▶ 0:06:53Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider four separate measures. HR275, HR 875, HR 394, and HRES 516.
▶ 0:07:13HR275, the Special Interest Alien Reporting Act of 2025, requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to publish a monthly report on the number of special interest illegal aliens who have been encountered while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. It is not lost on any of us on our side of the aisle that under the Biden Harris administration, border security was virtually non-existent. It was a farce.
▶ 0:07:44Millions of illegal aliens from over 170 different countries flooded our nation's borders. HR875, the Jeremy and Angels say, and the Sergeant Brendan Mendoza Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of makes driving while intoxicated or impaired a ground for barring a non US national from admission
▶ 0:08:14into the United States or deporting the individual. All three of the individuals who influenced the naming of this legislation lost their lives from automobile crashes caused by illegal aliens who are under the influence and behind the wheel. Of course, these are not the only tragic stories of Americans who've lost their lives in this way. There are many, many more.
▶ 0:08:40HR875 is a simple common sense piece of legislation that deserves bipartisan support. It's another necessary step in our work to restore law and order in our nation and to keep American people safe. Given these significant investments and continued ironclad, excuse me, think I have two pages stuck together.
▶ 0:09:11We got HR 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2026, is a true, honest reflection of our nation's longheld values of honoring Americans who have served, supporting the many military families across the nation, and reinforcing America's national security posture.
▶ 0:09:36This legislation is in alignment with the president's budget request as well as the America First Agenda through provisions such as fully funding veteran health care programs, fully funding veterans benefits and VA programs, maintaining funding levels for research, mental health programs, and other programs relied upon by veterans, protecting the Second Amendment rights of veterans, and making critical investments ments in border
▶ 0:10:06security and military infrastructure that will increase readiness and protection of our nation. Given these significant investments in continued ironclad support for veterans, service members, and military families, this legislation deserves serious bipartisan support. Finally, HRES 516 condemns the violent riots that occurred in Los Angeles in June of this year.
▶ 0:10:33As I said previously here in the rules committee, the failure of both state and local officials in California to support the faithful execution of our laws is appalling. The violence we saw in California over the last few weeks flies in the face of the rule of law. The right to protest peacefully is enshrined in the There is no debate about it.
▶ 0:11:03What is not enshrined in the Constitution is setting cars on fire, pelting federal agents and their vehicles with all manner of projectiles, and committing criminal acts that should land the person committing these felonies in jail without hesitation. This resolution sends a clear message that we are a nation of laws, not chaos and disorder.
▶ 0:11:33This is a good opportunity for our Democrat colleagues to join us in standing for the rule of law, and we hope they will. Before I yield to the ranking member, I'm going to offer some thoughts on recent commentary we've heard in the last few days directed at President Trump's response to escalations from desperates in Iran's political regime.
▶ 0:11:55Yet again, we're witnessing the selective memory of some of our Democrat colleagues who've been crying foul about the president using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors. Here are a few helpful reminders to refresh their memories. President Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.
▶ 0:12:20President Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the Gaddafi government regime in Libya. And he laid a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. President Biden ordered US strikes against the Houthi militi militia in Yemen. Indeed, Congress needs to defend its article one authority, but we need to place the strikes in Iran within the full context.
▶ 0:12:49Congress declares war, but President Trump does retain inherent authorities as commander-in-chief, including our national defense. There's no question that Iran is a dangerous actor in the region that has perpetuated and supported heinous attacks against US service members and our allies for decades. Iran has a history of targeting Americans since the start of the revolution.
▶ 0:13:15More recently, it targeted US armed forces through its coups forces. The fact is that President Trump has broad constitutional and statutory authorities. Congress will continue to work to achieve the proper balance of powers, but we need to be clear that President Trump is acting in line with past executive branch actions. And no matter our policy disagreements, I hope we can all unify to condemn the latest Iranian attacks on our service members in Qatar.
▶ 0:13:46Our nation's service members sacrifice everything they have for this country. They need our support and unity for their mission to defend and support the Constitution against all enemies. With that, I look forward to today's discussion. I yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make. Well, thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Um, and I'm going to be honest, um, in terms of not reading the room, this meeting takes the cake. You guys run this place.
▶ 0:14:15You could scrap the agenda right now and we could debate President Trump's dangerous escalation going on in the Middle East. Uh and instead of that, we get business as usual from Republicans and it's unbelievable. Uh we should be debating right this second debating what is happening with with Iran. You guys should have the courage to come here to explain what is going on to justify what's going on to the American people. Uh and what this president is doing.
▶ 0:14:42This president, by the way, who said he wanted no more wars, who called his opponent a wararmonger, who ran for office on lower food prices. Well, six months in, and guess what? Food prices haven't gone down, but here we are, and Trump is launching missile missiles against Iran. I mean, talk about a bait and switch. Not only are we not talking about a war powers resolution right now, media reports say that Republicans are discussing rigging the rules to prevent Congress from having any debate at all.
▶ 0:15:13I hear you guys are considering depriving a war powers resolution to stop us from having a vote and having a debate. I mean, I think that's just pathetic. I really think it's it's cowardly. These strikes were illegal, illegal and unconstitutional. There was no congressional authorization, no authority, and I have seen zero evidence that this was done to prevent some imminent impending attack. This was a war of Donald Trump's own choice. Donald Trump woke up and decided to bomb Iran. So, here we are.
▶ 0:15:44And let's just be clear, none of us want Iran to have a weapon of mass destruction. But I'm old enough to remember the last time a president used vague and shifting claims about weapons of mass destruction, dragging us into a war in the Middle East. Does anyone else remember that? Iraq. Trillions of dollars, thousands of lives lost. And here we are again. This isn't history rhyming or even repeating. This is like copy and paste.
▶ 0:16:11We've got top administration officials denying Iran is close to a new nuclear weapon and then changing their tune a day later. We've got a president escalating the rhetoric and talking now about regime change. Iran is threatening to shut down the straight of Hormuz. And if they do, gas prices will skyrocket. So much for lowering costs. And let me just also say I and many others in this body have consistently opposed unauthorized military action no matter who is in the White House.
▶ 0:16:41Speaker Johnson said earlier that he I quote never heard a Democrat bock end quote when Presidents Biden or Obama used the military without approval. Well, he obviously wasn't listening because I boed. I boed and so did a lot of other Democrats. And frankly, I really resent the implication that this is all some political game. I oppose President Obama's actions in Libya. I criticize his escalation in Afghanistan.
▶ 0:17:08I held President Biden to the same standard when it came to Yemen. I have been consistent on this issue uh and so have many other Democrats and many Republicans as well to be frank. So this isn't partisan. Um it is about our responsibility to the American people. Um and I have the receipts here of all the times that I have questioned the actions of both President Obama and President Biden. Uh, but this is about our responsibility to the American people.
▶ 0:17:35And if we're going to spend their tax money dropping bombs on another country, if we're going to put their sons and daughters in harm's way, the least we can do is have the courage to debate it and to vote on it. If you think Americans want another endless war in the Middle East, go ahead and vote for one. But I want to know why Republicans don't want to have that debate, especially while American troops are are are being put in harm's way because of this president's reckless and unconstitutional strikes.
▶ 0:18:04And let's not get started on the Republicans's horrific tax scam bill that's working its way through the Senate, which is going to rip food off the tables of hungry kids and seniors and kick millions off their healthcare and gut programs like Medicaid and Medicare. Republicans are happily ripping basic assistance programs from regular folks so they could give even more tax breaks to the ultra ultra wealthy and their billionaire donors while also adding trillions to our debt. Once again again this committee is doing a disservice to the American people.
▶ 0:18:35No president Democrat or Republican has the authority to bomb a sovereign nation without congressional approval. Period. The Constitution gives that power exclusively to Congress. And I'll be damned if I sit back while Donald Trump drags us into another endless war. And shame on this committee and this body if we don't bring up a war powers resolution and have an up or down vote on this issue. We need to restore Congress as a co-equal branch of government.
▶ 0:19:01And I'm proud to co-sponsor the war powers resolution of my Republican colleague, Mr. Massie, who used to be on this committee uh to stop this from going any further. And again, Speaker Johnson, this is not all politics. Many of us have consistently spoken up about this for years because the American people do not want us dragged into another endless war. We need to do our jobs and before this goes any further, we need to have a thoughtful debate. We need to ask the questions.
▶ 0:19:31Um, and we need to get this right. Uh, and we need to have a vote. So, I thank our witnesses for being here. I just wish that they were here on the most pressing issue that is before our nation and the world at this moment. Um but we're not. Um and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Yeah, happy to. I do. I have the Do I Do I You give me the time back? I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.
▶ 0:19:59Did you ask for the same debate when Joe Biden gave 16 billion to Iran in cash? Yeah, you asked for the same debate. I I mean I I' I've asked for debate on all these issues. No, no, no. on the 16 billion that the president of the United States in cash, Obama gave 1.4 billion. Did you Did you question that? It was all over the news. I I I I think we voted on the JCPOA agreement. No, the cash that was delivered in the middle of the night. Yeah. Well, I don't know what you I don't know what the gentleman is is talking to.
▶ 0:20:28I'm sorry that he doesn't want to have a debate on on on what we're doing right now. Um and I and and I and I appreciate it. Um and I appreciate the fact that the speaker of the house maybe because of bad staff work doesn't understand that many of us have been raising these questions both under Democratic and Republican administrations for years about the need for Congress to to to exercise its legitimate constitutional authority when it comes to war.
▶ 0:20:51But we should have this debate and I would like to think that this is not a democ not just Democrats but Republicans should want us to want us to have that debate. We got to get this right before we find ourselves up to our neck in another quagmire in the Middle East. I thank you general lady and I yield back. Thank you Mr. McGovern. Thank you Mr. Norman, let me say I believe there will be debate on this issue. Mr. McGovern, we are not having discussions about turning off privilege.
▶ 0:21:16So I believe there will be that debate and I encourage all members to attend the bipartisan classified briefing with the Can clarification. So does that mean that the rules committee will not in this or in any future rule depriv the Massie resolution? I do not anticipate okay that happening. Well, I I'm I'm encouraged by her assurance because it is privileged. Right.
▶ 0:21:42Um without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel. Representative Carter, Representative Washerman Schultz from the Committee on Appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Carter, I welcome your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and um thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:22:10McGovern, for and the other members of the committee for the opportunity to appear here today uh to discuss the fiscal year 2026 military construction veterans affairs related agencies appropriations bill. I want to thank appropriations a little closer. All right. I want to thank appropriations chairman uh Cole for his leadership in getting this bill through the committee.
▶ 0:22:39I also want to recognize the ranking member and of the full committee, Miss Delaro, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Miss Wasserman Schulz, for their help in getting us to this point. I value my relationship with Mrs. Ms. Wasserman Schulz.
▶ 0:22:56And as I have said before, while we don't always agree on everything uh in the bill, we do agree on the importance of taking care of those who sacrificed so much for us. This is a special bill because it supports our troops, their families, and the nation's veterans.
▶ 0:23:19For fiscal year 2026, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Bill discretionary allocation is $152 A $5 billion or nearly 4.3 increase from the fiscal year 2025. I want to briefly highlight some of the priorities this bill addresses.
▶ 0:23:44It fully funds veterans healthcare, provides for advance an advancement for toxic exposure fund. It uh into the future. It includes 943 million for medical prosthetic research. Addresses longstanding concerns of mental health and homelessness among veteran populations.
▶ 0:24:13includes nearly 14 billion for military construction and four uh 470 million increase over the fiscal year 2025.
▶ 0:24:29This bill increases investments to address bearing deficiencies, bolster investments in DoD laboratories, assist in demolishing obsolete and provides two billion for in military housing.
▶ 0:24:47And closing this bill supports those who have certified have satisfied and sacrificed for our country and maintain our we maintain our commitment to the well-being both of the service members and the veterans. I look forward to to and working with all of you as this bill moves forward. Again, I want to thank you for considering the amendments uh to this bill.
▶ 0:25:18from members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate your time and the opportunity to testify here today. I yield back. Thank you, Judge Carter. Representative Washerman Schultz, you're recognized. Thank you, Madame Chair, my fellow 2004 classmate, Ranking Member McGovern.
▶ 0:25:38Uh, I'm pleased to share my concerns as ranking member of the Milcon VA subcommittee with the FY2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, HR Traditionally, the Milcon VA bill is one of the few appropriations bills that has bipartisan support, which is why we're usually first, because it's generally written around our shared goal of supporting our service members, veterans, and their families, no matter who holds the majority.
▶ 0:26:04And I I concur with uh with my friend Judge Carter. He and I work very well together, have many mutual understandings about how this bill should be shaped. Um and inevitably have a divergence on uh on on at least some issues.
▶ 0:26:22Um, unfortunately, the traditional bipartisanship has crumbled um this this this goound because the Republican majority sadly continues to insist on including partisan writers and now supports this administration's unprecedented illegal actions when it comes to the VA. How did we get here? First, we still don't have a detailed budget request from the administration. Please let that sink in. In fact, this is the latest the budget has ever been.
▶ 0:26:51So the bill before us today blindly supports the administration's requests with zero justification. For example, there's a 67% increase nearly an additional 14 billion dollars to medical community care. Yet we have not one sentence of explanation from the administration why this increase is needed. Community care is needed for rural veterans and specialty care and when appointments to a VA are scarce. But a massive 67% increase request demands robust justification.
▶ 0:27:21This bill supports a brand new $970 million housing program dubbed quote bridging rental assistance for veteran empowerment. Again, we have not received a single sentence explaining what this program is. Committing billions of taxpayer dollars without knowing how it will be spent is a clear case of intentional fiscal negligence. That's why in our 11hour full committee markup of this bill that ended at 2 am, Democrats offered several amendments aimed at transparency.
▶ 0:27:51Simple transparency. Democrats asked for reports on Doge and its access to private veteran information. We asked for spend plans on the 67% community care hike. We asked for a report on how tariffs will raise military construction material costs and many other transparency seeeking amendments. Republicans objected to every single one, heads firmly in the sand. They pretended this administration is acting in a normal manner. It's a shocking abregation of congressional oversight.
▶ 0:28:21That is also why I'm offering similar amendments today, four in total. Three of these amendments seek transparency, a spend plan on the increase to community care, a report on the impact of tariffs on military construction, and a report on Doge and its access to personal and private information. our veterans and we as members of Congress deserve that information.
▶ 0:28:41I've also offered a fourth amendment to address a disturbing revelation that VA removed certain protections for political affiliation and marital status from its VHA guidance, leaving opening open the possibility for VA to discriminate in hiring and in treatment based on these grounds. I hope these amendments can be made in order so we can exercise our duty of oversight. Second, the subcommittee only held a total of two budget hearings. We normally hold at least five.
