▶ 0:29:32Committee will come to order. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California. Lead us in the pledge of I aliance to the flag of the United States of America. to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
▶ 0:29:57Thank the gentleman. Chair is authorized to declare recess at any time pursuant to committee rule 2, House rule 11, clause 2. The chairman may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. Um, soon to notice I call up HR6260, Keeping Violent Offenders Off Streets Act for purposes of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill
▶ 0:30:27Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, for an opening
▶ 0:30:35Thank you, Chairman. Charitable bail funds generally flew under the radar until 2020 when the George Floyd riots caused revenues to balloon thanks to solicitations from celebrities and politicians, including then Senator Kla Harris. What used to be small community-based organizations that help post bail for non-violent misdemeanors has now grown into a multi-million dollar industry.
▶ 0:31:00For example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund saw revenues increase by 18,000% between 2019 and 2020. Similarly, the Bale Project saw its contributions triple in the 2020 to nearly 42 million. These funds are nearly indistinguishable from crowdsourcing websites. There is no relationship to the defendant. The donations come with little to no scrutiny, and there's no guarantee that the money would have to be paid back.
▶ 0:31:28Perhaps more alarming, uh, what was intended to help bail out low-level non-violent protesters, has instead been used to release violent felony offenders back into the streets with little to no oversight. In 2021, for example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which then Senator Harris actively promoted, released a domestic abuser back onto the street. Two weeks later, the man, George Howard, was charged with seconddegree murder for a road rage incident.
▶ 0:31:56Michael Dwit of Louisville, Kentucky, was bailed out by a bail project in February 2021 after being arrested on multiple charges. Two months later, he was arrested for murder. Shawn Michael Tilman, three weeks after having his bail, paid by the Minnesota Freedom Fund, murdered a man at a light rail station in St. Paul and is now serving a life sentence for that crime. Mr. Chairman, the list goes on and on.
▶ 0:32:21According to an investigation conducted by CNN in Hennipin County, Minnesota, the Minnesota Freedom Fund has bailed out at least 65 defendants who are awaiting trial on felony charges involving violence, physical threats, and sex crimes.
▶ 0:32:36Similarly, in Indiana, of the roughly 1,000 defendants released on bail supplied by the bail project between 2019 and 2021, 24% had previously been charged with a crime of violence, and 35% were accused of felony charges and had a previous charge of at least one crime of violence. And because these funds are crowdsourced, there's no incentive for the defendants to show up for their court date. And guess what?
▶ 0:33:04Many of them Again, according to that CN CNN report, nearly 42% of the roughly 500 defendants bailed out of the Minnesota Freedom Fund later failed to appear at one or more court hearings between 2021 and 22. This is the absolute real problem with these funds. Commercial bail companies, by comparison, had a failure to appear rate of only 22% during the same period.
▶ 0:33:33This is why many states have begun regulating the use of charitable bail funds. Georgia, for example, limits the amount of cash bonds a charitable bail fund can pay in a given year. And Indiana prohibits the use of charitable funds from posting bail for violent felony offenders. Unfortunately, state-by-state patchwork will not solve this problem. Uh that's why I introduced the Keeping Violent Offenders Off the Streets Act.
▶ 0:34:00The bill makes a small but important It's very small but important change to our criminal code to define bail bonds as an insurance product, thereby subjecting them to the same federal background check and regulatory requirements as those of for-profit bail agencies. This all falls under the federal comprehensive crime control act of 1994.
▶ 0:34:24This change would also bring charitable bail funds under state insurance regulation, giving states the ability to better scrutinize the use of these funds. Let's be clear, this bill does not outlaw the use of charitable bail funds. Let me say that again. It does not outlaw the use of them, nor does it regulate the posting of cash bail by family and friends of the accused.
▶ 0:34:52This bill merely says that if you are operating as a non-forprofit with the purpose of posting cash bail, you should be subjected to the same regulation and oversight requirements as those operating as for-profit entities.
▶ 0:35:06This will bring needed oversight to organizations that for years have gone unregulated while ensuring accountability of these funds by subjecting them to federal insurance fraud statutes if they misappropriate funds or misrepresent the use of these funds and any financial reports. I would hope that any discussion or debate or amendments that could be offered would be focused on what the real purpose of this bill is and not ancillary arguments about uh posting cash bail.
▶ 0:35:37So I would urge a yes vote on the bill and I yield
▶ 0:35:41The chair now recognizes the ranking member Miss Balant for an opening
▶ 0:35:47Thank you, Mr. Chair. The majority has us here uh talking about bail and justice. And of course, this bill raises the key question, what what is it that makes our communities safer?
▶ 0:36:06And in light of the events yesterday, uh we cannot talk about safe streets, safe communities without addressing what happened yesterday in Minnesota. Now, we have covered many of the issues that brought up in this bill before. We have plowed this ground before, and I will address the parts of the bill in a moment.
▶ 0:36:36But this administration has now spent a full year terrorizing communities and making our streets unsafe for everyone.
▶ 0:36:53And from where I sit and I know I speak for my colleagues on this side of the we knew it was only a matter of time before we had a tragedy like this because all the signs were there. We have tried to sound the alarm that I has been detaining Americans.
▶ 0:37:22ICE has been violating rights and has been using violence without seemingly any accountability. And so many of us sit here this morning enraged but also heartsick about what has happened not just to this woman
▶ 0:37:52in that car in Minnesota who was gunned down in front of her partner. But we are deeply shocked and dismayed that this administration is in fullon propaganda mode and it's dangerous for all of us regardless of party.
▶ 0:38:19We've seen the videos from many different angles and we have a government right now that is telling us not to believe our own and we're not stupid and Americans aren't stupid and thank goodness there were people there documenting what happened and we can all watch the tapes and understand
▶ 0:38:50what happened. An American citizen was mercilessly gunned down and we have a president and we have a secretary of homeland security that is now lying about it. And Miss Good would have loved to have had the opportunity to obtain bail.
▶ 0:39:19If she was in violation of state or federal law, she would have loved to have had the opportunity to take advantage of bail and have her case heard in court. And yet the ICE agent in that moment was judge, jury, and executioner.
▶ 0:39:39And it's a tragedy and it's a national And it's difficult to sit here and hear my colleague who is introducing this bill talk to us about the dangers of releasing violent criminals out on the street through when we are still dealing
▶ 0:40:09with the horror of the president pardoning the violent felons that attacked this building and that attacked law enforcement and several of them have reaffended.
▶ 0:40:28And so we sit here and we will once again be subjected to a conversation about bail and it is not at all rooted in fact about crime in this country. The data has shown and continues to show that violent crime is down. Property crimes are down.
▶ 0:40:58Homicides are down. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that the posting of bail by a state or local bail fund affects interstate commerce in any meaningful I expect my Republican colleagues today to spend the time citing purely anecdotal evidence.
▶ 0:41:29And of course, there are individual stories of people who have committed violent offenses after being bailed after being bailed out by nonprofit bail funds. And each is tragic, just like the of Ms. good was tragic.
▶ 0:41:49And what we need right now is a president and an attorney general and a secretary of homeland security being honest with the American people that this was a tragedy and that they are going to look into the circumstances by which an American citizen was gunned down.
▶ 0:42:13And there is no question, and again I for my colleagues, there is no question that we must address the root causes of violent crime. We have to invest in proven solutions such as community violence intervention and drug treatment and support law enforcement with funding and other resources. Something that has not happened under this administration.
▶ 0:42:40If the majority decides to get serious about public safety in America, we will welcome that opportunity. But this legislation is not a solution. And for us to be discussing this in light of what happened yesterday feels completely and totally inappropriate. This legislation is no solution at all.
▶ 0:43:07and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on HR 6260 and I yield back.
▶ 0:43:14Gentle lady yields back without objection. All of the opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 0:43:26Uh Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 0:43:29Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 0:43:30Amendment in the nature
▶ 0:43:31objection. The amendment in the nature of substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base tax for the purpose of amendment. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Wisconsin to explain the amendment.
▶ 0:43:39Yeah, this amendment simply adds the year to the short title of the bill. It's not intended uh to make any changes or alter the fundamental purpose of the bill. I urge its adoption. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks
▶ 0:43:51Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:43:53Gentle lady from Washington's
▶ 0:43:54Mr. Chairman, I uh uh move to strike the last word.
▶ 0:43:58Gentle is recognized.
▶ 0:44:00Mr. Chairman, what happened yesterday in Minneapolis should terrify every single one of us. An ICE agent fired three shots, killing a 37year-old ar unarmed US citizen, Renee Nicole Good, as she was driving away from ICE agents on a residential street in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her death leaves a six-year-old boy without any parents.
▶ 0:44:30And we on this committee should be immediately investigating this. We should bring Christy Gnome to us. We should have that conversation. But instead of conducting an investigation and doing the work to hold this rogue ICE agent accountable for killing a US citizen, Christy Gnome has gone on a fullfledged lying spree, spreading lies that any person who watches this video can
▶ 0:45:00see are lies. She even had to get the president of the United States to go on social media and continue the lies. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that there are videos. There are videos that everyone can watch that completely destroy these lies that Gnome and Trump are spreading. So, let's play one of those videos right now.
▶ 0:45:36NO. [screaming] NO. SHAME. SHAME. OH MY [ __ ] GOD. WHAT THE [ __ ] [screaming] WHAT THE [ __ ] You just [ __ ] What the [ __ ] did you do? Three videos taken at the scene show a maroon SUV perpendicular on a snowy street. As you can see, a silver SUV driving up the street stops.
▶ 0:46:03Two masked officers wearing badges that say police and body armor get out of the vehicle and walk toward the maroon car. After getting contradictory commands from the agents, where one tells her to get out of the car, and the other attempts to open her door, the driver of the maroon car backs up the vehicle and straightens the wheel as if to make a three-point turn. Then she starts to slowly accelerate along the street.
▶ 0:46:29A third officer who has been standing on the side of the road pulls out a gun as the car is turning away. He shoots three times. The maroon car does not hit anyone as it rolls up the street. It hits another vehicle and then a utility pole and the shooter walks away briskly, apparently uninjured despite the lies that President Trump and Christy Gnome have put forward.
▶ 0:47:00seen in slow motion, which we have been watching, the American people have been watching on television all last night. A video showed the wheels of the maroon vehicle were fully turned away from the shooting officer who made absolutely no effort to jump away, clearly suggesting that he did not feel as if he were in danger. His first shot went through the windshield, through the front of the windshield.
▶ 0:47:27The next two went through the driver's side window as the car moved past him. Video taken by another eyewitness shows ICE agents refusing to allow a self-identified physician to tend to the victim and telling him to back up.
▶ 0:47:47And when an ambulance did arrive, ICE agents did not allow the vehicle through, forcing emergency medical responders to walk away through the snow with their DHS and the White House immediately put out statements that were completely false. The president claimed the officer was recovering from his injuries in the hospital despite him having no injuries. and we saw him walking back and forth in front of the car.
▶ 0:48:17Secretary NMAly claimed without any evidence whatsoever that it was quote an act of domestic DHS and ICE immediately claimed the woman who was shot and killed by an ICE agent quote weaponized her vehicle and attempted to run over law enforcement when the video clearly shows she is trying to drive away. And according to reporting, ICE officers are trained to never approach a vehicle from the front as this officer did.
▶ 0:48:45Instead, they are taught to approach in a quote tactical L, 90° angle to prevent injury or Mr. Chairman, we need an independent investigation into what happened in Minneapolis. This is the not the this is not the first time this has happened. In only the last four months, immigration agents have fired on at least nine people. And ICE also shot and killed Sylio Viegas Gonzalez in Chicago and suddenly claimed he was violent.
▶ 0:49:15Congress needs to step up. This committee needs to step up and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to please make sure that we bring Secretary Gnome before us. Where is acting ICE director Todd Lions? Where is Attorney General Bondi? This committee is conducting no oversight and is derelct in its duty to the American
▶ 0:49:37The gentle lady is expired.
▶ 0:49:38Thank you. And I ask for unanimous consent. Mr. Chairman,
▶ 0:49:40you see request
▶ 0:49:42to put into the record an article titled ICE officers trained never to approach a vehicle from the front. DHS official
▶ 0:49:49from the New York Times. Deadly Minneapolis encounter is the ninth ICE shooting since September. Without
▶ 0:49:54I yield back.
▶ 0:49:55Chair gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to respond briefly to this that number one, I think it's unbelievably irresponsible to throw out words like murder uh to reach a conclusion before any further investigation is due. That's inflammatory. It's sensitive. Uh it's unbelievably irresponsible. And you know, my my colleague mentioned that there was a tragedy in Minnesota. And I think that we're missing the tragedy.
▶ 0:50:24We have seen a governor, an AG, a mayor, local officials top to bottom encouraging citizens to violently federal authorities who are seeking to remove people who are here illegally and people who are here illegally committing That's what's so outlandish to me. That's the tragedy here.
▶ 0:50:46You have elected officials who are leveraging their political capital to protect those who are here illegally. And of course, whenever anyone loses a life, it is a tragedy. But you cannot avoid the facts of this case. The officers approach the vehicle. They ask the the woman to stop. They ask her to get out of the car. She did not comply. She hit the gas pedal. All of those were avoidable.
▶ 0:51:13Had she obeyed the instructions of law enforcement, there would have been a very different outcome. So to all who watch, when law for when law enforcement approaches, especially if you're trying to obstruct their mission, obey. Don't hit the gas pedal. Get out of the car. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the the balance of my time, but again, let me just reiterate.
▶ 0:51:37throwing out inflammatory rhetoric before there has been any conclusion drawn is is unbelievably irresponsible and it adds to an already inflamed situation and I I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop it.
▶ 0:51:53Gentleman yields. Um we got a we got a line up but I'll I'll probably go to the ranking member and then I'll work right down the line.
▶ 0:52:00Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. And I intervene here only because I want to respond to my friend from North Carolina who I think starts with the um incontrovertal point that it's wrong to prejudge whether this was murder, then it is equally wrong to prejudge that it's self-defense.
▶ 0:52:22And I hope that uh that my colleague with his astute prosecutorial understanding would just as much reprove the attorney general and the president for going out and claiming this was self-defense without a complete investigation. Especially when all the evidence of our senses would suggest if we're going to jump to a conclusion, we should jump to a conclusion that this was murder and not self-defense. But that's why we have the law. That's why we have a legal process.
▶ 0:52:52Now, uh the gentleman correctly states uh the situation except he aborts the analysis midway. He says, "Well, she was told to stop. She was told not to go anywhere, but still she drove her car away." And I I certainly saw that. The Supreme Court has a decision just on this point which I'm sure the gentleman uh knows. It was decided in 1985.
▶ 0:53:21Everybody in criminal procedure learns it. Tennessee versus Garner 1985 because Tennessee had a statute which said if there is someone fleeing the police, they can be shot. And the Supreme Court said that's not the rule. They can only be shot if they're fleeing the police. If the police have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or danger to other people.
▶ 0:53:51Now, uh, Miss Good, who's a 37year-old mom of a six-year-old boy now orphaned by ICE, um, posed no threat to anybody. At least as far as we can tell, there's no suggestion that she posed a reasonable threat to anybody. That's the legal question. Now, I think our committee should launch an investigation into this.
▶ 0:54:14This would be a worthwhile uh subject for us to get into at this point, but the idea that simply because she disobeyed an order that she can be shot in the face at point blank is wrong. That's not the law in the United States of America. And you know who knows that?
▶ 0:54:33Everybody on this side of the aisle who talks about Ashley Babbot because everybody talking about Ashley Babbot seems to think that well she was told repeatedly to turn around and to leave and then she still tried to use violence to get into our chamber into the speaker's lobby in order to get at And she was shot and repelled.
▶ 0:54:56And there were two different investigations which found that that was reasonable force used by the police because she was coming at them. But what we had in this case was this woman was trying to leave. She was trying to get away from it. She wasn't coming at the police. She was trying to get away from the police.
▶ 0:55:14So to the extent that we want to engage in an immediate post postmortem analysis and I agree with the gentleman that this is why we have law, this is why we have a real legal investigation and it is completely irresponsible for the president and the attorney general to be out there claiming against all evidence that this was self-defense. Um [snorts] this is why we have law. Okay, then we should wait until we can make a final pronouncement upon that. But let's at least get down what the law is.
▶ 0:55:44This is the House Judiciary Committee and people um cannot be shot in the face simply because they walk away from a police officer. And especially when we've got police officers who are masked. And I just want to finish on this point and I'm happy to yield to my friend because look, uh all of us represent jurisdictions. We've got local police, we've got county police, we've got state police. None of them are masked. We've got the army. We've got the Navy. We've got the Marines. None of them are masked.
▶ 0:56:15We've got the National Guard. None of them are masked. Why is ICE masked? This is what we want to know. Nobody's given us a good answer for this. Now, one suggestion comes from the fact that we have multiple January 6 defendants who are working at the Department of Justice itself, including uh Ed Martin and Jared Weise. So, if they're hiring them at the Department of Justice, presumably they're hiring them at the Homeland Security and ICE.
▶ 0:56:40and maybe they don't want them to be identified because of course those people were very well videoocumented on the day of January 6. There's a lot a lot of suspicion that that's why these people are being masked and they're not even telling us why they're being masked. But it's precisely this episode which demonstrates why people are afraid of ICE and will try to move away from ICE rather than submit to their order even when people need to submit to a lawful order of the police.
▶ 0:57:09is happy to yield to the gentleman.
▶ 0:57:10Well, and just in in terms of the of the masks, I think it's it goes without saying that there is a uh an element of undue danger when you deal with international criminals. But in regards to the facts of this case, is it not relevant the angle from the the officer's perspective? The only the only angles I've seen have been from hindsight where the officer was who pulled the trigger, and I'll stipulate it was a tragedy. Is it relevant to see what he saw? He couldn't see that the wheels were turning if they were. He couldn't see what the uh where where the the trajectory was.
▶ 0:57:40He was right in front of the car that accelerated his direction. Is that not a relevant consideration to the ranking member?
▶ 0:57:47Of course, it's a relevant consideration. Yeah. I mean, in
▶ 0:57:50if it comes down to a legal question, all of that is completely relevant. But what the administration is saying cuts completely against what we're able to see with our own eyes. Thanks.
▶ 0:57:59Uh the time the gentleman's expired, the gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 0:58:05Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I find it interesting that uh the Democrats uh uh are calling for an investigation and yet at the same time labeling the shooting that took place in Minneapolis as a murder. It sounds to me like they've made up their mind. They called it a merciless mercilessly gunowned ICE using violence.
▶ 0:58:33Uh, the administration's in full-on propaganda mode, terrorizing, making our streets unsafe. You know what? There's not been one Democrat that I have heard since ICE has been enforcing the law, one Democrat at any level of government, local, county, state, federal, that has said to people, "We don't like what I doing, but you have to deescalate the attacks on ICE.
