicans have failed to do anything to keep this president from Marching is into the war with Iran, which is slightly. There are two main reasons. Over and over again, it's Trump's tariffs and Trump's war, and that is a concentration of power that Republicans have given to Trump. But more important, I think, is that when I go home, people are very upset about corruption. And so when you're using government, when you are using government uh not to maybe help people afford their health care but you're using government to make sure your family makes more money that is a concentration of power i would love for you to bring a resolution on because that's a concentration of power my folks back home are pissed about now i would like to enter into another uh article into the record um madam chair and the title is the white house intervened six hundred and twenty million dollar deal for a company tied to donald trump junior madam chair if i could introduce the gentleman and and the

without objection

reason why this is important is this is about public lands uh we had a discussion earlier today chairman still about how uh trump uh and has intervened to help uh members of his family uh access foreign deals uh i have some other inform articles here that uh six point one billion dollars, Jared Kushner uh has made uh in his role as advisor to Trump from Saudi Arabia, from the United Arab Emirates. This is a concentration of power that is hurting Americans, and I think we should be condemning. Uh, but I haven't heard you condemn. Have you stood up and condemned the the war or the tariffs or uh the fact that uh Trump's family is making so much money? out of the his presidency

i have spoken out extensively about the interest in united states reaching a lasting ceasefire with iran but also the importance of iran not being a state sponsor of terrorism and not having a nuclear weapon and i contrast that with the dsa platform on free palestine and putting the capital of palestine

oh which they didn't have our nuclear weapon but which they did have a which they did have they don't have they didn't have an in there has been no deal the straight of Hormuz is still closed

in jerusalem on page fifteen of the document

and it was open before trump started that war. Ranking member, uh, I really appreciated you talking about uh the multiple iterations of their attempts to suppress the vote, because that's what the save act is. I call it the zombie save act, because it keeps coming up in lots of different forms, but in each of its forms, it's not really about citizens voting, it's about making it harder for people to vote. Uh, and and and and And why is it important for people to be able to vote? Is it so that they can maybe condemn, uh, policies like the gold-colored corruption we're seeing from this President?

Well, look, ultimately our whole democracy is built on the notion of self-government and the only way to have self-government is if American citizens get access to the ballot. The, the, all the efforts made by the President and his administration have been about making it harder to register and to vote. I think it's objectively impossible to ignore that. In fact, I just note, just a few weeks ago the President made a nationally televised address about all the concerns about non-citizens. At that point he mentioned sixteen thousand people who live in Nevada who were voting who were not citizens. Saw a recent statement the other day that the the the the Department of Homeland Security is now looking at a fewer than a hundred and sixty he was off by a factor of ten. And by the way, All that means is the universe has now shrunk to a hundred and sixty. It's not that they've even identified these people. It's it's it's patently ridiculous. Even in the resolution, respectfully, whereas the Trump Administration's Department of Homeland Security engaged in a joint investigation with the FBI, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, home security investigations, have charged four non-citizens with crimes, connected to illegal voting. They've charged, they haven't even convicted four for all of this that's gone on, this rage around the country by the President about illegal voting and fraudulent voting. They've charged four people. They actually cite I would have been so embarrassed to put that in my res- resolution if this was all about saving people and making it uh harder for illegal people to vote in the United States. It's the whole thing is built on a house of cards. It doesn't exist. They want to force billions of dollars of state expenditures, federal expenditures, make it harder to register a vote, make it harder to vote. And there's no evidence that any of what the President's talked about has happened, which, by the way, is just emblematic of this administration. The President always says the things that he believes as though they were factual. But there's often no fact to support it at all. And yet my colleagues can't say the emperor doesn't have any clothes. They got to continue this fantasy where they follow him around as though what he's saying is legitimate when it's not. Everyone knows there's no legitimacy. The Heritage Foundation has done exhaustive studies. Uh, I mean, it it's just foolishness. And so here we are in the middle of an affordability crisis, a crisis where people can't get health care, people where where where we've now spent probably a hundred and fifty billion dollars on an unauthorized war, which has driven gas prices higher but grocery prices higher, anything that gets shipped in America, illegal tariffs, now we're in a trade war with my neighbor to the North Canada for no reason. And all of this and and here we are passing a non-binding resolution, just like the non-binding executive order to change the name of Lake Ontario, which my district border's on. Um, it's all silliness, it's not serious. We're in the middle of catastrophic challenges, and we have an unserious President, and sadly we have members of the Congress who are unserious, following him around like the Pied Piper. But this Emperor has no clothes, and this is a foolish waste of time.

