▶ 0:16:52Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Pursuant to committee rule 2, House rule 11, clause 2, the chairman may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
▶ 0:17:12Ander, to lead us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank the gentlemen. Uh before we move to today's business, um I'm I'm sure most members and staff and guests have heard that we lost a good friend and a member, Mr.
▶ 0:17:42Connley, the ranking member on the oversight committee, a guy that both ranking member and I have had the opportunity to serve with for a number of years. a good man, um devoted public servant, longtime local government um office holder and then of course uh a friend and a colleague who fought the good fight um here in the United States Congress.
▶ 0:18:06And so uh he will he will he will be missed by certainly the our our friends on the Democrat side, but those of us on their just talking with ranking member Rascin, Mr. Connley was a worthy opponent, a worthy adversary, a good man and um we're all saddened by his loss and and uh our thinking and and praying for uh for his for his family. And I would I would yield time to the ranking member if he would like to say something about our colleague. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:18:36Chairman, for those warm thoughts about Jerry Connley. It's um it's a very tough pill for us to swallow. He was um a wonderful friend to many of us, a very feisty, tough, funny uh guy and he loved this institution very much and he loved his uh district in Virginia and the people of Virginia and he never lost his South Boston accent and uh uh he he was a playful guy and
▶ 0:19:06um it won't be quite the same without Jerry Connley around here. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Maybe I'm sure we're going to do this on on the floor today, but maybe let because even though he was oversight, he was close to this committee as well. Maybe let's just all stand for a brief moment of silence in remebrance of Mr. Conley. Thank you.
▶ 0:19:41Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 1163, the Prove it Act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move that the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. HR 1163. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Klein, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HR 11163, the Prove It Act of 2025, will help small businesses around the country comply with the overwhelming weight of federal regulation.
▶ 0:20:11This bill is an important piece of legislation and should not be controversial. It's intended to ensure that agencies comply with existing law and better account for how the regulations may affect small businesses. Small businesses around the country are struggling to comply with the onslaught of new regulations that are enacted each year by federal agencies. Many small business owners are their own compliance officers. They often don't have the resources to hire lawyers and compliance professionals to help them stay on the right side of the law.
▶ 0:20:38Many regulations have a significant economic impact on small businesses which result in higher prices at the cash register and higher inflation. In some cases, small businesses never open their doors in the first place because of a mountain of regulation. And this harms all Americans through reduced competition and innovation in our economy. This is especially true when agencies enact poorly designed one-sizefitsall rules. when small businesses must comply with such rules. It doesn't just hurt their bottom line. It also means the American people pay higher prices.
▶ 0:21:07Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies are supposed to take small business into consideration when crafting regulations. All too often, though, agencies do not comply with the RFA's mandates. One report found that in 75% of rulemakings, the agencies either ignored costs on small businesses or underestimated the regulations costs. That is unacceptable.
▶ 0:21:26Regardless of whether some believe that the US economy would be better with more or less regulation, we should all be in favor of well-crafted regulation, we should also agree that when Congress passes a law requiring an agency to complete a task, the agency should complete that task. It's not that hard. HR163, the Prove it Act of 2025, would help ensure agencies more carefully craft the regulations as the law requires.
▶ 0:21:50It allows small businesses to petition the Small Business Administration to investigate whether an agency performed the analysis the RFA requires, and it also creates a penalty for agencies that fail to comply. Mr. Chairman, Congress passed the RFA over 40 years ago, yet federal agencies still fail to account for the effects of their regulations on small businesses. The Pro It Act of 2025 is certainly necessary, and I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The ranking member, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for an opening statement. Mr.
▶ 0:22:19Chairman, thank you very much. U want to thank Mr. Klein for the initiative he's taken with uh the pro it act. Um I it may be sleep deprivation on my part, Mr. Chairman, but it seems like a kind of whimsical idea to me.
▶ 0:22:33Um right now we've got the regulatory flexibility act which as I understand it means that um that parties to uh a regulatory notice and comment period and uh filings and so on have to already do the analysis of what the potential effect is on small business. And this was adopted back in 1980 and I think it's been working really well.
▶ 0:23:01Now, as I understand the gentleman's bill, uh the objective is to uh further support small businesses by requiring that every rule that the government proposes in every agency and department must go through one small office in the small business administration.
▶ 0:23:21Um, and again, I, you know, we've been up most of the night in the rules committee, so I might be reading it wrongly, but it seems to me that the chief counsel of the Small Business Administration would suddenly achieve a kind of veto power over every rule proposed by every agency in the federal government, whether we're talking about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the EPA, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Election Commission, and so on.
▶ 0:23:48So, um, you know, the the off, you know, and if we were going to do that, I'm not sure this is the office we would choose necessarily, the office of the chief counsel of the SBA. The Senate has not even bothered to confirm a chief counsel of the SBA in a decade. Um, so, uh, you know, I'm I'm not quite sure about the logic of this.
▶ 0:24:13The regulatory flexibility act already uh introduces the substantive consideration of uh you know how regulations are going to affect small business. But this seems to be giving them almost like a a veto power uh over it.
▶ 0:24:32And the logic of that would be well then, you know, the EPA should have veto power to examine the environmental consequences and then, you know, we've got to give it to the Securities and Exchange Commission to make sure that it's consistent with business, you know, big business interests and so on. And so I just I think that that segments and uh chops up the regulatory process. It's not necessary to do that.
▶ 0:24:59And certainly we haven't shown the necessity of it. And um I guess I would just say finally that uh this administration has sworn its opposition to regulations. I think they're saying they're going to either get rid of four regulations for every one new regulation or maybe get rid of one regulation for every four new regulations. I can't remember which way.
▶ 0:25:22But in any event, they're they're already working to chop down regulations and so this would be a time to see how that goes without uh altering the entire the APA process. So thank you and I yield back. U gentleman yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report. Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 0:25:48Without objection, the amendment the nature of substitute will be considered as red and shall be considered as base tax for the purpose of amendment. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strikes of 2025 from the title of the bill. Change is not intended in any way to alter the important purpose of the bill. Urge support for the amendment. Yield back. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Uh gentleman from New York is recognized. I move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:26:18The Pro It Act is yet another example of Republicans pretending to care about small businesses while actually furthering the interest of big corporations. This legislation represents the latest effort by Republicans to dismantle the regulatory process, giving the biggest companies a powerful new cudgel to wield against regulations and causing harm to the very small entities it purports to help. Our regulatory agencies are responsible for writing rules that protect our communities from harm.
▶ 0:26:47They make sure that our that the toys our children play with are safe. They make sure that the vehicles we drive and the buildings we live in are up to code. They make sure that the legislation we pass in Congress tackling issues like climate change and public health are implemented as we intend. But the pro it act would grind it all all of this to a halt.
▶ 0:27:08If this legislation is enacted, every single rule, past, present, and future, would be funneled for review through a single official in a chronically underfunded office within the Small Business Administration. Any group that merely purports to represent small businesses could petition this one official to block a pending rule they don't like, and there would be no limit to how many times they could do this.
▶ 0:27:33Rules that would ban toxic chemicals or take contaminated food out of the market would hang in limbo while petitions mount before this single official to complete their reviews if they can ever complete them all. And who would be charged with this awesome responsibility over a regulatory system? It's unclear since the SBA has not even filled this position since 2017. But President Trump has nominated someone to fill the post.
▶ 0:28:00someone who has questioned limits on polluters, rules that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, and the value of sick leave. Because of these views, the nominee was opposed by every Democratic member of the Senate Small Business Committee, and I hope he will be rejected by the full Senate.
▶ 0:28:19And in addition to charging the chief counsel with reviewing petitions related to new rules, the bill also charges him with tracking agency's completion of a mandatory review of existing rules every 10 years. If they find that an agency failed to conduct a required review of a rule, they can simply suspend operation of the rule. This is a recipe for chaos and dysfunction. That of course is the point.
▶ 0:28:43And with a Trump nominee at the helm, scores of rules that businesses oppose, but that ensure we are safe, could be on the chopping block. Republicans do not want to empower the agencies that ensure the drugs we take are safe, that ensure child car seats protect the most vulnerable among us, and that enforce our competition laws to ensure that small businesses have a chance to thrive. They want to throw sand in the gears of these agencies to ensure that they never issue the regulations we depend on to keep us safe.
▶ 0:29:13This bill will do little to help small businesses, but for powerful companies and special interests, it could prove to be a windfall. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, and I will the gentleman yield for one sec. Yield to the gentleman. Thank you very much, Mr. Nadler. Um, and the the mystery behind this bill is clearing itself up a little bit in my mind.
▶ 0:29:36apparently that the gentleman that you spoke of who was nominated to be chief counsel of the SBA is a well-known anti-regulatory ideologue uh who has written advancing his theory that America essentially took took a wrong turn with the New Deal in the Roosevelt administration. He opposes the minimum wage. He opposes fines for polluters. He opposes sick leave for employees, mandatory sick leave.
▶ 0:30:03He believes Congress should repeal the uh ACA uh and certainly undue protections for patients with pre-existing conditions. He blamed the 2008 mortgage crisis on unemployment insurance and so on. So he seems like he's got a touch of a rand in him. Uh but I yeah, I certainly would wouldn't want to turn the whole administrative procedure act over to this one guy. And I thank you for yielding reclaiming my time.
▶ 0:30:26I I certainly agree with that and point out that under this uh uh he could reject the rule. Um and uh if if if the rule is repromagated, reject it again and again and again and you set up what this bill does is set up a minor official as the total dictator over every government agency.
▶ 0:30:53an unreviewable dictatorship, unreable discretion uh with all of our lives and safety. It's a it's a terrible idea and I urge my uh colleagues to oppose the bill and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike last word. Gentleman recogned one.
▶ 0:31:19For starters, the Proven Act does not authorize the SBA to review the substantive policy of any regulation. Instead, it's designed to ensure that agencies are complying with the RFA when crafting those regulations. The only power it gives the SBA is to determine whether the agency has complied with existing law. And if the agency has complied with the RFA, then the regulation will apply to small businesses as normal.
▶ 0:31:40But if it hasn't complied with what Congress requires, I thought that's what we were all um interested in right now is is ensuring that when Congress passes a law that it is followed uh by whatever agency uh it is it is directed at. Uh but if the agency hasn't complied with what Congress requires, then the agency will need to show its work. It's not complicated and the SBA will not be authorized to determine whether the regulation should go into effect on policy grounds.
▶ 0:32:08So I would uh just respond to that and hope my colleagues will support the bill. Gentleman yields back seeks recognition. Question occurs on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. No. And the pin the chairs the eyes have it. Uh and the amendment nature of a substitute is adopted.
▶ 0:32:37The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members of uh the uh ranking member request court vote. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan. Uh yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs, Mcccleintoch, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Mr.
▶ 0:33:07Massie, Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, where's everyone? Mr. Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kylie, Miss Hagamman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr.
▶ 0:33:36Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Not Mr. Not I. Mr. Harris, Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Rascin, no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofram, Miss Lofram votes no. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mr.
▶ 0:34:06Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipol, Miss Jipal votes no. Mr. Koreah, no. Mr. Kareah votes no. Miss Scandan, Mr. Nagus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes no. Miss Balant, Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia, Miss Camlager, Dove, Mr. Mosquitz, Mr.
▶ 0:34:35Goldman, Miss Crockett, Mr. Gooden votes yes.
▶ 0:35:59Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Garcia, you're not recorded. Mr. Garcia votes no. Mr. Johnson, you're not recorded. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Cohen, you're not recorded. Mr. Cohen votes no.
▶ 0:36:31Mr. Swallow, you're not recorded. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mr. Isa votes yes.
▶ 0:37:50Miss Cam Longer, you're not recorded. No. Miss Konger Dove votes no.
▶ 0:38:36Mr. Harris, you're not recorded. Mr. Harris votes yes. Mr. Andre, you're not recorded. Mr. Ander votes yes.
▶ 0:39:18Mr. Nells votes yes. Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Massie. Mr. Massie votes I.
▶ 0:39:54Clerk report. Gentle lady from Wyoming. Yes. Miss Haggman votes yes. 1412. 1412. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 eyes and 12 nos. The eyes have it. The bill is order to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment.
▶ 0:40:18The nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and Um, pursuant to notice, I call up HR605, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill HR160. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
▶ 0:40:48The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Constitution deliberately separates the powers of the federal government in a system of checks and balances. Article 1, section one vest all legislative power in Congress. While executive power belongs to the president and the judicial power rests with the courts, this foundational structure ensures that no single branch dominates the other, safeguarding individual liberty from government overreach.
▶ 0:41:18But for decades, the executive branch has taken legislative power by issuing regulations that carry the force of law. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron that courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute rather than exercise independent judgment to determine what Congress actually meant.
▶ 0:41:39The difference allowed unelected bureaucrats to wield immense legislative and judicial power and issue sweeping regulations with little accountability. In 2023 alone, unelected bureaucrats finalized over 3,000 rules. By contrast, during the same period, Congress passed less than 70 laws.
▶ 0:42:01This means the executive branch agencies impose more than 44 times as many mandates as the actual legislators. The consolidation of power within the executive branch directly contradicts our constitutional framework and harms American liberty. It is certainly not what our founders intended. And the regulatory state is not just oppressive, it's costly.
▶ 0:42:24According to the competitive enterprise institute, the total annual cost of the federal regulation is now 2.1 trillion, equivalent to over 7.5% of US GDP. If members of this chamber impose that kind of cost on taxpayers each year, we'd be voted out of office. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has finally restored the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting the law.
▶ 0:42:50In a 2024 case known as Loper Brightite, the court explicitly Chevron. The Supreme Court held that under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts must exercise independent judgment while reviewing whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
▶ 0:43:06As as chief chief justice Roberts quoting Alexander Hamilton's federalist number 78 wrote in the majority opinion the framers quote envision that the final interpretation of the laws would be proper and peculiar province of the courts.