▶ 0:59:03We don't like what ISC is doing. Um I haven't heard a single Democrat urging Uh I don't have haven't heard one Democrat urging that ICE anti-ICE protesters step back, stand down, stop attacking, stop doxing, stop obstructing, stop inciting violence, stop inciting illegal conduct. I haven't heard one Democrat urge the public to obey orders of law enforcement.
▶ 0:59:28Would the gentleman yield? What I have heard is that Democrats have said, "Oh, they're wearing masks. They should be frightened of ICE. They're wearing You've concluded that the woman posed no But if the ICE agent believe and then you then you argued the Garner Tennessee but if the ICE agent believed there was a threat to himself or other agents, that doesn't save your argument because even the Tennessee and the Garner the Tennessee
▶ 0:59:59Garner case would justify the It would if the officer believed that he was in danger in im imminent harm.
▶ 1:00:09If the gentleman would yield, I can correct your misunderstanding. No, you you you've got I don't have enough time for that anyway.
▶ 1:00:14Understanding you're mis you're the one who's misunderstanding her.
▶ 1:00:17What I would suggest to you
▶ 1:00:20if this woman really wanted bail as as your predecessor speaking on the Democrat side had said, not your immediate predecessor, but a couple people before you, she could have chosen to stop her car. She could have obeyed a lawful order to remove herself from the vehicle. That's what she could have done.
▶ 1:00:45I don't know what was going on in her mind and I don't know yet what was going on in the the mind of the officer and neither do you. But when you come in here and sit down and say, "Let's investigate this murder," which is effectively what you're saying. What you're doing is undermining the very notion of an impartial investigation. and that does not enure to your benefit. I think the underlying reason that we're here is Mr.
▶ 1:01:15Fitz Fitzgerald's bill. Uh I think it's a good bill. I think it's warranted. I think it's necessary. I support that bill. But I would just I I just get back to this point. I I just find it interesting that the Democrats are demanding an investigation when they apparently have already the legal outcome. That's what Mr. Nebraskans are arguing. They've determined the factual outcome.
▶ 1:01:40That's what uh the what your predecessors were both arguing and at the same time claiming we need to have an investigation because uh we we we've [clears throat] already made up our mind, but we we wanted an investigation. That's crazy. And I again get back to my point. I have yet to hear Democrats say, "Calm down." What I hear instead is an incitement to further violence against an incitement. No, I won't. I'll give I'll give you another example.
▶ 1:02:10Out of out of Tucson, ICE goes into a restaurant. They go into a restaurant. They've got 19 warrants. Somebody been tipped off. The entire restaurant is is devoid of of personnel except for the manager. They go to leave because there's no one to serve their warrants on. But protesters have come and chained the locks on the door so they can't escape.
▶ 1:02:35They c the ICE officers can't exit and then they call and they get a big protest out there and by the time the city of police uh Tucson police department gets there, you've got a massive protest going on resulting in some pushing and shoving and altercation. No one stands up and says on the on your side of the aisle, no one stands up and says, "Let's stop that. Let's stop doxing these these ICE agents. Let's stand down.
▶ 1:03:06I'm not hearing that. That Mr. Chairman, I
▶ 1:03:09Gentlemen yields back. Um I think we'll go to Mr. Natler. And like I said, worked on the line.
▶ 1:03:14Thank you, [clears throat] Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in expressing my outrage over yesterday's horrific murder by an ICE agent in Minnesota that took the life of an innocent and defenseless young woman. The video clearly shows three shots through this side window. There is no threat to the officer when he's on the side. And to make it even worse, ICE agents then refused to allow a doctor to approach the victim.
▶ 1:03:45Now, my conclusion, as I said, is that this is murder. Others will disagree. This committee ought to investigate Unfortunately, this tragedy was the predictable result of a brutal and reckless campaign to strike fear in immigrant communities across the country. The same agency whose mass agents are arresting US citizens and tearing children away from their parents is using increasingly aggressive and violent tactics that can only lead to more tragedy.
▶ 1:04:15And this is being fueled by billions of dollars approved by this committee to fund not only these aggressive raids, but also to fund a military-style recruitment operation with lacks hiring standards and loosened training requirements.
▶ 1:04:31The horror of yesterday's shooting has been compounded by the outrageous lies told by the highest levels of the Trump administration in an attempt to convince the public that they didn't see what they saw to convince the public that the victim brought this upon herself in some way by threatening the agents when video of the incident clearly shows that is not the case.
▶ 1:04:54Just as the White House tried has tried to rewrite the history of January 6th with false and malicious malicious misinformation spread on its website, administration officials are now trying to tell us not to believe what we see with our own eyes. This is dangerous and offensive and this calls out for immediate oversight by this committee. We should be having hearings and demanding accountability for all those involved.
▶ 1:05:21We should be having hearings on the standards used by ICE in recruitment and training. We should demand the appearance of Secretary Noom before this committee. But instead, here we are today with yet another set of partisan messaging bills that will do nothing to keep our community safe. My heart goes out to the victim's family, to all those who knew and loved her. May her memory be a blessing. I yield back.
▶ 1:05:47Mr. Chairman, you see [clears throat] yields back. Gentleman from Arizona unanimous consent request.
▶ 1:05:52Yes. I'll uh introduce uh for unanimous consent the case of Tennessee versus Garner uh where in the first paragraph they conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or
▶ 1:06:13Without objection. U being in the record. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two issues here. One of them, since we're into you know, it is very possible and probable the officer believed there was a clear and present danger here.
▶ 1:06:33And whether somebody, you know, brings a gun or they are picking up a bat or they are wielding a knife or they are driving a car, a car can be used as a weapon. There's a real issue here. Nobody's saying that we shouldn't look at this or investigate it.
▶ 1:06:54We're saying it should be done in a fair and thoughtful way understanding the circumstances at the time which were violent circumstances where it would be probable that multiple officers would feel their life was at risk because somebody was not obeying the law. You know, ladies and gentlemen, the easiest thing here is when a police officer asks you to do something, you just calmly and legally do it. Is that such a bizarre notion?
▶ 1:07:24And then nothing happens. But if you purposely are what was asked of you and you're behind the wheel of a car, nobody can imagine what you may or may not do. Innesota believed that there was no danger, that there was no reason is ludicrous. It's Certainly, there was something there and an area of concern. The second thing I want to say, I've been on this committee a while now.
▶ 1:07:55Every single bill that comes up on the other side, they change it from what is the substance of that bill. I I feel bad for Mr. Fitzgerald. He did a lot of work on this bill. He believes in the bill. The bill deserves a thorough discussion, uh, a robust debate. But nope, if you know, if this issue hadn't happened in Washington, we would be talking about the cost of living.
▶ 1:08:19Or if we weren't talking about the cost of living, we'd be talking about Venezuela, or we'd be talking about the Trump Kennedy Center, or we'd be talking about January 6 because it is never ever about the bill. But yet, that's what we should be debating. Debate and dialogue, disagreement is good, but for God's sake, let's talk about the real issue. But no, it's the politics of the day. I love politics. I get politics.
▶ 1:08:49But sometimes you put that aside in a substant substantive and important committee like judiciary. Maybe just once in a while, just once in a blue moon, we might actually talk about the issue at hand. might talk about the bill that we're debating rather than bring whatever the issue is. And God help us. Again, if it's horrible this happened, but if this didn't happen, it would be something else. So, you know, my thought is, Mr. Fitzgerald, I support your bill.
▶ 1:09:17I would love to be able to debate it and discuss it. Uh, but I guess we're not going to do that. But it's not once or twice. It's every single meeting we have. Um, sorry to say, the other side does the same thing. and I yield to my good friend from Texas.
▶ 1:09:36Uh, thank you, sir. Very valid comments. Served in law enforcement for 30 years as a sheriff and I I I will just say this to all the the bad people out there, the people that are obstructing uh fighting with federal law enforcement. My warning to you is this. If you comply, you will not die. That's it. Just comply. If you comply, you will not die. I yield.
▶ 1:10:02I yield back.
▶ 1:10:04Gentleman yields back. Mr.
▶ 1:10:05Chairman, I have a UC request.
▶ 1:10:06Gentle is recognized for unanimous
▶ 1:10:08Uh, this is from CNN politics. DHS officials privately expressed shock at department's immediate response to Minneapolis shooting. Without
▶ 1:10:17objection. I'll be entered in the record. Mr. Cohen, if I could, Miss Mcbath had asked for recognition, very first one, and I started going down. So, I'll go to her and then I'll come to you, Steve. The gentle lady from Georgia is recognized.
▶ 1:10:26Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to just on this bill today [clears throat and cough] and my opposition to it, but um really I hope that the world is appalled at this administration's blatant and egregious culture of sadistic violence towards the American people. And today we're talking about keeping violent offenders off of our street.
▶ 1:10:53I hope that the world isn't looking at America thinking that our law enforcement and ICE agents themselves are not violent offenders. But I will do digress. I want to talk about the bill as our colleague from New Jersey has expressed. Let's talk about the bill.
▶ 1:11:10As Americans struggle to afford groceries, fill their gas tanks, save their family farms, or find jobs that pay a livable wage, this committee is focusing on weaponizing the federal government against bail funds and strengthening the for-profit bail bond industry.
▶ 1:11:30is yet an another example of misguided unnecessary federal meddling into policies that should be left to the states by the so-called party of states rights that does nothing to promote public safety.
▶ 1:11:45And while this bill is aimed at discouraging or even destroying bail funds, any organization that postmonetary bail, criminal bonds, or federal immigration bail bonds would be subject to the federal insurance fraud That's not just bail funds that would be subject to criminal liability.
▶ 1:12:04That's churches, faith groups, nonprofits, and any other community organizations that pull financial resources to protect people from a system that punishes poverty, destabilizes families, and oftent times coheres guilty p. Mr. Chairman, sometimes the most effective tools for justice are local, nimble, and born from the communities that they serve.
▶ 1:12:31HR6260 is aimed directly at those very tools, which often serve as a lifeline for thousands of lowincome Americans, leaving only a potential windfall for the for-profit commercial bail industry. Proponents of this bill have previously claimed that bail funds operate in the shadows and that their donations come with little to no scrutiny. That is simply untrue.
▶ 1:12:57For example, the bail project, a 501c3 organization, is subject to regular monitoring and oversight by the IRS. Adding additional nonsensical layers of bureaucracy will not make our community safer, but it will make it harder for organizations like the Bail Project to help people in need. And let's be real, most of them are people of low income, poor people.
▶ 1:13:23There are nearly half a million people across the country in pre-trial detention, meaning they're sitting in jail, who have not been convicted of a crime because they cannot afford to pay for their freedom. Without the help of organizations willing to help by providing free bail assistance, whether designated as a bail fund, church, or other nonprofit, people who cannot afford bail might languish in jail for weeks, months, or even years while they're waiting for trial.
▶ 1:13:52They can lose their jobs, their homes, their medical coverage, access to medical care or medication, or even custody of their children. I too want to keep violent offenders off the street. Everyone in this chamber wants to keep violent offenders off the street. But this bill will not do that. HR6220 will punish Americans before a conviction is even determined. A charge is not a conviction, meaning there is no determination of guilt.
▶ 1:14:20Yet this bill will keep charged Americans jobless. It will keep charged Americans homeless. It will keep charged Americans in poverty and it has the potential to leave the children of charge, not convicted Americans, parentless. I oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same and I yield the balance of my time.
▶ 1:14:42Gentle lady yields back. Uh the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Florida, Miss Lee.
▶ 1:14:47Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll begin by acknowledging and appreciating our colleague Miss McBth uh for discussing in some detail there the merits of the legislation and and the bill that we are considering. Uh the bill that we are actually debating today relates to the real world consequences of cash bail policies.
▶ 1:15:09And when done incorrectly, these policies put dangerous individuals back on the streets over and over again despite known risks and despite warnings from law enforcement and our courts. For too long, we have treated bail policy as if it is some kind of academic debate, and it is not.
▶ 1:15:30When individuals with violent histories are released without meaningful accountability, the risk is transferred to the men and women of our communities and the men and women of law enforcement who are then forced into high risk encounters and situations.
▶ 1:15:47And I want to be equally clear about one additional thing, and that is that ICE agents are federal law enforcement agents who are tasked with the enforcement of existing federal law passed by Congress. Disagreement about immigration policy does not justify harassment, obstruction, defiance of lawful authority. And we cannot normalize attacks on law enforcement or excuse them.
▶ 1:16:16When we do that, we erode the rule of law itself. I have seen the consequences when risk assessments are ignored or repeat offenders are put back on on the streets without accountability in our court system. Those consequences are real. The results are predictable and they are dangerous. If we are serious about preventing future tragedies and keeping our communities safe, we must stop pretending that law enforcement is the problem and start confronting policies that put dangerous people back on the streets.
▶ 1:16:46We are capable of making those assessments, distinguishing between people who should be out, who should be at liberty pending trial, and those who should not because they put their communities at risk. This is a good bill. I support this bill and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:17:04Gentle yields back. Thank you. Uh we now will go to Mr. Cohen.
▶ 1:17:07Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move to strike the last word.
▶ 1:17:10Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 1:17:11My friend, Mr. Van Drew, suggested that Democrats always talk about something other than the bill. Uh unfortunately, he was wrong when Miss McBth spoke before I did and started talking about the bill. The bill is the bill is somewhat like fiddling while Rome burns.
▶ 1:17:26I don't want to suggest we're the grand opery even though that's a wonderful institution but this is fiddling while Rome burns and what happened in Minneapolis strikes at the heart of this country strikes at freedom opportunity to participate in and in demonstrations I guess in a way with her car park there was a demonstration it was a a disapproval of what the government was doing that officer put his car in reverse I mean excuse me the lady put her car in reverse after an officer came up to her and tried to grab the door and
▶ 1:17:56pull it open and yelled the f- word at her and said, "Get back f out of the car." That was not the way to approach her. He approached her in a violent way and she certainly probably feared for her safety. She went in reverse slowly, then she went forward slowly and she turned her wheels and then the man shot her, shot her and shot And then when she ran into another car, he walked down there slowly, looked in, walked away like a marching the head of
▶ 1:18:26a marching band at a pretty good pace and walked away. This was all on video. Yet the president said that he was taken to the hospital and was seriously hurt when the car hit him. There's no evidence the car hit him and he walked like he was an Olympic runner when he came back. He didn't go to the hospital. what he did was horse manure. What happened to that woman was unjustified. And that's what I've said. I didn't say it was murder. That's for a jury to decide. It's homicide, but it was unjustified.
▶ 1:18:55And for Christine to have said it was domestic terrorism when she was not on the scene and didn't see anything and was co-playing. And when the president said it was terrorism and that the per in the officer had been hit with the car and was in the hospital, that was lying to the American public and that was taking that woman's death in without any idea of giving do just not right now. Thank you, sir. That that that that was taking away due process and her right to be heard.
▶ 1:19:22Um I taught police law. I was a police attorney and not only is it part of what Mr. Rask and raise Walter Bailey was my cohort on the county commission uh before when he took up the case of Garner v. Tennessee and we talked about that and police were taught never to shoot at a moving vehicle. That's what I taught him because that was the law and you couldn't shoot unless you were in fear of death, harm or great bodily injury to you or someone else.
▶ 1:19:52That officer was not in great bodily injury and harm. He put himself in front of the car and when she drove forward at a slow rate of speed, it might have been it was I don't know what it was very slow. He was on the side and the other officers had their guns drawn too. So what this committee list to look at, Mr. Chairman, is we need to look at what how these people are trained and what qualifications they have. I've asked at a committee meeting here about eight months ago for the chairman to ask Miss Gnome about the statement she made because I'd written her and said, "I agree.
▶ 1:20:21We need to get murderers, rapist, sex predators, the worst of the worst off the streets, but you don't seem to be doing that. That's not who you're arresting." And she hasn't responded. And when she did, it was Pablin. And I wrote her a second time and she gave me more Pablo. They're arresting. And they said, I heard on the news today when I got up, rapists, murderers, sexual predators. They're arresting people who are here in the country illegally, which is normally a civil offense and a misdemeanor, but that's who they're stopping.
▶ 1:20:51Over 90% of their stops are people who've not had a criminal record whatsoever. And the people in Minneapolis don't want it, and the people in Memphis don't want that. The people throughout this country think it's wrong. Get the worst of the worst, but don't tell us you're getting the worst of the worst when that's hardly anybody you're getting. You're getting people who contribute to our society in construction in in and all different kind of employment and and they're committed crime at a lesser rate than the other folks who are not of their particular class or or background.
▶ 1:21:18Um, it was awful what happened there. And the woman was killed simply because she was on the scene and she was protesting ICE and ICE took it as a disrespect to them and the man shot her and killed her. Uh, the pre what the president said was wrong. What Gnome said was wrong.
▶ 1:21:41An investigation needs to take place, but an investigation by the state of Minnesota, and I feel very comfortable with our colleague, former colleague Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, being in charge of that. I know justice will be sought and wrought, and if there's a conviction, there won't be a pardon because if it's a federal, it's going to be a pardon like this. And what happened was wrong. And that's what we need to talk about. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to have a hearing on what are the qualifications. I've heard they've got people in the ICE troops who are have criminal records. They don't look at the advertisements.
▶ 1:22:11The last thing before I close, advertisements by ICE on television say law enforcement officers, if you're not liking the fact that you're held up in your hands, you feel like you're handcuffed by rules and regulations that you thought you could do something about things when you join the police department, join ICE. The inference is you won't have handcuffs and rules and regulations, and we'll pay you $50,000 as a bonus, and we'll give you general pensions. Join ICE.
▶ 1:22:36They're asking people to leave local law enforcement, which is the primary problem in this country is local law enforcement, and go to work for ICE and not and have very few restrictions. Make sure they have training. I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 1:22:48Gentleman yields back. Um I believe the gentle lady from California first and then we'll go to Georgia.
▶ 1:22:56You have Okay. Was he first? No.
▶ 1:22:59I'm trying to go in order.
▶ 1:23:01Have we called the question on the amendment yet? the amendment nature of the
▶ 1:23:06They're striking the last word.
▶ 1:23:07Move to strike the last word.
▶ 1:23:09Last word.
▶ 1:23:10Gentleman from George is recognized.
▶ 1:23:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, you know, with respect to HR 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Offs. Keeping Violent Offenders Offs should be the name of a bill to remove ICE officers from our streets.
▶ 1:23:31But to digress and go back to this bill, it would uh define bail bonds as an insurance product and it's intended to target nonprofit bail funds that raise money to pay the cash bonds of indigent detainees.
▶ 1:23:48Well, that's exactly what civil rights marchers needed back in the 50s and 60s when uh they were being arrested for exercising their right to peacefully protest uh against this government policy of apartheid for black people in this country. People were arrested and you had people like Harry Bellafonte and Lena Horn and Sammy Davis Jr. and you had labor unions and you had the NAACP.