Well, you know, it is such a waste of time. I think I'll stop my questions there and I'll yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Ms. Leisure-Fernandez. I'm Ms. Halchen. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, Madam Chairwoman, uh this uh resolution I think gives us an opportunity to have a very important conversation about the real rise of radical political movements and policy proposals that seek to fundamentally reshape the institutions and principles that have defined American democracy for generations particularly those advanced by the Democrat Socialists of America um Madam Chair, I'd like to submit for the record um workers deserve more the democrat socialists of america uh program platform in it it's

without objection

in it it says um speaking of bills you don't really have them anymore you have no debt you have you don't need health insurance you don't need to pay a mortgage or a landlord your retirement is funded food education energy medicine transportation are common goods and utilities uh what do you wanna do on your day for your day maybe take a walk take your kids to school, run errands in the afternoon, you might play a sport, practice a new skill, read, plan a trip, go to the movies. These are the promises that are made within the Democrat socialist platform, and it's not simply a question of of whether your taxes are gonna be higher or that the government will be larger. What often happens in socialism is there are promises that are they cloak the negative outcomes of socialism in the promises of lower costs and free public services. And that results in in a few historical examples of, for example, in the Soviet Union, free universal health care was promised to every citizen, and the reality was severe shortages of modern medicine, long wait times, and corruption where patients bribed doctors for better care. In Venezuela, under price controls, the promise was made that they would have cheap, subsidized staple foods and fuel to eliminate poverty. The reality was widespread shortages, empty grocery shelves, long wait lines, and a thriving black market. Or in East Germany, in the Soviet bloc, the promise was heavily subsidized, ultra-low rent for everyone, which the res- reality was extreme housing shortages, decades-long wait lists for apartments and decaying, poorly maintained buildings. And in this platform, it also includes allowing non-citizens to vote in American elections and eliminating customs and border enforcement, eliminating ICE and border patrol. Those positions, uh, Mister Stile, I hope you'll agree, will deserve should deserve serious scrutiny in a resolution like this, We've seen the consequences of wide open borders. They put the the citizens of our streets at risk and limit the freedoms that define the nation. American are in Americans are increasingly facing these ideas as not merely theories, but as governing philosophies. And we've seen candidates across the country in Democrat primaries with this viewpoint win these primary elections. It's important that this body recognize there is a meaningful difference between debating public policy with our within our existing system, and advocating for the fundamental restructuring or elimination of our institutions that are central to that very system. So this resolution makes an important statement that underscores the danger posed by advancing this failed ideology, which has historically resulted in violent dictatorial regimes and widespread human suffering. Chairman Stile, this resolution highlights the DSA's support for extending full voting rights and political participation to all permanent non-citizen U. S. residents, why is it particularly important for Congress to reaffirm that citizenship, not simply residency, is the basis for voting in federal elections?

U. S. elections should be for U. S. citizens only, period, full stop. Uh, when I began, uh, trying to raise the flag on the issue that Democrat Socialists wanted non-citizens to vote in some ways, some people didn't believe it. And our nation's capital where we sit right now, in the United States in Washington DC non-citizens are eligible to vote municipal elections this November. They can vote for mayor, they can vote for city council, down the line. That's as crazy as to say an individual in Washington DC who works at the Russian embassy, holding a Russian passport, can walk out of the embassy, no photo ID requirement in Washington DC, so can keep it in his pocket, walk to a voting booth, walk in and vote for mayor of our nation's capital. That's ridiculous. democratic socialists of america wanna take that and they wanna expand that broader platform all across united states of america they wanna allow every permanent resident alien in the united states of america to be able to vote in us elections it's all part of the broader plan the democrats want they wanna consolidate power and in the opening statement of this it was misquoted the socialist ideology necessitates the concentration of power because it ultimately results in a taking from the american people and to take that you need to have power the democratic platform driving towards socialism will take us in the wrong direction is why calling it out and highlighting and showing the American people exactly what the DSA stands for is so absolutely important why this resolution is relevant and important.