▶ 0:43:25He went on to note that the administrative procedure act quote incorporates a traditional understanding of the judicial function under which courts must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions end quote. In other words, Supreme Court has now recognized what we in Congress have long understood. Chevron was an abdication of judicial responsibility that allowed agencies to run roughshot over both constitution and the will of the people's representatives.
▶ 0:43:55But while Loper Bright is a major step in the right direction, it does not resolve all questions of judicial difference. The court left open the question of whether other deference doctrines should be overturned. And courts may very well find ways to invent new deferences doctrines if we do not stop them from doing so.
▶ 0:44:15That is why it remains imperative that Congress act to solidify the judiciary's duty to review agency action and ensure that the executive branch cannot continue to legislate outside clear congressional direction. That is why we must pass HR6005. Separation of powers restoration act would formally codify the Supreme Court's decision in Loperbrite and invalidate any other precedents that require courts to defer to agency positions.
▶ 0:44:44This will ensure that courts independently consider what Congress has said through its statutes rather than putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the federal agencies by requiring courts to apply denovo review. This legislation would ensure that judges exercise their constitutional duty to interpret the law independently rather than deferring to the very agencies whose authority they are supposed to scrutinize.
▶ 0:45:09I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation and restore the balance of the power demanded by our constitution. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The rank of members now recognized for an opening statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, administrative rules take on different political meanings at different points in history depending on who's in office, who has more power um in the courts.
▶ 0:45:39And uh the the history of Chevron in Lope is fascinating uh especially in light of uh Mr. Fitzgerald's you know very interesting remarks there. Um, I'm old enough now to remember when Chevron was decided. I was in law school at the time in 1984. And at that point, um, when it came down, uh, Chevron was considered the conservatives doctrine.
▶ 0:46:08It's what Ronald Reagan wanted. It's what the conservative judges uh, on the Renquist court uh, and the Burger Court had been fighting for. Um, the liberals basically were saying, "We've got great uh regulations and rules that have been put in since the Great Society on clean air and clean water, and we don't need a new doctrine." But the conservatives on the court um introduced the Chevron doctrine because the Liberals wanted to stick with a particular uh regulation
▶ 0:46:38which determined that the word point in uh pollution had a fixed meaning. whereas the conservatives were saying no, the EPA now under uh Reagan appointees control uh can rearrange the meaning of the word point and have point apply to the entire factory rather than one particular point of discharge.
▶ 0:47:02Um, so it was the conservatives then who had advocated the Chevron doctrine and embraced it and were cheering the development of this great new flexibility notion because it allowed the Reagan appointees at the agencies and commissions to reverse uh rulings that had been in place for a long time. All the liberal environmental and labor lawyers were going to court saying no, this is what the statute has meant or the way it's been interpreted for 20, 30 years.
▶ 0:47:30But now the the the conservative court in the hands of the Chevron doctrine said no it it should be it's a flexible test and as long you know if there's inscrutability or indeterminacy in the language then we're going to defer to the agency's own interpretation. All right.
▶ 0:47:46So I was always um uh very skeptical of the Chevron notion for the reason that the Supreme Court annunciated in the Loperbrite decision which is that it's up to the courts to say what the law is and that goes back to Marberry v Madison in 1803.
▶ 0:48:06emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is and the uh the agency's role is to to be part of the implementation uh process but any final authoritative construction of the meaning of the statutory language must rest with the judiciary. So times change of course.
▶ 0:48:26So now we're in a period uh where um the conservatives hate the Chevron uh doctrine and the liberals who had originally denounced it now, you know, have been standing with it. All of which goes to show that a neutral rule can take on a very different meaning depending on who's occupying this or that office. I was about to call you, Mr. Chairman, to say, shouldn't we go ahead and uh say what the vote is? Everybody has voted.
▶ 0:48:55we were waiting for more people, but uh the rule is it's up to the chair to decide when to close the ballot and that's going to help you guys sometimes when you're sitting in that chair and maybe if I ever get to sit in that chair, it would help us. All right? So, you don't know uh which way an administrative rule is going to cut. Given that, I've always felt you should try to decide it on the merits as much as possible what you think it is.
▶ 0:49:19And I've always felt that the position just enunciated by the Supreme Court is the right decision in terms of interpreting what the law is. So I I like the Loperbrite decision and I like a lot of what's in this bill. However, um I've been working with the chairman to see if we can come around the uh the part of the bill that I don't like deals with the statute of limitations.
▶ 0:49:41Um and so the the compromise um that we that we came close to but in the final assess didn't work. Um it would have scrambled certainly partisan and doctrinal lines.
▶ 0:49:59The the compromise would have codified the new post Chevron world, making clear that court should review agency actions denovo and exercised their own independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has in fact acted within statutory authority. It also would have enshrined certain guard rails explicitly instructing courts to continue applying star decisis as well as continuing to give respect to executive branch interpretations particularly when based on specialized experience. These are the so-called Skidmore factors.
▶ 0:50:29Um, but what's more, the compromise would have overturned the Supreme Court's ruling in the corner post decision which broke with decades of precedent and would have made clear that facial challenges to rules and agency actions must be made within eight years of the promulgation of the rule. This language built on my colleague Mr.
▶ 0:50:48Nadler's Cornerpost Reversal Act would have avoided the free-for-all that exists when federal rules are in a perpetual state of limbo where litigants can challenge them even if they've been in place for 20 years or 30 years or 40 years. There's no stability for anybody in that and that just undermines rule of law values.
▶ 0:51:07So, uh, unfortunately at the 11th hour, uh, I believe some of, uh, some of our GOP colleagues walked away from what I was hoping would be a big compromise that we could all live with. In other words, Loper Bright, which is the law of the land right now, would be codified, but we would not allow allow rules to be perpetually challenged, uh, which would introduce a lot of instability into the law. So, uh, that bipartisan deal, uh, collapsed.
▶ 0:51:37Um, and, uh, you know, my preference would have been today to vote on that bill that we were discussing. Um, and, uh, you know, to the extent that my colleagues are intent on putting up the this other version of the bill, which allows for perpetual challenge, um, I cannot go along with that and I would have to vote against that. But if it passes the committee, I do hope, Mr. chairman um that you know I'm sincere about this.
▶ 0:52:04I hope we can continue to work together to improve the bill and find real common ground as it moves through the legislative process. Um, it's a good opportunity for us to act in the true spirit of bipartisan compromise and common sense and uh I think it would it would demonstraably improve the bill because yeah, you can always bring a constitutional challenge but I don't think an arbitrary capriccious challenge, an ultravirus challenge should last forever.
▶ 0:52:32I don't think people should be bringing those 20 or 30 or 40 years later. So, I hope we can continue to work on it, but uh otherwise I'm not quite there yet. And uh thank you for your patience and I yield back to you. Gentleman yields back. Uh chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to offer an amendment in the nature of Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Um I do have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR objection. Amendment nature substitute be considered as red and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of amendment.
▶ 0:53:01Chair recognized the gentleman from Wisconsin to explain the amendment. Yeah. This amendment adds interpretive rules, general statements of policy and other and all other agency guidance. documents of the scope of the bill. Uh these were included in the version of the bill that passed the house last Congress and I would urge uh support for uh this amendment and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Uh the chair would claim some time uh for a question to the to sponsor the bill.
▶ 0:53:26Is there anything in the current legislation that talks about statute of limitations there chairman? There is not um which um when the ranking member um discussed this and I think the negotiations that were happening behind the scenes um I I mean it that would uh lend me to believe we why not pass this bill today and then if we want to come back and talk about a statute of limitations later that seems
▶ 0:53:56like it might be more productive. Yeah. and and that's that's where uh I'm I'm inclined to go and we have had discussions with the ranking member and our staff and their staff and we'll we'll continue to do that. See if we can find some common ground, but there's nothing in this legislation that addresses or deals with the statute of limitations. Uh who seeks recognition? I the gentle lady from Washington is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I move to strike the last word. I think I was recognized.
▶ 0:54:20uh you know I I just want to agree with our brilliant ranking member that um he's pointing out the contradictions that occur when one party tries to move and uh make a situation work for them despite what the merits of the situation might be. And I think that that is a very real point. Um I do think that this particular bill has tremendous problems. I'm going to vote no on it.
▶ 0:54:47I think that if we are to think about the central issue here, it is the question of where expertise should lie. And at the end of the day, I think part of the reason that um this administration has been focusing so intently on destroying agency authority, getting rid of expertise within the agencies and replacing that, either completely eliminating a department illegally that was established by Congress
▶ 0:55:18or eliminating expertise that has been critical to making these decisions over these years is because they know know that those agencies are actually accountable to Congress. So when we write legislation and we articulate what we intend to be done, it is very difficult I think particularly in technical areas that cross a number of different sectors for us to give full and complete determination of exactly what that looks like.
▶ 0:55:45And so we have seen uh Chevron deference in the 40 years that it's been the law of the land um require courts to give expert agencies the chance first to implement ambiguous laws and that has led to an enactment of many important policies and you know I'll just name a few how to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act um which drugs and medical devices should be covered by Medicare and Medicaid or how labor unions unions across the
▶ 0:56:15country hold free and fair elections without the interference of greedy employers. None of those things would have been possible without the without uh Chevron. And you could probably say that of the of the decade before as well. So I don't dispute that point at all. But I do think the central question is who decides these important policies and when Congress makes a a determination when we enact a law um that we do delegate some responsibility to the agencies.
▶ 0:56:45And I I think that judges have another very particular set of expertise, a very particular range of expertise that they offer which is critically important. and they before the Supreme Court ruled um recently they had sort of the end analysis of of whether something was appropriate or not but they didn't have to have the detailed technical expertise that we have relied on agencies
▶ 0:57:16to have and so I think it is very important that experts decide on subject matter as much as possible and that they are accountable to Congress. Because if you take that away, then you have a judiciary who is not accountable to Congress and they might interpret exactly what they think the law should be based on a whole range of things um that we may or may not uh agree with.
▶ 0:57:42And I think we've got to be very careful about a cottifying the Supreme Court's uh it is the law of the land. I'm not arguing with that. but cottifying it in hopes that perhaps this returns us to a period of the 40 years prior to um Chevron deference because I think so many things have changed and I also think at the end of the day we should be looking at this on the merits of the situation not by whether the current administration is taking away
▶ 0:58:12the ability of agencies to do the things that they are supposed to do. Um because frankly an administration that wants to destroy the agencies and the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch and seeks to essentially eliminate the authorities of Congress under article one is also the the same administration that might do that with the judiciary for example might ignore the uh unanimous
▶ 0:58:43Supreme Court decision to facilitate the return of Kilmargo Garcia. I mean there's all kinds of things that can be done to eliminate the separation of powers and I think we should be looking at where should expertise lie in my mind anyway that is the central question of of this point and that is why I wrote the stop corporate capture bill because my bill offers a comprehensive blueprint for the kind of modern people centered regulatory system that the public
▶ 0:59:13expects and deserves and I think it would level the playing field for all Americans to have their voices heard on these critical regulatory decisions. It would pro promote scientific integrity, public accountability. It would codify Chevron deference. Um, and it would restore our government's ability to deliver results. So, that is still where I am. And I think if we're going to have this conversation, um, I just hope that we can do it as a group um, and not just change our our gentle lady's time is expired. Is there further discussion?
▶ 0:59:44I move to say Mr. stronger. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, well, I really commend Mr. Fitzgerald for bringing forward for forth this bill. I really love this bill. In fact, I like it so much that on the campaign trail last year, I talked repeatedly about cottifying LEBbrite and for once and for all making it clear in statute that the Chevron doctrine is is no longer the law of the land.
▶ 1:00:15You know, the four decades since Chevron have witnessed an enormous growth in the power of the regulatory state and the size and cost of the regulatory state. Unaccountable bureaucrats, so-called experts, have subverted in many cases the will of the people and vastly expanded the power of the executive branch beyond what was anticipated by either our founders or by the drafters of the statute.
▶ 1:00:43that those unaccountable bureaucrats allegedly were interpreting. Not only that, there's been an enormous power grab by these bureaucrats of the article one powers of Congress, of the power of judicial review that is so clear in our constitution.
▶ 1:01:01And finally, the power of individual citizens and businesses litigants to go to court to defend their individual and property rights against the aggressive and inappropriate use of power by executive branch bureaucrats. So why do we still need this bill? We need this bill, as Representative Fitzgerald said, to make sure that other doctrines, other deference doctrines don't continue to be abused by bureaucrats.
▶ 1:01:29And number two, we do not know what the constit the composition of the court will be. So it is time for Congress to make very clear that the Chevron doctrine no longer stands and that so-called experts cannot rule the our lives and the lives of businesses throughout this country. I thank the uh the representative for this bill. Gentleman yields back further discussion. Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:01:56I move to strike the last Gentleman's recognized. Mr. Chairman, when I saw that we were marking up a bill called the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, I wondered if that meant that our Republican colleagues were finally ready to assert congressional authority and stand up to President Trump's unprecedented power grabs. On issue after issue, the Trump administration has thumbmed its nose at Congress and claimed practically unlimited power for the executive branch.
▶ 1:02:26And what has been the response of my Republican colleagues? Crickets. So I was heartened to see that we might consider a bill to finally reassert appropriate checks and balances and to restore the separation of powers that our constitution has enshrined. But sadly, this bill would do nothing to respond to the crisis at hand. Instead, it would double down on the Supreme Court decision in Loperbrite, enabling courts to ignore agency expertise and make it easier to overturn life-saving regulations.
▶ 1:02:54I appreciate ranking member Rasin's efforts to improve the bill in particular by adding language from my legislation to overturn the Supreme Court's recent decision in corner post which eliminated the statute of limitations on challenging regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act. I am disappointed that the majority would not agree to his offers. Without that language, this bill would allow for wholesale ro roll backs of standing agency rules going back decades.