▶ 0:29:07We didn't even hear from the military services on their budget needs, especially as this administration engages our military in war. That's egregious fiduciary neglect. This bill underfunds military construction by $94 million. If we held these hearings, we could openly debate the merits of the services military construction and family housing requests. This bill underfunds the NATO security investment program by $188 million. Our service members and European allies need this infrastructure given raging global conflicts.
▶ 0:29:37How is this possible? As we and our allies face Russian threats, we shouldn't underfund this region's needs. So long as Russia wages an illegal war in Ukraine and threatens Europe, we must clearly stand with our NATO allies who stood by us for decades. The committee has only passed allocations for four out of 12 subcommittees. So, we have no idea how other bills will fare. Other bills that fund programs upon which our veterans rely, like housing assistance in the THUD bill and financial aid in the LHS bill. That's not sound budgeting.
▶ 0:30:07It's hiring a blindfolded accountant. Simply put, this process was rushed, rushed forward without critical information, which is appropriations 101. What is clear is that this bill does not fully address the needs of our service members and veterans. With regard to the VA, I'm pleased that during full committee markup, I was able to work with Chairman Carter, as we so often do, to secure 51.7 billion in advanced funding for the toxic exposures fund.
▶ 0:30:32Advanced funding the TE does nothing more than provide certainty that funding will be available when it's needed for veterans who have been subject subjected to toxic substances, keeping the commitment we made to them during the P in the PAC Act. But it truly is a shame that this bill includes eight poison pill riders. Absent these writers, it would be far easier to reach agreement on a bipartisan basis. I want to single out just a few toxic provisions. The bill again prohibits the VA from implementing its interim final rule to protect a woman's right to an abortion and counseling.
▶ 0:31:01While Republicans use this historically bipartisan bill to further limit women's healthcare access, it ignores whether an abortion is in the veteran's best medical interest. Disturbingly, Republicans think veterans should only have access to abortion if they're dying. So, this bill has the government making personal medical decisions for veterans, not their doctor or the veterans themselves. It's a cruel, ironic way to treat those who fight for our freedoms by taking those freedoms away.
▶ 0:31:25This bill also undermines VA's ability to keep at risk veterans safe by preventing VA from reporting a beneficiary to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This help keeps guns out of the hands of those who federal law prohibit from purchasing or possessing firearms. It in effect bars VA from following a law intended to protect veterans. With these and other serious concerns, I cannot in good conscience support this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Washerman Schultz.
▶ 0:31:57Judge Carter, is there anything that um Miss Washerman Schultz said that you'd like to respond to in any way? Uh yes, ma'am. On the issue of the the abortion. Well, is yours is it on? We use the amendment. We've we've used it since 97 and nothing's changed and that's basically that that's kind of a done deal. Okay.
▶ 0:32:27Uh we had a debate on the more than one year on this on this cleanup. Uh, and we and we we debated it well and we wouldn't we finally got off and made a made a deal.
▶ 0:32:44Uh, I have a thing this government building up slush funds and then letting them sit there and sit there and sit there and sit there and then all of a sudden somebody uses it for something else. And so that was my whole issue on that. Debbie made great great arguments and I I agree with her arguments. Uh and so we basically put it aside and started to work on it.
▶ 0:33:11We ended up with a with an agreement that we would and we basically doubled again the funding that that we already that the we had 52 billion I think to start and I gave it to 51 billion second second time around for that s that that fund. Okay. Sorry. Uh but I but I said we're going to use this within a two-year period of time.
▶ 0:33:38And if we don't use it within a two-year period of time, it goes back to the Treasury, which to me means that it's going to be used to do what we're needing to do. And if we don't get it done, you can't sit on it and use it for something else. We want to go back to the Treasury. And that those are the two really contentious things we had.
▶ 0:33:57We've had, you know, we took out, we took out an awful lot of what they consider poison pills out of our bill because we felt like this administration was going to take care of those poison pills anyway, no matter which way it went. And so I wouldn't I just didn't include a lot of things we had included this a year ago because there's no reason to have the debates over those things. Those things will be taken care of by the administration. Yeah.
▶ 0:34:26My understanding is it represents an $82.6 billion increase above the FY25 enacted level for the Department of Veterans Affairs. That's right. That's right. And and she's absolutely right. And I think everybody in the appropriations committee in every committee subcommittee knows we haven't gotten all the information that we need. Uh we have no we have no charts.
▶ 0:34:53We have telling the state one this is that going to be done this is going to be done this which we rely on and we haven't uh chairman Cole's position is we are trying to get a bill ready so we actually have an appropriations bill this year we haven't had one for a while and as these things come in we will make adjustments and I think that's a fair way to handle it okay one more question
▶ 0:35:24Um, so given the cash infusion, don't you believe the logic of the Democrat colleagues is self-defeating with respect to Doge? Do those cancelling rogue credit cards from agencies, asking asking for receipts for reimbursements by agencies, finding money being squandered on LGBTQ comic books and operas and the Democrat positions to stand against the $82 billion cash infusion for veterans in protest.
▶ 0:35:55Do you agree this opposition is self-defeating? I yes, I do feel it's self-defeating. In addition, I I have a lot of confidence. There's a lot of noise about 80,000 firings, something like that. I don't anticipate the way they have it set up.
▶ 0:36:19They've they've set the programs that they need to continue and nothing can be touched in those programs. And I I trust the chairman to make wise decisions on the pe on people who who should and should not be continuing in their job. That's if you're if you're not doing anything and you're you're just waiting for your retirement, then go ahead and retire.
▶ 0:36:45And that that's probably my thoughts on that issue. But that issue really doesn't affect us. We we are dealing with with appropriated funds here and not we're not dealing with the the funds that go on forever that that whereas doze is dealing with those funds and that's somebody else's problem besides ours. Thank you Judge Carter. Mr. McGovern you're recognized. Yeah, thank you.
▶ 0:37:13I I have a very different opinion of Doge than uh the both of you. Um, since taking office, the Trump administration of Doge have continuously overstepped the law. They have overstepped the law. Their efforts efforts have been paused or blocked by federal courts 189 times. I mean, it's incredible. That's many more cases, by the way, are in progress. Mass firings and then reinstatement of those fired have caused chaos and disruption to veteran services.
▶ 0:37:42I hear that from uh veteran services in my home state and I'm sure if you talk to uh the veteran services in your state, you'll hear the same thing. Contracts that provide direct services to veterans have been cancelled without explanation. Critical programs like the one to help veterans avoid foreclosure have been shuttered. Again, without any explanation. I mean, Doge was given full unfettered access to private veteran data, including their social security numbers.
▶ 0:38:12Um yet the bill before us does nothing to address these very real, concerning, and potentially illegal actions taken by this administration. These concerns should not be partisan. Uh if a Democratic president did any of this, Republicans would be apoplelectic and rightly so. And rightly so. So Judge Carter, why did you decide to ignore these problems in this bill?
▶ 0:38:36And and why did you not um include anything to prevent the administration from massfiring uh VA workers or ending contracts and programs without approval by Congress or protecting veterans personal information? I mean, it seems to me that um again, the administration shouldn't be doing much of what they're doing through Doge. Federal courts have inter seeded and uh required them to uh to to change the position. Why why aren't we why aren't we kind of reinstating here?
▶ 0:39:05Uh why why aren't we protecting these these programs and these personnel? We are appropriators. We appropriate the funds we're the funds with the numbers we get. And uh that's the number one reason why I don't think we do. Secondly, as far as those those various courts, you know, I was the judge for 21 years.
▶ 0:39:29I know how many how many lawyers do know which which uh judge to go to get the result they want and that's what's going on. I don't miss it's going to get to the Supreme Court on every one of these issues and I think they clearly already are showing that they're cleaning up. Yeah. I I thought when we appropriate funds then that means that the administration has to respect that. But do you have a different opinion? I I do not have a different a different opinion on anything that you uh that you just talked about.
▶ 0:39:59Um, Ranking Member McGovern, we we appropriate funds that fund the salaries of all the staff at the VA. And we actually both in bipartisan outreach as well as in the ranking members of the House and Senate outreach of our subcommittee have inquired um both in a public hearing with Secretary Collins who refused to answer our questions or give us any information or detail on the contract cancellations,
▶ 0:40:30detail on who was being fired on, you know, in the we ended up having to file the amendment in the full committee markup on Doge transparency because they have the VA has completely stonewalled everyone in Congress, the authorizers, the appropriators. They won't tell us anything about how they're spending the money, how they're moving money around.
▶ 0:40:57Judge Carter and I as well as uh Ranking Member Deloro and Chairman Cole, you know, communicated very directly during our markup to the chairman to the secretary that his hundreds of millions of dollars in transfer from one account to another without requesting a reprogramming for approval by the the Congress was illegal.
▶ 0:41:21And we had a back and forth with him in which all of us on both sides of the aisle said he was wrong and needed to tell us and needed to come to us for approval. But they continue to act unlawfully and they continue to really give us an opaque understanding of what they're doing and lead intentionally trying to block out the ability of Congress and the House as the article one uh
▶ 0:41:52responsibility we have in the appropriations process of being able to be a check on the administration and also make the decisions as a as appropriators. No, I I appreciate that and I I really do think that we ought to be a better check no matter who's in the White House. Uh because that's our job. Um otherwise, why are we even here? Um if we appropriate monies and they do whatever the hell they want to do with them.
▶ 0:42:15Uh, Representative Wman Schultz, my understanding is that the Republican drafted bill that you marked up in your committee originally did not include any advanced funding for the toxic exposure fund for veterans medical care, but Democrats were able to amend the bill to include over $50 billion in funding for this account. Can you talk about what happened uh in your committee markup and why this funding is so important for our veterans? Yes.
▶ 0:42:37And I'm appreciative that that Judge Carter and I frankly because of the long-standing relationship we have and both of us being in this role um either in the roles we're in now or when uh the majority switches um have enough trust built up that we were able to step to the side and postpone a decision on the amendment that I initially introduced that would have re that would reestablish the 51.7 billion in the advanced funding for FY27.
▶ 0:43:03And I want to make sure that everyone understands um this the TE is not a slush fund by any means. It was created in the PACT act to make sure that because we have such an erratic process that we go through that doesn't always guarantee we get finished on time that there is continuity in the appropriations process that if we are delayed we end up having potential for the potential for interruptions.
▶ 0:43:32We have advanced funding in our bill for long-standing policy for medical care. And when we passed the PACT act, we established an advanced funding in the toxic exposure fund, which is mandatory funds so we can keep our commitment to toxic exposed veterans that they would have guaranteed funding. And the PAC Act lays out clearly how funds in the TE are to be used.
▶ 0:43:56And unless the administration wants to break the law, which I guess is possible given their track record so far, the funds should be obligated in accordance with the PAC Act. And they do not become available. The advanced funds for FY27 in the toxic exposures fund doesn't become available until October 1st of 2026. That's the first day of the fiscal year of FY27. And the administration can't touch those funds until that time. So that's the opposite of slush fund.
▶ 0:44:22That is very proscribed specific direction on how to spend that money. And we did in the agreement we reached put a limitation that those funds would expire in two years if they were not um if they were not expended. But you know we'll we'll come into FY27 in the next process and presumably we'll agree upon an advanced funding for FY28 so that we have that continuity. So it is certainly not a slush fund and it is absolutely essential.
▶ 0:44:50Uh and we've had an ongoing disagreement over, you know, since the PAC Act passed on whether or not there should be a TO funding in a toxic exposure fund. That is the only way that we can keep our commitment and the guaranteed funding to our toxic exposed Did you want to add? You want to add something to it? Just to correct the mistake you said we had 52 billion dollar in our bill to start. It was advanced funding for FY26 F.
▶ 0:45:17You had you said you had no no funds for the this program. We had $52 billion. It's certainly not no funds. We talk about advanced funds. We had current year funding funds. I mentioned I mentioned advanced funding. We had a debate over it and we had a we had discussions and we met we made a compromise and I agreed to the compromise. No. And I appreciate that. No, and in my question I mentioned advanced funding. Um and uh Mr. Carter, this bill we'll make it clear.
▶ 0:45:46Yeah, we funded this program to the tune of $52 billion. It was the advanced funding that we had this discussion, right? And that's what I asked. It was solved in our in our committee. U I think through the way this place is supposed to work with both sides. No. And I'm glad we came up with comp with I'm glad. Let me just one one other question. Mr.
▶ 0:46:11Uh, Judge Carter, this bill underfunds military construction by almost a billion dollars compared to what President Trump request requested. That includes underfunding the NATO security investment program by almost $200 million. I my question, why did you decide to underfund military construction and in particular to the NATO commitments so much lower than what President Trump requested? And then uh, Representative Wasman Schultz, how does underfunding military construction projects affect the quality of life of service members?
▶ 0:46:40And why is it important that we fund our NATO commitments? We mark to last year's budget and bust it up. We we expect the the White House gets rest of the information to us, we will probably be going going to visit this again.
▶ 0:47:04But we basically took the position that we we we looked at what we did last year before we did a CR and we came up with the ID our we marked at more funds than we than was in the in in 25. Thank you Michelle. Underfunding military construction by almost a billion dollars is really incredibly irresponsible.
▶ 0:47:30I mean it's it's almost a billion dollars less than was in the president's budget information that was choppy information to begin with that he gave us. So um and then in particular the $188 million less than the president requested no lover of NATO by the way the for the NATO security investment program.
▶ 0:47:50I want to explain to members the difference between NATO funding where there's a separate debate about different nations contributions and the infrastructure program that is the NATO security and investment program. So the House bill provides $293 million for that infrastructure program for NATO. That's $188 million less than what is needed based on the president's request. Funding for this program are are not arbitrary numbers.
▶ 0:48:16They're the result of already agreed upon US cost share for NATO projects and our our allies in NATO, they robustly meet their obligations in the infrastructure program and given the conflict uh and particularly the the risk and war that is going on in uh you know for the illegal invasion of that Russia um committed against Ukraine.
▶ 0:48:42Uh it's absolutely essential that we meet our obligations and plus that plus that $188 million back up. Uh Miss Captor, Marcy Captor from Ohio offered an amendment to restore that NATO funding, but unfortunately the majority rejected it. I'm certainly hopeful that in the ongoing discussions when we have more information that we can also restore that funding as well. Thank you. I yield Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Griffith.
▶ 0:49:11Thank you, Mr. Norman. No question. I'm sorry, Miss Scan. He still has no question. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, ranking member. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Um, you raised a number of interesting issues and I think you both discussed the fact that we still haven't received a full budget from the White House.
▶ 0:49:34So that makes a lot of what's going on here hypothetical, but there were several issues that that you raised and and there's been some discussion of slush funds. I I was really concerned by the idea that there are these pots of money, tens of billions of dollars that would be dedicated towards dedicated to privatized medical care and then more billions of dollars dedicated to private housing.
▶ 0:50:01Uh I'm concerned with a lot of the transfer of funding to uh corporate and and non-governmental entities that we're seeing increasingly under this administration that to have something like that happening with no oversight and no clear guard rails is concerning. Can you talk about that? I I share your concerns on the medical community care transfer.