Thank you, and this just socialism will just trade one boss for another. Uh, and it does result in uh fewer resources and more scarce resources. Um, it's a scary time, I think, in the country. when we're electing candidates that have this uh perspective. I appreciate this resolution, it is non-binding. I hope that all the Democrats would support a condemnation of socialism. I don't know that we'll see that on the House floor, but I appreciate uh your leadership in that of uh Representative Crank for bringing this forward. I yield back.

Madam Chair, I have a technical question to make it.

Sir.

I just wanna make sure, this is a non-binding resolution because listening to people debate it you would think that this was gonna change something. but it's a non binding resolution i would suggest uh rather than wasting time you just issue a press release uh i guess you you guys don't wanna talk about lowering the cost of groceries or rent or healthcare for anybody that's who you wanna do but a a press release would be a lot more effective than this i think the

thank you mister mcgovern mister roy you're recognized

try to be quick i don't know if we're gonna try to finish and then vote um uh chairman style just really quickly I know part of this resolution is dealing with what we're dealing with with the DSA and the split on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Am I correct that there are a significant number of of uh members of the Democratic Party that are advocating within the realm of the DSA for for example uh getting rid of the US Senate? Is that if you heard that and read that as well.

It's in the platform.

That that to change the the leadership we're replacing the President of the Supreme Court with leaders chosen by Congress.

It's in the DSA platform.

Um replacing the electoral college with a national popular vote.

In the DSA platform.

Um, multi-party rule, replacing the two-party system with multi-party democracy, uh, and expand the house.

In the platform.

Um, corporate ownership, establish public ownership of large corporations and major industries.

It's in the platform.

Uh, social programs, provide universal rent control, free public college and state-run health care.

In the platform.

Immigration and justice, abolish borders, prisons, immigration, custom form intentions, alongside calls for prison and police reform.

It's right there in the platform.

Voting rights, allow, uh, permanent U. S. residents, IE, non-citizens and people with

Also on the platform.

And multiple other concerning provisions, correct?

Incredibly concerning.

And and the idea here is to just make clear where we stand on a number of these im- im- correct?

Absolutely.

Um, now, I I will say that and appreciate this and and certainly support that resolution. I will note that I do have concerns about our current ownership of of, uh, private, uh, uh, corporations, uh, and it would not be my preference, and I think that's something that we n- need to address. Um, and secondly, I would note that I do have strong reservations that I need to establish in the state, here in the Rules Committee, that we are going to be bringing to the floor a continuing resolution, um, in suspension of the rules, that has myriad concerns in it, uh, for me and others, that will not be able to be amended. Uh, extension of the surface, uh, transportation, uh, provision. Uh, extension of CISA. Um, an extension of the hemp ban that had been put in place in previous

Ooh.

uh legislation

mmm

um

yeah

eh you know we continue to fund Planned Parenthood uh now in light of the expiration of the one year moratorium and the uh one big beautiful bill i could go down a host of other issues that i have major concerns that we're now gonna be throwing a cr with massive other things attached to it not a clean cr i just wanna be very clear to people out there watching it that we're we're gonna be putting a continuing resolution to fund government with a number of significant policies on it for example if you like me do not like flock cameras, if you, like me, have concerns with kill switches, that we should be debating those out in the service transportation rather than just extending service transportation and these other matters on the back of a continuing resolution where we suspend the rules. I think that is a mistake. I would also note that we were having another closed rule and we are now up to, I don't know, eighty-something percent of our rules having been closed in this Congress. And I think that's not where we wanted to be. uh when we were trying to sort of shift directions on some things so i've got concerns on a number of different fronts but i appreciate um my good friend from wisconsin uh and agree with him on on these important issues that he was addressing in response to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle you're back

thank you mister roy um i know it's time for us to go vote and i appreciate um uh representative Halchen uh entering into the record the uh platform of the democratic socialist um of america because i was going to recommend doing that i believe mister roy went over most of the positions however i believe a couple that could be uh added to that is and you've mentioned it somewhat in your comments that um the democrat socialist of america want illegal aliens they want open borders is that correct They want everybody who wants to come into this country to come into the country.