▶ 1:03:23This could lead to chaos in end endless litigation, uncertainty for businesses, and ultimately a government that cannot effectively govern. Therefore, unless that language is is is is uh is is placed in the bill at some point in the legislative process, it hasn't been yet. I must oppose the bill. I yield back. Would the gentleman yield? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'll I'll yield. Yeah. Thank you.
▶ 1:03:47I I wanted to um I wanted to res respond to the the last two comments and well really the last three the the whole point that uh the gentle lady from Washington uh made so powerfully about um that you know the problem I think is that expertise is in the eye of the beholder. I was going to ask the gentleman who I think had to leave the room. Um he was saying, you know, we should not be deferring to so-called experts.
▶ 1:04:18We should be enforcing the law as it is. So here's an interesting case that has come up in this new administration. And this is what I mean about how uh you know there's a dosey do going on. The roles switch completely. So this the new secretary of HHS, Secretary Kennedy has said that the the Department of Health and Human Services is not bound by the uh administrative procedures act and is not going to follow it. Now I suppose he would be the expert here.
▶ 1:04:47Uh I mean it's hard to identify his particular views with expertise, but in any event, he's saying as the secretary of HHS, he's not going to be bound by uh the Administrative Procedure Act. Well, that's an outrageous violation of the rule of law. I think we want a court to be reviewing that.
▶ 1:05:04And as the various cabinet members decide they want to go off on their own direction and disown the whole body of regulations that have grown up in their particular agency or department, I think that we are going to want the courts enforcing that.
▶ 1:05:19Um now unfortunately uh President Trump himself has also said he's not bound by the administrative procedures act and I hope that all of us would agree that can't be right because the administrative procedures act is the way that we actually conduct the promulgation of regulations through the notice and comment period and through you know all of the steps that are built in there.
▶ 1:05:45So, you know, my problem, my my only hang-up with this bill is the Supreme Court's decision um in the corner post case um determined that the statute of limitations runs from the point of alleged harm to a litigant rather than from the point at which the regulation was adopted.
▶ 1:06:07And I I think that doesn't give anybody uh especially the business community which has complained about it but also workers, environmental groups. It doesn't give anybody any predictability or order in the system. So personally I would like to add what's in this bill with a language that um that gets us away from that corner post approach and makes clear that we can build a lot more definitess into the system. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
▶ 1:06:38I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? I move to strike the last word. Uh gentleman's recognized under the five minute rule. Thank you. Um, I noticed my colleague um on the on the other side um made the point that this bill uh is able to attack a problem of bureaucrats usurping article one power.
▶ 1:07:05And I took note of it because um I don't hear my Republican colleagues talking about article one power very much anymore as Donald Trump and this administration have completely usurped all of Congress's power. the power of the purse.
▶ 1:07:26Uh the power to uh use executive orders to overrule legislation to cancel um to uh agencies that Congress Um but somehow you found article one power when it comes to quote unelected Now, I was uh I was a clerk for a district court
▶ 1:07:56judge in San Francisco who had a lot of patent And really, they're so complicated and so technical that he might as well have thrown a dart at a dart board to see which way it would come out. it was just beyond his expertise which he would have readily admitted.
▶ 1:08:24And so the notion that judges somehow have more expertise about the intricacies of implementing complex laws, whether administrative laws especially, whether they be environmental or uh financial or in some other ways, is absurd on its face.
▶ 1:08:49And it may be politically expedient for the my Republican colleagues to want to put this power in the court's hands. But it will make our system much much less And I I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing the term unelected bureaucrat as if the patriotic men and women of our federal government who
▶ 1:09:20are working anonymously for the United States to execute our laws to protect our borders to engage in diplomacy abroad or somehow uh because they're not elected to office any less competent or expert than somebody who uh I guess who wins an election is is preposterous.
▶ 1:09:48Um but I I would note that if your concern is article one power, I might encourage you all to speak up against this Department of Justice charging with criminal charges. one of your colleagues for doing her job, her constitutional mandated job.
▶ 1:10:13Now, I I know many of you think you take an oath to Donald Trump, but in reality, the oath is to the Constitution, and you ought to be very, very careful about continuing to stay quiet as this president ravages and destroys our democracy and completely undermines and devastates your Article One power.
▶ 1:10:39So if you are going to find God and recognize that there's article one power when it to administrative law, I hope you will also find article one power to stand up to a rogue authoritarian administration rather than continuing to sit quietly as your own power is taken away and your own colleagues are being arrested.
▶ 1:11:08ed for what is so obviously obviously a politicized trumped up bogus charge and I will the gentleman just yield for a friendly but uh yes but probing question I hope okay um so this is on the point of expertise you have a lot of courtroom experience say there's a a case about whether someone was driving DUI there there's no doubt that the
▶ 1:11:38chemist who knows uh about body chemistry and alcohol um is going to know more than members of the jury, but we still leave the ultimate determination to the jury to use their common sense, but they're allowed to take in all of the expert testimony.
▶ 1:11:54So why is it that we would say we want somebody who has expertise to be making a decision on an ambiguous or inscrable part of a statute rather than a court whose job it is to interpret the meaning of the law?
▶ 1:12:10Well, it it's it's clear the courts have to have a role and I don't think any of us are saying that the courts shouldn't have a role and that's why I wish we would work in a more bipartisan way to uh rewrite administrative law after Chevron because this is a very very important issue that will have many many follow-on effects.
▶ 1:12:30But for a judge or a jury or anyone who's not a scientific expert or a specific expert in a field to learn an entire field without the benefit of those who are fundamentally undermines the efficacy of our laws and the implementation of our laws. So why we would shun expertise is beyond me and I yield back. Gentlemen yields back.
▶ 1:13:02question is on recommend one time. Yeah, it move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Ju just to complete that point, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate it. Um, look, the uh this is in defense of the Loperbrite decision. Okay. Um, Loperbrite did not uh negate or nullify uh or demolish the role of administrative uh expertise in the agencies or departments.
▶ 1:13:29All it said in fact it reaffirmed that if there really is a clear delegation from Congress to an agency, the agency can do it. But where it's not clear then uh as a matter of law says the courts have got to be determining that rather than the unelected bureaucrat whether that unelected bureaucrat is Joe Califano or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
▶ 1:13:55that is the whoever is there doesn't get to define what the law means but they do get to and they do get to execute the meaning of the statute. So that that's why to me the the loperbrite approach seems compelling and we should work with it. But I I I just hope that my Republican colleagues who I'm siding with here understand the import of the position they're taking.
▶ 1:14:23First of all, the last bill that we just discussed is utterly ridiculous. Uh from the standpoint of uh Loper Bright, it vests all power in an unelected bureaucrat. The idea was you have the regulatory notice and comment period and then everybody for some reason goes to the general counsel of the small business administration and that person gets to decide uh as if that person is more expert than all the other administrative experts and better at interpreting the law than
▶ 1:14:53the courts. So that bill is precisely what I think is being condemned uh by by Lope Bright. But but I also want my colleagues just to understand what's going to be happening over the next three and a half years is that people like Secretary Kennedy are going to be coming out with their rules and their regulations and and the courts are not going to be deferring to them and they shouldn't be deferring to them uh if they operate in a realm of ambiguity
▶ 1:15:23within the statute. And so I just want everybody to be clear, you're committing yourselves with this vote to that position that the court should not be deferring to, you know, sec attorney general Bondi with respect to a DA DOJ regulation or Secretary Kennedy with respect to an HHS regulation. It's going to be up to the courts. And I know a lot of you have been talking about impeaching federal judges because you don't like what they've been doing.
▶ 1:15:49You haven't really bothered to say what's wrong with the legal analysis that is exercising you, but you still want them impeached. And you're moving in a very different direction now. And it's the direction I believe in, which is that the courts uh are the place where we go to find out what the law means. Like uh Marberry versus Madison said in 1803, it's emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to add that point. Uh I thank the ranking member.
▶ 1:16:19The gentle lady from Wisconsin or Wisconsin Wyoming is recognized. Well, I think we need to understand what Loperbrite did and what Chevron did and we can do it by using some real time examples. What the point of Chevron was was if there was an alleged ambiguity in a statutory in in a bill, then they would defer to the to the AY's interpretation of what that statute meant rather than going through the process of determining uh what the law is, which had been
▶ 1:16:49basically within their purview up until 1984. And so we got such incredibly incredible absurdities. For example, let's use the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act gives to the EPA jurisdiction over navigable waters of the United States. That is a specific term that throughout history we've known what it meant. Great point.
▶ 1:17:11But then all of a sudden the EPA started interpreting navigable water of the United States to include mud puddles and irrigation ditches and water in borrow pits along highways and uh riffles of of water in the sand out in the desert and pretty much anything that you could think of that might not be in a plastic bottle like this.
▶ 1:17:36So the EPA taking the phrase navigable water of the United States which 90% of the people in this room would be able to define what a navigable water was. But apparently the experts the EPA the people who know this the people who are the experts that court should defer to could not figure out that an man-made irrigation ditch is not a navigable water of the United States.
▶ 1:17:58So what Chevron did is it required the courts to defer to an absurd interpretation and this is just one example of that. What LER Brightite did that decision said it is up to the courts to determine what is meant by quote a navigable water of the United States. Now that doesn't mean that the agencies don't weigh in. The agencies still file their briefs. They still make their arguments.
▶ 1:18:24They still have the US at the the assistant US attorneys appear before them and say, "Hey, navigable water of the United States ought to be interpreted this way or it ought to be interpreted this way." But what it also does is it made it so that everyday people could also go into that court and make their presentation and their arguments as to what a navigable water of the United States meant and go back to the history of the Clean Water Act and why Congress never intended to include irrigation
▶ 1:18:55ditches, irrigation canals, borrow pits, mud puddles. The point of the Clean Water Act was for the federal government or the EPA to take jurisdiction over things like the Mississippi River, the Missouri River, the Colorado River, the Green River. But it sure wasn't to take jurisdiction over an irrigation ditch. It sure wasn't to it. It was that was to be left to the states. Regulation of those kinds of water bodies are left to the states.
▶ 1:19:21Yet because of Chevron, our courts allowed the EPA to take jurisdiction over things that Congress never ever intended. The Loper Bright decision has right has has correctly writed that wrong. And it doesn't mean that the agencies can't still make their arguments, can't still come in and bring in their expertise, can't still bring their expert witnesses to testify as to what these various terms should mean. But ultimately it is for the court to decide.
▶ 1:19:52And in light of the fact that we have had some bad decisions such as the Chevron decision come out, it is time for Congress to act and say it isn't up to these so-called unelected bureaucrats because that's exactly what they are to be making the decisions about what the law says. That is for the courts to make that determination.
▶ 1:20:12That's all that this bill does is it just further clarifies this the the the uh authority and the power and the jurisdiction of all of these various actors in all of these various lawsuits. With that, gentle lady yield for a affirming comment. Sure.
▶ 1:20:31Um I agree with you and in fact I think one of the problems with Chevron um and our regulatory scheme is that every four years regulations can swing wildly which creates very unsettled um and is I think very difficult for the business community to uh plan around.
▶ 1:20:58And what I would suggest if we can continue to discuss this is that we figure out some way to uh establish that rules that are promulgated and affirmed by the courts cannot then just be changed every four years.
▶ 1:21:16And if there's some sort of a rebuttable presumption that a rule that's been confirmed that's been promulgated and and confirmed by the courts uh would remain in a new administration, I I think our entire regulatory scheme would be much better off and many many businesses and other entities would would be uh grateful for Uh gentle lady yields gentle lady yields back.
▶ 1:21:44Who seeks recognition? The question is on adoption of the amendment the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it and the amendment the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered reported favorably to the house. The gentleman from New York requests a roll call.
▶ 1:22:14The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs, yes. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. McCcleinto votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. Yes. Mr. Massie votes yes. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Hi. Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klene. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Vandrew. Yes. Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nells. Mr. Mr. Nells votes yes.
▶ 1:22:44Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie. Mr. Kylie votes I. Miss Haggamman. Miss Hagamman votes I. Miss Lee. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Growthman. Mr. Kn I. Mr. Knott votes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gill. Mr. Bumgardner. Mr. Mr.
▶ 1:23:15Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofrren Miss Lrren votes no. Mr. Cohen Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipal, Miss Jipal votes no. Mr. Koreah, Mr. Korea votes no. Miss Scandlin, Mr.
▶ 1:23:38Goose Miss Mcbath Miss Ross Miss Ross votes no Miss Balant Miss Balant votes no Mr. Garcia Mr. Garcia votes no Miss Camel Dove Mr. Mosquitz Mr. Goldman no Mr. Goldman votes no Miss Crockett no Miss Crockett votes no. Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Moore votes I.
▶ 1:24:14Mr. Icy, you're not recorded. Mr. Isa votes I Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 eyes and 12 nos. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House.
▶ 1:24:42Members will have two days to submit views without objection. The bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. What we got next?
▶ 1:25:05Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 3486, the Stop illegal entry act for purposes of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. HR 3486. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. KN, for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:25:27It is my privilege to open remarks on this important bill that targets a very real problem that is posed by criminal illegal aliens that come into the United States for one purpose, and that is to commit crime. While here, they commit crimes of every sort. After deportation, they often return to the United States to continue committing crimes that harm Americans in every corner of the country.
▶ 1:25:53Our tolerance for this as a country and the ongoing harm that is posed by this class of illegal immigrants has fully expired and this bill reflects that reality. First, let me begin by commending Congresswoman Bice and Senator Cruz for their dedication to this important issue and their tireless work in crafting excellent legislation striking at the heart of this crisis that has yielded countless victims.
▶ 1:26:21The original version of this bill was drafted several years ago after a 32-year-old woman was tragically shot and killed by an illegal alien who had multiple multiple felony convictions and had been deported from the United States times. Tragically, her case is not an outlaw an outlier. This has become far too common.
▶ 1:26:47As a federal prosecutor, I investigated, tried, and convicted many individuals who had been deported two, three, even up to and beyond 10 times. Yet, they continued to illegally return with the intent to commit crime here in the United States. When speaking to these individuals, it was quite interesting to me because they became quite candid.