▶ 0:50:24I mean a shift of an increase in that is 67% that's $14 billion nearly 14 billion increase to medical community care private healthcare um it it it doesn't make sense to me when we passed the mission act the mission act was pretty specific about when private community care was going to be available to our veterans and that was you know in instances when it was too too far away for a veteran to get specific specialty care so they could go to
▶ 0:50:54the community. Um, particularly in rural areas that happens when the timeliness of getting an appointment was a challenge. But now we actually see that it takes longer in the community to get an appointment than it does to get it at the VA.
▶ 0:51:08And I mean, I think we all hear from our veterans that they clearly prefer care at the VA because the care at the VA is delivered in a cultural in a way that um cult in a cultural way that understands veterans needs. Um many a a a huge number a huge percentage of VA employees are veterans themselves.
▶ 0:51:31um there's an understanding of PTSD and so many of the um the health care challenges that veterans face, they're just not understood in the same way. So, we've had no explanation at all. I wish I could share with you why there is uh such a massive shift to community care funding.
▶ 0:51:48Other than that, it deeply concerns me that the that the administration is tending is intending to shift the VA as much towards privatized care as possible so as to ultimately, you know, meet project 2025's goals, which is to privatize the VA. And so, so that's deeply concerning. This housing, this privatized housing program, I I have I wish I could tell you. I don't think Judge Carter could tell you either because there was absolutely no budget justification for it. They didn't explain anything about what their intent is.
▶ 0:52:18Um yet the uh funding was provided uh in the majority's mark. We certainly know there are real estate developers who could be salivating over getting that funding. Certainly. Um you there's been some discussion about whether or not this bill could have um or or the committee could be addressing um the layoffs and the the turfing of of VA employees.
▶ 0:52:43We've had I've got a couple big facilities in in my region and we certainly heard from a lot of folks many who were recent hires um because they went for the probationary employees first. So these aren't people who are, you know, retiring, waiting or waiting for retirement to happen. These are people who are, you know, at the prime of their um time with the the VA. Um what could be done? Numerous things could be done.
▶ 0:53:10I thank the gentle lady for her question and that we should have included in this bill um transparency in what the plans are by the VA for the staffing of the VA. I mean they they made clear and publicly announced that we have a further 80,000 80 plus thousand employees. Um respectfully, Madam Chair, the these are are are not just, you know, excess positions.
▶ 0:53:39They're not, you know, the random un unacceptable expenditures of funds. 80. There isn't 80,000 PE employees worth of excess in the VA. And I'm all for efficiency, but you know, we've we run we we offered amendments to make sure that the VA had to give us transparent, clear explanations of the employment decisions that they were making and the staffing decisions we're making. the majority defeated those amendments.
▶ 0:54:09Um the majority seems to not want any information. They just seem to want to allow the VA to have free reign um over the quality of life of our veterans. And without any explanation, we have homelessness issues. We have suicide prevention. We have uh you we have um challenges in terms of getting them the care that they need, the specialty care.
▶ 0:54:31And I mean, we're allowing the wholesale dismissal of employees and the expenditure of funds without explanation and detail for the appropriations committee and for the Congress who have the constitutionally designated responsibility to provide the to to appropriate these funds and uh and take care of our veterans. And I I it seems that there's only one party that is committed to doing that.
▶ 0:54:58Um, and it certainly has been concerning in our area as we've seen, you know, these wholesale cuts without a clear p without a clear plan for how services will be able to be provided and particularly where so many of the folks who've been cut are folks who are charged with things like operating the suicide hotline. That's a relatively new um initiative. There were firings in that program, right? and that that were handled by Doge.
▶ 0:55:25And we have gotten no explanation as to what where those firings came from, why they were done, what the what Doge has done with the private uh data and information that they've been allowed to access, lawsuits that have blocked that access. I I mean, what what's what are they afraid of talk showing us? And of of course, as you mentioned that with the firings, there are so many people who are veterans employed by the VA that there's been a particularly big impact on our veterans.
▶ 0:55:55And we've heard that in my office repeatedly. Um, you also, um, I think we also heard that there are restrictions in this bill on reporting to the firearm background check agency, the Nicks. Yes. Um, program. They actually How does that make sense? We're talking about folks who are experiencing some kind of medical or mental health issue, right?
▶ 0:56:19I mean, we've we've seen mass shootings as a result of folks who are veterans not getting reported to the Nick system. Yes. The section 260 in the Milcon VA appropriations bill prohibits VA from reporting a person who has been deemed mentally incapacitated, mentally incompetent, or to be experiencing an extended loss of consciousness to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
▶ 0:56:46In other words, under federal law already that people in that category of individuals of of of diagnosis um are required to be reported to the to the criminal instant criminal background checks system to bar them from p from purchasing a weapon. Um this prohibits the VA from following the law. and and we know when someone has had that designation that they are a risk to be of danger to themselves or others.
▶ 0:57:16Um and it undermines VA's ability to keep at risk veterans safe, the employees safe. Um it it stops us from being able to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. I mean, there's three categories of pe of ways that you are prohibited from purchasing a gun, and mental incapacity is one of them.
▶ 0:57:35But inexplicably, the majority um is is is allowing uh people design with that designation, mentally unstable, incompetent people who have been designated as such by the VA to continue to purchase guns unfettered. That's pretty mind-boggling to the extent that our colleagues across the aisle say that our gun fatalities, our gun violence issue in this country is not the result of guns but of mental health issues.
▶ 0:58:05If they're then putting barriers with respect to addressing the connection between the two, I want to just point out veterans make up about one in five adult firearm suicides and we see an average of 4,600 veteran firearms suicides every year.
▶ 0:58:22I mean, so for this bill to allow more people who are in a mentally fragile state to to have be able to purchase guns in contravention of federal law, that's just unacceptable and will cause more needless deaths and injuries. Thank you. Um, of course. Thank you. Uh, well, go back. Start with the fire.
▶ 0:58:52Under this provision, it would allow VA to send veterans information to the FBI without a judge's consent, which is not right. This has been the law of the land over the last two fiscal years and was a bipartisan agreement.
▶ 0:59:11While I know veterans health uh mental health care is a concern, our bill and report includes language regarding the firearm lockbox program as a tool for veterans safely store their guns. We $31 million for veterans crisis line and for veteran suicide prevention outreach.
▶ 0:59:44on the issue of the staff, as I said before, I'm aware of the $80,000 80,000 reduction that has been mentioned in the press and other places. We see we've seen no evidence of any of that and have had no and at 80,000 that 80,000 number and I don't don't think that 80,000 number will materialize.
▶ 1:00:10The VA has reinforced the health care and benefits by safeguarding 350,000 mission critical positions to ensure uninterrupted services. Furthermore, this the bill was written and the budget does not include personnel cuts from us at anymore.
▶ 1:00:32The secretary has repeatedly stated the VA won't cut jobs that directly impact health care or benefits for the I would share similar concerns if this affected vision critical positions, but as I mentioned, those positions are exempt. Thank you. And I appreciate that.
▶ 1:00:56But I know from the VA services in in my area that while they might designate a doctor as mission critical, they're not designating the folks who make the appointments or get the insurance benefits or clean the labs as mission critical. And so we are starting to see backups and problems with folks getting services. Did you want to say something else? I think it's my time and I asked uh Miss Wasserman Schultz, you have a whole row of people who get to you.
▶ 1:01:24Um I just want to point out that uh there's nothing in this bill that actually protects staffing or specifically underscores that there won't be any reductions in in force for healthcare related positions. I don't understand how you could possibly think that 80,000 people being fired um would not affect delivery of health care.
▶ 1:01:47And we attempted to put language in the bill that would make sure that they gave us information about how they're making those decisions and what those what the decisions would include and we couldn't even get agreement on that. So I mean taking at face value uh what they say is not enough. I mean, that's why we have a system of checks and balances and that's why we're a co-equal branch of government.
▶ 1:02:10On the NYX issue and and what what Judge Carter referenced, um I want to just outline the process briefly of when a veteran would have their um rights that their their name referred to the next system. When VA makes a determination that a fiduciary is needed for a veteran, it's not a determination that made lightly.
▶ 1:02:32There's an extensive bureaucratic process in place to protect veterans, especially those who have been deemed incapacitated or mentally incompetent to determine when a fiduciary is needed. If the veteran believes that determination is wrong, they have a right to appeal. If a veteran believes they were wrongly reported to NYX, which would stop them from purchasing a gun, they can have their rights restored through the court system, and some do.
▶ 1:02:56And what it essentially does, this this writer essentially says, "VA, you cannot work with Nyx even when it means more veterans will be protected from harming themselves than those temporarily inconvenience by not owning a firearm for pleasure. I mean, when I I want to just point out that every single veteran who committed suicide committed suicide with a firearm. Every single one.
▶ 1:03:22So, this is a real issue and we get notifications in our subcommittee on whenever there's a suicide on VA property. Over the last year, we received suicide notices from Asheville, Los Angeles, McGallen, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, South Texas, Puget Sound, and the list goes on.
▶ 1:03:43So, we have to make sure that we aren't just taking VA, you know, off the table when it comes to ensuring that people who shouldn't have a gun because they're a danger to themselves or others can't get one.
▶ 1:03:56Well, when the mental health is such a driver in firearm suicide and it's 60% of firearm uh deaths are as a result of suicide, but it often gets swept under the rug because of mass shootings being so much more um horrifying in the news or whatever. But this is clearly something that if we're talking about the VA providing mental health care that they should be part of the system. Thank you for your testimony. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Kellen.
▶ 1:04:26Um, Miss Washerman Schultz, I will tell you that in my community, which is very rural, there is a big push to want to use community facilities as opposed to having to drive long distances to VA. I think the point is to give veterans the choice to be able to do that. So, it's it's not an attempt to privatize VA. It's a it's an attempt to make it possible for it to be convenient for the veterans.
▶ 1:04:56Madam Chair, if I might, a 67% increase with no explanation whatsoever, which is far greater than what the emission act's original intent was, which was when a veteran lived too far um so that it was a more than 40-minute drive, then they would have access to community care. When there was difficulty getting an appointment, particularly for specialty care, which is no longer the case. But let me say for convenience for convenience.
▶ 1:05:23But the way it the way it's currently structured is not there are a lot of veterans who who want more. That that's all I'm telling you. Well, then we should change the law. Madam Chair, that's not the criteria in the mission act. Okay. If I may comment. Thank you very much. Certainly in my state a 40minut drive uh nobody would qualify. Right. Thank you, Judge. Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:05:48U Madam Chair and uh thank you so very much for explaining the issues around uh veteran suicide. Uh I have met with um several family members in my own district uh where it's heartbreaking, right?
▶ 1:06:02And and I think that the idea that we are going to eliminate protection just highlights the fact that we are ignoring that we owe an obligation to our of how we got here. Right? That you know I often say that we can't just thank veterans for their service. We say that all the time.
▶ 1:06:31It means absolutely nothing if we don't provide them with the services they have earned. And over the weekend, you know, uh Trump bombed Iran. Now, there are consequences from that that will flow for decades to come.
▶ 1:06:52As we know, Bush entered into uh a war that lasted for years uh that cost 728 billion dollars. He claimed similar to this that Iraq had Iraq then had weapons of mass destruction. It took the lives of 4,000 veterans. We now have 4.2 million 4.2 million veterans post 911, right? and we owe them an obligation.
▶ 1:07:21And I want to thank both the judge and you for supporting the democratic amendment to make sure we had the advanced funding uh consistent with the PAC Act. Right? That was the right thing that we did here. But earlier in this hearing, it was suggested that the Doge cuts uh were just cutting waste, that they weren't actually impacting services. Uh ranking member Rosman Schultz, would you agree with that assessment? No.
▶ 1:07:47And as I mentioned uh a short time ago, um the the cuts to in staffing, um you know, it's one thing if someone decided on their own to take a an offer of retirement, uh but we're talking about widespread staffing cuts, unlawful staffing cuts that were, you know, appropriated by Congress that have been halted in some cases by lawsuits where judges have determined
▶ 1:08:17that they were um unlawful, particularly uh with probationary employees who, you know, didn't have due process. Um so these indiscriminate, random, significant firings at the VA with 80,000 plus more to come because I mean, I'm sorry, I'm just not willing to go on the word of a a a secretary and an agency who has provided zero transparency for their decision-m.
▶ 1:08:44Um, you know, trust me, uh, we're not going to fire at the 80,000 that they said publicly that they were planning to. That I I I we have a system of checks and balances, congresswoman, it it that the founding fathers created so that the Congress with the appropriations authority in in article one have the ability to say in this bill, we want a spending plan. We want an explanation.
▶ 1:09:11We want transparency on those cuts and you do not have authorization to impound funds that Congress previously appropriated for these employees to to provide services and there's no chance. Excuse me. Excuse me. There's no chance if they fire 80,000 people that it's not going to cut into veterans healthcare. No chance. Yeah.
▶ 1:09:40So, I'll let you I'll ask a question, Stephen. Okay. I've you know, I've been out in my communities. I have a very large rural district, uh, as uh, you know, many on this committee, although I'm the Democrat with a very large rural district, and people are already worried because they're not getting their calls answered. They're not getting their reimbursements paid. They are already suffering from the cuts that have already happened. Yes. So, it is right to sound the alarm. And I think it's important that Congress act. We have power.
▶ 1:10:11It's only a question of whether we are willing to exercise it. And if you're not willing to exercise it, then you're not carrying out your constitutional obligation to your own constituents. And when somebody, you know, when they say, well, it's cutting fraud. What I'm really worried about was GOP declares war on the government of county office.
▶ 1:10:31If we really cared about fraud and waste, we would not then be seeking to cut the agency that wants to get rid of in a careful manner that will look on a bipartisan not actually nonpartisan. Anybody who asked them a question, is there anything else? This is how you look at fraud and race, not by just saying let's get rid of 83,000 people without any kind of consideration by firing people.
▶ 1:10:57What what I perceive, you know, having been the ranking member of the chair of this subcommittee for many years, is that um with the allowing of Doge to rumage around in veterans private data and information, personal private security information, with the mass firings that have taken place with no accountability and empoundment of funds, cancelling of contracts, saying they're going to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars without congressional oversight or approval.
▶ 1:11:26This is all designed to break VA from within so that they can ultimately point out because of the length of time that people that this will cause people to have to wait for services and appointments and you know the benefits that they're receiving and then later on down the road they can the majority can point to the problems that VA has because they've caused them on purpose to say see VA doesn't work anymore you know we need to just send even more money into community care and eventually
▶ 1:11:56shift where veterans get their care and their services to the private sector. That's unacceptable. It would gravely harm our veterans and we have to stand in the breach and not allow it. Right. And veterans want to be seen at the veterans facility um based on a a a you know Trump from his first uh time in office, they had proposed cutting uh community- based uh seabox, community based clinics and saying, "Well, that's all right. they'll just get care in the community.