Yeah, they wanna abolish ICE. Yeah.

Yeah. And they also want all the illegal aliens who are here to be allowed to vote,

Of fr-

along with people in prison.

They they definitely wanna start with the permanent residents, and I would expect them to expand it from there. They definitely want individuals that are incarcerated uh for felony convictions as as well as others to be able to vote as well.

Right. And I think an extension of remarks for the committee. It it'd be nice to list the o- some of the other issues that might not have gotten listed here and when we debate this on the floor I think we can do that also. Uh, Chairman Stile, uh we, our friends across the aisle have maintained consistently that the claim that non-citizen voting is rare. So, uh how many non-citizen votes do you think are too many?

Uh, one is too many, Chairman Fox.

Okay. So, are you aware that the New Jersey governor admitted that approximately four hundred noncitizens voted in her state in the last election?

Not not only am I aware, but, uh, the ranking member referenced a citation in this. If he would have read one in front of that, it notes that whereas New Jersey registered nearly six thousand six hundred noncitizens to vote with reported hundred successfully voting in elections, semicolon,

Right.

That that i this is a real and substantive problem.

'Kay. Well, is we know we serve with a colleague who four years ago, I believe it was four years ago, was elected by six votes. Her election was certified as a result of six votes. And at the time there was a question about whether to seat her or not. And Speaker Pelosi held that, the question, up for a long time. Uh, um, six votes can make a difference. Four hundred votes, four hundred non-citizens voted in New Jersey. We know that as a result of, uh, an inventory, I believe, that has been done in the state.

Hmm?

We don't know about the other states, correct? Where inventories have been done yet. But it's possible that there are people who could have been elected in this country by non-citizens. Especially.

Well, there it's it's clear that we have non-citizens who voted in U. S. elections and house races are often very close.

Right.

Ma- Madam Chair.

OK, well,

Yes, Chair.

thank you very much, Mister Stahl.

Madam,

Madam.

I just wanted,

Madam.

j- for the, to set the record straight, there are countless Republican officials who have been charged with voter fraud all throughout this country. I just want the record to reflect that, because that is a bigger problem,

Uh

quite frankly.

Mister McGovern, I'll say that you've had your time, I appreciate your adding that. Thank you Mister Stile, thank you Mister Morelli. We are voting. Um the first vote has been open for quite some time.

I need to go over with this.

I haven't had a chance to vote. I'm going to take a minute to go vote.

You want me to take over?

now you've

ok good good

already done that tonight i've been very

ok well we have a few more minutes

so uh we'll take a five minute no

can we just call mr. moyland off this is a really long meeting

oh mr. moyland

yeah you can walk

uh

mr. griffiths

mister griffiths will uh assume the chair mr. moyland has some comments to make

Welcome, Mr. Moylan. I understand you have uh some comments on an amendment that you're offering.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Yes, I do.

You're very nice.