▶ 1:27:14They simply told me deportation alone was no deterrent for them returning here to commit crimes. Further, given the sophisticated criminal infrastructures that exist, in large part due to unchecked migration and decades of open borders, returning to the United States for these committed criminals is something that is far too easy and far too profitable for these committed criminals.
▶ 1:27:43It is a simple costbenefit analysis. There is little risk in re-entering the United States and a very high likelihood of profiting from activity. The current law and the status quo lets illegal immigrant criminals off far too easy.
▶ 1:28:00Without a change in the law, they will continue to enrich themselves through crime in our communities, bringing with them murder, rape, property crimes, drug trafficking, organized retail theft, human trafficking, and of course, the threat of terrorism. The legislation that I, along with Congresswoman Bice and Senator Cruz, put forth draws a hard line.
▶ 1:28:23We will no longer tolerate illegal immigrants who disregard our sovereignty in our laws and are involved in neverending crime that harms the people. With the tools in this bill, law enforcement will now have a set of tools that that will make it more more and easier, excuse me, more efficient and easier to dismantle organized crime rings across the country.
▶ 1:28:50And most importantly, it will employ a deterrent to those hoping to illegally enter the United States to continue to commit crime. Utilizing my experience prosecuting these criminals, I worked with Miss Bice and Mr. Cruz to propose the following simple measures.
▶ 1:29:11If you are here illegally and you commit a felony and you are convicted of a felony, that alone makes the illegal alien eligible for a separate federal offense that carries a minimum of 5 years in federal prison. Secondly, rather than capping the sentence for illegally reentering, so after deportation, if you illegally reenter the country, the current cap is at two years.
▶ 1:29:41The new maximum will become 10 years for all illegal re-entries, regardless of your criminal history. If an illegal alien is convicted of any felony, deported, and then illegally re-enters the country a second time, they immediately qualify for a federal charge that carries a minimum of 10 years in federal prison and a maximum of life.
▶ 1:30:06The premise of this legislation begins with the reality that anyone who is in the United States illegally who is is guilty of criminal conduct. What triggers these penalties in this law is either illegal re-entry or the conviction of felonious conduct while you are here in the United States. Yes, we need the wall to be finished. Yes, we need deportations.
▶ 1:30:33The president has shown that these steps are essential and effective. However, these measures alone are insufficient to deter and properly punish committed criminals from around the world from coming back to the United States. The only aspect of American law that strikes fear in criminal aliens is mandatory prison time.
▶ 1:30:55I know this from firstirhand Only in this way can we send a message that we will no longer tolerate the victimization of Americans through illegal conduct by criminal illegal aliens. With this bill, we change the cost benefit analysis for the criminals who will now have to conclude that it is no longer worth it to come into the United States or to return to the United States to pursue illegal activity.
▶ 1:31:27It's time for the illegal immigrant criminals to know that our tolerance for their presence and their criminal behavior here is over. With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes ranking member for uh an opening statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to salute Mr. Not on his uh legislation and on his presentation of it. Um, but this seems to me like a solution in search of a problem.
▶ 1:31:55And it's also a solution which uh seems to collide with the overall thrust of this administration's current policies regarding um immigrants to the country who commit crimes.
▶ 1:32:08Now, under 8 USC 1325, entering the United States today without inspection or making false statements when entering or attempting to enter the country is already a criminal misdemeanor punishable by a fine andor up to 6 months in prison with enhancements of up to two years under 8 USC 1326, unlawfully re-entering the country or being found inside the United States following a removal removal order or deny of admission
▶ 1:32:39is already a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. With enhancements, the sentence uh can go as high as 20 years in prison for those who were ordered removed following a conviction for certain offenses. These laws were passed in 1929, nearly a century ago. Now, presidents of both parties have used these laws to prosecute people who enter the country unlawfully, and it's never been shown to deter illegal migration.
▶ 1:33:07In fact, in the last month of the Biden administration, as in prior uh prior years, 8 USC 1326 was the most commonly prosecuted criminal statute in the entire federal system. Yet, there's been no correlation between increased prosecutions under this statute and a decrease in border crossings. If prosecution alone were a deterrent, we would have solved this problem long ago. We've not.
▶ 1:33:33But now the majority wants to impose uh more mandatory minimum sentences on existing crimes of unlawful entry and re-entry and even allowing for a life sentence in federal prison for merely entering the country unlawfully with no other criminal conduct required. We've seen over and over again that mandatory minimum sentences are not effective at deterring or reducing crime.
▶ 1:33:56And just a few years ago, there was a very broad consensus from left to right among both parties that mandatory minimums did not improve public safety. They strip judges of their ability to exercise discretion to impose sentences that actually fit the circumstances of the case. Um, frustrating judges ability to consider mitigating factors and imposing this one-sizefits-all approach that so enrages judges.
▶ 1:34:25That's why the judicial conference and so many groups devoted to improving the criminal justice system oppose mandatory minimums. Senator Ran Paul testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee a few years ago about mandatory minimums said, quote, "I am here to ask that we begin today the end of mandatory minimum sentencing." End quote. Study after study has shown mandatory minimums do not work to deter criminal behavior.
▶ 1:34:51We know that it's the certainty of being caught and being quickly punished, not the severity of the sentence, that is what really deters criminal behavior. Increasing and mandating lengthy sentences will not deter illegal re-entry based on everything we know.
▶ 1:35:09In fact, just last week, we held a bipartisan hearing on the what the majority called the overcriminalization and the growth of federal offenses where uh colleagues seem to agree across the aisle that our federal criminal code is out of control. We even discussed Representative Roy and Representative McBth's bill, the Count the Crimes to Cut Act, because no one even knows how many crimes there are actually in the federal code today.
▶ 1:35:34Yet here we are uh just a week later marking up a bill to unilaterally impose new mandatory minimum sentences. At that hearing, we also discussed how the Bureau of Prisons faces significant staffing shortages, particularly of correctional officers, health care professionals, and mental health specialists.
▶ 1:35:53According to a DOJ uh Office of Inspector General report released in March of 2023, more than 20% of the Bureau of Prisons authorized correctional officer positions remained uh forcing prisons to use cooks, teachers, nurses, and other uh kinds of workers to guard inmates.
▶ 1:36:19This dynamic will only get worse if BOP employees are asked to bear the burden of having their incentive pay cut and lose their first social security retirement supplement as a result of uh this week's big beautiful bill that we stayed up all night talking about. In the last seven years, BOP staffing levels have dropped more than 20%, bottoming out at a current 40% shortage now of correctional officers, according to AFGE.
▶ 1:36:47Uh, according to a GAO study on inmate deaths, staff and shortages create dangerous conditions. It costs the Bureau of Prisons $150 a day to house an inmate. And given all that, do we really want to make the situation worse by forcing the Bureau of Prisons to take custody of even more people now for five or 10 years when uh the current sentences have worked for nearly a century?
▶ 1:37:12Just think a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for an individual is a mandatory cost of over a half a million dollars for the US taxpayer. That might be great for the private prisons who are making money off of this situation. It is not great for the taxpayers. So, how is this going to be paid for? Who's going to pay for it?
▶ 1:37:31Finally, um it's interesting that we are bringing forth this bill which puts mandatory minimums in place on deportable undocumented immigrants at a time when President Trump um has already gotten rid of one ICE director for not deporting people fast enough. In fact, under President Trump, removals are down over 10% compared to when President Biden was in office.
▶ 1:37:55If this bill were passed into law, it would require that deportable undocumented immigrants who commit certain crimes be held in the overburdened uh BOP facilities in the US at a cost to taxpayers of more than $150 a day for a minimum five or 10 years only then to be removed from the country. So, have we actually checked with the White House to see if they would sign this legislation into law?
▶ 1:38:21Why would we choose to detain people for an extra decade or an extra seven or eight years in federal prison when the immigration laws already require that they be deported? According to the Washington Post, the Trump administration is pressuring governors to commute the sentences of immigrants right now, people who are convicted of serious crimes, so that ICE can take custody of them and remove them more quickly from the country. This bill does the opposite.
▶ 1:38:46It would require that deportable immigrants be held in federal prisons for 5, 10, even 15 years before they can be removed. So, it would seem to directly contradict what the president desires in the thrust of his policy. Um, how will um he move with dispatch to deport a criminal who's serving a life sentence?
▶ 1:39:07So bottom line is I think the legislation while well-intentioned uh seems punitive, um ultimately ineffective and somewhat baffling in the context of where the administration is going. I hope we can rethink it and work on some other solutions. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina to offer an amendment the nature of a substitute. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 1:39:37Uh clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute without objection. The amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base tax for the purpose of amendment. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from North Carolina to explain the amendment. Yes, your honor. This amendment makes a minor change to the short title. It does not change the substance of the bill. The NS makes a small change to the short title by adding quote of 2025 close quote after the quote stop illegal entry act close quote.
▶ 1:40:04I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the nature of a substitute and I yield back. Gentleman yields back who seeks recognition. The gentleman from California and the gentle lady from Washington. Chairman, this is a good start. And as I heard the ranking member uh the first thing I noticed was he immediately went to the 10 years. And uh what I found interesting about that is the bill as written uh does go to 10 years, but that's only after you serve five years and you come back yet again.
▶ 1:40:34Um, additionally, I heard the ranking member say something that that I hope he'll reconsider, which is that these things don't work. Well, I agree with him. Two years apparently is just enough time to train uh on being a criminal a little better, get get a couple more tattoos, and be ready to come back again.
▶ 1:40:54Uh it's the reason that moving these mandatory minimums over time from 2 to 5 and 5 to 10 and 10 to El Salvador if I had my way in fact uh may be necessary in order to make this happen. And I share with the ranking member uh the high cost of incarceration, but the higher cost of people being murdered by criminal aliens.
▶ 1:41:20People seeing the effects of repeat re-entry by people deported for cause uh also has has a cost. So I would hope that all of us would hear what the the gentleman uh from Maryland had to say and agree with him. Two years doesn't work. That's why we're here today upping the minimums. Uh, and I would only add one thing in closing. I know there will likely be amendments from uh, the majority or minority.
▶ 1:41:49I might suggest an amendment if you'd like it. And the amendment would be if you'd like to have at some point the option at least in the first time for someone to be deported with the recognition that they would immediately be reincarcerated if found back in the United States that might be a worthwhile consideration that when somebody has a five-year minimum uh but they're deported in lie of of those five years maybe just maybe they won't come back again.
▶ 1:42:19I know the gentleman wants to uh accomplish the one thing which is to have people who have had their due process been deported not return again. And I would be happily work with any member on that. But I cannot for the life of me understand how if two years doesn't work that somehow what we need to do is stay with where we are which is two years. Will the gentleman yield? Of course. Uh Mr. Chairman just as a point of clarity I will um add on to that by Mr.
▶ 1:42:49ISA uh nothing in this bill mandates that a mandatory minimum is charged. There is still the ability to deport. There is still the debility uh the ability to charge a 0 to 10. The aim of this bill is for someone who has committed 1, two, five, 10 felony convictions and they still come back into the country illegally. And I will submit also again echoing what Mr. ISIS said, the real cost of illegal immigration and open borders is not measured by incarceration time. It's human cost.
▶ 1:43:18In 1990, the total death of overdoses was 4,500 people for the country. We're seeing that now 2023 is 130,000. Uh the last 20 years, it's over a million Americans have died from illegal overdoses. And again, this is a very specific group of people that are international criminals that are committed to coming to the United States to commit crime. That's what this bill focuses on. I yield back.
▶ 1:43:46and reclaiming my time, I would only once again reach out to our our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and look at the care that this bill has had and the effect that is happening on our streets. Those million people who aren't with us today, many of them because of this category of criminal and ask you to please reconsider uh the the voting against this bill that seems to be the intent of the ranking member. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:44:15Gentle lady from Washington is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report. I'd reserve a point of order. Point of order reserved by gentleman from California. Amendment to the amendment. Objection. The be considered as read. The gentle lady is recognized to explain the amendment. Uh Mr. Mr.
▶ 1:44:33Chairman, my amendment addresses uh a current urgent situation um of the Trump administration ignoring judges orders, ignoring the provision of due process and wrongfully deporting um people to other countries despite orders that judge's orders.
▶ 1:44:53Um, my amendment simply states that this bill will not go into effect until the Trump administration is able to return all the people who it admits it has deported in error. It is a stain on our country that this list of people wrongfully deported continues to grow.
▶ 1:45:11And I will just say that this amendment, I'm going to give you a number of examples, but it is especially important now as it appears that once again the Trump administration has openly defied a court order, has just unlawfully removed immigrants to Sudan. And the administration will continue breaking the law and wrongfully deporting people until they're finally held accountable. So, I hope we can do that today in a bipartisan way.
▶ 1:45:36I uh ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from CNN dated May 20th. Federal judge says Trump administration must maintain custody of migrants allegedly sent to South Sudan. This just without objection so ordered. So we all know about Kilmargo Garcia. This is a father uh a husband to an American citizen who had what is called withholding of removal.
▶ 1:46:01This is a legal immigration status that specifically blocked him from being removed to El Salvador. And he won that status during the first Trump administration in 2019 by proving that he posed absolutely no threat to public safety and that he had a wellfounded fear of persecution from gangs back in El Salvador. The first Trump administration never appealed that decision.
▶ 1:46:23Now, the Trump administration has violated the court decision, kidnapped him in front of his 5-year-old son, and shipped him off to El Salvador, the one place in the world that they were legally barred from sending him. They sent him to be locked up in a foreign gulag with the very gang members that he had just escaped. And they are using our taxpayer dollars, all of our money to pay for him to be imprisoned over there.
▶ 1:46:52Now, the administration didn't deny that they deported him uh in error. They admitted that they deported him in error. And in a normal world, they would have tried to bring him back. And if they really thought he was a danger to the community, they should have gone through the legal process of presenting that information to a court to try to strip him of his legal protections. But that's not at all what they did. They doubled down. They insisted without any new evidence that he was an MS-13 gang member.