▶ 1:12:25The reality is there is oftent times no care in the community and the veterans clinics provide a care that would otherwise not be available and they want to be seen by people who are also veterans. So it is clear that veterans want to have a VA.
▶ 1:12:39They want a VA that works though and so yes, it needs fixing, but you don't fix it by just firing everybody and terminating people and saying it's we don't have the courage to stand up to the overwhelming majority of veterans have said in surveys that they prefer care at the VA, right? So if you really cared about veterans, you'd stand up for the VA. I wanted to uh ask about the impact on women veterans in this bill.
▶ 1:13:06Um, and you know, it denies our women veterans equal access to care and to information that helps them make their best choices for them, right? And it really should be that when somebody signs up for the military, it shouldn't matter their zip code, what kind of care they can get. I mean, how concerned are you? And you mentioned it earlier, but I think we should point it out again.
▶ 1:13:35Do you feel that this bill with the writers discriminates against women veterans? Yes. While the fund the funding for women's health care, you know, is is still separate and and and fully funded, the limitations on access to care for women, particularly access to abortion care, other health care services, the challenges of IVF access.
▶ 1:14:04Uh it is um it is a of grave concern to me that we aren't ensuring that there is equal access to the largest growing population of veterans served at the fastest growing population of veterans served at the VA for their healthcare which is women veterans. Right?
▶ 1:14:24So it's not right to say come serve and protect our freedoms but then we are going to restrict your freedoms with regards to reproductive health care whether it be abortion or seeking to have a family through IVF. It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't uh you know I'm also very concerned about the fact that we are cutting uh what we need for resiliency in this time when we actually need more uh given the threats that we are in. But I think you've covered a little bit of that earlier and so I'll forgo those questions.
▶ 1:14:54I am the last Democrat. Is there anything else you want to mention in response to any of the conversation? No, I think we've covered it. Thank you so very much, Chair and and Judge. And thank you very much, ranking member. Madam Chair, I yelled back. Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Mr. Jack, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one question. Chairman Carter, I recently saw that the VA had successfully relaunched its electronic health records modernization effort.
▶ 1:15:21And as we both know, the current administration is rightly leaning into this technology effort and pushing to deploy more sites over the next three years. My understanding is that the new cloud-based system will replace VA's antiquated and cyber vulnerable legacy system with a secure standardized federal EHR fully interloal with interoperable with uh DoD and community care providers. This will allow for seamless sharing of patient information.
▶ 1:15:46I think you would agree that our nation's veterans have waited far too long for DoD and VA to align on this issue. That is why I believe this administration is so committed to rolling the system out. In the bill before us, I see that the appropriate creations committee provided 2.5 billion to support the VA EHRM roll out, which is great, but it is short of the president's request of 3.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, can you share some of your rationale on the funding level?
▶ 1:16:11And do you see an opportunity to fully fund the president's FY26 request to help deliver this system sooner to more of our Oh, well, we've been working on this since I came on the committee, which was in 2004.
▶ 1:16:36We've had every kind of rain thing I've asked the question about a hundred Where did all that money go? We we're we're now at a we think we've got a viable program getting to work and we're looking forward to it moving much faster. That's why we're continue to fund it.
▶ 1:17:04But I am a skeptic as is my colleague as is every member of our subcommittee And so we're watching those month that those dollars very scarce. We're saying you better get it done. You better get it done right now. It's time start advancing. Where where it works, it now works.
▶ 1:17:35The amazing thing about this whole thing is we when we finally get this technology done, that technology done, we'll be awesome. That's how fast with AI that that make everything go. Don't ask me to explain that. All right. But I we are watching and we're waiting for more information from the White House on this if we need to do other things with this.
▶ 1:18:05But we are cautiously funding it to go forward. Best basically say I am very skeptical that we've had five or six different and some of them I mean and both I mean both sides it's been a it's been the biggest sure biggest wreck I've ever been involved. I've been involved.
▶ 1:18:37But anyway, we're working on it and we're watching it and right now it is basically in in Washington and Oregon and moving and that's what we're doing. Uh but believe me, I watch this thing with very skeptical eyes.
▶ 1:19:01My colleagues very skeptical but you don't want to stop and go start again because you stop and start again you'll get takes five years to see the results again it is a honeypot somebody and I don't know who anyway I am
▶ 1:19:33as is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Washerman Schultz, if you any comments on that' be great. I I would associate myself with the chairman's remarks. Uh we have had in multiple administrations, both sides of the aisle. Um serious problems where these these um launches have had to be halted. There have been patient errors uh that have even caused death, serious serious injury.
▶ 1:20:03Um the operational interoperab the interoperability has been challenging and not worked in in some instances. So there was a there have been long pauses and restarts and so I think we're just we're all of the same we're really of the same mind. frustration but interest in moving it forward because you have to have an interoperable system that crosses through the OD and travels with you all the way through your time at the VA.
▶ 1:20:30Um and and then hopefully eventually can include the community care component which isn't even close to a possibility now. Um but there's there's real serious risk if it isn't implemented the right way and and patient risk. So, so I I I think we're all interested in there being advancement, but but cautiously so. Wonderful. Well, thank thank you very much, Madam Chair, and Mr. Chairman, as always. You know, you were the freshman steering representative for your class.
▶ 1:21:00So too am I for my class, so always admire you and follow in your footsteps. Thank you. I can help. Let me know. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Jack. Um, Mr. Scott, do you have any questions? No questions. Well, I thank our witnesses for being here today and um without any with seeing no further questions, the uh uh panel is excused.
▶ 1:21:35Now, welcome our second panel, Representative Moore and Representative Scanland from the Committee on the Judiciary. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five Happy birthday,
▶ 1:22:05R. You had a birthday. Did you have a birthday recently? No. Okay. Representative Moore, I welcome your
▶ 1:22:38You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Today, we consider two common sense pieces of legislation. First, a bill that makes aliens inadmissible and removable removable if they drive drunk. And second, a re resolution that condemns the Los Angeles riots. Now, the average Americans passing this bill and this resolation resolution will be a no-brainer. Even in this polarized time, Democrats should be able to join Yes, ma'am.
▶ 1:23:05Even in this polarized time, Democrats should be able to join Republicans unanimously and support reasonable legislation. After all, deporting dangerous criminals and condem and condemning dangerous riots are rational, normal, and coherent steps this house should take. Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that we will see much agreement from my Democrat colleagues on these measures.
▶ 1:23:26Regardless, I am thankful to this committee considering the Jeremy and Angel C and Sergeant Brandon Moza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act, that bill I introduced last Congress and again this Congress. every 45 minutes. That is how often someone in the United States dies in a crash involving alcohol impaired driving. In 2022 alone, there were alcohol impaired driving fatalities. In 2020, drunk drivers uh caused enough crashes that led to 400,000 injuries in this country.
▶ 1:23:56Those crashes don't discriminate. The victim could be me. It could be you. It could be someone, anyone in our families, our communities. This issue hits home to me. And there this was there was a newlywed couple from my hometown in Enterprise, Alabama named name named Angel and Jeremy C. And I knew this couple personally. Angel and Jeremy were riding a motorcycle together when out of nowhere an illegal alien under the influence influence of alcohol collided into the newlyweds with his pickup. Their lives were cut short in this senseless act.
▶ 1:24:25Tragedies like this are not uncommon across our country. In December of 2023, an illegal alien killed a 46-y old woman and her 16-year-old son in Bloomfield, Colorado when he drove his truck up to 100 miles an hour and ran into the victim's vehicle, causing it then to crash into a tree. Despite having five previous DUI related convictions, a Boulder County judge sentenced this illegal alien to probation and community service and work release on December 8th, 2023 in relation to two of those convictions.
▶ 1:24:55Just four days later, the drunk driver crashed and killed the mother and her son. Or consider the case in Florida where just earlier this year, an illegal alien from Mexico was arrested for his third DUI after he hit and killed a kindergartener. In Texas in December of 2024, an illegal alien killed a seven-year-old girl after he drove drunk, crashed into a car that's being driven by the girl's mother.
▶ 1:25:18Just months earlier, under the Biden Harris administration, ICE had lifted a detainer which had previously been lodged against this illegal alien after he was arrested for assaulting a family member in June of 2024. HR875 makes common sense changes to immigration laws to make an alien who is convicted or admits to drink, drinking, and driving under the influence inadmissible. It also makes an alien convicted of doing so removable. In fact, 59 Democrats voted in favor of this legislation when I brought it the House on the floor last February.
▶ 1:25:49If you're a guest in this country, you drive drunk, you should be removed from our country. Period. Drunk drivers are involved in 31% of all crashes that cause death in this country. On average, drunk driving killed roughly 11,000 people in the United States every year from 2012 to 2022. Yet, current immigration law makes does does not make aliens inadmissible or removable if they drive drunk and recklessly break our laws. HR875 changes that and creates safer streets and safer communities for all of us.
▶ 1:26:19I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Today, we're also considering House Resolution 516 led by my colleague uh Representative Young Kim. This resolution condemns the vi violent riots in Los Angeles, California. For weeks, we have seen violence spread in the streets of Los Angeles and beyond. Individuals have engaged in arson, looting, personal property destruction, vandalism, and assault of law enforcement officers.
▶ 1:26:44Meanwhile, the hardworking men and women at ICE have ensured that dangerous criminal aliens are removed from Los Angeles streets. In one operation in May, ICE arrested aliens convicted of manslaughter, aggravated rape, of a minor, and assault with a deadly weapon. The week the lo the week the Los Angeles riots began, ICE arrested aliens with convictions for murder, burglary, battery, DUI, sexual battery, and grand theft. Yet, apparently, all of that is a bridge too far for the far left.
▶ 1:27:14Under their logic, immigration laws should only be ignored, not enforced. The resolution expresses gratitude to law enforcement, including the LAPD, local sheriff's offices, and the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. This resolution is another piece of legislation that I'll hope all members can get behind and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, gentlemen. Now recognize Miss Thank you. Uh thank you to my colleagues on the rules committee.
▶ 1:27:42I've served on the committee for six years now, but it's the first time I've been on this side of the dis. So, as we all know in particular, bills typically only come before the rules committee when they can't garner twothirds of our members votes on the House floor. So, why don't these two judiciary committee bills have broad support across the whole house? Because they're legislative clickbait.
▶ 1:28:06They're designed to provoke heat, noise, and division, not a thoughtful policy discussion. Pretty succinctly, I'd sum them up as both missed opportunities and huge distractions. So, first, let's talk about HR875. The tragic fact is that we lose more than 11,000 people every year to crashes caused by drunk driving. And more than a million people are arrested every year for DUIs.
▶ 1:28:33The scourge of drunk driving is something that all of us want to stamp out once and for all. And we can take steps towards doing that at the federal level. We can support enforcement of laws on the books. We can put additional resources towards anti-drunk driving awareness and education. And we can support programs that work to end alcohol addiction. I know for a fact there's a bipartisan legislation out there ready to go. But those efforts haven't been moved under this majority. Instead, we're dealing with clickbait legislation.
▶ 1:29:04A few years ago, when Democrats led the House, we passed the Halt Drunk Driving Act that would provide more support for technology that could interface with vehicles and prevent drunk driving. that was signed into law as part of the bipartisan infrastructure bill even though almost every House Republican voted against it. Let's be clear, anyone who commits a crime and endangers the public should be held accountable and our existing laws reflect that.
▶ 1:29:31Serious DUI convictions are already grounds to deport or refuse admission to a non-citizen. Full stop. So this bill doesn't close any gap in existing law. And it doesn't make our country safer. It only weaponizes a problem to attack and scapegoat all immigrants. And it foregoes any nuance or circumstances which might call for a different result.
▶ 1:29:55I mean, as an example, just three months ago, the speaker's own chief of staff was arrested for DUI when he crashed into a Capitol police vehicle after President Trump's State of the Union address. Despite this incident, the speaker said he has full faith and confidence in his staffer and believes he deserved a second chance. Yet, he supports bringing this bill to the floor, which would deport a green card holder who may have lived here for decades for much less than that.
▶ 1:30:21In Arizona, sleeping in your car while drunk without even operating it or starting it can get you a misdemeanor du DUI, and that would make someone deportable under this bill. Instead of confronting the dangers of drunk driving with serious public policy changes and resources, our Republican colleagues have brought us an unworkable proposal that doesn't address a very real problem on our roads because the problem they're trying to solve is overwhelmingly about citizen drivers.
▶ 1:30:51I participated in the judiciary hearings that led to this bill being sent to the floor and I carefully reviewed the majority report. There is absolutely no evidence in that hearing or report showing a causal connection between immigration status and drunk driving. And most notably for all this talk, this legislation takes no real meaningful action to repair our broken immigration system. Now, HRES 516 presents similar problems.
▶ 1:31:21Instead of uniting people to condemn violence and draw the really important distinction between peaceful protest and lawless violence, our Republican colleagues have instead written up a largely fact-free and partisan resolution designed to score political points and so division rather than reaffirming Central American values.
▶ 1:31:43So, first of all, the people of Los Angeles, just like anywhere else in this country, have a right to peacefully protest government actions because, in case anyone's forgotten, that is an American right enshrined in our First Amendment. An unbiased reporting has been clear that the recent protests in LA were limited in scope and overwhelmingly peaceful.
▶ 1:32:06Despite what we've heard and what I'm sure we'll continue to hear, any action instances of actual criminal conduct that happened in the backdrop of these events were swiftly denounced by California's leaders. They were handled by local law enforcement and they're being punished by the letter of the law. State and city officials took steps to keep people safe. and local law enforcement has been clear that they did not feel the need to request that Governor Nuomo mobilize the National Guard.
▶ 1:32:37Instead, what we did see was this administration set out to provoke confrontation and cause chaos. They began by conducting aggressive rush hour ICE raids designed to garner maximum TV coverage featuring masked and armed agents and armored vehicles which they then used to snatch loved ones and friends from their jobs.
▶ 1:33:00And while they didn't see fit to provide notice to local law enforcement, they did provide advanced notice to a TV personality, Dr. Phil and allowed him to embed with ICE both before and after the raids and get exclusive interviews with the borders arm.
▶ 1:33:17So this was followed by deploying US troops onto our country's streets with the president's agents proclaiming that they'd arrest California's dyeleed governor and announcing that they wanted to liberate Los Angeles and American city. It's the stuff of dictators and authoritarians, not US leaders. and it demonstrabably inflamed tensions and made law enforcement's job harder.
▶ 1:33:44Let's be clear, we all condemn political violence and those who cross the line from protected speech and protected protest to violence should be held accountable. But the administration and this resolution are misrepresenting the obvious difference between mass protest and isolated acts of violence in a shameless attempt to distract from what people were actually protesting about to begin with.
▶ 1:34:09Because it's clear that the people in Los Angeles and across the country don't believe that this administration's efforts to terrorize communities with menacing police actions are good for them or good for America. people took to the streets in Los Angeles and elsewhere to make their voices heard because they know that this type of um menacing law enforcement does not make our communities safer.