▶ 1:24:17You had uh pastors, you had rabbis and other goodthinking people who put together funds to to bond these protesters, these civil rights protesters out of jail. This would uh create uh liability to these fundraising networks that would support peaceful protesters. And have no doubt about it, ladies and gentlemen.
▶ 1:24:46The right to peacefully protest in America is under attack. That is what Miss Good, Miss Renee Good was doing yesterday, peacefully protesting. She didn't do anything wrong. She had not committed a felony. If she committed a misdemeanor, it would have been a minor traffic violation of impeding traffic. But as you look at the video, you can see her motioning traffic around her before she was sumearily executed.
▶ 1:25:18Whether or not you want to call it manslaughter, whether or not you want to call it murder, it's definitely a homicide. And in my opinion, it's when prosecutors get someone who shoots into someone's car who is not a agent of the federal government, they will charge that person with the highest offense, which would be murder. and they'll let the jury decide whether or not it's something less. But it was something. Make no doubt about it.
▶ 1:25:45When a agent, he wasn't a law enforcement officer, was just a a ICE agent, could have been a goon. Uh the way that they approached that vehicle and scared that woman, told her to get the [ __ ] out the car.
▶ 1:26:04Order. Yeah. That's what that's what was said and the second time the committee that is what had to listen to profanity that is what that told that woman and that woman
▶ 1:26:17the house of representatives was it will be in the United States house
▶ 1:26:21that woman was fearful profanity
▶ 1:26:25that woman ridiculous I would remind the members that there's an appropriate language to be used in committee the gentleman from Georgia controls the time I would like to have my 45 I've been very flexible on the time and you will get an extra 20 seconds if you really need it and we need to listen to it. You'll get it.
▶ 1:26:41Yeah. Well,
▶ 1:26:43you're going to censor me now like you're not censoring anyone. I haven't censored anyone today of Minneapolis. It's time to re uh remove these outofcrol ICE agents who have not had law enforcement training, but yet they're trying to apply the laws of this state uh to the citizens of that uh they are a severe threat to public safety wherever they go and we need to uh be holding hearings
▶ 1:27:14instead of this. This committee gave ICE $60 billion dollar to uh detain and uh like what that agent was doing yesterday trying to subdue this peaceful protester, this lady.
▶ 1:27:34uh you gave them $60 billion to do that and you gave a another $858 million for bonuses for these ICE agents that you recruit from among the 1,600 uh plus [snorts] dangerous people that you have pardoned uh on January 6.
▶ 1:27:57uh these criminals that were released back into our communities are now probably serving as goons and ICE and they've been unleashed on our people and then this legislation would prevent people who are protesting their unlawful activities. We you prevent them from uh raising money to get these people out of jail on bond.
▶ 1:28:19I think it's outrageous that this committee would sit here on this particular day and consider this kind of legislation which does nothing but hurts the first amendment rights of uh people under the guise of getting at uh indigent detainees who who are uh uh detained by ICE. Uh shame on this committee and I yield back.
▶ 1:28:45Gentleman yields back. I would just remind the committee that ICE agents have been doxed, tracked, harassed, been interfered with when they're trying to do their job, been shot at in Dallas, all in these sanctuary jurisdictions all over the country. We even had a situation because in sanctuary jurisdictions, they won't comply with detainers that ISIS sent to that jurisdiction.
▶ 1:29:06We had ICE agents walking in the front door as the judge was letting the bad guy walk out the back So, we all mourned the loss of this individual yesterday, but I think we need to keep some things in perspective. And with that, I would yield to the gentle lady or recognize the gentle lady from California.
▶ 1:29:23Oh, excuse me, gentleman from California. Then we'll go to the gentle lady from California.
▶ 1:29:27Mr. Chairman, I've I've I've sat here patiently and and hoped the gentleman from New Jerseyy's uh recommendation would get back to the the substance of this, and there may still be hope. But until that happens, I I thought I would quite frankly not tolerate this any further. I've listened to a number of things that bother me. One of them is I happen to be from a district that borders the Mexican border.
▶ 1:29:54I have two secondary checkpoints 70 plus miles inside the United States in which Border Patrol agents and ICE operate. to the frustration over the last four years before President Trump came to office of being not able to do their job as to drugs or aliens of any sort, including criminal aliens. Ashley Babbot was a constituent of mine.
▶ 1:30:23There was an investigation and I will live with the outcome of that investigation that said that it was justified based on the fear that that individual had and the protection that he thought he was giving to others. That was a process and at the end of the process her husband wasn't satisfied.
▶ 1:30:46people in the community in many cases who knew her as a veteran and as a peaceful person who was unarmed, who was in fact not carrying any deadly weapon, including an automobile, that she should be dead. It was a tragedy at best. I do not like her being called a felon just because she followed people in uh to the Capitol. Yes, she she could have been arrested.
▶ 1:31:14Yes, she could have posted bail and yes, she could have served time. But it's amazing to me that we want to have it both ways here. And this is not to admonish the ranking member, but I want us all to remember. We have to live with the outcome of an investigation.
▶ 1:31:33We have to insist on an investigation and we as an oversight body need to follow up at the end of that investigation to ensure that in fact it was appropriate and in some cases we even monitor during the investigation. I think it's premature to ask for a hearing when we couldn't possibly get all of the facts.
▶ 1:31:53I think it's inappropriate to look at one video and think that we can make a I still mourn the loss of my constituent who I believe meant no harm, was making a huge mistake on January 6th, but paid a price that was not scaled to the crime. That may be the same thing that happened uh in Minnesota.
▶ 1:32:22I want to see both federal and state investigations and I believe this committee has an obligation to look at that and hold hearings when appropriate. But I think today we're all spending a tremendous amount of time on a bill that should be debated that is is debatable that there is a clear difference of opinion on and get to the merits of it and move on. I will tell you this as long as I'm a member of Congress.
▶ 1:32:51I will not forget or fail to ask for second-guessing of decisions so that this body does its job and that will include Minnesota. But I will join with the gentleman from New Jersey and ask that we please consider the ruckus arguments we can have over the bill before us without digressing into something that I truly believe today is premature, not inappropriate for us to debate, but
▶ 1:33:21premature. And I with that I will yield back.
▶ 1:33:26Gentleman yields back. Uh the gentle from California is recognized.
▶ 1:33:30Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, I there's great irony in the title of this bill, keep violent offenders off our streets. Uh, and that is in fact what we are talking about. I've listened to a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle um, reference Miss Renee Good saying they don't know if she posed a threat. We don't know what she was thinking.
▶ 1:33:58And the fact is, we'll never know because she's dead, because she was killed, because she was murdered. And an ICE agent did not use deescalation tactics. The ICE agent killed a prospective defendant if you want to talk about bail.
▶ 1:34:22and she won't even get that because she is dead. I think it is wrong to have colleagues say, "Let's not talk about this until you decide it's time for us to talk about it." No, you are correct. This body is not a jury, but we make determinations all the time in this committee and we are a jurisdiction of oversight.
▶ 1:34:51So, at the very least, we should be demanding that the committee do the job of oversight and talk about this case. Use this as an opportunity to how our taxpayer dollars are being used, how our government agents are being how they are treating our constituents.
▶ 1:35:18You know, Cash Patel didn't know who Dylan Ruth was, but I do. He killed nine parishioners in cold blood. You know what? Law enforcement agents didn't roll up in that church and kill him. They use deescalation tactics. So, let's talk about that.
▶ 1:35:39You know, I have sat on these kinds of committees before when I was in the state legislature and I was watching that video of what happened to Miss Good and I was triggered all over again as a black woman with a black husband with black children. I have different kinds of conversations than many on this dis.
▶ 1:36:08It is a fact that I have to take extra precautions in my family to make sure that my husband and my sons are not killed by law enforcement because of the color of their skin. And you know what that video showed us is that all Americans now have to take separate and extra precautions.
▶ 1:36:31I thought the mandate for ICE was that they were going to go after criminals that are here illegally creating crimes. That's that mandate from that video. Miss Good was here legally and maybe her crime was she was afraid of being shot and that's exactly what happened. She was not here illegally and she was not being involved in criminal behavior.
▶ 1:37:01And if you all want to say or continue to say that if you obey then you will not be shot, don't disagree with law enforcement, do what law enforcement says. January 6 happened and there were a whole bunch of people who rolled up at the Capitol and were disobeying the Capitol police who are law enforcement. And they were arrested. And you know what? The president of the United States said, "I'm going to pardon you.
▶ 1:37:30It is okay for you to disobey law enforcement. It is okay for you to attack law And six of the pardoned January 6th insurrectionists are charged with committing sex child sex crimes ranging from sexual assault to position possession of child pornography.
▶ 1:37:52At least 33 January 6 insurrectionist pardoned by President Trump have been rearrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes since January 6, 2021. So don't obey law enforcement. do what you want and hope that you get pardoned. And this bill, keep violent offenders off our streets. You know, cash bail is not about guilt or innocence. It's not even about the crime.
▶ 1:38:21It is about your ability to pay for your freedom while you await trial. This bill goes against the sovereign rights of states. This bill says that we are going to tell your state, my state, how we govern our state criminal justice system. And ultimately, it says if you can afford to pay the bail, you can have your freedom. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:38:50Chair, for granting me these extra 20 seconds. But I did want to make sure that I talk about this bill and why I don't support it in addition to what has happened yields back. Gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized. Um, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I know that my colleagues have talked about the situation in Minnesota, which is appalling on so many levels. But this isn't just happening in Minnesota.
▶ 1:39:21ICE and CBP are exceeding their jurisdiction all over this country and they're doing it with almost no consequences. Even my Republican senator, Senator Tillis, has been asking for accountability for how ICE and CBP have been operating in North Carolina.
▶ 1:39:45They have been picking up US citizens, literally making them feel like they've been kidnapped. I had a woman in my district who was just swept up. She had done everything right. She had work authorization. She came here as a child. She had an attorney. She ended up spending a month in detention before our government said, "Whoops, it's Christmas. She's been all over the news.
▶ 1:40:13Maybe we should let her out." Thank God she got out, but she should have never been picked up in the first place. And now when our citizens are saying enough is enough, do what you said you were going to do. Go after violent criminals. We're all for that. Every single one of us is for going after people who have a violent criminal history.
▶ 1:40:41the repeat offenders that I know my colleague Mr. Not talks about. But we are not here to assault our citizens and we are not here to allow the federal government to violate the rights of people who are protesting or may just be trying to turn their car around.
▶ 1:41:09This committee should be about oversight. It should be about preventing and punishing crime. But it should also be about calling out federal agents who are using their authority and legal force improperly. We can do both at the same time and our constitution demands that we do both at the same time.
▶ 1:41:36And when this committee just decides to take one side and not admit when something is wrong, and I'm not here to say it's always the Republicans who do that. Sometimes Democrats do that, too. But we need to come together and say when enough is enough. And it's only getting worse. It is getting worse. Because this committee doesn't exercise that kind of oversight.
▶ 1:42:03The ranking member of the immigration subcommittee has had to have her own hearings. At our last hearing, we had more than 20 members, not members of this committee, show up and talk about abuses of ICE and CBP. We haven't had one hearing on that in this official committee.
▶ 1:42:27We haven't had one expression of unpleasantness with that from the other side of the aisle. It is time that this committee does its job. I am so grateful that we actually have a ranking member who's not only doing her job but the job of the whole committee. She is bringing this to light and it has got to stop.
▶ 1:42:56And with that, I will yield the my final minute to the ranking member of the immigration subcommittee.
▶ 1:43:02Thank you, Miss Ross. Um, and thank you for your kind comments. And thank you for all of the people on this committee and beyond who have come to those shadow hearings. I've held five of them now. Um, the last one had 25 members. We couldn't get everybody in because there wasn't enough time um for people to speak.
▶ 1:43:20But I just want to go back to the problem that happens when there's a president and a secretary of homeland security who put out propaganda immediately after an incident like this because I think this is extremely important in a situation like this. Typically you would have gathering of information that is what local law enforcement was doing. federal agents were doing.
▶ 1:43:51And actually, I'm no fan of Tom Hman. I think you all know that the the Trump borders are. But Tom Hman actually tried to be measured initially. He he actually um was he he gave a much more measured response and he said he wasn't going to jump to a conclusion after watching one video or comment on an ongoing investigation.
▶ 1:44:12But what happened is Christy Gnome and Donald Trump immediately wanted to spin this. And the people on this committee, very good colleagues on the other side are doing the same thing. Because when you say that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, you have to understand everybody in America is watching these videos. Everybody in America is seeing what we saw.
▶ 1:44:41And so when you say we shouldn't jump to conclusions, remember that the first people that jumped to conclusions were Christy Gnome and Donald Trump.
▶ 1:44:50We are not going to allow that narrative to continue. Mr. Chairman,
▶ 1:44:55the chairman of the immigration committee has now recognized a gentleman from California.
▶ 1:44:59Well, in response to my colleague, I would point out that uh we all have eyes. We all saw the video. Um, and what I saw, uh, was an ICE vehicle that was attempting to leave an area that was in a near riot condition. Uh, a civilian vehicle then suddenly moved in front of it to block its departure.
▶ 1:45:23I then saw an ICE officer approach that vehicle and issue a lawful order to the driver to get out of the car. Instead of complying with that order, the driver backed up, pointed the car in the direction of another officer, and then shifted into drive, stepping on the gas while the officer had his hand on the door. It then accelerated in the direction of that other ICE officer at the moment that he fired into the vehicle. That's what the video shows. And we all have eyes and we all can see it.
▶ 1:45:53There are a lot of questions that it raises, starting with the perspective of the officer who fired at this approaching vehicle. Was the car indeed pointed directly at him when he fired? It certainly appeared that way to me from the video we've seen. I assume the officer was wearing a body camera, and we'll get a better idea of his perspective in the course of the investigation. There's the question of why the driver attempted to block the ICE vehicle as it was leaving.
▶ 1:46:19Why the driver felt motivated to obstruct clearly uniformed federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. Why she willfully refused to comply with a lawful order by those officers and why she pointed her vehicle toward another officer while hitting the gas. Now, I suspect that a great deal of her motivation was exactly from the kind of incendiary rhetoric we hear every day from our radical Democratic colleagues. It is a direct attack on the rule of law.
▶ 1:46:49Our ICE officers are enforcing federal law as the Congress wrote it. The Democrats here don't like that law. They object to its enforcement
▶ 1:46:59and they're actively encouraging citizens to obstruct its enforcement. In a nation of laws, the answer is not to obstruct the law, but to change it. They are sitting in the very institution that writes these laws. If they believe the laws that enforce our nation's sovereignty are wrong, then they should make the case to change them.
▶ 1:47:21And to Miss Ross, I'd point out that when the Democrats had the majority and our nation was suffering through the worst illegal mass migration in its history, the immigration subcommittee on the dem under Democratic control held not a single hearing on that crisis as it unfolded. Not one. I suspect their encouragement of disobedience to the law had a large role to play in the mind of the driver and in the minds of the increasingly violent mobs that our colleagues are deliberately inciting.
▶ 1:47:50As Lincoln said to their predecessors, there is no grievance that is a fit object for redress by mob law. How sad these same words needed to be repeated before the House Judiciary Committee that's supposed to be dedicated to the rule of law.
▶ 1:48:10Now, the bill before us deals with the regulation of bail bonds and simply requires that charitable bail funds administer these funds as they advertise to their donors and be accountable for the administration of those funds according to the standards of their state insurance commissions. That seems reasonable to me and I support the bill and yield back.
▶ 1:48:28Well said. Gentleman yields back. Uh I believe it's Mr. Garcia, the gentleman from Illinois, then I think uh the gentleman from Florida.
▶ 1:48:35Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh members of the committee, uh I'm going to speak on uh the cash bail subject when the second bill comes up. But this morning, I feel compelled to speak on the tragic incident that occurred in Minneapolis yesterday, the tragic killing of Renee I do so mindful of the fact that two of the first
▶ 1:49:05shootings by I agents, ICE agents, CBP agents that occurred in this country occurred in my district last year, last summer. First, it was a father of two who had just dropped off his two children at school was approached by ICE agents, terrified.
▶ 1:49:36As he sought to leave the area, he was shot and killed. Then came the shooting of a young woman, a US citizen, shot five times, accused by Secretary Gnome, by other of terrorist serious federal charges
▶ 1:50:06that could have resulted in decades of time in prison. She was a teacher. She is a teacher at a Montasauri school. What happened with those charges? They've been dropped as have other cases of serious charges that have been brought about in my community alone. Almost half of the charges against people have been dropped already.
▶ 1:50:37Why is this happening? Because the stated policy is to prioritize the removal of dangerous criminals from immigrant communities. But that isn't what's happening.
▶ 1:50:51What's happening is that the aggressive of legislation that's targeting certain communities is causing terror and grief and fear and trauma to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. It's happening because of the following.
▶ 1:51:17Rogue federal agents under the leadership of Secretary Gnome, Tom H. Homeman, Steven Miller, are trampling on people's constitutional rights like we haven't seen in decades, perhaps in the history of our country. They are engaging in obscene ethnic and racial profiling.
▶ 1:51:44They are denying due process to people when apprehended. They are masked with militaryra weapons, cursing at people, ordering people to do things, treating people like dirt. US citizens, lawful permanent residents, people under color of law, veterans.
▶ 1:52:08Why is this happening? This indiscriminate treatment of people in communities. And five,
▶ 1:52:14I think it'll just seem weird. the attempted deployments of the National Guard in certain cities and states thanks to the intervention of the courts and the actions of Democratic attorneys general that's been halted for the moment because it was unconstitutional. It was illegal. And lastly, the illegal denial of members of Congress to do oversight.
▶ 1:52:42We were prevented from doing that in Chicago land. Four members of Congress. We took our IDs. We had our PIN. We identified ourselves. We were denied that. We had to wait for lawsuits that endured six months to have the ability to finally do our job and oversight.
▶ 1:53:04So this is why I speak out on this issue because it's a terrible president precedent in our country's history. It will be a shameful episode as we tell the history of America because we've trampled on the Constitution.
▶ 1:53:25We've violated what has been established law in our country and we've engaged in gestapo tactics of federal agents that have been encouraged to violate the constitutional and [ __ ] and trample on the rights of people in communities all over our country. I yield back.
▶ 1:53:47Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Florida is recognized.
▶ 1:53:49U thank you Mr. [clears throat] Chairman. Uh I just want to go back to a previous statement by one of our colleagues uh uh Governor Biggs. U he said that Democrats have not tried to deescalate the situation.
▶ 1:54:05You know, after the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, which was domestic terrorism, okay, we tried to deescalate after the assassination attempt against the president, which was domestic terrorism. I was appointed to the task force to investigate that assassination attempt.