And I Thank you, Mister Chairman. I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak on a bill before us today. That's HR fifteen O one, which I have an amendment. As we consider changes to the Fast-Tags and the definition of a covered project, I want to make sure those changes do not inadvertently open it to seabed mining. This is not theoretical concern. The Permitting Council has already identified seabed mining as an area of focus and developed timelines for projects under Federal jurisdiction. Potential impacts from seabed mining have already been identified. Ones that extend from the ocean floor and up through the water column. The destruction of sea floor habitats, sediment plumps, impacts from noise and artificial light, changes to food webs, and even potential damaging exposure to mobilized metals. We still don't know the full possible extent of these those impacts. And research on past experimental disturbances has found that some ecosystems still haven't recovered, even decades later. For Guam, this issue is not theoretical. It is real. BOEM is currently evaluating potential outer continental shelf mineral leasing off the Mariana Islands. That includes that's where Guam is. That's where CNMI is. That's where the Mariana Trench and surrounding waters contain some of the most unique ecosystems on Earth. These waters are part of our culture, a source of food, and an important part of our economy. Guam has made our position clear. In January, the thirty-eighth Guam legislature unanimously passed a resolution, one thirty-two, thirty-eight, demanding a halt to deep-sea mining in the region and strongly objected to leasing areas near our island. In June, Governor Leon Guerrero signed an act banning the mining, extraction, and removal of minerals from Guam's territorial waters. It also prohibited any such operation from making use of the Port Authority of Guam. I personally cosponsor bills that pushed for moratorium on deep-sea mining permits and barred federal licenses for deep-sea mining exploration. Our Guam legislature, our Governor, our citizens of Guam, and myself, our actions prioritize the protection of Guam's environment, culture, resources, and economic interests. Currents, ecosystems, and fisheries don't recognize jurisdictional boundaries. Activities outside of territorial waters are governed by the Federal mandate. This is why Congress needs to be precise. Seabed mining raises environmental, cultural, and jurisdictional questions, ones that deserve deliberate consideration, not implicated inclusions in an expedited permitting structure meant for infrastructure development. The limitation also needs to apply to commercial projects that enable and support seabed mining. FAST-forty-one was designed to improve coordination and predictability in federal permitting. It isn't meant to waive our environmental laws. Accelerating the review of conversat- uh, conventional mine on land is fundamentally different from doing the same for emerging industries whose environmental consequences we are still working to understand. So, Guam deeply objects to the seabed mining in the region, especially uh in our deep seas. And we also don't know the full extent of the impacts from it. And until we figure that out, these we need to put a hold on it until then. Now, FAST forty-one doesn't mention deep sea mining, so I want to make sure that it isn't applied. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you so much for your comments, and uh I now recognize Miss Fischbach, any questions? Uh, Mister McGovern?

No, I want to thank the gentleman for his testimony. I I think it's a good amendment, I hope it's made in order. Um, and if we were in control, it would be, so I don't know, it's up to them. but uh but i i would support making the amendment in order i yield back

mister jack

no comments thank you

no comments uh miss ganelon

ok thank you for your comments it's a pleasure to

miss haljan

no problem

oh sorry miss ledger canades

thank you very much you always do bring the issues

mister scott

i'm a bit worried about that

mister roy

i don't know

alright thank you so much and i i agree you um

thank you

you bring the voice of guam here and we appreciate that without any further questions that concludes the witness testimony i don't see any other people here with an amendment and ok is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda seeing none this closes the hearing portion of our meeting i get to bang the gavel alright thank you thank you sir and then i think we'll stand in recess

The committee will come back to order. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Griffith.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H R fifteen O one, the perfect the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of twenty twenty five, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. And the bill is amended, shall be considered as read, the rule waives all points of order against provisions and the bill is amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided in control by the chair and ranking of an already member of the committee on natural resources, or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit.

Mm-hmm.

The r- rule further provides for consideration of H R nine four three six, the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of twenty twenty six under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill the rule provides that in lieu of amendments to the nature of substitute Recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print one one nine dash forty shall be considered as adopted in the bill as amended shall be considered as read the rule waives all points of order, against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H. Rez Fourteen ninety, providing for condemnation and denouncement of socialism in all its forms and for other purposes under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution it shall be in order, without inter intervention of any point of order, to consider H res fourteen ninety. The rule provides that H res fourteen ninety shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair in ranking of minority member of the committee on house administration or their respective designees. The rule further provides for consideration of H R four seven nine. the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of twenty twenty six under a closed rule rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print one one nine dash three nine shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education workforce or their respective designees the rule provides one motion to recommit finally the rule provides that debate on motions that the house suspend the rules under clause one of rule fifteen relating to house joint resolution shall be extended to one hour

you have um heard the motion

you've heard the motion from the gentleman from um virginia is there any discussion or amendment to the rule

madam chair i have an amendment to the rule i move the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of hr seven two O six the farm and family relief act introduced by ranking member craig under a closed rule debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on agriculture this bill uh provides support for our farmers and the hardworking american families who republicans have left behind This gives money to uh farmers hurt by Trump's tariffs and trade wars and ends the disastrous tariffs moving forward. I urge a yes vote on my uh motion. I yield back.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say no.

No. No.