▶ 1:34:34When masked agents grab not hardened criminals, but hardworking people with no criminal past from their workplaces and neighborhoods and schools. They know that it doesn't make us safer when government rips people away from their children and disappears them to um goologs in El Salvador based on tattoos and mistaken identities and just plain And it they know that it doesn't make us safer when the president forcibly deploys the military
▶ 1:35:04on US soil to engineer a politically charged visual display. And perhaps most storewellian of all, it doesn't make us safer when people are grabbed when they appear in court to make their cases for why they are entitled under our law to be here legally. So no resolution is going to distract from that. With both these bills, it's clear that House Republicans want to hide behind manufactured anger and division.
▶ 1:35:35They know that they've done nothing to keep their campaign promises about driving down costs for families, making our country safer, or making people's lives better. In fact, it's the very opposite. Six months of this administration have been a train wreck, and the chaos continues every day at the expense of American families and our national security. So, we know they don't want to talk about this. So, we end up with these crazy bills in front of us. And obviously, I oppose them.
▶ 1:36:04My Democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee oppose them and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize Miss Fishbach for her time of question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just have a couple of comments sincerely and I appreciate you bringing these bills forward. Mr. Mo, uh, you know, first of DUI is a serious offense. It is serious.
▶ 1:36:29and my family has been touched twice by by folks who have been under the influence and and there's been a car crash. So, my family has been on the receiving end of that. So, I appreciate that you brought that forward because it is a serious offense and we need to deal with it. And if people are here as guests, we should not be tolerating it. Um, and as for the um as for the resolution regarding the this underlines the Republicans support for law and order and it's an important thing.
▶ 1:36:57You know, I I'm from Minneapolis or excuse me, I'm not from Minneapolis, from Minnesota where we had the Minneapolis issues and in they've already done 32 million, am I am I remember in in California already done $32 million worth of damage in California and we just have to make sure that we are supporting law and order because these aren't peaceful protests. These aren't mostly peaceful. They're they're you know, these aren't people taking to the streets.
▶ 1:37:27They're taking to the streets to do damage. They're not just trying to have their voices heard. There are serious issues going on and um and serious damage and rioting and that happened in Minneapolis and and now it's happening across the country. And so I appreciate you bringing this forward so that we can we can once again underline our support for law and order. So thank you very much, Mr. and I yield. Gentle lady is back now recognizing pleasure Fernandez for her time of questioning.
▶ 1:37:57Thank you very much and how nice to see each of you and you look great on the other side of the table. Um so you know we've seen uh Trump's playbook uh before from all kinds of authoritarian and dictators across the globe and across the centuries. A nation reeling from economic hardship and trauma of a global crisis. A leader rises and claims he will take the country back to a glorified past.
▶ 1:38:27Uh instead of lowering bills or raising wages, he finds a group to blame for all the economic problems. Over the years, over the centuries, we've seen the group be Christians or Jews or LGBTQ. uh and it changes who the group is but not the playbook.
▶ 1:38:50Uh we see sometimes a leader come in in a democratic fashion and then demonize the press, undermine the court, silence dissents. We often see wasteful military parades and often You know, Americans are upset at the cost of groceries, the way corporations have too much power, how the rich keep getting richer, and the regular folk struggle.
▶ 1:39:19They want to be able to afford to buy a home of their own, to get quality health care, and to see their children have a more prosperous future than they had. Rather than pursue bills to address the cost of living crisis or help Americans achieve that dream of prosperity, Trump and the MAGA Republicans have declared immigrants the cause of all of our problems.
▶ 1:39:43Republicans are falling over themselves to introduce and pass bills to show how hard they are on immigrants, even if those bills are just restatements of existing laws like Representative Moore's bill. Seriously, we agree. Serious DUIs should be deportable offenses. Guess what? Serious DUIs are deportable offenses.
▶ 1:40:12When Republicans go home and your voters confront you about closing down rural hospitals, you can tell them, "Oh, but don't worry. Look at how I beat up on immigrants. I passed a bill to pass a law that is already a law.
▶ 1:40:28Democrats know the immigration system is broken, which is why we've introduced when we were in power numerous bipartisan immigration bills to address the need for agricultural workers to provide dreamers a legal pathway and to strengthen our security in our borders. We're not seeing the same on this end.
▶ 1:40:49And in fact, you raised it uh Representative Scandlin when you talked about the concerns about due process and the number of people who are being rounded up without any due process, including legal residents and citizens. Now, I don't sit on a judiciary bar. Are any of your judiciary colleagues concerned about this lack of due process?
▶ 1:41:15Well, that's been an ongoing concern as we parse through these bills that target immigrants that very often actually in virtually every case the conduct that is being targeted at least in terms of um public relations is are things that are already deportable offenses.
▶ 1:41:35Um the issue becomes whether or not there's due process engaged in in terms of ascertaining first of all whether someone is a citizen or not, whether someone's a legally here in the country or not, whether they are um actually a criminal or not. That's what due process is about. Otherwise, we end up deporting citizens. We end up holding people liable for things that they didn't do, right?
▶ 1:41:58And I think everybody is in agreement that anybody who engages in criminal conduct, whether it's a protester, uh whether it's a citizen or whether it's an immigrant, they need to face the consequences. And so going after criminal conduct is a fair thing to do, but Representative Moore, uh how many people detained by ICE under the Trump administration do not have a criminal background?
▶ 1:42:29You don't know? Well, according to the KO Institute, as of June 14th, ICE had booked into detention 204,297 individuals. Of those bookings, 65% individuals had no criminal conviction. So, we are not going after right now. ICE is not going after criminals.
▶ 1:42:59As you pointed out, Representative Scandalin, they're picking them up when they're going in for their appointments. You don't show up at your appointment if you've been engaged in criminal activity. You are actually following the law and they're being picked up. Uh, and you know, I think that that's part of the problem. And the other part of the problem is the way and this is why we have people protesting which is a first amendment right. Right.
▶ 1:43:29We had 12 million people protesting exercising their first amendment rights on the no kings rallies. 12 million people. If they would have all been violent we'd have no cities left. And they were protesting in Idaho. They were protesting in Utah. They were protesting in red states and blue states.
▶ 1:43:49But part of the problem is when you divert ISIS attention is that you are diverting resources that should be going to attack and to address criminal conduct. One of the things I'm very uh uh concerned about is just that. Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record the article titled exclusive thousands of agents diverted to Trump immigration crackdown.
▶ 1:44:19Oh, I am sorry. The source of that is The Reuters March 22nd, 2025. All right, without objection. So ordered. Thank you for the clarification.
▶ 1:44:32But from the article, it says the DEA, Drug Enforcement, whose roughly 10,000 staff had led the nation's efforts to battle drug cartels, has shifted about a quarter of its work to these immigration operations.
▶ 1:44:52That's a lot of people who should be going after drug lords and drug cartels and stopping the flow of fentinel, picking up people when they go for their immigration hearings, picking up and raiding our fields where people are picking the food to serve us. That is not making our country more it is putting us more at risk.
▶ 1:45:23Um, is there anything else that you wanted to to add? Um, Ranking Member Scandlin. Yes, thank you. I appreciate it. Um, I may have looked surprised when the gentle lady mentioned a figure for damage in um in Los Angeles and that was because I hadn't heard it, but we did look it up. And in fact, the figure that she cited was not for damage. It was the cost for pulling out law enforcement in order to address the protests that had occurred in in Los Angeles.
▶ 1:45:53And and the figure probably isn't surprising because the governor and mayor warned the president that if he were to call out the military that it would inflame the situation and cause more protests. And in fact, that's what we saw in the days after that happened. Protests spiked. They have since receded. So the figure that was offered was for not for damage to the city, but it was for um the costs of law enforcement and cleanup associated with the protests.
▶ 1:46:23Figure that wasn't mentioned was the $139 million that it's costing to deploy the National Guard. And in fact, the National Guard have not been involved in controlling the protests. So yes, there are costs here, but they are not as as represented and and that's, you know, all going to the fact that there was a plan in place for civil unrest in Los Angeles. They have used their plans many times before. They did not feel the need for it.
▶ 1:46:51And in fact, calling out the military here has added hundreds of millions of dollars of cost to the city. So, $134 million in order to have a performance of we are sending in the National Guard. We are militarizing, we are militarizing our streets, which George Washington said was the last thing you should do is do not ever use our military against our own citizens.
▶ 1:47:21It's costing us $134 million. And I don't know if people have seen this, but a lot of those poor National Guard, they were just sleeping, right? They're sleeping on uh like they were when they had to come here. The difference is when they came here, there had been violent clashes and our own Capitol police had been beaten and we needed the National Guard here. We called for them. We wanted them here.
▶ 1:47:49real different in LA when they had sufficient force to handle everything. Well, there's a there's also the on the continuing cost because the National Guard, these are folks from the community. Many of them are law enforcement agents elsewhere in the state of California.
▶ 1:48:06And the duties that they usually um participate in there include things like managing wildfires, which of course California has been particularly afflicted with over the last year, and working on um drug law enforcement at the border. So these folks were actually pulled off the border into performative roles in LA.
▶ 1:48:27So there's not just the cost of maintaining them in LA to essentially be a backdrop for um you know media hits or something, but then there's the cost of them not being able to do the jobs that they would ordinarily do and pulling them out of their home communities. Right. And you know, before I yield back, I just want to point out that uh it is the Republicans who refuse to put up the plaque honoring the law enforcement officers who protected us on January 6th, even though it is the law.
▶ 1:48:58Republicans refused to honor the Capitol police and other law enforcement officers who protected us from rioters and insurrectionists who were causing a lot of damage. We all live through it. We should honor them. With that, Madame Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thanks, gentle lady. Now recognize myself for time of of questioning. Uh Mr.
▶ 1:49:28Moore, We heard all kinds of things that don't think anything to do with 875, but that bill actually requires for deportation a conviction. So due process is all in place. Isn't that correct? Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:49:44And it requires that actually it I have an concerning it actually requires that uh the way the judge goes through the process he uses the same laws NIA that they've used for years to determine if in fact it is a a crime and of course the DUI part of it is is the conviction itself right the due process and so they get a due process going through it and so it's one of those pro where they just go through and it's a normal court hearing but if you look at it it's 80 years
▶ 1:50:14the board of immigration and appeals has provided additional protections for aliens who removal or inadmissibility is based on admission. So under the BIA president to be considered an admission aliens admission must be explicit, unequivocal and unqualified. Even then immigration judge would still have to find the admission fits within jurisdictions relevant to DUI and DUI related statutes and uh that the admission is based on reasonable, substantial and proitive evidence.
▶ 1:50:42And so it it it should not be so difficult to remove a foreign national drunk driver from the US to ensure that they cannot enter the US in the first place. Um this this contradiction kind of is it's it's really fear-mongering. It contradicts the law. It contravenes the text of the bill and undermines efforts to ensure that el e the aliens who drive drunk can be removed from the United States. So they get a normal due process. Can I just add they don't require a conviction though for the admissibility?
▶ 1:51:12admissibility, right? For admission into the country, it's it's can be based on a an admission of facts that would taken on the admission of facts equal driving under the influence charge. But for deportability, which is what I asked about, it is a conviction. All right. I appreciate that. Um, with that said, I will Oh, sure. I'll yield you some time. Okay. Are you done? I'm sorry. I'm done. Okay.
▶ 1:51:42Thank you. I appreciate the time. I just wanted to respond a little bit. I um you know, yes, I I talked about 32 million, but as as actually as I um you know, just spend a couple of minutes on the internet, um they actually um estimate it at potentially over 52 billion. Um because they're talking about the property damage, they're talking about the cleanup. Um, but you know, I think that the 2,00 buildings that were damaged by fire are significant.
▶ 1:52:11The 23, now this, I can imagine there was probably more, but at least 23 um businesses um that were uh looted and uh potentially burned. So, I mean, so we can argue over the numbers, but the fact is that that there's serious serious issues going on.
▶ 1:52:28And I think probably those 23 business owners that uh that uh were being looted or at least 23 were probably appreciative of the fact that um additional law enforcement and the and um and members of the military were uh were sent in to stop that kind of thing. So that maybe it stopped at 23 instead 123.
▶ 1:52:51So I I just wanted to point that out that yes maybe we had numbers wrong but the property damage is significant lady also is was concerned or perhaps included in that number were all the businesses that had to shut down because of the disruption in that part of the city. Yep. Absolutely. Thank you Mr. All right that I yield back and now recognize the gent I'm sure that everything has already been asked so I'll yield back.
▶ 1:53:33I've got very few questions. Barry, thank Congress moral. Thank you for putting this up. You know what you hear back and forth from my good friends on the other side. I don't know if pictures lie or not. Burning cars have a price. Broken windows have a price. uh breaking and looting buildings, businesses have a price. Um that doesn't lie. And to say that it does peaceful protest, it's just not true.
▶ 1:54:02Uh then pictures don't tell a different story. Um it's it's a shame we have to have this. Los Angeles does not they do not have a strict punishment or consequences for it. And that's why you have all this. To think that you send in police and inflames people is is really laughable. Oh, I'm sorry. I said it was sending in the military that inflamed people. It wasn't the police. Inflames the people.
▶ 1:54:29Sending the military to keep order from buildings being burned to pe ICE officers getting beat up. From businesses getting the military hit the street. Can I just finish that? I'll let you. I'm not going to interrupt you. It is the gentleman's time. I'll be glad to, you know, uh, but they can't, no one can hear.
▶ 1:54:48Maybe they don't want to listen, but, uh, to call to say that police, uh, National Guard, uh, being military being called in in flames, and that's why they tear up buildings, loot buildings, break windows, tear up cars. Is that what you're saying? No, that's not what I'm saying. Okay. What are you saying?
▶ 1:55:07I'm saying that as the governor and the mayor indicated, they were capable of handling whatever looting or whatever had happened in connection with these ICE raids, but that the announcement that the president was going to send in the military did inflame folks um and cause more protests and and if people do things that are out of hand when they come in and protest, then their police were able to handle it.
▶ 1:55:36But the issue was that the president exacerbated the situation here. It's basically a 10th amendment question. I mean, going back to the founding of our country. Um, police power is reserved to our states and to our local agencies and people don't take it well if someone tries to impose the military on their streets. I think the governor's record is pretty clear on uh the freefor-all that he allows in California. How that man stays in office, I have no idea. Uh, he has, unfortunately.
▶ 1:56:06unfort unfortunate for the people of California. Mr. Moore, you have any comments on You know, sir, I I um I saw the videos you saw the police officers, the cinder blocks through the windows, the police officers being hit with cinder blocks, they needed backup and and I think that to restore order, a lot of the flags I saw were not American flags being waved in California. And so I think the president acted duly. He brought in the National Guard and he he got the situation under control. The figure I saw was 20 million on damages.