▶ 1:54:27We tried to deescalate after the anti-semitic attack in uh in which you put forward a resolution that included language about ISIS's favorable role in that. 75 Democrats voted for that resolution even though there was no reason to put that in there but you did it to try to put us on the board.
▶ 1:54:51So this idea that we have many that Democrats have said nothing that we haven't tried to deescalate, it's just not true. It's just it's just not true. Now, it's not like you guys have any credibility on deescalation. I mean, literally, we're not the ones who told tens of thousands of people to show up to the capital and run in here like a mob. And now you all tell people it never happened. you know, like, oh, that's not what the deal was.
▶ 1:55:22It's not like every day there isn't some sort of tweet that just escalates and escalates and escalates. And so, listen, I hope one day we could have a hearing on deescalation. I would love to participate in a hearing on how we together deescalate. But looking at one party and saying you don't deescalate.
▶ 1:55:48I mean that's literally this dialogue on how we do bring down the temperature together. you know I want to um you know we heard about this domestic terrorism thing right? Domestic terrorism that was the first thing we heard. I have a question.
▶ 1:56:13This is this is the person This is the person who within minutes of the shooting within minutes of the shooting went on TV and called it domestic terrorism. What is she hiding her face like her ICE agents now? She can't show her face either. By the way, is this what the 800 billion dollars went went to? Every day we see her after there's some new tragedy in Homeland, she's wearing a different outfit with a different hat.
▶ 1:56:44I mean, come on, guys. She looks ridiculous. She's not just an embarrassment to the country. She's an embarrassment to you and the president, okay? She deserves to be removed from her job by the president or and if not impeached, not just for her complete failures in Homeland, but her destruction of FEMA. She's not even running the department. You guys know this. You guys know she's not running Homeland.
▶ 1:57:12Your governors and you all when you need your FEMA money, you don't call Gnome. You call Corey. You know she's not running the place. She's a complete and utter embarrassment. By the way, every Homeland Secretary has come in front of this committee
▶ 1:57:30once a Congress. I'd like to know the date she's coming. When is she coming? When is she coming?
▶ 1:57:36When is she coming?
▶ 1:57:37When is she coming?
▶ 1:57:38By the way, do you know Pam Bondi has not come in front of this committee? Do you know she's the only secretary
▶ 1:57:45to not appear in front of a committee
▶ 1:57:48When is she coming? What's the date on the calendar that she's coming?
▶ 1:57:53You know what? Let's make it easy. I want to make a motion to subpoena Pam
▶ 1:57:56Second committee.
▶ 1:57:58Third, fourth, fifth.
▶ 1:57:59How much are we going to
▶ 1:58:00The gentleman is not recognized for that motion. Uh however the uh the chair will advise as to the attorney general coming for as they do routinely.
▶ 1:58:11Mr. Chairman, thank you. But where is the attorney general? The only secretary to not appear okay in front of a committee. The only one.
▶ 1:58:21We're we're into year two of this Congress and we've not had the attorney general in front of this committee. How much are we going to weaken Article One of the Constitution while you guys remain in power? I watch you twist yourself into pretzels trying to defend this, running away from previous statements, disagreeing with yourself,
▶ 1:58:42trying to defend the crap that's happening. And so I'll make a motion again to subpoena Pambani in front of this committee.
▶ 1:58:49Second, third,
▶ 1:58:50fourth, fifth.
▶ 1:58:52The chair will again admonish that the gentleman is not recognized for purpose of a motion. The chair will also inform uh all of us that the attorney general had agreed to come and was going to be here in October. Unfortunately, we had a shutdown. Uh however, this committee is in the process of scheduling a return. If there is not a shutdown later in January, I fully expect that she will be
▶ 1:59:18Will she be here before or after we invade Greenland?
▶ 1:59:22Well, before I would guess.
▶ 1:59:24Okay. Uh, and the gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:59:28The gentleman from California seeks recognition for what purpose?
▶ 1:59:34To strike the last word.
▶ 1:59:36The gentleman's recognized for five minutes for that purpose. This is the glove compartment of Renee Good, 37year-old mom, three kids. She wasn't a terrorist. She wasn't a criminal. She was a mom. There's no weapon in that glove compartment.
▶ 2:00:05There's no knife, no gun, no explosive. There's stuffed animals. Any one of us with young kids knows what that glove compartment looks like. It's a distraction device. It's a bribery tool. It's a way to keep your kids calm when they're acting out in the car.
▶ 2:00:37She had a baby to go home to. A six-year-old who was now orphaned who lost his father just two years ago. So, you want to defend this? You want to defend the murder of this mom? You want to root on and cheer for her being shot in the face three times?
▶ 2:01:09Unfortunately, this is where we have been heading from the start. It was just a matter of time. When you hire masked thugs, of course, it's going to get increasingly horrible.
▶ 2:01:24We started with ICE agents chasing people through the fields and the factories where they work, deporting US kids with stage 4 cancer, pulling peaceful people out of their homes and cars by their hair, and now shooting a mother and telling us just like you told us on January 6, "Don't believe your eyes when you see the video.
▶ 2:01:53Is this going to get worse? Of course it will. Bodies are piling up. Will Renee Good be the last mom murdered by ICE? We literally now have masked murderers roaming our streets. But we're not helpless.
▶ 2:02:16And if my Republican colleagues are going to do nothing right now, you better believe that accountability is Here's what it looks like. The masks are coming off. Identification is coming out. Immunity is going to be stripped.
▶ 2:02:38And to Christine Gnome, Tom Cashbag Homeman, and Greg Bavino, your asses are going to be in these witness chairs. The job we have on this committee is to keep Trump out of our streets, out of our homes, and out of our lives.
▶ 2:02:58No policy matters to anyone on this committee if you can't protect your So people like Renee Good, an American citizen, a mom, doesn't get shot three times in the face. So she can go home to her six-year-old child and so we can go back to the country I know we are. I yield back.
▶ 2:03:24Gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:03:25Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
▶ 2:03:27The gentle lady will state a unanimous consent. I'd like to enter into the record this uh CNN news story. Minnesota investigations unit FBI denying access
▶ 2:03:40without objection materials refusing to work jointly on probe into fatal IS given the title and without objection it shall be
▶ 2:03:50that's the title Mr. Chairman, the entire thing is the title. Minnesota Investigations Unit FBI denying access.
▶ 2:03:57Without objection, it'll be entering the
▶ 2:03:59Refusing to work jointly on prokal ICE shooting.
▶ 2:04:06The gent gentle lady from Texas is recognized to strike the last word.
▶ 2:04:11Uh yes, Mr. Chad asked to strike the last words.
▶ 2:04:14The gentle is gentle lady's recognized.
▶ 2:04:16Thank you so much. It is It is so hard to sit here sometimes I didn't come to Congress to write laws or to do things that are hurting people.
▶ 2:04:35I'm just asking if there's any decency or heart or courage on that side of the The fact that a woman was killed, she was shot in her head and y'all are pretending like nothing happened. I remember when Charlie Kirk got killed. Do you Do you remember what our response Our response wasn't to sit there and pretend like it was okay. Is it okay because you have a badge?
▶ 2:05:06Because the last time I checked, allegedly no one is above the law. Can y'all not just have a little bit of courage and humanity, a child? The child is not her mom.
▶ 2:05:34and y'all want to pretend [snorts] that it is okay. I am asking if there is anyone that will stand for the very people that elected us and sent us to Congress. You tell us things like, "Well, the immigrants are bad and so we got to get all these bills because the immigrants are the ones that are causing the harm.
▶ 2:06:01They're bringing the crime." The mayor of Minneapolis told y'all to get the [ __ ] out. Yet y'all are the ones. It is It is this administration that is bringing crime to the streets.
▶ 2:06:14That's what's happening.
▶ 2:06:16It's a third incident where somebody has dropped an Fbomb in this committee including the video. I'm sorry.
▶ 2:06:22Including the video that we had to watch
▶ 2:06:24Are your princess ears okay? Is it representative YOU ARE ABOUT THE FACT THAT A WOMAN representatives
▶ 2:06:34the gentle lady are we offending your princess ears
▶ 2:06:37are they that soft all members will
▶ 2:06:39maybe some of the kids out there
▶ 2:06:40Mr. Chairman, it is the gentle killing
▶ 2:06:42It is the gentle lady's time. Let's let her have time.
▶ 2:06:45It is the gentle lady's time. Would you stop the clock for a moment?
▶ 2:06:50Okay. And I'll I'll restore that
▶ 2:06:54the the chair will remind all members that the person controlling the time is not to be unreasonably interrupted. We would further admonish that whenever possible to express the full meaning of something, it be done so without an expletive that may be offensive to people here in the audience or those uh who watch us on television.
▶ 2:07:18I understand that a quote at times is essential, but I would admonish everyone that it has been the practice of this committee for the many years I've been here to use such things as fbomb in order to get the message out without actually using the word. Notwithstanding that, the gentle lady, if will be recognized for this this time plus an additional 20 uh seconds, the gentle lady may continue.
▶ 2:07:45Thank you, Mr. Chair. Long story short, we are sitting in judiciary and no one on that side of the aisle seems to care that this particular person whose name we don't know at this point became the judge, jury, and executioner. I don't know how you square that.
▶ 2:08:07And then we're sitting here literally in markup for a bail funds When I first ran for office, it was in the midst of yet another lynching by law enforcement in Minneapolis.
▶ 2:08:28At that time, it was George I remember working as a pro bono criminal defense attorney to help protesters that were being arrested. There were more than 600 protesters that were arrested in Dallas. There were churches that came together to make sure that there were bail funds.
▶ 2:08:51There were um nonprofit organizations and to explain how it works for bail since we're in judiciary and we're writing the laws. And some people may not understand this, but those bail funds, those nonprofit organizations are not the ones that determine whether or not somebody gets bail.
▶ 2:09:11What they do is they help out poor people, which I know y'all are not interested in either, but they help out people that aren't rich and famous and have limitless amounts of money like all of the Epstein defendants who somehow y'all can't find even though y'all went and got Maduro. But it helps out those people to be able to get out of jail.
▶ 2:09:34many of those people that if they spend just a couple of days in jail will then be thrust into straight up poverty because they will lose Why it is that you want to criminalize people such as churches that are trying to help the poor because they understand what the Bible says and they don't just say that they understand it or say that they love Jesus, but they decide that they actually put it into works because faith without works is dead. That is wrong, too.
▶ 2:10:03And I'm I'm here to tell you that there's going to be a lot of nonprofit organizations that are going to step up in this moment because there are going to be protests around this entire country because of the state sanctioned execution that we all saw unfold unless there is some kind of justice that takes place and we get the name of that officer and that officer is prosecuted. So I ask that law enforcement we have oversight over them. I am the oversight ranker. Let's go ahead.
▶ 2:10:30In fact, I make a motion that we have a hearing in the oversight subcommittee as it relates to this particular issue and what took place.
▶ 2:10:41the gentle lady was not recognized for purposes of motions. The does anyone else seek recognition? Seeing no others, the question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of the substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor of the amendment in the nature of a substitute say I.
▶ 2:11:04Any opposed?
▶ 2:11:06In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The eyes have it.
▶ 2:11:11No, no, no. We're going to go on to the bill. You can vote no on that.
▶ 2:11:14Okay. Uh the amendment in the nature of a substitute is already um the uh Okay. The question now occurs in FA voting in favor of reporting the bill as amendment. All those in favor say I. I.
▶ 2:11:33Any opposed?
▶ 2:11:35In the opinion of the chair, we're not sure what it was. Can you call for a recorded vote?
▶ 2:11:41I would like to call for a recorded vote. A recorded vote being uh ordered. Uh the clerk will call the role.
▶ 2:11:48Mr. Jordan,
▶ 2:11:49Mr. Isa,
▶ 2:11:51Mr. Isa votes I. Mr. BS.
▶ 2:11:53Mr. Mr. Bigs votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch.
▶ 2:11:55Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie.
▶ 2:12:00Mr. Roy.
▶ 2:12:02Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald.
▶ 2:12:04Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klein.
▶ 2:12:07Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden.
▶ 2:12:10Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Vandrew.
▶ 2:12:13Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nells.
▶ 2:12:17M. Mr. Moore.
▶ 2:12:19Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kylie.
▶ 2:12:22Mr. Kylie votes. I Miss Haggamman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gill,
▶ 2:12:50Mr. Gill votes I. Mr. Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Rascin,
▶ 2:12:55Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler,
▶ 2:12:58Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofrren, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson,
▶ 2:13:04Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Jipal, Miss Jipal votes no. Mr. Miss Scandlin, Mr. Goose Miss Mcbath Miss Ross
▶ 2:13:23Miss Ross votes no Miss Ballot Miss Balent votes no Mr. Garcia Miss Cam Loger Dove Miss Camager Dove votes no Mr. Mosquitz Mr. Goldman
▶ 2:13:37Miss Crockett votes no
▶ 2:13:42Miss Ganlin you are not recorded
▶ 2:13:44Miss Gan votes no
▶ 2:13:46Mr. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
▶ 2:13:49Mr. Not, you're not recorded.
▶ 2:13:51Mr. Knotes yes.
▶ 2:14:12The clerk will report.
▶ 2:14:14Mr. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 eyes and nine nos.
▶ 2:14:18The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will report it as a single amendment in the nature of substitute incorporating all adopted amendments. The staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
▶ 2:14:49Pursuant to notice, I call up HR5213, the Keep Violent Criminals Off Streets Act for purposes of markup and move the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill
▶ 2:15:01Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point uh and we'll do opening statements. Chair is recognized. HR5213 prohibits the attorney general from awarding burn jack grants to state and local governments that have cashless bail policies for violent criminal offenses and offenses that promote public disorder. States and local jurisdictions use burn grant dollars to fund many pre-trial services that are used to assess and evaluate these offenders when they're released.
▶ 2:15:29Federal taxpayer dollars should not be awarded to states that have procriminal anti victim policies. Rates of violent crime have increased dramatically in Democratun cities over the past 5 years. Stopped on crime. Prosecutors and legislators have implemented various bail policies that have resulted in more violent offenders being released back into their communities after their arrest. These laws and policies ignore public safety and create a revolving door for criminals. For example, in 2021, Illinois became the first state to eliminate the use of cash bail.
▶ 2:15:57Other states such as California and New York have modified their bail practice to significantly decrease the use of cash bail. These states continue to receive millions millions of taxpayer dollars in the form of burn jack grant funding, some of which is used for pre-child services. For example, in fiscal year 2024, Congress appropriated $924 million to state and local jurisdictions in this burn jag grant dollar program. Congress cannot continue to reward states and local jurisdictions that place their residents in harm's way for ideological purposes.
▶ 2:16:28I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I yield back and now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I strongly oppose the bill. HR5213, which I understand will be renamed the No Federal Funds for Cashless Bail Act, should really be titled the Defund the Police in dozens of American jurisdictions act.
▶ 2:16:49That's because it would prohibit states or localities that have reformed their cash bail systems from getting any funds from the burn jag program, the cornerstone of our federal public safety grant program, which supplies millions of dollars to police departments, prosecutors, and victim advocates across America to keep our communities safe.
▶ 2:17:12So instead of targeting criminals, this bill actually targets law enforcement, gutting federal funds that officers and district attorneys need to combat, prosecute, and punish crime. And it targets crime victims who rely on the support that burn JAG funds provide.
▶ 2:17:31Although this punitive anti- local bill is hopelessly vague, it's apparently intended to punish jurisdictions that have enacted cashless bail for a set of covered offenses. And I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman, if someone awaiting trial is a danger to the community or they're a flight risk, it shouldn't matter how much money that person has, they should be detained. Period. Everyone should agree on that.
▶ 2:17:56But there are some states and localities that have made the determination that if someone does not pose a risk, they should not lose their liberty simply because of their poverty. Half of Americans are living from paycheck to paychecks. Lots of Americans simply can't afford to put up the cash bail even if they pose no risk to anyone else and no flight risk.
▶ 2:18:23and they shouldn't be uh forced to stay in jail simply because of the power and the financial contributions of the bail bondsmen. It's up to a judge to determine whether a person can safely be released before trial and whether they can be expected to appear in court. But many jurisdictions have decided that if a person's not a danger to the community, their freedom should not depend on whether or not they can afford a post bail.
▶ 2:18:50Under a Charles Dickens cash bail system, wealthy defendants can effectively buy their way out of jail while lower income people who pose no greater risk will languish behind bars indefinitely simply because they don't have the money for it. That really is out of a tale of two cities. They say life is unfair, but that shouldn't be the law.
▶ 2:19:13That's why some states and localities have decided that reforming in some cases eliminating cash bill would help reduce inequity in the criminal justice system while ensuring public safety is protected. But this uh assumes Congress knows better than these communities and imposes harsh penalties on their citizens that would actually make them less safe by cutting law enforcement funding in a reprisal against them for policy reasons.
▶ 2:19:43Unfortunately, our colleagues want to play politics with public safety, but they're hurting the very people they say they want to protect. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this gross federal overreach. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:19:55Gentleman yields back without objections. All of the opening statements will be included in the record. Uh the chair now introduces an amendment in the nature of the substitute. The clerk will report the
▶ 2:20:03Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 2:20:04Objection. The amendment nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of amendment. Uh this amendment changes the short title of the bill to the no federal funds for cashless bail act. As the ranking member indicated, this change is not in any way to alter the important purpose of the legislation or support of the amendment. And yield back. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from New York is recognized.
▶ 2:20:26Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:20:30Been called worse. Yeah,
▶ 2:20:32God forbid. Mr. Chairman, I I I I rise in opposition to this bill for essentially the same reasons that the ranking member did. It is an anti-law enforcement bill because it cuts the burn jag grants and it does so in the name of opposing cash bail. But the fact is cashless bail. But the fact is cashes bail or almost cashes bail policies like in New York have worked.
▶ 2:20:58No one should go to jail pre-trial because he can't put up cash. No one. A judge in every case should decide on the flight risk or risk of uh bad conduct by a defendant based on all kinds of factors except one that is whether the defendant can put up cash. That factor is irrelevant.
▶ 2:21:28the judge would decide to hold the person in in confinement until uh trial or to let him go based on all the myriad of factors that you would judge. States have gone in this direction. And states that have gone in this direction uh like New York, which has almost the cashless bail policy, I wish we go further, have the lowest crime rates in decades.
▶ 2:21:52We have not seen lots of uh defendants released on c on cash released before uh trial uh commit crimes. As I said, the factors that lead to the risk of committing a crime before trial are weighable are knowable and weighable by a judge. The one thing that shouldn't matter is whether you have money to buy your freedom.
▶ 2:22:22For this reason, I oppose this uh legislation and urges defeat and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I think we're I think we're waiting for Mr. Van Drew. Does Mr. Van Drew have an amendment? Does he
▶ 2:22:38Who seeks recognition?