▶ 1:47:20They went as far as to hold up a photoshopped picture of his tattoos. This is desperation. Uh when you don't have real evidence, you photoshop things. Meanwhile, every single court that has looked at this case, including the Supreme Court, found that the administration was in the wrong. And the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 90 that the administration needed to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia. There are at least two other cases.
▶ 1:47:50Similarly, uh Daniel Loausano Kamargo, who is a Venezuelan man, was deported to El Salvador in March despite a court approved settlement requiring the administration to adjudicate his asylum claim first. And uh again, the Trump appointed judge ordered that the administration facilitate Mr. Lozano Kamargo's return, and the Trump administration has not done so.
▶ 1:48:16Um, a Guatemalan man sued the Trump administration in March for deporting him to Mexico despite a fear of persecution. Um, and immigration officials initially said that the man told him themselves that he was not afraid to be sent there. But in a court filing on Friday, the administration acknowledged that their claim was based on erroneous information. So my, you know, these are just the beginnings of these wrongful deportations.
▶ 1:48:43And I think every US citizen out there wants the Trump administration, every person in this country wants the Trump administration to abide by the courts and by judges decisions. And they are willfully defying that and deporting people, including people who have legal status. This is not about going after the worst of the worst that the bills keep bringing up over and over again. This has nothing to do with the campaign promises that Trump made.
▶ 1:49:10This is about deporting wrongfully people, sending them to other countries and refusing to obey even the Supreme Court. And I will tell you, I don't think Americans want that. I don't think they believe that that is what should happen. And I would like for the other side to vote on this amendment that says nothing in this bill goes into effect until you return those wrongfully deported people.
▶ 1:49:33And you obey the Supreme Court and judges across this country, including those appointed by Donald Trump in their rulings to return these people to the United States. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Mr. Chairman, I moveman. Uh notwithstanding that this is overly broad and outside the scope of of this uh bill, I'll withdraw my uh reserve. Point of orders withdrawn. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 1:50:01Uh well, just a few points of correction and clarification in regards to uh the the statement saying that Mr. Kilmer Garcia was not a threat to public safety. I have to strongly disagree. Having prosecuted organized criminals for over for for almost a decade. No, ma'am. After over a decade, the evidence is overwhelming. Both officially on the record speaking, ma'am, I'm belong time belongs to the gentleman from North Carolina.
▶ 1:50:24The evidence is overwhelming that he was engaged in nefarious conduct, that he was part of terrorist organizations, and he was working actively to further his criminal objectives here on American soil. His domestic partner or wife, whichever one she is, she took out paperwork with a court stating that he was abusive to her. Show us the document. He was stopped in Tennessee with, I believe, eight women in a van, trafficking them around the country. This is not the person that we need to be taking up our arms for.
▶ 1:50:51But in regards to the general lady's concerns about due process, this bill protects due process. If someone is here illegally and they do not get convicted of a felony, it does not trigger this law. For someone to be convicted of a felony, they have to be charged with probable cause by a grand jury. They have to be arrested or otherwise apprehended. They have to be given counsel at your expense.
▶ 1:51:14They enter into a plea negotiation or a jury trial where they where they either admit to criminal conduct under oath or they're convicted by a jury of their peers. Once that happens, this law is triggered. Due process is protected. If you are convicted of felonious conduct in the United States and you are here illegally, these penalties come into play. If you're here illegally and you do not commit any crime, this law does not touch you. It targets the worst of the worst.
▶ 1:51:43It targets those who come back here illegally time and again to pray upon my children, my neighborhoods, people in your district, ma'am, and the time for allowing that is over. This bill gives law enforcement the tools to attack the committed criminals from around the world who come here illegally. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Will the gentleman yield just for one quick question on that point? Um, yields.
▶ 1:52:06Wait, am I reading the statute wrongly to say that a person could be put in prison for a longer period for no other crime other than re-entry? Well, it it there's two there's two answers to that. Uh first, it elevates the sentence from 0 to two years to 0 to 10. In two years, it can take 24 months to resolve a case in two year 24 months. And if it takes 21 months to resolve a case, there's only three months of active time that you can bestow.
▶ 1:52:35So it elevates it to 10 years. But secondly, uh the mandatory time only is initiated if someone has been convicted of a felony here in the United States and then returns illegally. Does that make sense? But yeah. Yeah. But but the initial entry itself is a felony, right? So it but I guess what I'm getting at is you you don't need to have murdered somebody or assaulted somebody or robbed somebody.
▶ 1:53:02Your crime could just have been a a an extra re-entry, illegal re-entry with a felony conviction. Yeah. And again, I will state for the record, there is nothing that compels prosecutors to have to charge that. But if the felony is sufficiently serious, if they're sufficiently dangerous, etc., and they come back illegally, that hammer exists to be used. Would you entertain one other question, Mr. Absolutely. Uh so um but I guess this was back more on um Miss Gyipol's uh point.
▶ 1:53:32Um but this relating to the Abero Garcia case and her amendment which obviously uh is a kind of a preface to your bill. She's saying, "Before we go down this road, let's see that we're complying with the court orders that exist now for the return of people who've been uh unlawfully deported in an administrative error, right?" And then the answer to that was, you know, this is a terrible guy. He's MS-13. He's a terrorist and so on.
▶ 1:54:01He's not been charged with any of that and he hasn't been convicted of any of that. And so are you saying the Supreme Court got it wrong in saying that there should be uh you know facilitation of his return to the country and that these people should be returning the country and they can be charged with anything at that point? I mean maybe they're the worst person in the world, maybe they're not. But that's what due process is all about. I'm not talking about taking a position on the Supreme Court's u opinion.
▶ 1:54:27I'm not taking a position on on the on the the executive branch's position. Uh I trust that they they have stated repeatedly they are working to effectuate the court's order. Um but in regards to this particular amendment, I think it's irrelevant to the bill. This bill targets those who are around the world that want to come here to profit through crime. It's obviously a need. We look at the effects all around the country and elevating the penalties uh elevating the um the focus on illegal re-entry.
▶ 1:54:58That's the focus. And again, there is no compulsion to charge mandatory minimums. Those are only reserved as just one added layer of um of ability that law enforcement will have to target this class. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California is next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My friend from North Carolina. I think we're all in agreement here. Nobody wants violent criminals in our communities.
▶ 1:55:25Without documents, citizens or not, we don't want those individuals in our communities. your focus on re-entry. That's an interesting one. You want to reduce undocumented entries into this country. I think you have it little bit off target because if you really want to go after undocumented workers, you need to go after the employers, the people that provide them with jobs.
▶ 1:55:51Go after the small businesses, the farmers, the dairies, the homebuilders, manufacturers. In California, manufacturing is big. 70% of those workers are undocumented. The employer is a key. People come back to this country to work, and that's who you want to keep. So, if you want to keep them out, just tell the employers, don't hire people.
▶ 1:56:20Now, will the gentleman yield? Not yet. I will, but let me finish here. This is a Wall Street Journal article from two days ago. I'm going to read it to you. It says, "President Trump's mass deportation push has caused widespread fear among immigrants. What it has not done is stop them from showing up to work.
▶ 1:56:43As of April, there were 32 million foreign workers." 32 million foreign workers in the US, up 4.4% from January of last year. So, they're still hired. So, here's a situation, sir. Make it illegal. Penalize employers. Triple down on the penalties. Time in jail.
▶ 1:57:13You're going to give employers a choice. you follow the law, fire undocumented workers, and you go out of business, or you ignore the law, keep your undocumented workers, and stay in business. That's a choice you're going to have the employers decide on. I'm going to give you mention a couple of more articles. This one is from the National Milk Producers Federation.
▶ 1:57:4251% of the workers in the dairy business are immigrants. Not enough H2A visas. Well, those are temporary workers. They need year- round workers. Wisconsin Examiner. Nowhere would mass deportations have a bigger impact than on Wisconsin's dairy farms, where about 70% of the workforce is made up of immigrants from Mexico and Central America.
▶ 1:58:13Got one more article for you. Nebraska public media. Dairy farms are vulnerable to Trump's mass deportations. The industry hopes to get a pass. So, we're trying to slow down workers. The problem is not penalizing workers or employers. We got to have immigration reform. Give an opportunity for an employer to hire a worker legally.
▶ 1:58:44These workers from the US are children. We are not going to work in farms, dairies or manufacturing plants. So, you know, this is essentially a charade. You're telling people that are starving, don't come to the US. You're telling employers that need the workers, don't hire them.
▶ 1:59:08The Wall Street Journal tells you clearly since January employment of undocumented in this country is going So let's figure out immigration reform and sir I would welcome the opportunity to work with you to come up with a solution to this problem. It's not about undocumented. It's not about employers.
▶ 1:59:32It's about the American economy and keeping it growing and keeping us as the greatest economy in the world. I got 38 seconds. I'll yield to you. Thank you for the the clarification, sir. And um just a point of of further discussion. I will say I'm not going after the dairy worker. I'm not going after the construction worker. This bill targets the individual who comes back into the country. If I may, a lot of those come back as re-entries with a felony.
▶ 1:59:59If the dairy worker does not get convicted of a felony, he is not under this law. If he comes in again to the US illegally, illegally. If you get deported, yes, these are illegal work. If you get deported, don't come back illegally. Come back legally. They will come back as a job is there for them. And again, more than happy. Again, this bill targets convicted felons who want to come back into the country. A second, third, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit these articles.
▶ 2:00:26without objection uh that the the they'll be entered into the record. Um I'll claim time and and I'll I'll yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, but just let me say I I believe the focus of the gentleman's legislation or Miss Spice's legislation that Mr. N is has worked so hard on is really what he said about said in his opening statement. It's it's the guy who's part of the cartel, part of the terrorist organization, who keeps coming back because he's he's making money from the cartel, given drugs that have killed thousands of Americans.
▶ 2:00:56And if if he does get caught, goes through the process, felony conviction, they send him back, you come back again. Oh, the judge is going to be able to put you away for a lot longer time because we want to stop that guy who's bringing the fentanyl in. That's the focus, not on people who have a visa who are here working. It's on that individual. And I would yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. That's exactly right, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:01:20And in regards to how this bill would work, again, from what I from what I saw in my firsthand experience, there are people who will come back repeatedly to inflict harm on this country through crime. And this bill will make it more efficient to identify, prosecute, and remove those individuals from circulation, from our society.
▶ 2:01:43Again, if you are here illegally and you do not get convicted of a crime and you do not reenter the country illegally, this bill does not touch you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. LA from Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, I I think I just want to kind of distill down what my colleague, Miss Jipal is talking about, and I am definitely going to yield some time to her.
▶ 2:02:13I think our concern is that because somebody says something, that doesn't make it evidence. And right now, what we have is people saying, well, we have evidence. As attorneys, we know that that evidence has to be tested in court. And what that is what due process really looks like. It's not just saying that somebody is MS-13.
▶ 2:02:35It is a matter of a judge determining whether or not that evidence would be admissible and having the ability to look at the credibility of the witness offering that evidence. Such as when we're talking about Kilmer, if we look at that, it says there's a I've got a couple of articles.
▶ 2:02:56There's an article that says government's case against Abrego Garcia is based on PG County cop who was on the SA's do not call list because he was not a credible witness. The only person that said that he was MS13 is a cop that ended up being I don't think he got fired but he definitely Oh, okay. Never mind. He did get fired. So, so we're going to say that we're going to base our entire case, so to speak.
▶ 2:03:25This is why we have courts. This is why we are talking about due process because that's what it looks like. It looks like more than somebody Listen, I I can't tell you how many lies are made up by MAGA followers about me. I didn't been all kinds of things. And none of it is true just because they put it out there on social media. That is the problem that we're having right now in this country is that it seems like nobody cares about the truth anymore.
▶ 2:03:54And what we're trying to do is say we have a factf finding. And let me let me be clear. I am not saying that the criminal justice system or any other justice system has ever always been perfect. I am not trying to say that. But we do have a system and that system is supposed to be based upon the constitution. And right now, like like literally due process comes from the Constitution. This should be the highest protections that one can have in the land.
▶ 2:04:22And right now it seems like y'all don't care about the Constitution unless it's the Second Amendment. And and that's misinterpreted as well. Okay. There's other amendments to the Constitution and we don't get to just change it because our fearless leader says that he doesn't like certain parts of the Constitution. We have a process again to get amendments, right? There are people that don't like the fact that there was an amendment so that women could vote. And guess what?
▶ 2:04:52We ended up with something like the Save Act because we don't want women to vote. Like literally, but I'm I'm getting off track. So, I'm going to go back because I know that Miss Gyipol wanted some time. So, I will yield my time to the gentle lady from Washington. Thank you so much, uh, Representative Crockett. Um, look, I I I want to go back to the amendment which says nothing in this bill can be enacted until we follow the courts and return these wrongfully detain, deported people to the United States.
▶ 2:05:22And I would thank the sponsor of the bill for at least ensuring that there's a conviction in this bill. A lot of the bills around immigration that have been brought up to the floor of the House do not require a conviction. And so I appreciate that you put a conviction in. And I not too late to co-sponsor. I I believe that that is an important threshold that should be and I hope that maybe you voted against all those bills. I'm going to go back and check. I don't think so, but uh maybe you voted against all those bills that didn't have a conviction because we voted on a lot of them and they don't have convictions.
▶ 2:05:53So, I appreciate that you put in a conviction here. Um here's the problem. I think you believe in due process. You were you said you have experience arguing in courts. I assume that you respect court decisions, but I have not heard a single person on your side speak out and say that the administration must return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to this country when the president of the United States said he had the power to do that.
▶ 2:06:23And when you say to me, oh, there's all this information on Mr. Garcia, Bgo Garcia, and this he's this and he's that. I guess I'm surprised at that because if you really believe in due process in the court system, and I believe you do. I'm going to give you that I'm going to give you that uh benefit of the doubt. Then why not present that information in court? The Trump administration has refused to present information in court. They have.