▶ 1:56:34But we saw immigrants who actually had businesses who were being knocked down, their businesses being raided. And so the cost of that, the loss of business, the revenue to that community is going to be and not only that, the security issues just people are will be afraid to go to those areas until order is restored. So I think the president did the right thing. He absolutely did the right thing. And police officers can't patrol. This didn't go over. The looters didn't just do this for 10 or 11 hours. They did it days.
▶ 1:57:03And uh the only reason the governor did did not want help, he hates Donald Trump so much. Donald Trump helped out the people when a governor does not. And you remember President Trump reached out and asked him to get it under control. And then Nuome denied he ever made the call. And so I think President Trump reacted the way he had to. And it just restored order to the community. His job is to protect the people. And sometimes that requires the National Guard.
▶ 1:57:28And to say the costs were associated with with the National Guard and not with the damage the looting went on defies defies any type logic that I've ever witnessed. Anyway, thanks for putting this up. Now recognized gentleman from member Massachusetts gentleman from Massachusetts for just briefly. I wish the president had done the right thing on January 6th. I was here that day. I don't know if you saw the videotapes of what happened that day.
▶ 1:57:55Um, I didn't know if you picture want to see pictures of broken windows and destroyed property. Um, and um, and when all is said and done, uh, not only did the president not do the right thing, but when he got the chance, he pardoned everybody. Uh, and you talk about flags that were being waved, there were Confederate flags being waved that day. Uh, no one seemed to have any problem with that.
▶ 1:58:15Um, and so I just I we can't even we can't even get the speaker of the house to hang the plaque that uh voted on to honor the uh men and women of the police force, not only of the capital, but all the area police forces who actually protected us that day. So I I I got I you know, I I just I find this kind of selective outrage um you know, a little bit startling.
▶ 1:58:41um all of us condemn violence uh wherever it occurs um and looting and any kind of illegal activity. I think the issue in California was that uh the the area of protest was was contained. There were far more people protesting peacefully than uh than violently.
▶ 1:59:03And so I I but I I just I just I find this this selective outrage that and no and nobody has said a word about the pardoning of all those who did destruction to this building and who beat up our police. Yeah. If you want to add, Mr. I think if I remember correctly, President Trump offered to bring the guard and Pelosi turned it down. Well, he didn't. And so he did not. I mean, we all know that. That's his that's the new spin. But but but did President Trump pardon everybody? I guess he did. You guess he did. I don't know.
▶ 1:59:33I could I could give you the news articles if you don't know. He did people who were violently attacked uh men and women of law enforcement up here who were protecting the lives of every member that was in serving then and all the staff up here. Yeah, he pardoned every one of them. Will you yield, Mr. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman so he can defend the indefensible. Yields to the gentleman. Good luck, Rob. Are you denying? Are you North? I've yielded you. He yielded. I yielded to you. Okay.
▶ 2:00:01Are you denying that President Trump is on record that he called for the National Guard, Nancy Pelosi, wouldn't let him come in? Yeah. selective outrage? That's not what happened. But are you denying that the President Trump pardoned every single one of these people that came up here and violently attacked law enforcement? If you want to get into pardons, let's get into your president, McGovern. Uh, your president, Can I just ask you one other question? Who's in charge of the National Guard, Nancy Pelosi, or the president of the United States?
▶ 2:00:27president of United States overrode the governor in California and sent to the National Guard. So the idea that you're blaming Nancy Pelosi this this this rewriting of history is is absurd. It's it's a way to cover up what you know this terrible you can't cover up the facts, Mr. McGover. No. And the facts are that this capital was violently attacked by a bunch of insurrectionists and the president threatened every single one of them. Time belongs to the ranking member at this moment. Do you have anything else to say?
▶ 2:00:54Yeah, I again I the hypocrisy here is stunning to me. I yield back. Can I say one last thing? Gentleman has yielded I'm now going to recognize a gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack. He might yield you some time. Uh yeah, of course. I'll yield to you, Mr. Norman. Please. Thank you, Mr. Jack. You know, I'll just say the what was televised for I don't know how many weeks, Mr. McGovern when Nancy Pelosi kicked wouldn't let wouldn't get cross-examined.
▶ 2:01:23She wouldn't call the sergeant- of arms up. She would not she kicked Jim Jordan and I think and when was she in charge of the National Guard? I'm talking about the trial. I'm talking about you you can you can say President didn't ask to for President didn't do a on the trial. No, y'all hate Look, President President Trump asked, it would have been avoided. He would have had the people there and stopped all of that had it happened. It didn't happen on the trial. on the trial that that was a charade.
▶ 2:01:51Uh they kicked off to kick off all the Republicans, Jim Jordan and I forget one other one, Jim Banks. Uh that it was a sham trial and why didn't why didn't Nancy Pelosi have to testify? Why didn't the Sergeant Farms have to testify? It was a it was a sham because they hate Donald Trump. What what trials? Those are questions need to be asked by the chair. We try not to have debate between the various members. Um, and I don't have the answer to those questions and it's Mr.
▶ 2:02:19Jack's time if maybe we could written a written request that maybe we we could ask why Donald Trump didn't testify. Okay. Well, Mr. Jack, I will um I just want to ask Mr. Moore one question before I yield back and obviously welcome any conversation as it relates to this bill. I um specifically Mr. more. I understand that over the course of a 10-year period, I believe this bill will actually be a costsaver for our government. It'll save about $500,000.
▶ 2:02:49That's been the estimate. Wanted to see if you had any comment on that. I don't have the cost savings in front of me, Mr. Jack, but I'm happy to get that to you. Wonderful. If you wouldn't mind, that'd be great. U my understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill will save about $500,000. That's I would I think it'll save a lot of lives.
▶ 2:03:11Many of these cases are released four or five times like you know Jeremy see in my district where he was killed and time and time again we see these they'll downgrade these charges sometimes if we're not careful and call it a reckless driving but the folks are back out on the street in many cases mothers against drunk driving says you've driven at least a dozen times drunk and so they will a lot of times be deported or removed after they kill somebody but at that point it's too late for our communities and our families. Sure. Well, thank you very much, uh, Mr.
▶ 2:03:40Moore and Mr. Chairman. I, uh, I yield Mr. Jack yields back. And that concludes our, uh, questioning. We appreciate the witnesses being here. Uh, and thank you so much for your testimony today.
▶ 2:05:04All right. I now welcome our third panel of the day, Representative Green and Representative Korea Korea from the Committee on Homeland Security. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Green, you're now recognized for your testimony. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Chairwoman Fox. I'm here today to speak in favor of my bill, the Special Interest Alien Reporting Act of 2025, an essential piece of Border Security Transparency Legislation.
▶ 2:05:34My bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to publicly release monthly reports on the number of special interest aliens encountered, their their countries of origin, and where they were encountered. A special interest alien or SIA is a non US person who based on a DHS analysis of travel patterns may pose a national security risk to the United States or its interest. Currently DHS does not report on this data.
▶ 2:06:04Instead, we have been left only with random incomplete announcements of moment in time numbers by DHS officials or leaks to the media. The Biden Harris administration's disastrous policies place the United States in an extremely vulnerable national security position.
▶ 2:06:22Over the past four years, Customs and Border Protection faced an unprecedented number of special interest aliens from 26 countries that the Department of Homeland Security has determined posed the greatest national security and counterintelligence threats. Those encountered included ini individuals from adversarial nations including the people's republic of China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria.
▶ 2:06:50The Biden Harris administration intentional disregard for our laws and breakdown of national security resulted in US Customs and Border Protection encountering over 1.7 million special interest aliens. A staggering number. Many of these individuals were swiftly processed and released into the interior under the Biden Harris administration's catch and releaselease policies.
▶ 2:07:16Given ongoing events in the Middle East, this legislation is essential for Congress to conduct congressional oversight of the executive branch. Given the fact that we have been warned of a potential attack on our homeland by Iran or their terrorist proxies mean that mean that American people should have transparency of special interest aliens coming across our border or who did come across our border the last four years.
▶ 2:07:45During the Biden Harris administration, the Border Patrol apprehended over 1,500 Iranian nationals illegally crossing the southwest border between ports of entry. Of those, Biden and Harris admitted 729, that's almost half of those from Iran into the United States. And we have no idea how many are still at large today. And guess what?
▶ 2:08:10We only just now are getting those that number because CBP just disclosed it to Fox News Bill Malujan who posted it on his social media. That's not how this should work. With Iran threatening Americans with retaliatory attacks on our homeland, President Biden and Vice President Harris, his borders are created an opportunity for our adversaries to gain access to our nation and wreak havoc when called upon.
▶ 2:08:39The Biden Harris administration welcomed these potential national security risk into our country, including through illegal parole programs they started, such as the CBP1 app, to facilitate their quick release into the United States. Parents don't let bad guys or potentially bad guys into their homes with their children. These people should have never been released into our country. Under Biden and Harris, our sovereign borders became revolving doors for illegal aliens.
▶ 2:09:08including an untold number of bad actors intent on causing mayhem and harm to innocent people. CBP already publicly report statistics relating to individuals on the terrorist screening data set who attempt to illegally cross our borders, but they do not release statistics on special interest aliens. The American people deserve to see the data.
▶ 2:09:32Similar to the information on the terrorist screening data set, releasing encounter statistics on special interest aliens would not include sensitive information, but general encounter information, which increases the transparency and accountability that are critical to the health of our constitutional republic. After all, it's the American people that pay for the government because they're the taxpayers. They deserve to know.
▶ 2:09:58The legislation would show the American people the contrast between open borders and secure borders. It would require DHS to publish the monthly SIA numbers going all the way back to early 2021 when Biden and Harris took office. They will also provide Congress with necessary context to conduct oversight of future administrations.
▶ 2:10:19I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece of legislation to increase our national security and transparency for the American people whom we all swore an oath to serve and protect. Thank you and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. You are now recognized for your five-minute opening Chairwoman Fox and ranking member of a governor and members of the committee.
▶ 2:10:48Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Tipping Off Terrorist Act. Although well-intentioned, this bill compromises national security. It's the bottom line. This bill requires Custom and Border Protection, CBP, to publish sensitive data on national security information on a monthly basis. Essentially giving the bad guys information to do a better job of penetrating our defenses. But let's look at the big picture.
▶ 2:11:17special interest alien or SIA just means that someone's travel patterns indicate a need for further scrutiny. It does not mean someone's a terrorist or to do harm at all. During their committee markup, my colleagues on the Republican side claimed that this bill only required CBP to publish the total number of SIAS that are encountered while trying to enter the country illegally. If that were the case, I would support this legislation.
▶ 2:11:49But that is not the case. Greater transparency and accountability. The Department of Homeland Security is important. Public needs it, but it should not be done at the expense of compromising our national security, which is exactly what this bill does.
▶ 2:12:08As the bill reads, it would also require CBP to publicly identify each SIA nationality, country of last residence, and the geographic location that the encounter was made, and whether the encounter was made at a port of entry or in the interior of the United States.
▶ 2:12:28By publishing this information in real time, bad actors will be able to tell who is getting advanced screening from CBP and which locations have been most successful in interdicting these immigrants. The bad guys will use this information to adjust their operations to try and avoid extra screening, which only hurts our national security.
▶ 2:12:50And please note that DHS has never publicly released these numbers on a real time basis because the numbers could give away sensitive information. And please note today, there is nothing to stop DHS or Secretary Gnome from publishing these numbers.
▶ 2:13:11Instead of addressing this bill on the floor, I asked the author of this legislation to work with DHS to get such information published or made available to the p public in a way that DHS considers safe. I would ask the author of this bill to talk to the Secretary of Homeland Security and come up with a structure to publish this information that DHS would not deem harmful to our national security.
▶ 2:13:41Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Yo's back now recognized Miss Fisbach for her time of questioning. She has no questions. Now recognize ranking member McGovern for his time of question. Yeah. Um, Miss Green, it's my understanding that DHS can already release all the information that your bill is going to release. Um, I mean, have you talked to Donald Trump? Have you talked to Christine Holmes? Why aren't they releasing it?
▶ 2:14:06Uh, what my bill would do is provide transparency for the American people on the DHS website. They would But they can do that already. They don't need a bill to do it. I mean, and last time I checked, Joe Biden's no longer president. Alejandro Morcus is no longer the head of DHS. All the people that you that you support are in power. Why don't they do it? Well, under under the Biden administration, the Border Patrol chief, Michael W. Banks, uh was trying to release this information. Um yeah, but that's not put out here. That's not the question.
▶ 2:14:36Because the American people deserve to know how many special interest aliens that the Biden Harris administration led into the country. Why won't Secretary Because the American people deserve to know. No, but why won't I mean, have you talked to the secret secretary gnome? I'm here with a bill. I I would expect for you to vote for this. We're in danger now uh with with a potential uh war that has been erupting this weekend. Um I would imagine this is important information you would want your constituents to know.
▶ 2:15:03I'm I'm just asking a simple question uh and that is that given the fact that you know the people that you want in power are in power. They can do this on their own. They don't need a a bill to pass to do it. There must be some reason why Secretary Gnome and Donald Trump are not doing this already.
▶ 2:15:22I mean, you know, maybe it's because they're concerned about some unintended consequences about sensitive information being uh put out there in public and it might adversely impact other things that they're doing to protect the security of the American people. But all my question was like why aren't they doing it? Well, Mr. McGovern, if you want to direct them to do that, then I'll be happy that you'll be voting for my bill. No, I I just I I mean they can already do it and they're not and I So that that's number that should be an alarm bell for for everybody here.
▶ 2:15:50But while I have you here, you know, um um I I you know what you uh you had announced that u that you didn't know about uh the section in the budget reconciliation bill uh dealing with AI um and basically saying that states had no control over putting any regulations in place uh regarding AI for 10 years.
▶ 2:16:14uh that was in the budget reconciliation bill and you said and you tweeted you said um I am madly am adamantly opposed to this uh and it is a violation of states rights and I would have voted no if I had known that this bill was in there. I actually agree with you that I I I think this is a terrible thing to do. In the rules committee before we voted on it, we actually had a a mega hearing here beginning at 1:00 in the morning and we had a pretty uh robust debate on this provision. I even offered an amendment to strip it from the provision uh but it but it failed.
▶ 2:16:43And then you tweeted, "I I would vote no on any bill that destroys state rights and lets AI run wild for the next 10 years." And again, I I I I'm with you on that particular issue. Then I sent out a dear colleague uh and was handd delivered to every office about another vote we were having, which was basically a revote on the budget reconciliation bill.
▶ 2:17:06And um and I quoted Chairwoman Fox who said any member who has any regrets about his or her vote on the first bill has an opportunity to vote no on the rule. If the rule had gone down, you could have forced the rules committee to change the underlying bill to actually drop this provision, but you voted yes. You voted to advance it. I also clearly stated I didn't know about that in the bill before the vote.