▶ 2:22:41Gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
▶ 2:22:44Thank you, Mr. chairman and thank you to our ranking member. I want to follow up on a point that was made and articulated by my colleague from Florida during the prior debate and I wonder if the chairman might engage with me in a bit of colloquy here because as I understand it we can find no record of an attorney general of the United States not within the year in which they were confirmed for the better part of the last quarter century.
▶ 2:23:15Are you aware, Mr. Chairman, you've been in Congress a long
▶ 2:23:18I'm of an attorney general. What was
▶ 2:23:21I'll wait till you finish your question.
▶ 2:23:23Are you aware of an attorney general?
▶ 2:23:25I don't I don't know if
▶ 2:23:26Mr. Bar, Mr. Garland.
▶ 2:23:28Uh, I will tell you the attorney the attorney general is scheduled to be here. She was scheduled to be here during the whatever 43day shutdown that you guys orchestrated, but she's now scheduled to be back in next month.
▶ 2:23:41Well, it's interesting. I I'll just say the shutdown did not stop any of the other Republican chairman within the House of Representatives from securing an appearance from the individuals who serve in the president's cabinet did not stop any of Attorney General Bond.
▶ 2:24:03Like I said, she was scheduled in. She's coming in February. CL on this front because I find it to be the height of hypocrisy. Having served on this committee for several years, having heard my colleagues the fact that Attorney General Garland took until September October of 2021 to testify in front of this committee that they cannot be bothered that the attorney general of the United States won't testify in front of this committee. apparently until next month.
▶ 2:24:32Although this is the this isn't the first time we've heard from the chairman that the attorney general is slated to testify and then uh of course as fate would have it the hearing is is canled or no longer scheduled and all the rest. So I look forward I look forward to that hearing. And I hope the chairman uh is a man of his word and that he can commit to us that that hearing will take place, that the attorney general of the United States will testify in front of the committee that has jurisdiction and oversight over her department.
▶ 2:25:02The chairman's willing to make that commitment. Is that like I said, she's scheduled to be here next month. We've had the director of the FBI. I don't believe any committee had any hearings during this 43day shutdown that you guys put together.
▶ 2:25:14Most of them scheduled their oversight hearings before that. So, in any event, I look forward to that hearing. I yield back the balance or I yield to the ranking member. I'm sorry.
▶ 2:25:23Um, thank you kindly. Um,
▶ 2:25:28I I wanted to say a word in response to the gentleman from California, Mr. Isa, who said um as to the terrible killing of the 37year-old uh mom Renee Good in Minnesota that he would reserve judgment. something obviously the president did not do, something that the director of homeland security did not do.
▶ 2:25:51um he would want to see and uh I I uh appreciate the fact that he uh did not reject my suggestion to think about Ashley Babbot because there are some people who seem to think that the legitimacy of uh a police killing of a citizen should be based on the politics of the person who's killed which is just outrageous and dangerous. Okay.
▶ 2:26:17Uh, and so when Ashley Babbot was killed, I said from the very beginning of that, um, let's, uh, there's got to be an investigation to see whether this was a lawful use of force or not. And there was an internal investigation in the Capitol Police Department that found it was a lawful use of force to defend uh, both the officer and the members of Congress uh, from uh, the the entering mob. And then the Department of Justice came to the exact same conclusion.
▶ 2:26:47uh, our colleagues and the Department of Justice took the position that there should be a $5 million payout to Ashley Babbot's family despite the fact that there was uh there were investigations exonerating the police officer in that case.
▶ 2:27:06Now, what we've got is the president and the Homeland Security uh department asserting peremptorily, summarily that this was self-defense in this case with a and in a way totally contrary to the evidence of our own eyes.
▶ 2:27:22If we're going to come to a snap judgment, then I'm with the people who are saying that was If we're going to come to a snap judgment, if we're going to act like lawyers on the department in the on the judiciary committee, then let's say, well, we will allow uh the investigation to continue and we'll allow there to be some just conclusions made. But nonetheless, from the standpoint of public safety, we've got to get on in control of ICE. Thank you, and I yield
▶ 2:27:49Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 2:27:52Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh if uh if the politicians in in my state at the state level had had their way, then then cash bail would have been abolished in California, uh there was a bill to do just that. It passed our legislature uh and was signed into law by our governor. Uh but then the people of California weighed in.
▶ 2:28:11That measure was subject to a voter referendum that appeared on the ballot and the people of California voted overwhelmingly 56% of the vote to overturn the law that had been passed by our legislature and signed by the governor to abolish cash bail because the people of our state are tired of this decriminalization agenda that has continued to lower the consequences for crimes and to take tools out of the hands of law enforcement and to allow for early release of
▶ 2:28:42dangerous offenders back into our communities. I'll add incidentally that history repeated itself last year when the voters of our state overwhelmingly overturned a measure that lowered the consequences for retail theft and drug crimes.
▶ 2:28:58Despite the governor and the leaders in the legislature uh opposing opposing this initiative last year, the people of California passed Proposition 36 to restore reasonable penalties with an overwhelming 68% of the vote.
▶ 2:29:13So to the extent that it's relevant to how anyone votes on this measure, I just thought it was worth noting that even in a left-leaning state like California, an overwhelming majority of the people believes that these policies of abolishing cash bail and the other decriminalization policies that have gone with it are completely reckless. And I think that this is a common sense measure to assure and do whatever we can to assure that these sort of reckless policies are not adopted throughout the country. I yield back.
▶ 2:29:43Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
▶ 2:29:47Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that our Republican colleagues would much rather talk about cash bail today than about the fact that an ICE agent shot and killed an American citizen in Minneapolis yesterday. Because that's what happened. A masked ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37year-old citizen, a young mother in Minneapolis.
▶ 2:30:11This is a tragedy, apparently a preventable tragedy, and I'm heartbroken for her family, her loved ones, and her community. But I'm also angry and heartbroken for our country. How is it possible that we are doing anything else in this committee today? I completely endorse my Democratic colleagues calls for an investigation for hearings because where is the accountability? That is Congress's job. Where's the response from this committee's leadership?
▶ 2:30:40The White House immediately branded Renee Good, this young mother, this American citizen, as a domestic terrorist and claimed she had violently attacked ICE agents. But soon thereafter, video footage and eyewitness testimony emerged that directly contradicted the White House spin. There's eyewitness testimony that the agents gave Renee good conflicting directives and video evidence that she tried to wave the ICE agents around her car and steer around them.
▶ 2:31:09That's why it's all the more egregious and demanding of both condemnation and congressional investigation that the White House's first instinct was to manipulate the facts and smear the dead woman. And while it's all the more important that Congress meet its duty to examine ISIS's abuses, its lack of training, its massive overspending, the implications of this incident go far beyond the tragedy in Minneapolis.
▶ 2:31:35Two days ago, we marked the fifth anniversary of January 6th, an egregious act of political violence inspired by President Trump's unlawful attempts to overturn the 2020 election when his followers violently attacked the US capital, gravely injuring hundreds of law enforcement officers and threatening the lives of the vice president, members of Congress, and the staff who work here.
▶ 2:31:59But when congressional Republicans let the president and his allies skate, let them evade accountability for inciting political violence against our capital and our constitution. They opened the door for the killing of Renee Good yesterday. They opened the door for this administration's attempts to erase history. They opened the door for this president to pardon the hundreds of convicted criminals who attacked law enforcement officers on January 6th.
▶ 2:32:27They opened the door for this second Trump administration to send troops to American cities and unleash armed and masked federal officers to terrorize law-abiding communities. In five years, we've seen this president and his allies move from urging Americans to commit violence against our government to using government agencies to commit violence against Americans, to silence anyone who questions this White House or the legality
▶ 2:32:57of its dangerous agenda. It is long past time for Congress to assert itself on behalf of the American people and on behalf of our Constitution. What happened yesterday in Minneapolis was wrong, but it was the inevitable result of unleashing armed and masked federal federal agents on American streets to create political theater. This is wrong. And if you can't see that, then you don't belong here. I yield back.
▶ 2:33:24Will the gentleman later yield just for
▶ 2:33:25I will yield to Mr. Ras.
▶ 2:33:27Um I just have some UC requests, Mr.
▶ 2:33:29Gentlemen can proceed.
▶ 2:33:30Um one is from dream.org. One is from bail project about HR5213 and then
▶ 2:33:36objection they'll be in the record
▶ 2:33:38and I have just have two others. These are uh minority committee staff reports that I highly recommend to everybody uh on the committee. One is called where are they now? the perpetrators of January 6 and the defenders of democracy who stopped them, which uh follows uh people from January 6, and then one year later assessing the public safety implications of President Trump's mass pardon of 1600 riers and
▶ 2:34:02Uh without objection,
▶ 2:34:05I believe it's the gentle lady from Washington and then the gentle lady from California. Gentle lady from Washington is recognized.
▶ 2:34:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I oppose this bill, but I want to go back to what happened in Minnesota because I just think that this is so critical on so many different levels. There's new information coming out every minute. I'm tracking this very closely. Um, I want to enter into the record uh an article um from the Washington Post entitled ICE agent was not in vehicles path when he fired at driver.
▶ 2:34:40I also want to enter into the record uh a a article from the New York Times that um is titled Minnesota officials say they're being blocked from investigating fatal ICE
▶ 2:34:53without objection. And the reason I think this is very important is because we have video footage that is being shown across this country about what happened in Minnesota when Miss Good was shot three times by an ICE agent as her car was being turned to move away.
▶ 2:35:20And we also have immediately, not not days later, the Secretary of Homeland Security who has billions of dollars at her disposal, taxpayer dollars, who has been using ICE agents to kidnap and disappear people across our cities, including US citizens,
▶ 2:35:51by the way, mass detention policies that have been ruled illegal by numerous judges across the country with no due process, which is what this committee is supposed to ensure that we have.
▶ 2:36:07And that Secretary of Homeland Security combined with the President of the United States within hours put out that were absolutely
▶ 2:36:25and that's coming out now with all this video footage.
▶ 2:36:28And what happens, Mr. President, I Mr. Chairman, what happens is
▶ 2:36:35we live in two realities.
▶ 2:36:39We here in Congress are living in two realities where we have one reality of what's happening to the American people. Healthc care is being stolen. We're invading Venezuela without authorization from Congress. Congratulations to the Republicans in the Senate who voted for the War Powers Resolution where it passed in the Senate on Venezuela.
▶ 2:37:04We are seeing a reality on television of an American citizen who was sitting in her car approached by an ICE agent and then turning her car away and being shot three times.
▶ 2:37:26Not once, not twice, three When you have the president and the secretary of homeland security now give an alternate reality to what happened, what you do is you undermine any trust that may have existed in the United States government because that's who's saying these lies. And when you undermine the trust, and maybe this is the proposition that my colleagues across the aisle are okay with, I don't know.
▶ 2:37:57But when you undermine that kind of trust in our government, in our democracy, that is when you have lawlessness. And look, this isn't the first time. January 6 happened. I was in that gallery when January 6th happened. I couldn't walk. I had a cane. I just had a knee surgery. And I was one of the last people to be let out of the gallery.
▶ 2:38:21And to tell me that that didn't happen, that that was not a violent insurrection incited by the president of the United States, confirmed by a special counsel that he was absolutely trying to steal that is not just a disservice. That's too mild of a word. It is fundamentally people's faith in government.
▶ 2:38:47Because when I see these articles that say ICE agent was not in the vehicle's path when he fired at the driver, and that is directly contradictory to what the president of the United States has said, how can we accept anything from this from this administration? He wants to set up an offshore account for Venezuelan oil that we sell. And I don't know, is he going to control that account? I have no idea.
▶ 2:39:16But I am deeply disturbed about this killing, about the lack of accountability from this committee, about the fact that members on the other side are defending this killing. And I think we have to think about the consequences to our democracy and to our judiciary system and to the trust in government. I yield back.
▶ 2:39:39I think I have the gentle from California and then I'll come to the gentleman from Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I uh oppose this bill and I am going to get to it uh in a minute, but I I do have I just I I ask uh when the fever will break over there. Um please let us know and if we can help accelerate it, let us know how.
▶ 2:40:10um you know, a woman, a mother, a daughter was killed, uh you know, on the streets of Minneapolis. And you know, the callous disregard for the life is [snorts] pretty potent, uh coming from this administration, from Christine Gnome, and from some folks on the other side of the aisle. And and maybe that's because you don't know her.
▶ 2:40:38I I you know, but I would just implore us all to consider if Miss Renee Good belonged to us, if she lived in our community, if she was a constituent in our district, if we knew her, if we worshiped with her.
▶ 2:40:55Think about it in those terms so that you can emote a little compassion, even if it's rented, for the fact that this woman was killed on the streets of Minneapolis. And I'm deeply alarmed that the FBI has taken over this case and has denied local law enforcement the opportunity to investigate it. But, you know, Cash Patel likes to party.
▶ 2:41:23So, while we're discussing finding a time for uh the attorney general Pam Bondi uh Priceless to come and uh be a witness before this committee, maybe we can bring back Cash Patel. Um please, I want to go back to this bill, keeping violent criminals off our streets. And you know, Tuesday was January 6th.
▶ 2:41:50We put the Trump Trump put 1,500 violent criminals back on the streets. Those folks that he pardoned and some of them before the pardon that they got were violent criminals. Okay, here's their charges. Malicious bodily injury. Strangling assault on a family member. Destruction of property. Assault. Soliciting a minor.
▶ 2:42:19Position possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a minor. Sexual assault of a child. Receipt of child pornography. Aggravated sexual battery of a child under 13. DUI. DUI. DUIs. Stalking. Invasion of property. Drug possession. rape.
▶ 2:42:40Will the gentle lady yield for a quick
▶ 2:42:42Yes. Yes.
▶ 2:42:44So, thank you for referencing that. It's, you know, our report is devastating and everybody on the committee should read it. Um, you're referring to some crimes that were committed before January 6th.
▶ 2:42:56That's true.
▶ 2:42:56But there were also crimes committed after January 6th.
▶ 2:43:00Amen. I was getting to that.
▶ 2:43:02Please do. And after the pardon, there were also uh those who've gone out. I mean, you know, if the rules were reversed, we bet we we'd have a Willie Horton ad every night on TV.
▶ 2:43:13Yes, we would. And to your point, after the pardon, these violent criminals came back on the street and committed more crimes. Let's get into it. Assault of multiple people, including a police officer, law enforcement, violating a peace order in 22 and in 25, burglary, grand theft, possession of stolen property, breaking and entering, a felony charge of making a terroristic
▶ 2:43:43threat. And these are actions, these are felonious actions that happened after the pardon. So if you're talking about keeping violent criminals off the streets, I would hope I would think that you would be talking about these folks. But no, you're actually talking about poor people and in sometime some instances legally innocent people who are held in jail pre-trial for no other reason than their inability to pay bail.
▶ 2:44:11And I want to agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle from California that states should be in control of their criminal justice system. My colleague wanted to reference the state of California. Well, the state of California actually was in investing in reforms that you know what they did? They cut down the cost of jail time. 1.4 million jail days because of the reforms. You know what that translates into?
▶ 2:44:41Saving taxpayer dollars. And they saved taxpayers hundred million dollars because of their reforms. And I just want to add, even though I know my time is up, Mr. Chair, but you know, this program you're trying to defund actually supports law enforcement. I looked up um this burnjack.
▶ 2:44:59It says it helps law enforcement, prosecution and courts, prevention and education, corrections, community corrections, drug treatment, mental health and related law enforcement, and correction programs. So, you're essentially saying you want to defund law enforcement and the community- based organizations that partner with law enforcement. And you know, we had a hearing about defunding federal courts. So, we cannot speak out of both sides of our mouths. Mr.
▶ 2:45:28I The gentleman gentleman from Georgia, then the gentleman from Florida.
▶ 2:45:35Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last.
▶ 2:45:37Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 2:45:38Yeah. this uh bill uh I just had it up, the uh keep violent criminals off of our streets act um flies in the face of uh human decency and democracy. I served as a uh criminal defense attorney for 27 years before I came to Congress. And during 12 of those years, I served as a magistrate court judge.
▶ 2:46:07And one of the things I did as a judge was to set bond uh for people. And uh and so my state, the state of Georgia, allows judges to exercise judicial discretion in setting bond in many and most cases. Sometimes that's limited by uh Georgia law.
▶ 2:46:30Uh but in cases where I could set uh cash bonds, I use my discretion and other judges use their based on factors like uh nature of the offense, a misdemeanor. Why can't a judge set a signature bond, a cash uh uh uh a cashless bond? Why can't a judge set a signature bond for a misdemeanor?
▶ 2:47:00Um, in fact, I would challenge any of my uh Republican colleagues who support this uh bill 5213 HR um to cite a situation where a state court judge set bail for a uh a dangerous offense. Uh you can't s you can't do that.
▶ 2:47:28The only thing that you can do is to pass this legislation for the purpose of incarcerating more people. And you know that most of the people who fill the jails now unable to make bond are black and brown people. And you know that uh the people who are most unable to make a bond that has been set that is not cashless or signature bond.
▶ 2:47:55The ones who are most likely to not be able to make bun are black and brown people. And that is why, as you know, the jails are filled with black and brown people awaiting trial. Haven't even been convicted yet, but just simply awaiting trial on minor charges because they cannot make bond.
▶ 2:48:15This bill would punish state and local governments for allowing their judges the discretion to set signature bonds. It would cause them to lose burn grant funding.
▶ 2:48:32By the way, $270 million of burn jack uh awards in 2024 to $1,489 local governments that were eligible helps these uh states and local governments uh reduce and subdue uh crime. But you all want to take discretion away. Why is that? Got to tie it back to what happened to Renee Good yesterday.
▶ 2:49:01peaceful protests, peaceful protesters. Uh you want them to be locked up. You don't want them to be able to uh get out on bond if they're charged with uh disturbing the peace uh or some minor uh It's an erosion of our First Amendment rights, uh, our rights to peacefully assemble and seek redress from our government.
▶ 2:49:31You're trying to stifle dissent. You're in favor of shooting people, executing people on the street for minor traffic offenses. This is outrageous where our country is headed.
▶ 2:49:49As Donald Trump's net worth goes up $3 billion in a year, our First Amendment rights are going down and our streets are being flooded with ICE goons who are untrained and who shoot into moving vehicles. Did you see why it is against police procedure to fire into a moving vehicle?
▶ 2:50:18Uh it's because that vehicle becomes a projectile itself and it goes down the street, hits other vehicles, hits causes property damage, could have injured uh or killed human beings on the street. That's why you don't shoot into a moving vehicle. These were untrained agents, federal agents, and they have uh immunity from civil prosecution.
▶ 2:50:45uh and if they should be prosecuted in the state courts, it's likely that their attorneys will move to have the cases uh removed to federal court and so we're setting up injustice here.
▶ 2:50:59Time of the gentleman has expired.