▶ 2:06:48And the judges when they've looked at the things that are there, they're saying, "Nope, not not good enough. Doesn't doesn't meet the standard." So, why don't you all say issue a statement from the Judiciary Committee Republicans, happy to co-sponsor it with you if you'd like, that says that you believe that the Trump administration should follow the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and any judge that rules, including those judges who were appointed by Donald Trump,
▶ 2:07:18to return these wrongfully deported individuals to the United States because it is undermining everything that you've done in your career, everything that we stand for on this committee to not speak out about it and to act like somehow this is okay. I think whatever you believe about Mr. Abrego Garcia, you should be able to say that he should have due process and that he should and that the Trump administration should follow the Supreme Court.
▶ 2:07:46So if you and I think that this is relevant this bill and so I hope that we can do that together. I doubt it, but I hope and and Mr. Chairman, I have two UC's. Um, the first one is this article that says governments what I said before, but more specifically, Mr. Menendez filled out the gangfilled interview sheet that deemed Arrego Garcia a member of MS-13 based on the fact that he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie. Objection.
▶ 2:08:13And the other one is um it says Trump's case against man deported in era just took another big hit. Trump world claims Kilmer Abrego Garcia was in MS-13, but new information concerning the local cop who attested to that cha charge at the time raises fresh questions about it. Without objection. Thank you. Gentleman from California is recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:08:37I just wanted to briefly address a point uh brought up by the representative from uh Texas, Miss uh Crockett, uh who accused me and uh my colleagues over here of ignoring the Constitution. Uh, and if if that were true, that'd be a very serious matter. So, I did want to uh just inquire uh as to what exactly the accusation is. Uh, so I'll happily yield to the gentleoman uh from Texas if she'd like to respond.
▶ 2:09:02Uh, do you believe that uh someone who has snuck into our country, entered the United States illegally, uh that the due process requirements for that individual are the same as they are for a US citizen? I thought the question was for me, but it seems like the lawyers on this side or just my entire team knows the answer.
▶ 2:09:23Um, per the per the constitution, yes, if you are on our soil, you are guaranteed due process. And the fact that there's even a question is why we are struggling right now.
▶ 2:09:39In addition to um an additional issue that I have is the executive order that was signed by the president that seemed to get rid of birthright citizenship which also is laid out in the constitution which is why even the most conservative judges have ruled against there is no one that has ruled that that was okay. Okay. Thank you. Um you're welcome. So thank you. That's simply untrue.
▶ 2:10:09The Supreme Court has made it very clear that due process uh is a context dependent uh inquiry and someone who is here illegally in this country uh facing deportation, the requirements of due process are specific to that context. Uh and the problem is that during the last administration, we had 10 million people who came into this country without the least amount of vetting. And it's created an enormous backlog in our immigration courts.
▶ 2:10:36Now, what we actually did in a measure that we passed in this committee a couple weeks ago, which I believe every member of the Democrat minority opposed, is we sought to provide the resources for our immigration courts to operate in a fair and efficacious manner by increasing the number of immigration judges, of lawyers, uh, of courtrooms in order to remove this backlog, uh, of millions of cases that now exist.
▶ 2:11:01So, I think it's highly problematic uh to hear arguments about due process from the side that is actually voting against providing the resources that are needed for due process. But I think it's even more problematic to make the argument that an illegal immigrant perhaps with a criminal record facing deportation uh should receive the full measure of due process that an American citizen does. Uh that simply is not uh what the Constitution requires. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, can I answer since you still have time?
▶ 2:11:32Yeah, I'd be happy to yield for respons. Okay. Thank you so much. So, I just want to clarify um and I know that there's lawyers on that side. It's just like we have different standards in general like you have a higher um standard when it comes to a criminal case versus a civil case, right? So, it's prepundonderance is going to be the burden on a civil case and then it's going to be higher as it relates to a criminal case, right? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. That is going to be the burden of proof.
▶ 2:11:59When the Supreme Court was making distinctions, the distinctions weren't necessarily between is this person a citizen or is this person not that it wasn't a matter of certain people are not allowed to have due process, but it's kind of like there's different ways to evaluate things. the amount of protections that you are going to have in any criminal case. If you think about those that are charged with murder, whether they are a citizen or not, guess what?
▶ 2:12:28The burden of proof is still going to be the same. The burden of proof is still going to be beyond a reasonable doubt. There was never a distinction that said somehow dependent upon your status, you somehow lose your access to due process. And frankly, that is honestly the only thing that the Supreme Court has been consistent on is that there are due process rights that are going to be afforded to everyone that is found within our jurisdiction in the United States.
▶ 2:12:56I have not seen a case where they have said no, it's okay for someone not to have due process. That is why the plane that was about to leave Texas, they said stop the plane literally at 1:00 in the morning because there had not been due process for those that were currently being held in the administration's custody. And thank you so much. Thank you. I think I understand your position a little better now.
▶ 2:13:21I can't say I agree with everything you said, but I would just say perhaps be careful with throwing out accusations or ignoring the Constitution. uh you know without carefully considering those statements because the demands of due due process is not just something that is the same in every context. It's very much I have a unanimous I have a unanimous consent request. Gentle lad is recognized for unanimous consent.
▶ 2:13:41I'd like to submit for the record the constitution of the United States fifth amendment explained so that uh the gentleman can see exactly what is in the constitution where it says no person no person shall be deprived of due process.
▶ 2:13:55I would just point out the Supreme Court as the gentleman from California has said has firmly I'm I'm quoting the Renquist uh from Justice has firmly and repeatedly endorsed the proposition that Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens but currently the constitution it's not the same process do American citizens Mr. just says no person objection. The fifth amendment will be entered in front of the judiciary committee's record. Thank you so much. I just wanted to make sure everybody knows what the fifth amendment says.
▶ 2:14:23Uh we we will take maybe we could introduce the 14th amendment too, Mr. Chairman. Okay, that that's fine too. Well, you can introduce the whole constitution. God bless you. The uh now I got three of you who are in line and I'll I'll defer to the ranking member because he's one of the three in line if that's but you can decide. You but let me go first. It should be quickly a few a few questions uh for Mr. Kn. Let me I do want to reemphasize what the gentle lady from Texas said, which is of course the civil standard of proof is different from the criminal standard of proof.
▶ 2:14:51The criminal standard of proof that governs is beyond a reasonable doubt for both citizens and non-citizens before someone's criminally convicted. In the civil context, I depending on specifically which one, it could be by a propoundonderance of the evidence. It could be uh you know clear and convincing evidence. There are different ways of formulating it. But the the the critical point for everybody to understand is that the Supreme Court has said on a 90 basis that there must be due process before people are removed from the country.
▶ 2:15:21Okay, I want to get back to uh to Mr. Not uh because uh the the distinguished chairman of our committee uh advanced some questions and of course it's always dangerous to base your image of what uh legislation does based on one hypothetical. So he offered a hypothetical uh relating to opioids and cartels.
▶ 2:15:43There's nothing in the language of your bill that requ that requires proof of somebody being involved in a cartel or dealing opioids, right? Oh no, absolutely. That's not an element. Okay. And then our distinguished colleague from California, um Mr. Korea, he he offered a kind of different hypothetical. Yes. And of course the the chairman's is perfectly plausible but his is perfectly plausible too.
▶ 2:16:10He says you've got people there are tens of millions of them who are coming to America drawn by employers who are willing to pay them. And there are tens of millions of them working in the fields, working in retail, working in construction, working doing landscaping and so on. A person now and here's where I want to I want you to just help us tease out the meaning of your of your legislation. Okay. Um, this the person I'm hypothesizing here is not uh an opio opioid dealer or a cartel member.
▶ 2:16:40This person has come over uh in the spirit of the people that our colleague from California is talking about. So comes to take a job on the farms um but he's there illegally now uh gets deported. So that's strike number one. Uh he could be held for 6 months under current law. Existing law. Existing law. If he does it again, it's two years, but you want to change that to five years. No. No.
▶ 2:17:08To to you yield, please. So So the the uh the the qualification for a five-year minimum is conviction of a felony here in the United States while here illegally. That's that's number one. If that if in your hypothesis, Mr. are asking when that individual is deported and returns with no conviction instead of 0 to two years he would be subjected to a penalty of 0 to 10 years. Wait, I say that again for the second time.
▶ 2:17:38Yes, for illegal re-entry it just that the penalty is amended from the existing law right now. Illegal re-entry is capp for most cases at 24 months. Correct. That would be changed to 120 months from 0 to 120 months. No. So for the first or the second illegal re-entry, he's talking about 1326. Okay. You're talking about 1325. Okay. You're referring to 1326 now. Correct. Right. Okay. All right. I guess so. Here's what I want to get at in the limited time I've got.
▶ 2:18:08Um, so on the second round, they could be held up to 10 years under 1326 illegal re-entry. Okay. Would you go to page five if you would on um the amendment in the nature of a substitute? If you go to the bottom of the page. Okay. And then this is where maybe I'm getting confused. Um mandatory minimum criminal penalty for re-entry of certain removed aliens. Right.
▶ 2:18:34So if you were convicted of being removed two times, if you're the person who's been drawn by the magnet of a salary, an income for your family like the one Mr. Karee was hypothesizing right and you've done it twice that person may be fined under 18 US code and shall be in prison not less than 10 years and then the other part I don't understand if you would clarify this and may be in prison for any term of years or for life so I don't know what that means
▶ 2:19:04is that a drafting error or again the the the the crux of this issue with the enhanced penalties requires a conviction before the enhancement are the enhancements are applied. So if someone is convicted of a felony, deported, and then illegally re-enters, or if there's enhancements that are are spelled out on page five, that's when the enhanced penalties are triggered. But can you can you just explain what does it mean to say shall be in prison now less than 10 years?
▶ 2:19:31That does sound like a mandatory minimum, which I thought you were disclaiming before. But then and may be in prison for any term of years or for life. Then suddenly it can become a life imprisonment. Is is that right? There's some the way it's written. It's there's flexibility there. Up to life. That's the intent of the bill. The time the time of the gentleman has. But may may I respond briefly in in regards to these charges. There's always an element of prosecutorial discretion.
▶ 2:19:59A great example in today's world is marijuana is still illegal federally. It's everywhere. Prosecutors are choosing not to charge that. This bill gives the tools to law enforcement to go after in an efficient way the committed criminals doing harm in the United States. That's the that's the target and they're require again illegal re-entry or a conviction is what triggers the the penalties of this bill. Tom, the gentleman is expired. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. Thank you, Chairman. Bob, I want to speak to the bill generally.
▶ 2:20:30I think it addresses an important problem. I think it's a serious bill and I think something needs to be done, but um I cannot support the bill with mandatory minimums. I've been here a dozen years and haven't voted for a mandatory minimum.
▶ 2:20:44I think uh mandatory minimums up his life run u a foul of the intent of the structure of this government which is to allow the judges and the juries to have discretion because we cannot foresee here in this committee room every circumstance that might arise in the prosecution of these cases. And um although I think it's otherwise a great bill, I will not be supporting it because it has mandatory minimums.
▶ 2:21:14Thank you and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York and then the gentleman chairman. I I want to pick up where the uh ranking member left Whatever the intent of the sponsor may be, the bill clearly says that someone who enters the country illegally twice shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years and may be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
▶ 2:21:42In other words, if you come across the border twice, you can get life imprisonment. No, without committing any crime other than illegal entry. It seems a little draconian and to to to have the possibility of a life sentence.
▶ 2:22:00In addition to which you can be imprisoned for 10 years or up to life and there's no uh uh standard for when it should be 10 years and when it should be life or 20 years or anything between. There's no guidance for the judge. And um unlike what I think I think the sponsor said, there is no requirement for a felony as a precondition to a life sentence.
▶ 2:22:27All that is required is two illegal entries. Will the gentleman yield? I will. Uh line nine, it says, "Who was convicted under this section at least two times?" Yes. Convicted. Convicted of two illegal Yes. And I'm not quarreling with that.
▶ 2:22:47So in other words, if you illegally cross the border twice, you shall be sentenced to at least 10 years and up to life for no crime other than ille illegally crossing the border twice. And there is no guidance for the judge as to whether it should be 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or life.
▶ 2:23:10Most statutes, in fact, all statutes give some guidance uh for for for the length of prison. This doesn't give any guidance for the length of prison. It simply says if you've entered the country twice, you can be sentenced to at least 10 years. All right? Can't be sentenced to five, at least 10 years, but up to life. And no guidance within that. Jim, yield. I will. Well, again, part of this goal's uh aim is to deter what it is to deter it is to deter illegal re-entry.
▶ 2:23:41Reclaiming my time. Yes, I don't doubt it's to deter illegal entry, and it certainly does that. But it still gives no guidance to the judge as to whether to sentence someone to 10 years or 11 years or 12 years or or life imprisonment. And that doesn't make any sense.
▶ 2:23:58If you wanted to say if if you wanted to say that uh the first illegal entry shall be sentenced to 5 years and the second to 10 or the first to 10 and the second to 20' be a little harsh I think but it would make sense but to say 20 10 to life with no guidance to the judge with no uh no standards that makes no sense. Gentlemen yields. I'll yield to Miss Ross.
▶ 2:24:28Oh, thank you. Um, and I'm going to want some of my own time after you do that. Um, so what I wanted to make the point and I I we've talked about this. You and I both represent North Carolina. We've talked about what you want to do. Your main reason for even being here. This this bill is everything to you. So, I would hope you would want it drafted well.
▶ 2:24:54And I think the point that's being made here is in addition to the mandatory minimum that Mr. Massie has raised, there isn't a disjunction between anything that's even longer than that. It actually says the mandatory minimum of 10 years and a prison sentence for any amount of time or life.
▶ 2:25:23And so it it's not giving the judge the option of choosing between them. The judge has to do both. And so I just would ask the gentleman to consider that that might be a drafting error and not his intent. And you know it's going to take a long time for this bill to go everywhere. You know the rules committee may never stop and you may never get to rules.