▶ 2:17:32Um, so I've been very transparent about it, but I'm glad that you agree with me on I'm glad that you agree with me on that, as well as agreeing that you would like uh Secretary Gnome to release the data. So, I'll be happy to have your vote on this bill. You had a chance to release the numbers of special interest aliens. You had a chance to revote on the on the reconciliation bill which contained the provision that you said you would. We get another vote when that comes back from the Senate. And well, well, that's the issue is in the Senate now.
▶ 2:17:58Apparently, this awful provision is survived the bird bath. So, uh it looks like it will be in the the bill that comes back to the House whenever that happens. And so, I guess the question is, did you really mean it when you said you were going to vote no on any bill? Because you voted yes twice on a bill that contained the It must be really conflicting for you to agree with MTG. You've agreed with me twice on the AI provision about protecting state rights.
▶ 2:18:24And you're agreeing with me on my bill here that that these numbers should be released by Secretary No. I understand that Democrats have a hard time agreeing with me because you've spent years attacking me. But the reality is that we're in agreement today. So I'm excited for your vote on HR275. So Secretary Gnome can release numbers. She'll be happy to release it. You have a small We have a small room here. You don't have to shout. I'm not shouting. Yeah.
▶ 2:18:49Uh, but I'm just simply saying that I guess I we agree I guess um in theory on the fact that this AI provision um is bad. The only difference is I actually voted against um moving that bill forward twice and you voted yes for in favor of moving it forward twice. Again, Mr. McGovern, I've I've been very public about it and I know it's hard for you to agree with me because you probably tell your donors bad things about me. But but you're on record agreeing with MTG, so that's great. This is a big win today.
▶ 2:19:19I just wish MTG would would uh would vote with me um and actually we can special interest alien and actually vote against the budget reconciliation bill that contained this this terrible provision in it. But even I mean you said you didn't know was in it the first time you voted for it even though we had a public debate here in the rules committee and then you had a chance to vote against I don't watch the rules committee. I like most Americans, I you a member of the House of Representatives. You guys are kind of crazy in here.
▶ 2:19:48You're a member of the House of Representatives and it's and it's your job to know what you're voting on. I mean, I think Mr. McGovern, you you probably voted with Nancy Pelosi when she said we got to pass it to read it and find out what's in it. So, you know, that's on you. That's your party. Um, but I'm glad you agreed with me today. Thanks. So, let me just get a straight answer. If if on the Senate bill, if this is in the Senate bill, uh will you vote no on the Senate bill? Um well, I'm hoping they take it out. Uh I don't and I'll be real honest.
▶ 2:20:17I'm against uh a moratorum on state rights to regulate and make laws uh for their states on AI. And so, so, so, so am I to take your tweet literally that you would vote? I'm hoping that Republicans take it out in the Senate. I've been very open and honest about it. And um we're not whipping votes today. So what we're doing is we're actually trying to talk about telling the American people how many special interest aliens have come across the border.
▶ 2:20:46I mean I mean you supported the Biden Harris administration so you supported the release of these people. I can't imagine you would be against this bill. You want Secretary Gnome to release this information. I don't know how you're against. Gentleman has reclaimed his time. So, so going back to the issue on the budget reconciliation, I assume that um it's going to be business as usual where we have Republicans get out and make strong statements and then at the last minute cave. So, I hope I'm proven wrong on that on this bill that we're talking about right now.
▶ 2:21:15Again, the thing I can't quite understand is that you you you have I'm sure you have a good relationship with uh this Secretary Gnome. You could pick up the phone and say, "Hey, do this." And I guess and and if if you haven't had that conversation, uh maybe you have and if you have the my my question would be why why isn't she doing it? M I'm I'm so excited to have your vote for this.
▶ 2:21:40No, I I think this I think there's lots I think I think even Secretary Gnome, who I have strong disagreements with and this administration know that it is dangerous um and could and could actually damage the safety and well-being of of people in this country and of other investigations if this stuff were um uh we're doing. So, to be clear, I oppose your bill, but I'm just wondering why we're wasting our time bringing a bill to the floor that the administration could do on its own. Mr. Korea, do you have anything you want to add?
▶ 2:22:10I thank you, sir. I would support this legislation. It was essentially just numbers in the aggregate are reported to the public, but when it comes to specifics, I would go to the Department of Homeland Security and go with the recommendation. Those are the guys that are playing defense for us, and they've done a pretty good job of stopping terrorist attacks in our country for a number of years. I'm not going to second guess them and start uh voting for legislation.
▶ 2:22:37They would say break it down by specifics as to what's going on. And that's the argument. Did DHS come up and testify on this bill in your No, they did not. Was there a hearing on this bill? There was a hearing. And DHS wasn't asked to come and testify. They weren't there. And is there a reason why DHS wasn't there?
▶ 2:23:00I I I I'm just I mean yeah I mean I'm going tell you sir they're the experts and I'd like to have them you know really legislation M green is there a reason why DHS wasn't invited to testify or do we have a do we have a an opinion from them on this is is there there's no specifics um information no names addresses uh nothing specific identifying about the special interest alien coming into the Secretary Gnome
▶ 2:23:30has come to our committee and appeared before our committee. Has she formally endorsed this? Secretary Gnome has no problem releasing this information. Democrats are the only ones defending. Democrats are the only ones trying to protect special interest aliens. She has no problem doing it. She can do it. Mr. McGovern, you're the only You're protecting and and Mr. Gray are protecting special interest aliens. She can do it. She has the power to do it. Then I'm thrilled to have your vote for my bill. I I'm not I I I I think this is a bad bill, but she can do what you want her to do. She's not doing it.
▶ 2:24:00There has to be a reason. And I'm and I'm looking in the materials here and I don't see any formal endorsement from the secretary. Mr. Korea, anything you want to add? Last year, DHS actually expressed concerns with this legislation and and and to the author of this legislation. Um all of us, I think, are working hard to make sure the homeland is not attacked.
▶ 2:24:20But I'm just saying that a lot of the stuff that is required in this legislation, geographic location of the encounter, where these encounters were made, interior, exterior, a lot of this stuff I I think is not necessary because it does compromise national security. But don't ask me, ask DHS. They're the ones that can publish and clearly they've chosen not to.
▶ 2:24:42So, let let me to close, let me just say that uh Miss Green was very clear in her tweet that she would have voted no on reconciliation if she knew what was in it. But now that she knows what's in it, she's relying on hope that the Senate will do the right thing when quite frankly, we we actually could have fixed it right here in the rules committee. Um and tweets and statements are great, but the only thing that matters around here are votes and everything else is BS. if you want to vote the oppos the opposite of what you say.
▶ 2:25:13I mean, that's that's that's why people are very very cynical around here. Um and uh but you but you had an opportunity when we had that revote to actually get this committee in this house to strip that provision from the bill. Um and you chose to vote uh basically against what you said.
▶ 2:25:29Uh, and again, I I think this bill that we're dealing with right now, um, I the problems with this bill, don't take my word for it, but Department of Homeland Security, headed by Christy Gnome, who could do this, you know, uh, without all of this, is not doing it. Uh, it has to beg the question, there's something more to this. Um, and, um, in any event, I thank you both for being here. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. As we all know, laws often last longer than any one administration.
▶ 2:25:59And if we were discussing AI today, I'd go into the good reasons, and I look forward to a conversation, the good reasons why we want to force a national consistent policy on AI as opposed to having 50 or 51 different versions. I now recognize Mr. Scott for his time of question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh, Congresswoman Green, I want you to know I was at the border the 15th, 16th, and 17th, and Department of Homeland Security has this information.
▶ 2:26:28They told me exactly how many countries they had intercepted people from and exactly how many people were parrolled into the country. And I'll I'll go back to what uh the chair just said, laws transition And the one thing the Biden administration would have never done is to publish the information about how many people were being allowed into this from from other places where we know they are harboring terrorists.
▶ 2:26:59And so, you know, the Democrats the Democrats want people to believe that all of the immigration is from the Western Hemisphere. That's just not true. It's coming from a lot of places. Places like Iran, places like Afghanistan, places like Pakistan, there are a lot of people that are spending a lot of money.
▶ 2:27:22Now, now you have to spend a lot of money to fly across the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean to get to the Western Hemisphere. So, they're transiting the oceans and then and then they're making their way up and the ones we catch they were parrolling or allowing to go free into our country. I think I I hope that the secretary will publish it if this law passes or not.
▶ 2:27:48And I hope the law passes because I hope who whoever the next secretary is will have to publish it. I think we should keep a running total from every country of how many people are illegally released uh into our country. And I'll tell you this, uh, if the general public knew how many people and from what countries they had been released into this country from, Donald Trump would have probably gotten more votes than he got in the last presidential election.
▶ 2:28:14So, I commend you for your your uh your legislation. I intend to vote for it. And uh you know I I do hope that the secretary will go ahead and publish this whether this law passes or not because the American citizens need to know uh who has been um released into this country or at least where they came With that I yield. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Miss Scandlin for time of questioning. Thank you.
▶ 2:28:42Um I haven't heard anyone say that they don't support an effort to have more transparency from homeland security. I'm reading it here in the minority views, the majority views. So, there seems to be agreement about the general concept, but it's the mechanism that we're talking about here today that's probably not ready for prime time. Um, and I think that's that's the concern I'm hearing from from every direction. Mr. Koreah, is there a statement of administrative policy here?
▶ 2:29:12Has the administration say said whether it supports or doesn't support? Again, thank you, Miss Scan, for that question. Last year DHS did express concerns with this legislation last year. Okay. And this year apparently have not come forward in support or in opposition. They may be busy otherwise. Yes.
▶ 2:29:31Um so so that remains the concern I think for for certainly on our side of the dis while it may be well-intentioned that this might undermine national security by tipping off the bad guys. I think as it was I've gone to the targeting center of the Department of Homeland Security just right outside of Washington DC. There's a lot of information they have and a lot of SIA's other suspected terrorists.
▶ 2:29:59A lot of information they've asked me specifically not to disclose. So I would put a lot of this information in that category. They won't disclose this information because they don't deem it or I should say they deem it damaging to national security. Well, that certainly seems like something that should be resolved. Maybe it explains why this isn't something that's going, you know, under suspension. I'd like to see DHS ask for this legislation specifically and how they want this legislation written. Okay.
▶ 2:30:29And I think there uh we could have some guidance as to what specifically is needed and what is okay to share with not only with the American public but with our enemies as well. Okay, that that makes sense to me. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize Mr. Norman for his time of Uh thank you for putting putting this forward. Thank both of you for showing up. I intend to support the legislation. I yield back.
▶ 2:31:00Gentleman yields back now. Recognize Miss Leger Fernandez for Thank you. Time of questioning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I uh found the uh earlier questioning quite interesting because what it comes down to is courage. It comes down to courage. You know, a tweet is a tweet, but what we do here in this house is vote. And so, if you are going to say, "I'm against something," then show it with your vote. But I want to get to this legislation.
▶ 2:31:28And what I'm hearing is we don't have a problem. And we in fact it would be very useful. Democrats don't have a problem. I love it when they say Democrats said, "No, we do not. We do not have a problem identifying where the special interest, the SIA's come from. It's just why would you give away sensitive information about where we are apprehending them?" I think that's basically it. It's it's a simple it's a simple thing.
▶ 2:31:57I haven't asked you a question madam. No sensitive information is provided uh through the bill. L Korea I think that that represent Korea. I think that that's basically the point about this. Right. And right now it's my understanding that DHS does publish the number of people by country every month. So they're already publishing the information that I would consider or they would consider If they wanted to publish additional information, they could, but they don't. Yeah.
▶ 2:32:26Uh and for us to mandate that, I think is uh we should do it if they ask us to do it, but not on our own. So, Representative Scott's uh point about needing to uh know where people are coming from, that you you just explained that already happens. That's correct. It is published already. Okay, great. Now, I did want to ask one last question, Representative Ka.
▶ 2:32:51Should the United States be worried about increased terrorist activity against our country as a result of President Trump uh joining in the uh Israel Iran war effort? I mean these are things that we should be concerned about because there are lasting effects uh from that. Uh from your position what are your thoughts on that? I think so.
▶ 2:33:21But I think we should always be concerned about uh foreign attacks, foreign terrorist attacks in our country. Uh remember 911, there was challenges around the world, but that essentially came out of nowhere. Uh failure of our national intelligence agencies. In my area in California though, uh it's domestic terrorists that have claimed more lives than than foreign terrorists.
▶ 2:33:46So in my opinion, you just have to look at this issue from a 360 degree perspective, which is you're always looking for that attack that you're not looking for, the unexpected attack. So, uh that's why I I respect the what DHS does. I tend to work with them and tend to follow their advice and counsel when it comes to legislation. Right.
▶ 2:34:10And that's also why we would want to make sure that people who are being given responsibility in these roles have experience and are not 22year-old interns I would assume. Uh thank you very much uh representative uh and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize Mr. Jack and we do have one more panel after this. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, I just want to enter into the record a statement of administration policy was just released.
▶ 2:34:36Uh, and for my colleagues on the committee, it says if HR275 were presented to the president in his current form, his advisers would recommend that he sign it into law. So, that is a direct endorsement uh from this administration of this critical legislation. And I just want to give chair uh chairwoman Green uh who who leads the committee on which I serve an opportunity to offer any closing comments before we wrap. Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Jack. Um, just to reiterate, there's no sensitive information provided according to this legislation.
▶ 2:35:06No one's name, no one's address, no one's phone number, no one's picture. So, for our Democrat colleagues that are saying this would release sensitive information, that's an absolute lie. It would only um have DHS release on their website once a month uh what country of origin the special interest alien was from and what part of the country they came in. That does not uh damage any law enforcement efforts, investigations.
▶ 2:35:36It just tells the American people what special interest aliens are coming in or or what country they are coming from and where they came in the country and how many of them came in per month. And um to Mr. Scott's point, this would force all administrations going forward to have to provide this information as well as it would go back four years because Democrats were not transparent under the Biden Harris administration. Not at all. and they're fighting releasing this information.
▶ 2:36:06Now, um it's it's it's extremely important. There's over 2 million gotaways in our country. On top of the under Biden Harris administration, there were at least 1.7 million special interest aliens from 26 countries encountered at our border. 1.7 million. That is a tremendous amount.
▶ 2:36:25All this legislation would do would force um DHS once a month to post the information for the American people who pay all of our salaries, pay for this building, pay for DHS, and pay the great men and women that protect us in the in Border Patrol. And I I thank you, Mr. Jack, and I yield back. And I'll just say, Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:36:48Chairman Pur, I yield, in the words of the Executive Office of the President, passing the bill is an important step in effectively evaluating the threats to our country and equipping Congress and the federal agencies with the right information to decisively act to protect the American people. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. They already have the power to do that. Gentlemen, Gentleman yields back and appreciate his clarification from the administration that he was able to obtain. With that, we thank you both for being here and appreciate you being in front of the rules committee today. We do have another panel and we're going to try to get it in before we do votes.