▶ 2:51:01HR 5213 is is in keeping with that and that's why I oppose it and I ask my colleagues to do the same and with that I yield back.
▶ 2:51:09Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Good to be uh with you from from the break. I want to follow up uh on my colleague from Colorado who was following up on my question. You you were in here for about 10 minutes and I tried to to subpoena Pam Bondi because she hasn't appeared in front of this committee. She's the only one in the cabinet who has not appeared in the House yet. And so, uh I was told that's out of order.
▶ 2:51:33Before the break, you uh you said that she'd be coming in January at a previous hearing and now she's coming in February, which is fine. So, I printed out the calendar of February and I just figured like while we're here, we could just get it on our calendar. So,
▶ 2:51:46February 11th.
▶ 2:51:48She's coming the 11th.
▶ 2:51:49That's my understanding.
▶ 2:51:49Perfect. Excellent. The 11th. Perfect.
▶ 2:51:53So, by the way, since you're on a roll, I'll Should I print out the other months so we can know when Gnome is coming as well because the Homeland Security Secretary has always come at least once in front of judiciary a term. So, she's not going to come in February. I'll print March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October.
▶ 2:52:07All you want. We'll we'll work on getting the appropriate cabinet officials in front of the committee. We've had director of the FBI. We will have the attorney general in what is that? Four weeks. Um we will do our oversight like we're supposed to our
▶ 2:52:21All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. I didn't expect to get that answer. I was going to go a lot longer, but you you just you just you saw the calendar and you just spit out the 11th.
▶ 2:52:30When Mr. Negus asked earlier, I knew it was early February. I just didn't know which day we've been negotiating with when when we can make it work. their schedule, our schedule. When we're in hearings, when you're not shutting down the government, we now know the key.
▶ 2:52:40Now we know it's 11.
▶ 2:52:41Now I know the key how to get stuff out of you. I just got to whip out a calendar and all of a sudden
▶ 2:52:45whip out a calendar. Put a yellow tie
▶ 2:52:47Will the gentleman yield?
▶ 2:52:49Perhaps we could get the gentleman's commitment not to shut down the government in February.
▶ 2:52:54Did those talking points go out to all of you this morning? Like did everyone get the same talking point this morning?
▶ 2:52:59it's just a fact.
▶ 2:52:59We're back to the government shutdown. I mean that I mean the American people and the media have moved past that. You guys are it was your shutting down everything
▶ 2:53:08the appearance of the attorney general before this committee.
▶ 2:53:12Look, I can do it, too. Why did you
▶ 2:53:13It would be nice to get your commitment to that American people. I can do it, too. Why did you take healthcare away from the American people? You invaded Venezuela so we stopped talking about affordability. I mean, I can do this too, guys, all day.
▶ 2:53:24Mr. Mosquez, would you yield?
▶ 2:53:26No, I'll I'll end it in
▶ 2:53:28No, I want you to yield to me. I
▶ 2:53:29Well, I'll end I'll end my moment since the chairman gave me [laughter] the gave me the 11th. So,
▶ 2:53:35you can yield to the It's your time. You can yield if you want.
▶ 2:53:37Yield. I will yield to Mr.
▶ 2:53:39Okay. Thank you so much. Um there's a lot of conversation about shutdown and I'm curious to know if you can answer just a couple of questions for me. Um who currently controls the Senate? Who currently controls the Senate?
▶ 2:53:55Answer the question.
▶ 2:53:56The Republican.
▶ 2:53:57The Republican.
▶ 2:53:58Thank you. Who currently controls the
▶ 2:54:00The Republican.
▶ 2:54:01The Republicans. So if there is
▶ 2:54:03is this the same test that the president gets when he does the the
▶ 2:54:06I think it is. I think it is the ones that he claims that he actually passes. But nevertheless, so if the government shuts down again, would it be on the Democrats or the Republicans?
▶ 2:54:16The people in charge, the Republicans.
▶ 2:54:18Oh, okay. Okay. I I just thought that my math wasn't mathing. Um and then the last thing that I have for you, um actually, Mr. Chairman, is there any reason that we can't get um the attorney general to come in before your January 31 deadline? Because it almost sounds like y'all are projecting that y'all are about to shut the government down and then you will go ahead and use the excuse that we were shut down and so she couldn't get in.
▶ 2:54:44We're scheduled for the 11th. She'll be here the 11th.
▶ 2:54:47Oh, okay. I'll yield.
▶ 2:54:50Gentle yields back. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for an
▶ 2:54:54Miss McBth first. We have one more speaker on the bill.
▶ 2:55:00Okay. I think the gentle from Georgia and then we'll come back to the gentle from Texas.
▶ 2:55:04Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and I'm going to actually talk about the bill. Okay. So, this bill would actually defund the police, eliminate essential public safety resources from local communities and actually punish crime victims for policy decisions over which they have no control. It is cynical, misguided, and it's wrong. Republican fear-mongering about bail is just one thing, but it's another to play partisan games with law enforcement, crime victims, and our safety.
▶ 2:55:30This administration has already eliminated and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars that support vital public safety functions and essential services for crime victims. But this bill goes further, weaponizing our nation's cornerstone crime fighting program, the Edward Burn Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, also known as Burn Jag. Law enforcement agencies across the country rely on burn JAG funds to fight crime.
▶ 2:55:55The funding reaches every state and supports every congressional district, red, blue, urban, suburban, and rural. And how and now that it it and that is actually how it should be. Public safety is not partisan as it has become here in this committee in Georgia. Burn GR burn JAG grants provide direct financial support to innocent victims of violent crime including victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse.
▶ 2:56:25These grants help combat elder abuse and human trafficking. They support sexual assault response teams and put the latest forensic tools in the hands of law enforcement and first responders. They fund data analysis that helps Georgia make smart evidence-driven policy decisions around public safety, criminal justice, and victim services issues and they support training that raises standards statewide. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
▶ 2:56:53I could go on and on about the many uses of burn jack funding in Georgia, which is, you know, my district or any other state or district in this country. Public safety matters to all Americans, and there has never been a partisan litmus test for burn jag support. That's how it's supposed to work and that's how it has worked for almost 40 years. It's a model for how the federal government can support state and local communities.
▶ 2:57:22But this bill would disqualify jurisdictions from receiving burnjack funding if they don't fall in line with Trump's partisan agenda that is not based on fact and it's not based on truth. This bill would penalize states that have modeled their pre-trial detention systems based on our federal courts which boast an arrest rate of less than 2% for individuals arrested for a new offense while on federal pre-trial supervision.
▶ 2:57:51It would even disqualify jurisdictions where the most violent offenders are not eligible for bail, like in federal court where dangerous offenders charged with violent crimes are preemptively detained. How does any of this make sense? The American people deserve to be safe in their communities. They don't need more partisan hype. We've heard enough of the partisan hype here today already.
▶ 2:58:15We should be working together to support states and localities to reduce crime and hold dangerous offenders accountable. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing HR 5213. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 2:58:30J yields back. J from Texas recognized.
▶ 2:58:34Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Um, so as many of you know, I not only represent Texas, but I have obviously represented well over a thousand people in court as it relates to criminal defense cases. And so this is something that I know a little bit about and I don't know if y'all truly understand what it is that you put into writing, which is why we shouldn't just do knee-jerk things and we should be very thoughtful as we are crafting legislation.
▶ 2:59:04So, some of you may or may not know that both Texas and Tennessee are pursuing constitutional amendments to allow judges to deny bail for more violent crimes, moving beyond current limits where bail can often only be denied for capital offenses. Kind of like what that ICE officer committed because usually when you execute somebody that way, you could be charged with a capital offense.
▶ 2:59:28And so in a state like Texas, it is already a situation where that kind of officer should be soon to be defendant would actually then go in before a judge. That judge would arraign him and then that judge would make an assessment. And just because you're charged with capital murder doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to be denied bail.
▶ 2:59:49That is such a serious offense and serious accusation that constitutionally it is one that has been historically justified as a means to hold someone without bail. And the reason that we don't hold people without bail is because we have this little nasty thing called the constitution. And in that constitution it says that there is a presumption of innocence. And sometimes what happens is people are innocent.
▶ 3:00:17I mean, we know that y'all may not have y'all's current president if he was incarcerated for his crimes and never got bail. Um, he may have just been sitting there for a long time, but we know that he didn't even have to really go and spend any time in jail when he got arrested for crimes in four different jurisdictions, both state and federal.
▶ 3:00:38But nevertheless, so what we do is to make sure that that that a defendant is cloaked within that we have a balancing act because everything about the constitution is about balance. And so if somebody has a long history where they have gone out committed violent offenses over and over and over, then a judge has that information in front of them.
▶ 3:00:59And mind you, the best person to decide what you will do as it relates to bail is a judge because the judge is able to judge every single situation and determine whether or not someone is going to be a threat to the community because that's what it's actually supposed to be about. Bail is not supposed to be punishment. Punishment is supposed to come after the fact. Bail is supposed to be to asssure that someone actually shows back up.
▶ 3:01:30So if they have a history of fleeing, that is something that a judge takes into consideration. If they have a long criminal history, that's something they take into consideration. if they are facing a significant amount of time, which is why when someone is accused of a capital offense such as this ICE officer who should be facing significant crimes, then they look at the fact that maybe like in a state like Texas, if you are facing a capital offense, you are facing death or a life without possibility of parole.
▶ 3:02:00And so when you are balancing you have the ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses that are going to come before you and testify about why that person may or may not be um a threat to the community. You have the ability to make these assessments for us to take away tools does not make sense because we don't know every individual situation. You are taking power away from the judiciary. And so I think that that's also problematic.
▶ 3:02:30But let me continue on. The reason that I say that I don't think that y'all thought this out very well is because what is the meaning of substantially limits cash bail? Because when Texas and Tennessee decided to go in, they decided to limit how many people could actually get cash bail. They have decided that they want to deny even more people cash bail.
▶ 3:02:53So you may end up cutting off funds to Texas as well as Tennessee because they literally are in the process of changing the constitution to actually limit how many people qualify. So you may want to go back and read your language or it's okay if Texas doesn't get the money cuz you know we got a surplus. So anyway, I will yield my
▶ 3:03:16Gentle lady yields back. Um unanimous consent request from the gentle lady from Georgia. objection. Uh, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for an amendment.
▶ 3:03:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 3:03:35Clerk report.
▶ 3:03:37Amendment and the amendment.
▶ 3:03:38Objection. The amendment be considered as read. The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. Can
▶ 3:03:41I reserve a point of order, Mr. Chair?
▶ 3:03:43Point of order is reserved by the gentleman from uh Maryland.
▶ 3:03:47Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree I do agree with this bill's core goal. We should be incentivizing states and cities to stop policies that let dangerous criminals go free after committing serious crimes. As a committee, we've gone around the country and we see where these problems are. We've seen when judges and magistrates and prosecutors have let people out.
▶ 3:04:14And you know, I agree with the gentleman from Georgia, you know, that a judge should have some discretion and if it's a very minor crime, no, we shouldn't be holding them in prison. But they were releasing people that were guilty of crimes that were violent, guilty of crimes over and over again who were flight risks and mothers and daughters and brothers and fathers and sisters and were murdered. And we saw them, we met them, we heard their testimony through the tears.
▶ 3:04:41It's wrong and it's unfair unto the law-abiding of citizens. That said, this bill is too broad. It sweeps in states like New Jersey, who I'd be the first to admit has a system that lacks in some ways. But while New Jersey has sharply reduced the use of cash bail, the state has not eliminated it, and it allows judges to retain the ability to detain dangerous individuals pre-trial.
▶ 3:05:10The distinction matters a lot. We have to use we have to do this surgically. We have to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer. My amendment makes a narrow common sense fix. It ensures that states or jurisdictions that employ a riskbased bail system that includes that includes pre-trial detention are not automatically stripped of burn jag funding under this bill. Those burn jag funds are critical.
▶ 3:05:40Those grants are critical. They are heavily relied upon by local law enforcement in my district and in every district throughout the United States of America. I have heard from the FOP, the PBA, the state troopers, and the list goes on. Real people doing a real job, good police officers. These are men who may not even always like what their state has done, but they should not be punished and they want to keep their communities safe.
▶ 3:06:08If we cut off this funding, we make it actually harder for them, not easier for them to do their jobs and keep new New Jerseyians safe. This amendment preserves the bill intent to go after jurisdictions that have truly and fully completely abandoning public safety while invoiding the unintended consequences for law enforcement in states that maintain at least some meaningful safeguards.
▶ 3:06:36I urge all members to vote yes on the adoption of this amendment. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 3:06:43Gentleman yields uh gentleman yields recognize a ranking member and then I then I'll make a make a statement.
▶ 3:06:50Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I'm seeing it and I'm wondering if uh the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey would yield to a few questions about it.
▶ 3:06:58I will yield. Yes.
▶ 3:07:00Um as I understand it, the amendment uh establishes a carveout essentially for New Jersey.
▶ 3:07:07And may I don't want to interrupt you right as you start. It is not just for New Jersey. This would affect some other states as well. states that do allow pre-trial detention, states that do give the judge uh the the right also clearly to do that. And in New Jersey, which happens to be my state, that right exists. It's not used often, but it is used.
▶ 3:07:31And I believe that's important because for states like that, I don't think that you should reduce or not reduce, remove their JAG, the burn jag funding, which is really important.
▶ 3:07:41Yeah. Well, wait. And this is why we oppose the bill because as you're saying that the JAG funding is extremely important for all of our communities and all of our jurisdictions. When you say it's not used that often, I'm afraid I don't understand the import of that statement. Uh I as I took it, this is New Jersey system. New Jersey has moved away from cash bail and uses a riskbased bail system in every single case. Isn't that right?
▶ 3:08:08That is correct. the system that they use uh is one that has allowances in it though for those areas that I just discussed. In other words, it allows you to detain people when you should. Look, this would all be good if we had good judges and good magistrates that did their job all the time. I'm talking around the country. People have been released over and over again that shouldn't be and in those jurisdictions where they completely
▶ 3:08:33All right. You know what I I'm going to come back to you. Let me just reclaim my time so I can at least expound a little bit of where I am on this and you can respond to it. Um, it seems to me that um we have proven well that the purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the defendant at trial to prevent flight risk um and to prevent uh any security risk that the person might pose to the
▶ 3:09:04community. In that case, whether the person is destitute and can't pay anything or they're a multi-billionaire or they're Jeffrey Epstein and they can put up the money easy, it should make no difference. So, I don't understand why all of this fervor has been mobilized against cashless bail. That's not the issue.
▶ 3:09:25we should make sure that bail decisions are being based on the uh the the risks of the person to the community or the risk that the person will hit the road and not show up in court.
▶ 3:09:41So, uh, I'm very drawn to the the gentleman's amendment for New Jersey and any other states that might be in a similar posture, but it completely unravels the logic of the bill itself because the bill itself is attacking jurisdictions that have said they don't want um, bail to be a question of money and how wealthy you are or how poor you are. And so, we're just mixing apples and oranges.
▶ 3:10:08You take that point off of the table and you're saying, "Well, yeah, we're not using wealth in any way. We're just using risk." Fine. Let's do that. If we want to be uh imposing a federal straight jacket on all of the states to be doing something that we want them to do in this field and threatening them with a Godfather offer to cut off their uh their Jag fund money.
▶ 3:10:35um let's do it for making sure that they're using a riskbased system, but why are we targeting the ones um who have decided that cash bail doesn't help? Yes. So, in other words, I just think the logic of your amendment is to dissolve the entire bill.
▶ 3:10:53It is not. And it's clear and it's clear in the way that I say it. It is focused. the bill would be focused and I believe that was the sponsor's intent um on those jurisdictions that have been capriccious and cavalier in the way they've just let out real bad folks. I don't know how else to say it over and over again.
▶ 3:11:11You all were with us on many of these visits as we went around the country and actually interviewed people that had been harmed, killed, raped, beaten uh by individuals that had a clear history that they posed a risk and danger to the community. The problem the problem there is they're not paying attention to risk. The problem is not that they're failing to charge someone $50,000 or whatever.
▶ 3:11:37The point is they're not paying attention to risk. So, how does this bill even help?
▶ 3:11:41May I answer that? That is that is the point. So, since they aren't paying attention to risk and some of it doesn't enter into some of their systems at all, this bill is to ensure that risk is something that should be evaluated and considered. Yet at the same time, if you have a system that is somewhat different than others, and there are numbers that are all throughout the country, that there should be room for those to still get that funding as long as they're not, in plain English, letting bad people out over and over again.
▶ 3:12:11I guess you want me to yield back, right?
▶ 3:12:15Well, so actually, you want me.
▶ 3:12:16So, just just, you know, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I've got to I really have to think about this one because but obviously I'm sympathetic to what the gentleman is saying in jurisdictions that have gotten rid of cash bail but are using risk are doing uh the right thing from their perspective and certainly a reasonable thing. Um but it does seem like a bit of self-pleading because generally the bill is coming in like a sledgehammer against other jurisdictions and that doesn't seem right. So I'm going to think about it but thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:12:45appreciate that fiveminute dialogue so we can think about it. The um uh [laughter] the gentleman from New Jersey is a great member of this committee does outstanding work as our chair of the oversight subcommittee. We appreciate that. Appreciate him offering this amendment. But um I I think this does as frankly as the ranking member said kind of unravels what the bill is trying to do. So I would oppose the amendment and appreciate the the thoughtfulness that it was brought forward.
▶ 3:13:09appreciate the discussion that took took place, but uh I think that this I think that I actually jotted down completely unravels the objective of the legislation. So um let's uh if uh gentle lady from California is recognized.
▶ 3:13:23You know, this was an intriguing amendment um because as I was listening um to my colleague from New Jersey talk about his system and so to be clear, you're saying that New Jersey has implemented a riskbased system that you feel works.
▶ 3:13:45And to be very clear, I don't feel that it always does work as well as it should. Uh I'm full disclosure and this is you'll find this interesting. It was a Republican governor. You know his name Chris Christie when this system was put in place and it was a very popular piece of legislation when it was done in New Jersey had many Republican and Democratic supporters. The system that we have in New Jersey and I'll wrap this up in a second. I had a lot of serious questions.
▶ 3:14:13as I sat on the budget committee where this actually went through and had some concerns and I think we could have done more and done a little better, but I don't think it's so bad that they shouldn't get the funding. It is the police that asked me for this.
▶ 3:14:25Yeah. So, I'm I'm going to cut you off because it's my minutes, but I like what you said because, you know, obviously nothing is pure, but it sounds like more often than not this riskbased system works. And you know, we actually have a system like this in the liberal haven of San Francisco and also in the liberal bastion that is Los Angeles.
▶ 3:14:46And to your point, these systems work as well because you are uh integrating conditions of release, judicial discretion, and assessment tools. But I I also am confused because it does seem like it would be a carveout just for one state.