In the opinion share the no's have it team and it's not great

we have to call for a roll call maybe

uh the clerk will call the roll

mrs. Fischbach mrs. Fischbach no mr. Norman

no

mr. Roy mr. Roy no mrs. Hodgkin mrs. Hodgkin no mr. Langworthy

no

mr. Langworthy no mr. Scott

no

mr. Scott no mr. Griffith

no

mr. Griffith no mr. Jack

no

mr. Jack no mr. McGovern mr. McGregor hi mrs. Gantlin

aye

mrs. Gantlin aye mr. Nguz mrs. Ledger-Fernandez

aye

mrs. Ledger-Fernandez aye madam chair

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total

three yeas eight nays

and the and the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to is there further discussion or amendment

and i'm sorry i have an amendment to the rule i move the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of hr four eight four nine the protecting healthcare and lowering costs act introduced by representative gray under a closed rule debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means This bill would undo the disastrous health care cuts that republicans imposed as part of their big ugly bill last july and permanently extend the enhanced affordable care act tax uh premium tax credits that the republicans let expire uh americans are struggling and this would be a way to help them um during this difficult time i urge a yes vote

um is there further discussion on the amendment from mister mcgovern hearing none the questions on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye

Those opposed say no.

No.

No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it, the amendments said agree to it.

Madam Chair, I have another amendment to the rule. Uh, I move the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of H R six O eight eight the restoring food security for American Families and Farmers Act of twenty twenty five introduced by Representative Hayes, under a closed rule debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on agriculture. Madam Chair, Republicans are completely ignoring the food security crisis this country is facing. corn and wheat prices just hit their highest level in three years beef and coffee prices are at record highs people can't afford food it's that simple i urge a yes vote on this and and i yield back

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

aye

aye aye

those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion shared the no's have it

i guess we'll record a vote

the clerk will call the roll

mr. fischbach

no

mr. fischbach no mr. norman no

no

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

no

mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith mr. griffith no mr. jack

no no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i am miss ganlin

aye

miss ganlin i am mr. neguse miss ledger fernandez

aye

miss ledger fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

clerk will report the total

three yeas eight nays

the no's have it the amendments Not agreed to.

Madam Chair, I just have two other amendments. I I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of HRI eight seven O seven, the no funds for Iran war act introduced by representative Ryan under a closed rule debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on foreign affairs. Madam Chair, despite the constant gaslighting coming from the Republicans, the Iran war is still happening and hit a six month mark on Friday. Gas prices are still over four dollars. on average nationwide and the presence of legal warrantor ran us to blame i urge a yes vote and i yield back

is there further discussion on the amendment

madam chair

mister scott

i want to um bring up to the american citizens and the democrats know this that in june of twenty twenty five the international atomic energy agency who did all of the inspections for the jcpoa that is a UN agency, not a US agency, that's in large in charge of all the inspections, publicly stated that Iran had four hundred kilograms, that's enough for ten nuclear weapons, if further enriched, four hundred kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Now, before you go blaming what happened, what has happened on Donald Trump, you ought to actually read the reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Oh yeah.

Really?

Yeah, I have. And I wou if if if if you if w

Well, good. And so will you acknowledge what they said?

Yeah, no, eh, no,

Will you acknowledge that an an

I'm no, I I I'm not acknowledging anything. I'm simply saying if you believe what you just said,

This is my time.

and you think it's been justified,

You said this is my time, Mr. Governor.

then both are. This this is my job.

You said you read the report. You said you read the report, correct?

Yep, I reviewed the reports.

Okay. And so you acknowledge

I'm not acknowledging anything.

Okay.

So, I'm I'm not

Alright. Well, Ma- Madam Chair. This is a very relevant point. Everybody who has ever been a serious contender for president of the United States has said that they would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Prior to the original strikes, the midnight hammer strikes, the International Atomic Energy Agency publicly disclosed that Iran had over four hundred kilograms of highly enriched highly enriched uranium. They were well on their way, not to one nuclear weapon, but they had enough for ten. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield.