▶ 2:37:16For members of the committee, it is my understanding that the chairwoman does not plan to call on votes on the rule until after the voting sequence on the floor, just so everybody knows. So, we'll be coming back. Um, yes, but that's the next panel, right? That would be the next panel. Just stay just sit just stay seated. But we got to get we'll get Well, I got him third, but but we'll get you in. All right.
▶ 2:37:48So, I appreciate it. We'll get the next panel up here. Thank you, Congresswoman. We have um Representatives Moland, Mass, and Korea. Am I saying that right? I see you in the gym all the time. Okay, you'll accept it. I apologize. There you go. Well, I know how that is when we get Mr. Mast up here as well. I'm Griffith.
▶ 2:38:15Griffin, Griffith, Griffiths, you know, I get them all. All kinds of different pronunciations. I do have a This is an amendment panel. We're going to try to do it as quickly as we can so that we can get down to votes. And I have Mr. Mouan of Guam up Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member and distinguished members of the committee.
▶ 2:38:44Thanks for the opportunity to testify in support of my two amendments that uphold our enduring commitment to our veterans, both those overseas and in the homeland. The first amendment number 37 would extend authorization for the Department of Veterans Affairs regional office in the Republic of the Philippines through September 30th, This is the only VA regional office located outside the United States and supports over 20,000 American veterans.
▶ 2:39:13Under current law, this authority is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. For the past 5 years, Congress has renewed the authorization on an annual basis, creating uncertainty for veterans, VA personnel, and long-term planning. This amendment offers a responsible one-year extension to allow the VA to develop a plan for transition transitioning to the regional office from the Philippines to a permanent location on Guam.
▶ 2:39:42Our island is home to one of the highest per capita veteran population in the United States and serves as a vital hub for veterans across the Pacific. Despite this, Guam still lacks a fullervice regional office. As a result, veterans must rely on remote support or travel over 3,800 miles to Honolulu for in-person assistance, an unacceptable burden that contributes to delays, limits access, and erodess trust in the system.
▶ 2:40:11Establishing a permanent VA presence on Guam is more than an issue of fairness. It's a strategic imperative. With the Department of Defense expanding its footprint in Indoaccom and thousands of active duty service members and their families now stationed on Guam, ensuring adequate VA infrastructure is vital to both readiness and retention.
▶ 2:40:32This is why my second amendment number 41 urges VA secretary to begin laying the groundwork for relocating the regional office from Manila and establishing a permanent VA presence on Guam. Our island serves as a key support hub for veterans throughout Asia and the Pacific Islands. and is well positioned to take on this expanded role. Together, these amendments will help ensure Guam has the resources needed to sustain and enhance this critical service.
▶ 2:40:59A regional office on Guam would improve the accuracy and timeless timelessness timeness of benefits claims, enhance trust and satisfaction among veterans and their families, and reaffirm our commitment to support all veterans regardless of where they live. For far too long, veterans in Guam and the Pacific have been an afterthought in our VA planning. These two amendments are modest but necessary steps to correct that oversight and ensure no veteran is left behind.
▶ 2:41:30Respectfully ask the committee for their support and look forward to answering any questions. Thank the gentleman. Now recognize Mr. Mass on his amendment. Well, today I want to talk to you about an amendment that we have passed before in appropriations mass number 84. Uh the specific nature of this is to make sure that funds are not made available uh to enforce veterans health directive 1315.
▶ 2:41:56What that health directive essentially says is that you can't uh that you can't go out there as a veterans health provider and help a veteran with any information as it relates to cannabis if their states have legal cannabis programs. You can't help them with the paperwork. You can't help advise them on dosages. You can't help them advise uh advise them on things that they may be considering as a part of their health. Now, I'm not a doctor. I wouldn't presume to tell people when they should uh consider cannabis for medical purposes. Uh I am a veteran.
▶ 2:42:25I open I woke up in a hospital called Walter Reed one day and I can tell you that when I woke up in that hospital missing two legs and a finger, I woke up on a laundry list of narcotics and medications, things I had never been on in my life. Uh, I had oxies, morphines, anti-depressants, anti-inflammatories, heavy sleep sedatives, uh, a delotted drip, an epidural, and a host of other things going on. None of which I'd ever experienced before.
▶ 2:42:49Uh, when I was became awake and cognizant, I I immediately started to wean myself off of all of those things. And within about 6 months, I was off of those narcotics and drugs. What I can tell you about that is even though I was able to get myself off of those in about six months, when I went from the lowest amount to nothing, the lowest amount of the last narcotic, which was oral morphine to nothing for probably two months, I went through the gambit of withdrawal symptoms from my food and everything going through me to being up at all hours of
▶ 2:43:19the night to probably being the most irritable person beyond what I am right now. And uh it was it was nasty. It was painful. Uh I couldn't imagine uh the effect that these narcotics have on some people that have been on them for years. Uh but the point of this is to say there are alternatives out there.
▶ 2:43:34I wouldn't say when those alternatives are appropriate, but I know that it is appropriate if somebody is getting all of their medical health from the Department of Veterans Affairs that they be able to have that discussion about what they may be considering for their health with that person that is providing their health care. If they can't trust that they can have at least that discussion with that perverse person providing their health care, uh then the VA is failing them because one way or another they're going to look into a path that they're considering.
▶ 2:44:01It would be much better if they look into that path under the directive of their doctor. Uh and so that's what my amendment is about. Number 84, just making sure that those doctors have the ability uh to not be prohibited from speaking to those veterans about something that they may be otherwise considering for legal programs in their state. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to answering any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Mr. Chairman. My amendment uh introduced by myself and uh Rep.
▶ 2:44:28uh Bergman would essentially directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate and make recommendations on changes that will be needed to be made to existing healthc care infrastructure so veterans can receive psychedelic assisted therapies upon FDA approval. December of 2024, the VA announced 1.5 million in funding for clinical research of MDMA assisted therapy.
▶ 2:44:56We're all encouraged by the promising results we've seen so far uh for treating veterans experiencing PTSD with psychedelics. Number of our colleagues here in Congress have received that treatment with excellent results. Um these are not traditional therapies. Several ways are different. long hours sessions, long sessions, multiple therapists, additional safety concerns, and special training needs to be considered for those providing this therapy.
▶ 2:45:27While MDMA assisted therapy did not receive FDA approval late last year, um everything points to the fact that we are moving in that direction. and VA Secretary uh Doug Collins just took a tour one of the centers to review what is actually going on, what actually happens at these centers of psychedelic therapy. We're moving in the right direction. Just want to make sure that the VA is ready to administer this therapy when it is approved. Mr.
▶ 2:45:58I thank the gentleman. Thank all three of you for your testimony. Do we have any questions? Miss Scandlin? No questions. Miss Ledger Fernandez. I would agree with the the gentle lady that we appreciate your testimony very much. Very enlightening on some some issues that are not standard in many cases, but ones that we need to be aware of. So, I appreciate that.
▶ 2:46:28And u with that, is there anyone else seeking to testify on HR 3944, HR875, HR revs 516, or HR275? I have a UC request. A UC request. Please state.
▶ 2:46:42Uh, I request unanimous consent to insert into the record testimony from Representative Bishop in support of amendment number eight, which would direct the GAO to conduct a report on the firing of veteran suicide hotline employees and the impact of those firings on veterans seeking help during the period of decreased staffing from January to June 2025 and the impact of all that on the veterans crisis line. Without objection. Thank you. So ordered. Anything else?
▶ 2:47:13All right. Without objection, committee stands in recess until five minutes after the last vote on the floor. We are in recess. Uh and this clo I'm sorry, I left out one of the the magic lines. Seeing no additional testimony, this closes this the hearing portion of our meeting and without objection will stand in recess until 5 minutes after all votes.
▶ 3:18:20The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the committee grant HR 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2026 structured rule. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designates.
▶ 3:18:46The rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rule committee print 119-5 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended for failure to comply with clause two of rule 21. The rule makes an order only those amendments printed in the rules committee report. Amendments in block described in section three and proform amendments described in section four. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report.
▶ 3:19:15May be offered only by a member designated in the report. Shall be considered as read. Shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divide and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule. And shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waves all points of order against the amendments printed in the rules committee report or amendment in block described in section three of the rule.
▶ 3:19:39The rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designate may offer amendments in block consisting of amendments printed in the rules committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments in block shall be considered as read shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations of their respective design. shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
▶ 3:20:06The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective design may offer up to 10 pro-form amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides for one motion to recommend. The rule further provides for consideration of HR275 the special interest alien reporting act of 2025 under closed rule. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 3:20:29The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of substitute recommended by the committee on homeland security now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill is amended shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions and the bill is amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on homeland security or their respective design. The rule provides for one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR875.
▶ 3:20:55The Jeremy and Angel say and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza protect our communities from DUI's act of 2025 under a closed rule. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment nature of substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill is amended.
▶ 3:21:18The rule provides one hour of general debate equally dividing control by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective design. The rule provides for one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HRES 516 condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California under closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider HRES 516.
▶ 3:21:46The rule provides that the resolution shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary of their respective design. You've heard the you've heard the motion from Mr. Scott. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? Madam Chair, Mr. McGovern is recognized. Just a brief comment. Um, so reading the rule that Mr.
▶ 3:22:15Scott just read and as I read it, we have three closed rules. Um, one structured rule. Um, only 32 of amendments were made in order out of 92 submitted. And out of those 32, only five are Democrats. Um, 26 are Republicans. So, um, I just want the record to reflect that. Um, because, um, I think we could do better. But in any event, um, but I have a couple of amendments to the, uh, rule. I believe there's some also some bipartisan amendment.
▶ 3:22:45I think I see one bipartisan amendment. Yeah, one bipartisan amendment. Um again, I think we could do better than that. But in any event, um I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number 27 offered by Representative Levan uh which prohibits funds under this act from being used in contravention of the empowerment control act or the anti-deficiency u act.
▶ 3:23:10Uh, this Republican bill does nothing to stop President Trump Trump's End Doe's illegal abuse of power. Uh, Trump wants to cut the VA workforce by over 83,000 by this September and has already illegally fired dozens of workers that help man the VA suicide crisis hotlines. He canled a program that helps veterans avoid foreclosure and stole $200 million from the military construction projects to help fund his border wall.
▶ 3:23:36And why do my Republican colleagues continue to show up for work if you allow Trump, the Trump administration, to blatantly abuse the laws that we pass? Uh what's the point of passing this bill if the administration is just going to ignore it? So, I urge a yes vote on my amendment so that all of my colleagues can go on record and make clear to this administration that we expect them to follow the law. We expect them to actually respect the United States House of Representatives and the United States Congress. What a novel principle. I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 3:24:07Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Any further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion, chair, the nose have it. The amendments for a roll call. Madam chair, the chairman, excuse me. Mr. McGovern request a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Roy, no. Mrs.
▶ 3:24:37Hin Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, I Mr. McGovern, I Miss Scan, I scallan, I Mr. Negus, Mr. Negus, I. Miser Fernandez, I led Fernandez, I Madam Chair, no. Madam Chair, no. Clerk will report the total 4. 78. Then no have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there any other amendment or discussion? Mr. McGoverford. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 3:25:06I move the committee make an order amendment number 63 offered by Representative Torres, which prohibits the use of federal funds to deport non-citizen US military veterans unless they have had access to legal counsel and a fair hearing before an immigration judge. It also requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress within 180 days on the number of such veterans in removal proceedings, their case outcomes, and whether they had legal representation.
▶ 3:25:32And Madam Chair, how is it controversial to say that a non-citizen veteran, someone who fought for America and risked their life to defend us, should at least receive due process, access to a lawyer, and a fair trial before being deported. Several Republicans voted along with Democrats and committee to ensure that our veterans receive basic due process. I hope Republicans on the rules committee can similarly vote to protect the rights of veterans. I urge a yes vote on my amendment and I yield back.
▶ 3:26:02Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question, I would just like to uh uh express my support for this amendment and especially because it has been bipartisan to allow the House to vote on this to recognize the service that has been provided uh by uh these noncitizen members of our military. They're willing to give their life for our country. We should at least give them due process. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 3:26:33Thank you, Miss Leger Fernandez. Any further discussion? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no. No. No. In the opinion, chair, the nos have it. The amendments for a roll call. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, yes. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, no. Mroy. No. Mrs. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. No.
▶ 3:27:03Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. I. Mr. McGovern. I. Miss. Scallan. Hi. M. Gallon. I. Mr. Noose. Mr. Noose. I. Miss. Ledger. Fernandez. I led Fernandez. I Madam Chair. No. Madam Chair. No. The clerk will report the total. Four. Yay. Seven. The NOS have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments or discussion? Ledger Fernandez.
▶ 3:27:27I move the committee make I move the committee make an order amendment number 17 to HR 3944 offered by Representative Franle which strikes section 255 which prohibits federal funding for abortion. It's an outrage that Republicans think it's okay for a woman to serve this nation and fight for our freedoms but then restrict her freedom to reproductive health in return.
▶ 3:27:53The Milcon VA bill is supposed to provide veterans with the dignity and care they deserve through the VA health system, whatever zip code they reside in. The VA should provide equal access to healthcare for veterans. This bill denies our women veterans, and we must recognize that women are increasingly stepping up and offering to serve our country. We can't just thank our veterans for their service. We need to provide them the care they deserve and that they have earned.
▶ 3:28:23With that, Madam Chair, I yield back and urge a yes vote on my amendment. Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Miss Leer Fernandez? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no. No. No. In the opinion, chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Record a vote. Uh the Miss Ledger Fernandez requests a rec roll call the the clerk will call the role.
▶ 3:28:54Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, Norman, no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, hi. Mr. McGovern, I miss Gallen. I scallan. I Mr. Negus. Hi. Mr. Negus, I Miss Leger Fernandez. Hi, Miss Leger Fernandez. I madam chair no madam chair no misschin is not Mrs.
▶ 3:29:22Hchin is not Mrs. How? No. The clerk will report the total. Four yays. Eight nays. And the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. The further discussion or amendments. Hearing no further discussion. The question is on the motion from the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 3:29:52No. In the opinion chair, the eyes have it. The motion is agreed to for roll call. Mr. McGovern request a roll call. The clerk will report will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach. Yes. Mrs. Fishbach. I Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. I Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy. I Mrs. Howin. Mrs. Hchin. I Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. I Mr. Mr. Griffith. I Mr. Jack. I Mr. Jack. I Mr.
▶ 3:30:22McGovern. No. Mr. McGovern. No. No. Miss Gallen, no. Miss Gallon, no. Mr. Negus, no. Mr. Negus, no. Miss Ledger Fernandez, Miss Ledger Fernandez, no. Madam Chair, I. Madam Chair, I The clerk will report the total. Eight yays, four nays. Um the um the eyes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, will be managing this rule for the majority.
▶ 3:30:54and Mr. McGovern for the minority. Hearing no further discussion, the meeting is adjourned.