▶ 3:15:04And it does seem like the antithesis of what we just debated with um the 5213 keep violent criminals off the streets and why would it just be for one state or for other localities that um enjoy this so that they can get the um uh burn jag funding which I think we all agree is important and to your point it's law enforcement that is asking
▶ 3:15:30May I answer that real quickly about it isn't just for one state it would be there would be a number of states and it is to ensure the bill would still ensure that the money is used properly and that's the point
▶ 3:15:44yeah but I think all of us want the monies that are given to these programs to be used
▶ 3:15:48but they're not yield back
▶ 3:15:50well but um it it really does fly in the face of the underlying bill and so what's good for the goose is good for the gander I think most law enforcement agencies are saying hey why get rid of this funding that goes to support the courts. It goes to support prosecution. It goes to support mental health with our community based partners that we're working with to make our communities more safe. It does all of the things that if you care about safer cities and communities, you would want.
▶ 3:16:18And so it they actually it should be funding that all states have the opportunity and the eligibility to enjoy. I think that's what sort of boggles my mind. I certainly am not one of those people that says give the money only to California and don't give it to New Jersey if New Jersey has some systems that are working that have been voted on by the people.
▶ 3:16:40Real quickly, I wouldn't say that either and I
▶ 3:16:43I haven't yielded to you, sir. I actually wanted to yield the rest of my time to my ranking member and then he can probably ask you the questions. I do like your orange tie though.
▶ 3:16:52Thank you very much, distinguished gentle lady from California. Um, look, first of all, uh, the New Jersey system that was adopted by Governor Christie, the cashless bail riskbased system adopted by Governor Christie has been working as I understand it. There's an interesting report from the Brennan Center for Justice on Bail Reform and Public Safety on evidence from 33 different jurisdictions. I recommend it to everybody highly uh to check it out.
▶ 3:17:21Um, but I mean it seems to me that that you know and I back to Mr. Van Drew if you would for one second. When you say a riskbased bail system when I got to law school in the middle of the 20th century, okay, in the 1980s, we we were taught that bail was all about the risk of flight and the risk to other people in the meantime. In the meantime, you don't want people reaffending and you don't want people disappearing. Okay.
▶ 3:17:47So, is that the system that you mean or did you mean something else by a risk based bail system? Because that is what the bail system is. It's riskbased. It always has been.
▶ 3:17:57That is a system I I mean still have some concerns with it on an objective level. They use an algorithm that makes me nervous sometimes. Um I'm open to it. I I'm all due disclosure. When that came forward at the urging of Governor Christie and others bipartisan in committee and on the floor, I voted for
▶ 3:18:17I voted for it to give it a chance. I just have some concerns. There are other jurisdictions where it seems to me that over and over again, as I've said before, they're letting bad people out. And I
▶ 3:18:29Yeah, but and that can happen under me
▶ 3:18:32When you say they're letting bad people out, let's try to have some analytical clarity about it. That's true under cash systems and cashless systems. There are always mistakes that happen in this direction or that direction. Right. So
▶ 3:18:45I think I think it's worse under cash systems. I do.
▶ 3:18:51Okay. I'm not sure whose time it is, but I'm happy to yield back. Mr.
▶ 3:18:55The gentle lady's time is expired. Do any other members seek recognition?
▶ 3:18:59On the amendment.
▶ 3:19:02The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. Those in favor say I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 3:19:09In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed
▶ 3:19:13A record votes requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 3:19:17Mr. Jordan,
▶ 3:19:20Mr. Isa,
▶ 3:19:23Mr. Biggs,
▶ 3:19:25Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcccleintoch.
▶ 3:19:28Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany,
▶ 3:19:31Mr. Tiffany votes no. Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy,
▶ 3:19:36Mr. Roy votes. No. Mr. Fitzgerald.
▶ 3:19:40Mr. Klein. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Vandrew.
▶ 3:19:48Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore.
▶ 3:19:54Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Kylie.
▶ 3:19:57Mr. Kylie votes no. Miss Haggamman.
▶ 3:20:00Miss Hagamman votes no. Miss Lee.
▶ 3:20:03Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Hunt Mr. Fry
▶ 3:20:08Mr. Fry votes no Mr. Growthman Mr. Knot Mr. Harris Mr. Hder Mr. Herder votes no Mr. Schmidt Mr. Gil Mr. Gil votes no Mr. Bombgardner Mr. Bombgardner votes no Mr. Raskin
▶ 3:20:29Mr. Raskin votes I Mr. Mr. Nadler, Miss Lofrren, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Swabo, Mr. Lou, Miss Jipel, Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin, Mr. Nagus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, Miss Ballot, Miss Balant votes I, Mr.
▶ 3:21:00Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camager Dove. Miss Camagerd votes I. Mr. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett.
▶ 3:21:18Miss. Ross votes yes.
▶ 3:21:22Mr. Klein votes no.
▶ 3:21:26I don't. Mr. Mr. Nadler, you're not recorded.
▶ 3:21:30Vote I.
▶ 3:21:31Mr. Nler votes I. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Schmidt votes no.
▶ 3:21:38Mr. Gooden votes no.
▶ 3:21:43Miss Scan.
▶ 3:21:46Miss Ganon votes I.
▶ 3:21:50Miss Crockett, you're not recorded.
▶ 3:21:53Miss Crockett votes yes. Mr. Not Mr. Not votes no.
▶ 3:22:02Mr. Jordan Mr. Jordan votes no. Have all members voted? The clerk will report.
▶ 3:22:30Mr. Chairman, there are nine eyes and 17
▶ 3:22:34Nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Question is on the amendment, the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I.
▶ 3:22:45I had my hand up before.
▶ 3:22:47Oh yes. Uh
▶ 3:22:49gentle lady from
▶ 3:22:50the gentle lady from Vermont is recognized. I appreciate that. Thank So, I will be voting against uh the underlying bill for all the reasons that that my colleagues have have already uh explained here.
▶ 3:23:02I I want to go back to what we were talking about before because I I keep thinking about how many constituents that I've heard from in the last 24 hours about this incident in Minnesota and how people are feeling um incredible shock and outrage Vaklav Havl who was a Czech dissident.
▶ 3:23:34He talked a lot about the dangers of and he said lying can never save us from another lie. And it is horrible to watch those videos of Ms. Good being killed. It's horrible to watch how there were numerous moments when it could be deescalated and that didn't happen.
▶ 3:24:02But to me, one of the most horrifying aspects of this is that within a very short amount of time after this, you had members of this administration at the highest levels lying about what happened.
▶ 3:24:21And and even as we've been in here, uh, Secretary Gnome has been giving a press conference and there are things that were said that were that are very disturbing. Um, she doubled down on the lie that this person was that this officer was seriously injured. She said, quote, "The officer went to the hospital. He was hit by the vehicle. He received treatment.
▶ 3:24:50We can see with our own eyes he was not hit by the vehicle. We can see with our own eyes that he was on scene for a very long time after the shooting.
▶ 3:25:08We have other folks at that press conference with Christine asking about why is it that yesterday the FBI agreed to fully cooperate with the Minnesota Bureau of Investigation and AG Keith Ellison announced yesterday that he he welcomed the opportunity to be doing an investigation side by side and then today we hear in fact no from Christina we they weren't cut out they weren't cut out of the process.
▶ 3:25:37They just never had jurisdiction. Well, that flies in the face of everything that was released yesterday. So, so I long for a time when we get back to having a president, a secretary of homeland security, an attorney general, when when these things happen that they would say something along the lines of, "An American has been killed. We are heartbroken and we're going to get to the bottom of what happened.
▶ 3:26:08I long for that and I know so many millions of Americans long for that too. We want to hear people say this is We are deeply concerned about the actions of this officer. And right now he will be suspended until we find out what happened and we will do a full And that is not what we're hearing.
▶ 3:26:31In fact, she said, "We expect," and this is a quote, "we expect that all the policies and procedures of review will be exactly that he acted appropriately." we can we can disagree about many many things and we do in this committee and we should.
▶ 3:26:55But I would hope that as Americans, not even about members of this committee, as Americans, we would understand how dangerous it is for any president, for any cabinet member to rush in front of cameras before there has ever been any gathering of evidence and not just give a a slap dash rust But
▶ 3:27:25in this case, absolute falsehoods and lies about what happened and they are continuing today. And this this is why we've been talking about that today. It isn't just the fact that an American has been gunned down by an ICE agent. It is also the moral rot of the lies and the lies and the lies. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 3:27:56General is back. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
▶ 3:28:00Vote against.
▶ 3:28:01Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
▶ 3:28:05Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 3:28:06Thank you. I strongly oppose HR 6260, which targets bail reform policies. Republicans are here to defend cash bail. For the most part, an absurd and unjust policy that has no connection to public safety. Under cash bail, criminal defendants are required to pay money for pre-trial release.
▶ 3:28:29They've not been convicted of any crime and a judge has deemed them eligible for release, but they can't pay up, so they sit in jail until their trial. Cash bail doesn't keep dangerous people in jail. It keeps poor people in jail. It's flooded our jails with pre-trial defendants who do not pose a security risk but cannot afford bail. So bail reform is a necessary and common [clears throat] sense solution.
▶ 3:28:58Pre-trial release should be determined based on safety. Judges should have a big word in it and not access to cash. We need substantive hearings, datainformed decisions, and pre-trial supervision and services which keep community safe and ensure defendants attend court hearings. That's why I worked on this issue as a Cook County Commissioner and help advance reforms to money bail.
▶ 3:29:27And it's why I'm so proud that Illinois became the first state to end the use of cash bail as a condition of pre-trial release. No amount of propaganda and fear-mongering by Republicans can change the facts. There's no evidence that bail reform increases violent crime. None. There's substantial evidence that cash bail fails to ensure court hearings and improve public safety.
▶ 3:29:55In two years since Illinois passed the pre-trial fairness act, violent and property crime have significantly decreased. There has been no significant change in the rates of people failing to appear in court or being charged with new offenses while awaiting trial. And it's especially hypocritical for Republicans to champion cash bail since it contradicts values they claim to hold.
▶ 3:30:24How does conditioning release on wealth protect liberty and limit government coercion? Why is it that fiscally why is it fiscally responsible to force taxpayers to fund pre-trial incarceration of people who do not pose a threat to the community? How are you protecting states rights by conditioning burn jag funding on policy changes you want?
▶ 3:30:51That's why the KO Institute and other conservative groups oppose cash bail. But Republicans pay lip service to those values and then betray them for selfish political gain. Even though it harms hundreds of thousands of working families, including many of their constituents, but it's also not surprising. This is the party that supports violent insurrection, or at least is silent about it.
▶ 3:31:20Supports kidnapping foreign leaders. supports when federal agents kill people in communities, supports any kind of violence as long as it keeps them in power. There are many examples and evidence-based policies like bail reform that would make this country safer and fairer.
▶ 3:31:42Congress should support those policies, but that's not going to happen as long as Republican are in charge. Thank you, and I yield The gentleman yields back. The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I.
▶ 3:32:01Those opposed say no.
▶ 3:32:03In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I.
▶ 3:32:12Those opposed say no.
▶ 3:32:14The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have ordered vote, please, Mr. Chairman. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 3:32:28Mr. Jordan, Mr. Isa,
▶ 3:32:32Mr. Biggs,
▶ 3:32:33Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Massie.
▶ 3:32:40Mr. Massie votes I. Mr. Roy.
▶ 3:32:43Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein votes I. Mr.
▶ 3:32:50Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Vandrew.
▶ 3:32:53Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes I. Mr. Kylie.
▶ 3:33:01Mr. Kylie votes I. Miss Haggamman.
▶ 3:33:03Miss Hagamman votes I. Miss Lee.
▶ 3:33:05Just got a note that she was coming.
▶ 3:33:06Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Hunting member.
▶ 3:33:09Mr. Fry.
▶ 3:33:11Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman.
▶ 3:33:15Mr. Kn.
▶ 3:33:16Mr. Knotes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Mr. Herder. Mr. Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt.
▶ 3:33:22Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil.
▶ 3:33:25Mr. Gil votes I. Mr. Bombgardner.
▶ 3:33:29Mr. Rascin.
▶ 3:33:31Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nodler. Miss Lofgrren. Miss Lafrren votes no. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. Miss Gipol. Mr. PA Miss Scandlin Miss Scandlin votes no Mr. Miss Mcbath Miss Ross
▶ 3:33:58Miss Ross votes no Miss Ballant Miss Balant votes no Mr. Garcia Mr. Garcia votes no Miss Camlager Dove
▶ 3:34:05Miss Camlager Dove votes no Mr. Mositz Mr. Goldman
▶ 3:34:13Miss Crockett votes no
▶ 3:34:16Mr. I say you're not recorded.
▶ 3:34:19Mr. Isa votes yes. Mr. Bombgardner votes yes.
▶ 3:36:20Mr. Nadler,
▶ 3:36:23Mr. Ner, you are not recorded.
▶ 3:36:25Mr. Ner votes no.
▶ 3:37:04Mr. Jordan votes yes.
▶ 3:37:10Are there any members who wish to vote who have not voted? The clerk will report.
▶ 3:37:15Mr. Chairman, there are 20 eyes and 10
▶ 3:37:18The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to nos, I call up HR2641 for purposes of markup and move that the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. to amend the illegal immigration reform and immigration.
▶ 3:37:43Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Mcccleintoch, for an opening statement. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, last month the Democrats witness at our immigration subcommittee hearing on temporary protected status said that employers should be held accountable for illegal hires. Well, we agree completely. For four bitter years, the Democrats flooded our country with cheap, illegal labor, driving down the wages of American workers.
▶ 3:38:14This was the biggest illegal mass migration in history, aided and emedded by the Democrats open border policies. During those years, the real wages of American workers declined as a result of these policies. Well, now we're engaged in the biggest legal mass deportation in history, despite the vicious and often violent street mobs incited and encouraged by some of our Democratic colleagues.
▶ 3:38:39An estimated 2 and a half million illegal aliens have either self-deported or have been forcibly removed. It's no coincidence that real wages of American workers are rising once again. But nearly 10 million illegal aliens remain employed in the United States in flagrant violation of the 1986 immigration reform that made it a federal crime to hire labor illegally here.
▶ 3:39:05Uh in that act, we required employers to check employment eligibility and identity documents for all new hires. Well, sadly that law became a joke because of the explosion of easily and cheaply obtained fraudulent documents that make it all but impossible for employers to reliably determine employment eligibility.
▶ 3:39:27In response, Congress established Everify, which is an easytouse electronic verification system where employers can immediately check the employment eligibility of an employee. With E-Verified, the subjectivity of document uh document inspection uh is simply taken out of the equation. Nearly one and a half million US employers are currently enrolled in E-Verify.
▶ 3:39:49It's very easy for employers to use and it works thanks to the federal acquisition uh regulation for E-Verify. Among those one and a half million employers are an estimated 95,000 federal contractors. This 2008 regulation requires that with certain exceptions, federal agencies insert uh an everify use clause into their contracts. But there are loopholes.
▶ 3:40:17Contracts less than $150,000 or shorter than 120 days are not required to use this system. They also exempt certain employers, including higher education and state and local governments. HR 2641, the day one dollar1 E-Verify Act, removes these loopholes and requires all federal contractors to use the Everify system to verify the employment eligibility of their new hires.
▶ 3:40:43By statute, Congress has long required itself and the executive branch to use E-Verify, so federal contractors will not have to play by the same rules that we do. While I support this legislation and and urge its passage, I look forward to the committee's consideration of the Legal Workforce Act, which requires all US employers to use E-Verify and makes necessary improvements to the system.
▶ 3:41:08In the meantime, the least this committee can do is to help ensure that US taxpayer dollars are not paying the salaries of illegal aliens. HR2641 does just that. Last Congress, when the committee considered E-Verify legislation, the Democrats sided with illegal alien workers against American workers. I hope the same is not true in this Congress. I uh thank our colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. McKenzie, for introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back.
▶ 3:41:38Gentlemen yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Rascin, for an opening statement.
▶ 3:41:43Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the the economy is uh in a freef fall because of the president's illegal unconstitutional tariffs that he's imposed uh around the world. Uh unemployment is rising. Prices are out of control. Huge affordability crisis, although Donald Trump says he doesn't want to hear the word affordability again. Um and what do uh our colleagues bring us?
▶ 3:42:10Uh well, another bureaucratic red tape program for small businesses for federal contractors. E-Verifies a federal program designed to help employers confirm the work authorization of newly hired employees. Um it would this bill would mandate the use of E-Verify for federal contractors despite longstanding evidence that the system remains still unreliable and prone to error and mistake.
▶ 3:42:38President Trump's own Department of Homeland Security's acknowledged that E-Verify is susceptible to identity fraud because it cannot reliably photo match stateisssued IDs. And in July, DHS spokesperson Trisha Mclofflin blamed a local police department in Maine's reckless reliance on E-Verify for inadvertently hiring a Jamaican national who was not authorized to work in the US.
▶ 3:43:02The E-Verify systems error rate stands today at approximately uh which has real world consequences. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employers hired about 64 and a half million people between July 2024 and 2025. If E-Verify were mandatory nationwide, the system would have wrongly notified more than 120,000 workers that they are not authorized to work in the United States or that they were authorized to work in the United States. That's just unacceptable.
▶ 3:43:32So it's an issue of basic fairness and due process. When E-Verify mistakenly flags a work authorized person as ineligible, the burden then falls on that person to navigate an ownorous process involving multiple agencies which can take weeks or months to resolve. These delays lead to missed work, lost income, and unnecessary stress for people struggling just to try to get by in Donald Trump's economy.
▶ 3:43:57There's also no formal appeal mechanism for challenging a decision based on E-Verify. This effectively leaves workers blacklisted. They lose their job and if they can't figure out how to resolve an error, they continue to encounter the same error with any other employer. Without an appeals process, even a small set of mistakes can cause lasting harm for workers and employers who did nothing wrong.
▶ 3:44:22He verifies vulnerable to identity theft and document fraud because the system only checks whether documents match government databases and whether the presenter is the rightful holder. Individuals without work authorization can bass verification by using someone else's valid ID. Yet today, the proponents of the bill propose that we vastly expand this deeply flawed program with no additional oversight and no new funding or resources to implement it.
▶ 3:44:50We all agree the government should address unauthorized employment in government contracting and we are not starting from scratch. Section 274 of the INA makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire or keep workers who are not authorized to work here. To comply with the law, employers must review an employees documents and complete an I-9 form to confirm the worker's identity.
▶ 3:45:14This process, commonly referred to as the I-9 process, is a required step for verifying worker eligibility. Employers face civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, for more than 15 years, the federal government has required many contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify through an executive order in a final rule in the federal acquisition regulation. That rule has been in place since 2009 and was adopted after a full rulemaking process.