Yeah. And and and Madam Chair, and they had it after Trump pulled out of the agreement that President Obama had negotiated. But here, regardless of what you think Ar- Iran has in terms of uranium, whatever they ha- had, they still have. And all I'm simply saying is that if you wanna go to war, you ought to live up to the Constitution and vote to authorize. that war and I urge a yes vote on my amendment

is there further debate on the amendment

madam chair uh this is a classic example of of uh of mister scott wants to make these points we should be able to make them

right

in a debate

right

about whether or not we go to war because we are in war and the american people have paid the price we talked earlier about uh how uh gas prices fuel prices i entered into the record the increased cost that's what this uh amendment is about and we should have the debate and congress congress should exercise its power and not let it be concentrated in one man

there will be a vote later on this week in a debate on a resolution brought by the democrats related to the war

ma madam chair i'd like to submit for the record uh an article for from july twenty sixth of twenty twenty six from money wise uh since the price of fuel has come up repeatedly uh this article is titled democrats killed trump's three billion dollar plan about oil at twenty dollars a barrel now the reserve has dropped to three hundred eleven million barrels a nineteen eighty three low it goes on in here to say it is in the not too distant past there was a moment when congress could have bought millions of barrels at bargain prices and president trump wanted to do just that and it outlines how uh the democrats in particular chuck schumer um

uh without objection

but other democrats as well stopped president trump from buying the oil at twenty dollars a barrel of course if president trump is for it the democrats are against it no matter how much good it would have done the american citizens

ok

without objection

as he for

uh

his

the the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye

those opposed say no

no

no

no

in the opinion that share the no's have it the amendment is not agreed

right that's what the roll call

the clerk will call the roll

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

no no

Mr. Roy no Mrs. Haljan Mrs. Haljan no Mr. Langworthy Mr. Langworthy no Mr. Scott

no no

Mr. Scott no Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith no Mr. Jack

no no

Mr. Jack no Mr. McGovern Mr. McGovern i'm a

aye

i'm Mr. Nguz Ms. Leisure Fernandez Ms. Leisure Fernandez aye Madam Chair

aye

no

Madam Chair no

clerk will report to total

three yeas eight nays

the no's have it

amendment jerry

the amendment's gonna agree too

one final amendment i uh i move that the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of hr seven nine seven seven the energy bills relief act introduced by representative castan under a closed rule debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce madam chair electricity rates are soaring across the country and millions of americans are struggling to pay their rising energy bills democrats are trying to bring down those energy bills while republicans waste time on non binding resolutions like the ones we some of the ones we debated here in this committee tonight i urge a yes vote on my motion and i yield back

is there further discussion on the amendment

i would urge our colleagues to review this bill it's a very good bill i'm proud to be a co-sponsor

i'm sorry miss ganlin say again what you just said

i said i would urge my colleagues to review the bill cause it's a very good bill and i'm proud to be a co-sponsor and with that i yield back

thank you all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye aye

those opposed say no

no

no and the opinion chair of the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to

that's that's for a roll we ask for a roll

clerk will call the roll

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

no no no

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

no no

Mr. Scott no Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith no Mr. Jack

no no

Mr. Jack no Mr. McGovern

aye

Mr. McGovern aye Miss Galin

aye

Ms. Galin aye Mister Niguez Miss Ledger-Fernandez Miss Ledger-Fernandez aye Madam Chair

aye

no and i will note that

Madam Chairman

if we look at it's the blue states where the rates are very high uh the further amendment to the rule no did you report the total

no

sorry sorry report the total

three yeas eight nays

thank you the amendment is not agreed to further amendment hearing none the um vote is on the the question is on the motion from the gentleman from virginia all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye those opposed no

no way no

the opinion of the chair they aye's have it the motion is agreed to

ask for recorded vote ok

clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fischbach

yes

aye mr. orman mr. roy

for for roly no

mr. roy no mrs. howton

aye

mrs. howton aye mr. langworthy

aye

mr. langworthy aye mr. scott

aye

mr. scott aye mr. griffith mr. griffith aye mr. jack

aye

mr. jack aye mr. mcgovern

no

mr. mcgovern no miss scantlin

no

miss scantlin no miss chenegoose miss ledger fernandez

no

miss ledger fernandez no madam chair

aye

madam chair aye

no

the clerk The clerk will report the total.

Seven yays, four nays.

The ayes have it. The um rule is passed. The ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. I will be managing this rule for the majority.

And I will for the third.

Mister McGovern will uh uh for the minority, the dynamic duet.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.