▶ 2:25:47So, let's take a little time and if that is truly your intent to give some judicial discretion to make sure that this bill doesn't mandate that judges reclaiming my time. Um, this bill says not less than 10 years and may be in prison for any years to to life. It gives no discretion. I'm sorry. It gives total discretion to the judge, no guidance.
▶ 2:26:15And that's the the problem with the bill in addition to its harshness. I'll yield. Well, just just briefly again, a goal is deterrence. Number one. Number two, mandatory minimums can be penetrated upon motion of the government. That's a wellestablished fact for substantial cooperation. 18 USC I think it's 3553. Thirdly, thirdly, uh mandatory minimums, whether it's drugs, continuing criminal enterprise, uh firearm statutes, etc. There's no discretion for the judge.
▶ 2:26:44That's what the attorney reclaiming my time. That's what the attorney is a mandatory minimum in the bill. Doesn't have time to reclaim and it is a mandatory minimum in the bill and the maximum is life and I would simply suggest that in looking at this bill you give some standard to the judge for what to do. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I've kept Mr. Goldman waiting for four people. So I'm going there next and then I'll come back to the gentle lady from North Carolina. If we don't that well I'll go first. Mr.
▶ 2:27:14Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, my colleague on the other side of the aisle who uh shares a uh glorious past as a federal prosecutor in the DOJ with me says that the goal is deterrence of this bill. That deportation alone is no deterrent to returning here.
▶ 2:27:35I think the chairman said the goal of this is to prevent members of the cartel or parts of terrorist organizations uh from coming back to this And it almost feels like we are living in completely disjointed universes from what is happening down the street where the president and his
▶ 2:28:06administration is desperately trying to deport people before their criminal case is completed. And in fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed a law that allowed for removal based on an arrest, based on allegations. So when my colleague from North Carolina and Mr.
▶ 2:28:31Isa from California talk about how this bill only only applies to people who have due process, how can you square that with the fact that you supported the Lake and Riley Act, which does not include due process?
▶ 2:28:45And how can you square that with the fact that you haven't said anything in opposition to this administration's deportation of people without due process who have not had their uh day in court and have not gotten what you believe to be the benefit of deterrence from a criminal prosecution and a sentence.
▶ 2:29:11So, you have a bill here that is ostensibly designed to increase the penalties against those people who illegally re-enter to deter them from doing that. And yet, you're also passing bills and supporting an administration that does the exact opposite. It's almost as if we're living in completely different universes.
▶ 2:29:32And in fact, the universe is so different that I want to flag a particular case for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Not too long ago, this Department of Justice dismissed a case against an alleged top leader of the MS-13 gang, who US investigators believe has information that could implicate top Salvadoran government officials
▶ 2:30:03in possibly corrupt deals with the violent gang. and he was removed on one of the controversial flights that uh is the subject of litigation. So the United States Department of Justice worked hard as of a uh task the task force Vulcan to extradite this individual to face charges in this country.
▶ 2:30:30charges, very serious charges related to uh, racketeering, murder, and this was a top top person in MS-13 who either would have served a long period in jail or perhaps would have cooperated and provided the United States government with very relevant and important details about MS-13, one of those cartels, one of those terrorist organizations that the chairman talks about.
▶ 2:30:58But rather than allow the deterrence to play out and the person to go to trial, this MS-13 terrorist to go to trial, be convicted, and serve a lengthy sentence, which is the whole thrust of this bill. This administration decided, no, we're just going to let him go back to El Salvador. And so that is the exact opp that's what you're worried about. That's what you're worried about. If we just deport people, they'll come back.
▶ 2:31:27And yet that's exactly what this administration is doing with top cartel officials and terrorists. Now I have no idea whether this was a side deal between President Trump and President Buchi that is related to the payments that President Trump is making to President Buchi in order to imprison uh prisoners.
▶ 2:31:49There's no question there's there's on the record uh uh reporting that uh President Buchi is uh very uh is in opposition to extraditing members of MS-13 because they may have information about him. So I don't know what the derivation of this was and and why it happened.
▶ 2:32:10What I do know is that this is a cartel member who was extradited, charged, would have gone to jail for a long time, and was dismissed by this Department of Justice just so they could deport him. So why don't you speak out against that rather than trying to elevate these illegal re-entry prisons? Gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman from California is recognized. Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:32:32Um, for four years, the the Democrats deliberately flooded our country with with more than 8 million foreign nationals who violated our immigration laws, illegally cross the border, and the Democrats then trafficked them across the country, including the most violent criminals and criminal gangs and cartel on this This administration was specifically elected by the American people to protect our citizens, secure the integrity of our borders, and
▶ 2:33:03restore the rule of law. Now, regarding the Democrat's obsession with returning Abgo Garcia to our country, the the record's very clear, and I'll state it again. He was determined by two immigration judges to be affiliated with MS-13 after being arrested in the presence of known MS-13 members wearing gang insignia and a gang tattoo and in possession of $1,200 in cash and drugs. A confidential informant confirmed he was a mid-ranking member of MS13.
▶ 2:33:33He was denied release on bond because his immigration case was pending because of the potential danger that he posed to the community. This is precisely the type of individual the Democrats want returned into our neighborhoods. This is this is exactly the kind of individual that this bill attempts to protect us from.
▶ 2:33:55The Democrats have made it clear time and again that if they ever return to power, this nightmare will resume and Americans will be held hostage to the most violent criminals in the world, protected by democratic sanctuary laws and shielded by woke Democratic district attorneys. That is the choice that faces the American people.
▶ 2:34:16Well, this administration was elected to protect us from this deliberate subversion of our laws and it's doing everything that it can despite the opposition uh from the Democrats. The Democrats argue that that that even though he was ordered deported, he was ordered not to be deported to El Salvador even though he's a citizen of El Salvador. Now, that order was not known to ICE when he was deported. It should have been, but it wasn't. Bureaucracies make mistakes.
▶ 2:34:47They shouldn't, but they do. Point taken. But now, what's the status of this case? Abrao Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador in El Salvador in the custody of the government of El Salvador. The United States has no jurisdiction over him whatsoever. Now the courts ordered the president to quote facilitate the return of a brago Garcia but it's conveniently failed to define exactly what that means.
▶ 2:35:16I think the reason for that is because they can't think of any act the president could take that a court can compel. If if they could think of one, I think they would have specified it. So they they they leave an entirely ambiguous word because they can't define specifically what they mean. it it's very clear that the court cannot compel the president to uh facilitate or conduct foreign policy and yet that's the only order they could issue to facilitate Abrago's return.
▶ 2:35:44So I think the Democrats need to exercise a little uh self-reflection here and consider uh the position that they've taken and the the the uh danger that it poses uh to the American people. I yield Yes, I'll yield to the No, I'm not asking if you I'm asking for my own time I yielding and I appreciate the context and clarification that he gave to the Abrao Garcia situation um and to this bill.
▶ 2:36:13I just want to make sure that the committee understands what Mr. Kn is is doing here. My understanding is the first time someone comes in the country illegally, that's a misdemeanor. they come a second time, it's a felony and currently they could get two years. What this bill is going to say is, oh no, if they come in the second time, they could get up to five years with the judge. And then if they're kicked out again and they come back a third time, then it could go to a 10 years or greater. Again, up to the judge.
▶ 2:36:42And it's it's designed to make sure the Abrao Garcia guy doesn't keep coming back and doing bad things. Is that is that clear? And and that's the experience of the gentleman who worked as assistant US attorney. Is that is that and I'll yield to the gentleman for uh response. Well, essentially that's correct, Mr. Mr. Chairman. The uh the provision of the bill says if you're here illegally and you receive a felony conviction, state or federal, you qualify for a new charge, five to life. If you're deported and come back, regardless of criminal history, 0 to 10.
▶ 2:37:13If you come back illegally for a second time with a felony conviction, that's what qualifies you 10 to life. Mr. Chairman, very it's very straightforward. If you are, again, I will state this again. If you are here illegally and you do not commit a felony, this law does not apply. This is for the hardened criminal that is inflicting harm on this country. Period. Gentlemen, yield. Would the gentleman yield? I will recognize you for I think you're up next. Okay.
▶ 2:37:43I've got two UC's, Mr. Chair. Hang on one second. We'll take the UC. Then I think someone Okay. So the first you see is um Mexican security chief confirms cartel family members enter US in deal with Trump That's from the Associated Press. And then there is another article. Is that admitted? United consent. Okay.
▶ 2:38:05Y um the other one is what we know about Trump admin's reported deal allowing Mexican cartel family members to enter US. Without objection. Thank you. Uh the They letting the cartel if we can get off the amendment. Okay. But I think I think we got to get someone if we can get off the amendment. Then you can claim time on the bill.
▶ 2:38:44Question. I got the question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. the the amendment from Oh, that's right. The gentle lady from Washington. Question occurs on the uh amendment offered by the gentle lady from Washington. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? No. No. Opinion of the chair. The nos have it and the amendment is not adopted. Roll call. Then we'll come to Mr. Nadler. Clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcccleintoch, Mr.
▶ 2:39:14Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klene, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, no. Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells, Mr. Nells votes no. Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kylie, Miss Hagaman. Miss Hagman votes no. Miss Lee, Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:39:44Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. Mr. Not Mr. Not votes no. Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander, Mr. Ander votes no. Mr. Schmidt Mr. Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Rascin. Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Mr. Nadler votes I.
▶ 2:40:14Miss Lafgrren, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Jipal, Miss Jipal votes I. Mr. Koreah, Miss Scandlin, Mr. Nagus, Miss McBath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes I. Miss Balant, Miss Balant votes I. Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:40:42Garcia votes I Miss Cameler Dove Mr. Moscowitz Mr. Mr. Goldman I Mr. Goldman votes I Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes I Miss Camdub you're not recorded. Miss Camagerdub votes I Mr. Isa you're not recorded. Mr. Mr. Isa votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:41:12Kylie, you're not recorded. Mr. Kylie votes no. Clerk will report. Mr.
▶ 2:41:41Chairman, there are nine eyes and 16 nos. Amendment is not agreed to. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from New York. Gentleman's recognized. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say two things. Number one, what Mr. Not just said a moment ago is not correct. Turn on your Let me start again. What I want to say is uh that is two things. What Mr. Not just said a moment ago is not correct. You need two convictions for a life sentence, not three.
▶ 2:42:08Conviction number one, illegal entry that gets you 10 years. Conviction number two, second illegal entry gives you up to life. And no standards for determining anything between uh uh 10 years and life. Secondly, what Mr. Mcccleintochuk said about the Abrao uh Garcia case was totally wrong.
▶ 2:42:31It is true that uh uh the that the two judges deferred to DHS's contention uh based on evidence from a disagreed uh from a disgraced fired cop. But an immigration judge during the Trump administration had granted him withholding of removal which he would not have been able to get if he were a public safety threat. The Trump administration never disagreed with that in effect.
▶ 2:43:01Now, they say all kinds of things. They say he's an MS-13 member, but they never proved it. They never showed any um um evidence of that. The the just the mere assertion he's a trend member doesn't mean anything. Anybody can say anything. They have to prove it. They never offered any evidence at all.
▶ 2:43:25They disag they they they uh uh went against uh a judge's order that he not be removed and specifically not be removed to El Salvador and they put him on a plane to El Salvador. Now, Mr.
▶ 2:43:42McClintto says, "Well, it's a foreign policy question as to whether he can be uh uh brought back." The Supreme Court said he should that um uh he should be brought back that the court should I forget the word it used that the um facilitate that his his his return should be facilitated but Mr. Mcccleintoch said well that's a matter of foreign policy. No it's not.
▶ 2:44:10We are paying the El Salvadoran government over $6 million to detain these people. We could simply say to m to dictator Buchelli, return the person that the Supreme Court ordered returned or we'll pay you less or we'll pay you nothing. We have complete control of the situation and refusing to do that is simply contempt of the Supreme Court.
▶ 2:44:39And some of these immigration cases may be bad, but complete dis complete um um complete ignor ignor uh completely ignoring orders of the Supreme Court is far far worse than anything else we're talking about. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from is that Texas? Gentle lady from Texas.
▶ 2:45:09Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Thank you. Gosh. Uh the clerk will report. Point of order reserved by the gentleman from California. Amendment to the amendment. Without objection, the amendment be considered as read. The gentle lady from Texas is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. My amendment today would eliminate the mandatory minimums established under this bill. Um now, I got all these remarks, but let me just talk to y'all very real.
▶ 2:45:35We have seen and a number of people have admitted that they have practiced criminal law at some point in time in their lives. We have tried mandatory minimums. I don't know how many times and every single time we have failed. And the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
▶ 2:45:53And frankly, I don't know if y'all believe that there is going to be um you know some kind of phone call, telegraph or what will take place off into all of these foreign lands that says you know what we have increased the mandatory minimums and so now you should be deterred. That is not going to happen. This is not successful. We have tried it over and over and we have always failed.
▶ 2:46:19What we should do is focus on why is it that people would risk their lives to come to this country. Exactly. What could be so bad going on where they are from that they would say, you know what, I will risk being incarcerated because I need to go and get that job doing the jobs that most Americans don't want to do. Whether it is working on the farms or whether it's out there doing construction or whatever jobs it is that they have done to contribute to our economy. The question should be how can we fix immigration?
▶ 2:46:50And I can tell you for sure the mandatory minimums have never fixed anything in this country and I don't anticipate it's going to fix this. The final point that I'll make before I have to go back to something else that we were talking about earlier is that we are not giving the uh resources to those that are incarcerating folk already. So now we want to leave people incarcerated for longer amounts of time.
▶ 2:47:15We literally just had a hearing with the Bureau of Prisons and they were talking about the fact that they are underresourced. And so now that they're underresourced, why not pile on to them and give them extra work? I mean, we somehow or y'all somehow found a way to make sure that ICE could get up to $42,000 worth of a bonus per person. Yet the Bureau of Prisons, they get absolutely nothing except for what? more bodies that they need to somehow take care of.
▶ 2:47:46I don't think that that makes good sense. That is not fiscally responsible. I know y'all know that term. So, uh I think that we should definitely um vote for my amendment because we want to be fiscally responsible and this is fiscally irresponsible. All right. Now, let me get to this other point. I was going to introduce this as a UC and I will do that as well because I don't know why we still arguing about what the Constitution say. I I still I'm still confused.
▶ 2:48:15So, let me tell you what the Supreme Court had to say in the decision AARP at all versus Donald J. Trump, President of the United States. This is the opinion that came down May 16th, 2025 regarding the Texas situation.
▶ 2:48:31It specifically says on page three, so you don't have to read too far in paragraph number two, it says the fifth amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. And they were quoting Trump v.J. GG, which is also a 2025 case.
▶ 2:48:54They go on to say, "Procedural due process rules are meant to protect against the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property." That's why we've been talking about ago.
▶ 2:49:08And then the next sentence goes on to say, "We have we have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity at some time to be I'd like to enter the Supreme Court decision. I don't even like this Supreme Court. I want to point that out. I would like to enter this into the record for all those that don't understand what the Constitution says. And it's been reaffirmed by this is Trump's Supreme Court.
▶ 2:49:38That's why I don't like it. I'm just be honest. It's been reaffirmed by his Supreme Court. Unanimous consent. Mr. Chair. Without objection. Thank you so much. I appreciate you. And I will yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Who seeks recognition is no. Mr. Vandrew is next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, these constitutional discussions have been fascinating. They're interesting. I want to talk a little bit why this all happened. We keep going back to mandatory minimums.
▶ 2:50:07It just didn't happen by accident. There's a reason it happened. It's because we had prosecutors and attorneys general and judges that let people out over and over and over again, shorten their sentences, didn't fulfill the sentences as long as they should have and they were allowed to roam the streets again and people died and people got raped and people got disfigured and people got hurt. Mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.
▶ 2:50:36So we are the ones at the federal level that write the laws and at the state level politicians reacted. They reacted because bad things were happening on the street in plain English. So I don't love mandatory minimums either. And I've known throughout my years being involved in politics and government and public policy, people who've gotten hurt because of mandatory minimums.
▶ 2:50:59But when we have a system that allows and we saw it firsthand, by the way, chairman, you were with us when we went to Philadelphia. You were with us when we went to New York. You were with us when we saw the victims and so were the ranking members. When they saw the the victims of these crimes, these men and women, and literally saw families that lost their son that was in law enforcement. I think I forgot how many times he was shot. They threw him to the ground.
▶ 2:51:26They find the one spot he wasn't protected with a vest and they shot him over and over again. The person who did that had been incarcerated. I don't even remember. I think it was more than a dozen times. So, there's a reason they're there. When prosecutors do better, when we don't have extreme left-wing judges and extreme left-wing attorneys general and extreme left prosecutors, maybe then there won't be mandatory minimums. But until then, there is a reason because people are getting hurt.
▶ 2:51:56And then the Bureau of Prisons. Look, I've always defended the Bureau of Prisons and the men and women that work there. I agree there's a shortage. I agree. We had a hearing in our subcommittee about it. I believe we have to do better. I hope as we go through the next few years, it was horrible in the last four that we do better by the Bureau of Prisons, forgetting even about this reconciliation in future budgets, in future reconciliations.
▶ 2:52:20But the answer to do better in the Bureau of Prisons because we have a shortage is to encourage more people to choose that as a career even regardless of how hard it is. The answer is not to allow illegal aliens who were criminals to live on and hurt people on the street and to you know pass drugs off to be drug dealers. That's not the answer to the problem we have with the Bureau of Prisons.
▶ 2:52:48The answer to the problem with the Bureau of Prisons is to fix the Bureau of Prisons. Bad people who've done bad things and are even they've broken the law once by not being here legally, but then they break it again. They've been deported. They've been sent over. They come back again. That shouldn't be allowed. They should be punished. When they've convicted a crime, they should be punished.
▶ 2:53:11And there is nothing in this bill that disallows you from detaining them, giving them due process, and deporting them if that's the case. And in especially in those cases when they're going to be deported to the country of origin, and then imprisoned in that country. Will the gentleman yield in a second? Um, who asked me that? You. Okay. Yeah, it'll be a quick second.
▶ 2:53:38Um, this doesn't stop deportation. It doesn't stop detention. Yes, we need to improve our immigration system. All that's true and I'm going to yield now. But the reason we are where we are or because of people like you that came to us and said, "We can't take it anymore. Our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children are being killed. They're being raped. They're being beaten. We need these people to be put away." This didn't happen in a vacuum.
▶ 2:54:07Constitutional discussions are wonderful. I enjoy them. They're fascinating. But this is real life. It's real life in America and it's real life in what's happening in our country. I yield. Just briefly, sir. Thank you. First, criminals, especially criminal illegals, are aware of penalties. That's why they come back here. They know that they're very lax and that's why they aggregate in sanctuary cities, states, and towns. They know that that that is a reprieve.
▶ 2:54:31That's also why we need this bill to protect the people who live in sanctuary cities and the state and local governments will not do their duty. And we saw it quite clearly with Judge Dugan in Wisconsin. She literally abandoned her courtroom, her decorum, the prosecutor and the victims in her courtroom to protect and illegal. This law gives law enforcement a tool to fight that hostile position that so many on the other side of the aisle have. I yield back. I reclaim my time real quickly.
▶ 2:54:58It is perverse and bizarre and weird sometimes how the other side goes to such extraordinary methods and extraordinary amount of work to protect illegal criminals. I yield back. Gentleman yields back the ranking member of Well, uh, let me start by answering my my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew. Why do we care about due process rights for guilty people? He raised a good question.
▶ 2:55:25Why did why did the Supreme Court go to such lengths to defend the rights of you you know illegals as you call them? Because because the because the Supreme Court said if we don't defend the due process rights of so-called illegals, we won't defend the due process due process rights of legals of citizens. If we don't if we don't have due process for non-citizens, we're not going to have due process for citizens because you don't know even who's a citizen and who's a non.
▶ 2:55:55Would you yield for a split second? Sure. Thank you. I I would never do anything to say that we shouldn't follow due process. I never I just said we agree when you say why do people care about it? We care about it because we care about due process for everybody. That's why. So you don't need to pose that question again. Those are words and they're important words talking about people. I'm reclaiming my time. And then I'm going to ask the question, why do the right-wing Republicans not care about due process?
▶ 2:56:20Then that's my answer to your question of why left-wing Democrats care about illegal aliens because you know the grammar of that question is meant to imply that somehow we're sympathetic to people who commit crimes and we're not. And I also don't believe that you don't care about the Constitution. So I'm not going to do that. But I would appreciate it if you don't imply that we're somehow procriminal because we stand with a 90 decision of the Supreme Court upholding due process rights.
▶ 2:56:48Now look, I've got a simple question. I'm back to Mr. Not, my friend, because I just want to figure out actually what the statute means. Okay? And I I'm with uh the distinguished gentle lady from Texas on mandatory minimums. I think there's wisdom in what uh our colleague from Kentucky has said about mandatory minimums because they don't work. But here, let's let's take a specific example and maybe Mr.
▶ 2:57:16Not you can help illuminate this for me because I think I've figured out a hypothetical that will help us nail down what the real meaning of this language is. I thought when I first posed the question, you were going to say that was a drafting error, but you cheerfully conceded, no, you actually meant there's a 10-year minimum sentence, but a judge based on his or her own discretion and whatever criteria he or she wants to use can go all the way up to a life sentence. Fair enough. That's your position.
▶ 2:57:43I think that the distinguished gentleman from New York um also misstated the meaning of this statutory language. He said you need two convictions before somebody could be sentenced to life. I read it. You could have one criminal conviction and you could be sentenced for life. Here's my hypothetical and tell me if I'm wrong. Okay. So, a person is drawn in Mr. Car's example to a job working on a farm doing agriculture. Okay.
▶ 2:58:11But he but he's an illegal and then they find out about him. He's subject to deportation. He's deported from the country. Okay. Um now if he comes back in again having been deported once he's say he goes back to the farm he's prosecuted now under 1326 and that right now is punishable by up to two years. Uh you're changing that to 10 years but let's we don't have to take it to the extreme.
▶ 2:58:38Say the guy gets a 2year or threeyear sentence and he's deported again for whatever. And I'm obviously now making the the star of the story more sympathetic than obviously an MS-13 terrorist. Okay. But the guy comes back again now after he's done say two years in prison. He comes back again.
▶ 2:58:58At that point, I'm reading the language on page five of your bill to say that because this alien uh was guilty of any crime punishable by more than a year. You made it 10 years, but he and he was convicted of it.
▶ 2:59:12Now he can be he must be in prison for 10 years and he may be in prison for life having that one conviction for before which renders you know kind of surplusage and you know null and void the number two who was convicted under this section at least two times before such removal or departure. That looks to me like surplusage because you've already said if you're convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year and he's gotten it.
▶ 2:59:41So, am I reading it right? From what from what I I picked up from you, correct? That is correct. But again, the intent of this law as written, there is wide flexibility. It does not preempt existing authorities to detain, deport. It simply increases the penalties from 0ero to two. And if you have one felony conviction, that part, you are correct. Yeah. One felony conviction, you're deported. You return a second time illegally. That qualifies you for a 10-year minimum to life.
▶ 3:00:11Now, as you well know, the prosecutor has wide discretion in what they charge. The prosecutor has wide discretion in what plea offers are rendered. And they can choose to just simply move for a deportation. They can charge a zero to 10. Or if it's a heinous criminal who has 1, two, three, five, 10 convictions, they can bring the the 10-year minimum up to life. and to answer the question that was posed by your your colleague from New York.
▶ 3:00:37Um the the the discretion for the judge that's for the lawyers to handle it sentencing. Yes, relevant conduct can absolutely be brought about. It can be argued. It can be litigated. It should be that's the way that the criminal law works in my experience. And when it's when the standards are met, when facts are established and found by the court, a life sentence may be Thank you very much. Y back. Gentleman yields back. question occurs on the amendment offered by minute. I've got four UC's.
▶ 3:01:09UC's. Okay, we'll take them down. Go ahead. Thank you. Um I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement opposing HR 3486 from the National Council for Incarcerated and Formally Incarcerated Women and Girls. Without objection. Um this is also a statement opposing. It is from the Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Without Another one opposing from the Federal Public and Community Defenders Legislative Committee.
▶ 3:01:39Without objection. And finally, another one from the Sentencing Project. Without objection. Thank you. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle from Texas. All those in favor say I. Those opposed? No. No. Opinion of the chair. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. I'd ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote being requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Clint votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:02:10Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, no. Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie, Miss Haggamman, Miss Haggman votes no. Miss Lee, Miss Lee votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:02:39Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Knot votes no. Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander, no. Mr. Ander votes no. Mr. Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gil Bombgardner Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr.
▶ 3:03:06Nadler Lofgrren Mr. Cohen Mr. Johnson Mr. Swallow Mr. Lou Miss Gyipol Mr. Korea, Miss Scandan, Mr. Nagus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes I, Miss Ballot, Miss Balant votes I, Mr.
▶ 3:03:35Garcia, Mr. Garcia votes I, Miss Camlagger, Dove, Miss Camlager, Dove votes I, Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Goldman, Mr. Goldman votes I. Miss Crockett, Miss Crockett votes I. Mr. Mr. Nadler, you are not recorded. Mr. Nadler votes I. Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. Moore votes no.
▶ 3:04:05House Massie recorded. Mr. Massie recorded as a no. Massie votes yes. Mr. Massie votes yes.
▶ 3:04:40report. Clerk report. Mr. Chairman, there are nine eyes's and 13 nos. Uh, the amendment is not agreed to. who seeks for recognition. Question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. All those this will be followed by a vote on chairman. Before we get to the vote, I'd just like to introduce a unanimous consent request. Yeah. Gentleman can uh sorry for the delay.
▶ 3:05:09I just want to introduce a CNN article uh entitled historical loss. alleged gang leader evades US justice with deportation to El Salvador. Always eager to put a CNN article into the record. Thank you. The um well we could do a daily caller if you'd like some well said. Question is on the adoption of the amendment of nature of substitute. This will be followed me by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. No. Paying the chair the eyes have it.
▶ 3:05:39Uh and the amendment the nature of substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. No. The eyes have it. Mr. Chair, can we get a recorded vote? Recorded vote being requested. I thought that might happen. Clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan, yes. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, yes. Mr. Isa votes yes. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes yes. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr.
▶ 3:06:08Tiffany, Mr. Massie. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vanrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes yes. Kylie, Miss Haggamman, yes. Miss Hagamman votes yes. Miss Lee, Miss Lee votes yes. Mr.
▶ 3:06:38Hunt. Mr. Fry I. Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman. Mr. Growthman votes yes. Mr. Knot Mr. Not votes yes. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes yes. Mr. Ander. Mr. Ander votes yes. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Rascin. Mr. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:07:08Nadler, no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughrren, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Swallowwell votes no. Lou, Miss Gyipol, Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin, Mr. Nagus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross boats. No. Miss Balant. Miss Balant votes no.
▶ 3:07:38Mr. Garcia Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlagger Dove. Miss Camlager. Dove votes no. Mr. Moscowitz. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes no. Mr. Ver, you're not recorded. No, Mr.
▶ 3:08:09Mr. Vander votes yes. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 eyes and 10 nos. Uh the bill is uh adopted.
▶ 3:08:41Um the bill is order to be reported favor to the house. Members will have two days submit views without objection. The bill will be reported as a single amendment. The nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Um we we I know we had two other bills on the on the calendar. Unfortunately not going to be able to get to those today. I have to get to a meeting here relatively shortly that may take a while.
▶ 3:09:05Um so we will uh we will uh we will we will we will take up those other two bills uh at one of our next uh next markup. The committee is adjourned. We're not