▶ 3:45:44Importantly, the federal acquisition regulation is exemptions designed to minimize job losses caused by system error and uh is designed to reduce burdens on small businesses and is designed to protect the government's access to essential agriculture products by exempting certain agricultural and food supply contracts. Without an agricultural exception, school lunch and military meal programs will lose reliable access to domestic growers.
▶ 3:46:14The federal government would be forced to purchase foreign produced food with all of the instability, national security risks attendant to that. The bill before us today contains no such exceptions. It's simpler problem. This committee should be working towards a comprehensive immigration reform and helping to support a labor market that works for both employees and employers.
▶ 3:46:35But we're now 333 days into unified Republican control of government, and we have still not seen a single hearing on comprehensive immigration reform in this Congress. Just this week, we learned that unemployment has reached a four-year high. Millions of Americans are about to lose their access to health care coverage.
▶ 3:46:57And now Republicans want to inflict additional stress on the people in the economy by imposing this unreliable, unstable, errorprone, one-sizefits-all technological mandate on employers across America. If enacted, it will be costly and the decision to advance it here today will prove costly to the majority. I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. M
▶ 3:47:23Mr. Chairman,
▶ 3:47:23gentleman yields back. [clears throat and cough] the gentle lady from
▶ 3:47:29Oh, that's right. Um,
▶ 3:47:34chair, I recognize gentleman from California to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 3:47:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:47:40I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 3:47:41Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 3:47:42Amendment in the nature.
▶ 3:47:43Not objection. The amendment in the nature of substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of amendment. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from California to explain the amendment.
▶ 3:47:51Uh, thank you uh, Mr. Chairman. This amendment adds a short title of the bill and makes small technical changes to the text. It doesn't uh change the substance of the bill, nor does it change the accuracy of um of E-Verify. I just want to emphasize something that uh Mr. Raskin pointed out. He says that E-Verify has an error rate of 09%.
▶ 3:48:13Actually, I think it's.14% but let's not That is 191 100ths of 1% which means by his own admission E-Verify is 99.81% accurate. That is a remarkable success rate and I might add that those very few errors are usually corrected due to mismatches. Uh he also says the economy is in freef fall. I have some more good news for him.
▶ 3:48:43Uh he must have missed the news that third quarter GDP just grew at an explosive 4.3%. Uh and with that I yield back.
▶ 3:48:51Gentleman yields back.
▶ 3:48:54Gentle lady from California is
▶ 3:48:55I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 3:48:57Clerical report.
▶ 3:48:59Point of order reserved by the gentleman from Arizona. Amendment to the amendment in the nature bill be considered as read. The gentle lady from California is recognized to explain her amendment.
▶ 3:49:19Uh this amendment is a simple one. It exempts agricultural or food uh subcontractors from the bill's E-Verify requirements. It's worth noting and it has been discussed here that um the requirement for E-Verify for federal contractors already exists. So this proposed law doesn't really change anything except it eliminates uh some of the exemptions.
▶ 3:49:46The exemption as to agg is uh extremely important. Um we know that at least half of the farm workers in the United States lack documents. They are undocumented workers. Uh I remember many years ago when I chaired the immigration subcommittee uh we had a hearing and the then president of the Southern Baptist Convention gave this testimony. For years we had two signs at the southern border.
▶ 3:50:17One said no trespassing and the other sign said help wanted and people responded to the help wanted sign. There was no visa system in place for people to legally come. We have found uh through the years that um this immigrant workforce in agg is essential. Um now why is this important in terms of federal contracting in the military?
▶ 3:50:45Uh they are they have contracts to get milk to get fresh food for the commissaries and for the meals. uh the school lunch program in on military bases. All of those uh use a products that are uh produced in the United States and that's why the current exemption in the regulations is important and it's why the exemption should be added to this bill.
▶ 3:51:13As many know, I took the lead in a bipartisan effort uh to provide uh a comprehensive reform program for a workers. As a matter of fact, our dear friend um Doug Lamalfa was one of the people who worked very closely with me on that on that bill along with Mike Simpson and others.
▶ 3:51:37That bill provides for the capacity of undocumented farm workers to become uh to get a a farm worker status bill. Uh and then after a number of years as a legal farm worker, they have the option to provide for legal permanent residence. Uh it also includes E-Verify. uh because I agree that we ought to have legal immigration.
▶ 3:52:06But we also know if you don't have a system to enforce, it's not going to work. I was the one in the negotiations of that bill that insisted that we have E-Verify as part of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act because I very strongly believe if you have a system uh that works, it ought to be enforced. Now I agree with the criticisms of E-Verify. It is not perfect but I will say it has improved tremendously over the past several years.
▶ 3:52:36Um I think if we don't exempt uh agg uh we will have a very serious problem uh throughout the uh the federal government but especially in our military uh that relies on uh a products and feeding our soldiers and the idea [snorts] that we would have to feed our soldiers with food imported from another country doesn't sit so well with me. So this is a very easy amendment. It's consistent with the current regulation.
▶ 3:53:06It is um in keeping with our bipartisan effort uh to try and address the tremendous shortage uh of in our uh farm workforce system. American farms uh would go under uh without the immigrant workers who are working there.
▶ 3:53:26we would see mass offshoring of jobs uh and including upstream and downstream US jobs supported by agg and uh I'm hoping that we can include this exemption Mr. chairman, but I'm also hopeful that we can get the Farm Workforce Modernization Act uh approved by this House once again. It's passed the House twice with bipartisan support. And it would be great as a tribute to our late colleague to do that in the remainder of this of this Congress.
▶ 3:53:57And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 3:53:59Gentle yields back. The gentleman from Arizona withdraws his point of order. The gentleman from California is
▶ 3:54:03Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman. Um, Caesar Chavez, the founder of the United Farm Workers Union, was an outspoken opponent of illegal aliens being employed by agriculture because he understood that it undermined the working wages and conditions of his union members who were US citizens or legal residents.
▶ 3:54:24Um, this bill already applies to f the provisions of this bill already apply to federal contractors except with certain uh loopholes such as um uh the amount of the uh contracted what I think $150,000. Uh I'd also so the the the impact that this would have on agriculture is very very limited to begin with.
▶ 3:54:48Um, and I'd also point out that there is an uncapped agricultural guest worker program currently, C H2A program. So there you have it.
▶ 3:54:58Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 3:55:02The gentleman from Georgia.
▶ 3:55:03Oh, Georgia.
▶ 3:55:04Thank you. I'm going to respect the last
▶ 3:55:08Thank you. Uh, this amendment I rise in support of. It is simple but very important in that it exempts contractors and subcontractors who provide agricultural or food products from this bill's E-Verify requirements. E-Verify is a deeply flawed system and even the Trump administration admits that it does not work very well. Earlier this year, DHS claimed employers were quote reckless end quote to rely on the system.
▶ 3:55:38Now the majority on this committee wants to force all federal contractors to use it. That's doesn't make sense to me. Without other reforms, imposing E-Verify without exceptions will cause huge disruptions in our nation's food supply system. Over 15% of our economy relies on agriculture and the industry itself represents 1.26 trillion or 5.4% of our GDP.
▶ 3:56:07So when we disrupt that system, we also impose impose higher costs for food on America's families. And Trump promised that he would lower costs for families, but he's broken that promise as well as other promises. and Republicans uh you know bring this bill today about employment verification for immigrants. But we really
▶ 3:56:31can't get away from the fact that yesterday ICE agents uh felt free to uh to shoot a person in broad daylight as if it was on Fifth Avenue and as if they were Donald Trump and could get away with it. We should not allow them to get away with it.
▶ 3:56:49Yesterday, Renee Good, a legal observer observer who was a 37year-old poet and a mother, was killed by an ICE officer who fired his gun multiple times at her as she drove away in her car, posing no risk to him. He shot her three times in the head, killed her on the spot
▶ 3:57:16for traffic violation. We know this because we saw the video of it happening. And Americans saw the video of what happened on January 6 also. And Donald Trump is trying to get people to u not believe their lying eyes every time they see something on video. But we're not going for it. And uh this committee should not uh uh be complicit in it.
▶ 3:57:42We need to bring accountability to these thugs who are terrorizing our communities with impunity. That's why the bill we should be talking about is the Bivvens Act, which I introduced this year together with uh the ranking member uh Mr. Rascin. The Bivvens Act would provide an express cause of action for victims of constitutional violations like violating the civil rights of a person by taking their life without cause.
▶ 3:58:12And we need our citizens to be able to go into the courts and hold lawless federal government officials accountable just as they can state and local law enforcement agents. Um and um we should be talking about the constitutional accountability act uh that I introduced.
▶ 3:58:34We know that these ICE agents are acting with disregard for human life because that is what they are being told and that is what they are being set loose on our streets to do without training. They are hired by an administration that is led by a president who calls immigrants And then he un directs them onto the streets of Minneapolis and other country other uh cities in this country.
▶ 3:59:02They are being put in the field with deadly weapons and training that is clearly insufficient. They've been recruited based on racist appeals to support uh uh you know a racist regime that is in charge here in America. And it's not only the individual agents who need to be held accountable, but the chain of command as well.
▶ 3:59:27We do not want to live in a country where children are afraid that their mother will be shot in the face that day by government goons. We do not want to live in a country where we are peppered, pepper-sprayed, and put in danger for exercising our First Amendment rights. We do not want to live in a country where families are afraid to take their kids to school.
▶ 3:59:52We need accountability and we need to do it by marking up and passing my Bivvens Act and also the Constitutional Accountability Act. Otherwise, I fear how quickly things will get worse. I look forward to continuing this conversation and I yield back.
▶ 4:00:09Gentlemen yields back. Gentleman from Arizona's recognized.
▶ 4:00:11Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move strike the last word.
▶ 4:00:13Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 4:00:14Thank you. Um, I respectfully oppose the uh Laugh Green amendment and I want to point out that probably no state has had E-Verify longer than my home state of uh implement implemented and enacted in We heard many of the uh scary conversations [clears throat] that we've just we've just heard from uh my
▶ 4:00:44Democrat colleagues. But in Arizona, it's been the law for almost 20 years that every employer must use E-Verify for every employee. And the the fear-mongering was that uh since 90% of America's winter vegetables come from Arizona, that prices would skyrocket.
▶ 4:01:10We would not have Arizona's products to go out. We would be importing more uh vegetables to replace what Arizona And that has simply not been the case.
▶ 4:01:28and what we've seen instead is over those same two decades, Arizona was one of the fastest growing economic states in the country and was growing at a a very strong clip until um our current um executive regime took over uh which decided to implement all kinds of regulatory policies.
▶ 4:01:53uh and when I say executively regime, I mean at the state level uh put in all kinds of regulatory policies to limit the growth in Arizona. So I would just tell you that I think that people who support this amendment are overroought u and maybe well-intentioned but factually I don't think they are correct and I oppose the amendment. yield.
▶ 4:02:22Yields back. Gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized.
▶ 4:02:24Uh [clears throat] thank you um Mr. Chairman. Uh I I support this amendment. I think that our farmers have been struggling in so many different ways. North Carolina's farm economy is probably the biggest economic segment of our economy.
▶ 4:02:42Every time the farmers come to visit me, which is frequently I go to their farm lunches, farm breakfasts, they talk about the importance of solving our immigration problem. They never ask for this bill. What they do is they ask for bills like um Congresswoman Lofrin's farm worker modernization act. They ask for all sorts of ways to be able to do things the right way.
▶ 4:03:09We're in a situation right now where they're suffering from tariffs. They haven't gotten a full farm bill. They have so many other things going on. They are not asking for this. Why are we imposing this on them? What they are asking for is comprehensive immigration reform so that they can hire more people and produce more food in this country. And I think at this point, unless we're going to do something for our farmers, we shouldn't put another regulatory burden on them.
▶ 4:03:40Thank you. And I yield back.
▶ 4:03:42Gentle yields back. The question, the gentle lady from Washington's
▶ 4:03:46Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I do have to say I'm surprised we're here debating this bill to require all federal uh contractors and subcontractors to participate in the E-Verify program because last Congress, despite bipartisan opposition, the majority passed HR2, which mandated nationwide E-Verify for all businesses across the country. I don't know if the majority is unable to pass HR2 this Congress.
▶ 4:04:11Maybe the majority is relegated to a scaled down but still deeply flawed everify mandate alone. Um this legislation has been bu by its sponsor as a cotification of a 2009 rule which requires federal contractors and subcontractors to use everify for both new hires and existing employees working directly under the contract with certain exceptions for agriculture products, short-term contracts, and small businesses. But that is not the case.
▶ 4:04:39The bill contains none of the exceptions that exist under current law and it marks a significant expansion of the E-Verify program. As it currently stands, E-Verify is a flawed program that has not proven effective. Given its many challenges, it's difficult to credibly argue that the program should be expanded at this time. And even the Trump administration seems to recognize the program's flaws.
▶ 4:05:06Less than six months ago, the Department of Homeland Security blamed employers for quote reckless reliance on the very on the program to verify people are legally allowed to work. So, if Trump's own DHS believes that it's quote reckless to rely on a program that it operates to verify people's work authorization and immigration status, why would we want to expand the program with no additional oversight, funds, or compliance mechanisms? It really doesn't make sense.
▶ 4:05:35And that's why Miss Lafrren's amendment today is very important. I want to support it because it would exempt agriculture or food products from this legislation. And the reality is that immigrants fill major gaps in our workforce. And this particularly true in agriculture where 50% or more of on the- field farm workers lack immigration status. That is certainly true in eastern part of my state, central Washington, eastern Washington, northern Washington.
▶ 4:06:05And by mandating everify without also providing a fair and meaningful opportunity for those experienced undocumented farm workers to obtain legal status, we're going to see farmers around the country unable to obtain federal contracts. And that means that school lunches and military meal programs are not going to be able to access food that's grown domestically.
▶ 4:06:28Federal government will be forced to buy foreign produced agricultural goods and already high food prices across the country are going to continue to increase. So this will be a disaster for our farmers and for our small businesses. And it's why in Washington state, Everify has constantly been such a controversial issue in in our state, including in Eastern Washington, where uh Republicans hold many of those seats.
▶ 4:06:56Remember, over 15% of our economy relies on agriculture, and the industry itself represents 1.26 trillion dollars or 5.4% of our GDP. At least half of the on the- field farm workers lack immigration status. Losing those roughly 1.5 million workers would be devastating. American farms would go under.
▶ 4:07:21America would be less secure and we would see a mass offshoring of jobs including all of the upstream and downstream US jobs that are supported by agriculture. Now, we've seen from past recruitment efforts that there are nowhere near enough US workers who are willing and able to fill these jobs.
▶ 4:07:42Putting last Congress aside, in the past when we've marked up E-Verify legislation, including in this committee, Republicans at least attempted to address the problems that the program would cause for the agricultural industry. This time, there's nothing to stabilize the current agricultural workforce.
▶ 4:08:01According to the Center for Migration Studies, approximately 71% of undocumented farm workers have been in the United States for at least a decade and many have spouses and children here. In other words, for many farm workers, the United States is their home. And that's why when Democrats held the majority, we passed Representative Lafrren's Farm Workforce Modernization Act twice in the House with bipartisan support.
▶ 4:08:29And the bill not only provided stability to the current agricultural workforce, but it also looked to the future as well. That legislation, by the way, actually included E-Verify for the agricultural sector. It wasn't perfect, but it was the product of very tough bipartisan discussions that took almost a year.
▶ 4:08:48So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that US farmers across the country can continue to have access to the labor force they need to grow the food that feeds the nation, keep food prices down for American consumers. I yield back.
▶ 4:09:06Gentle yields back. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from California. All those in favor say I.
▶ 4:09:13Those opposed, no. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 4:09:19Gentle lady from California requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the
▶ 4:09:23Mr. Jordan,
▶ 4:09:24Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa,
▶ 4:09:27Mr. Biggs,
▶ 4:09:28Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcccleintoch,
▶ 4:09:31Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie.
▶ 4:09:37Mr. Roy,
▶ 4:09:38Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein,
▶ 4:09:43Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Van Drew Mr. Nells Mr. Moore Mr. Kylie Mr. Kylie votes no. Miss Miss Lee
▶ 4:10:00Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Hunt Mr. Fry.
▶ 4:10:04Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. Growthman. Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. KN Mr. Not votes no. Mr. Harris Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Mr. Herder.
▶ 4:10:16Mr. Her votes I. Mr. Schmidt.
▶ 4:10:19Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gil.
▶ 4:10:22Mr. Gil votes no. Mr. Bombgardner.
▶ 4:10:25Mr. Rascin.
▶ 4:10:27Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler.
▶ 4:10:30Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss. Laughofrren.
▶ 4:10:33Miss Lofrren votes I. Mr. Cohen.
▶ 4:10:36Mr. Johnson.
▶ 4:10:37Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swallow. Mr. Lou. Miss. Miss Jipal,
▶ 4:10:44Miss Jipal votes I. Mr. Korea, Miss Scandan,
▶ 4:10:48Miss Scanland votes I. Mr. Negus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes I. Miss Balot, Mr. Garcia, Miss Camlager, Dove, Miss Camager, Dove votes I. Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, Miss
▶ 4:11:10Mr. Mr. Her, you're recorded as I.
▶ 4:11:14Mr. Honor votes no.
▶ 4:11:16Mr. Isa, you're not recorded. Mr. Isa votes no.
▶ 4:11:21Miss Haggman, you are not recorded.
▶ 4:11:24Miss Hagamman votes no.
▶ 4:11:26Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Tiffany votes no. Cler report.
▶ 4:11:48Mr. Chairman, there are eight eyes and 19 nos.
▶ 4:11:51Uh the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 4:11:53gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 4:11:55Have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 4:11:56Cler report the amendment.
▶ 4:11:58One of reserves. Gentleman from
▶ 4:12:00Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substance.
▶ 4:12:02Objection. Be considered as read. The gentleman is recognized to explain his
▶ 4:12:06Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply requires that before a state issues or renews a commercial driver's license, the applicant's work authorization must be verified through E-Verify. This is a proven tool already in use across the country. Expanding it to CDL holders is common sense. We're talking about individuals operating massive 40 ton vehicles on our highways. Recent tragedies show what happens when verification fails or does not take place.
▶ 4:12:33In Florida, an unauthorized driver made an illegal U-turn, killing three. California, another driver here illegally caused a fiery crash that killed three more. In Tennessee, a driver who entered the country illegally and later failed an English proficiency test caused a chain reaction crash that killed an American and injured others. These are preventable deaths. Federal audits have exposed systemic failures in states across the country.
▶ 4:12:58A federal audit found California you issued 60,000 62,000 CDLs to drivers who entered illegally and lack permanent legal status which is required. Federal investigators found that more than half of the 200 licenses they reviewed in New York were issued improperly. Roughly 22% of the 99 licenses reviewed in Colorado violated federal requirements. At least 18 Mexican citizens who were not eligible were also issued commercial licenses. E-Verify closes the loophole.
▶ 4:13:27It ensures only authorized vetted individuals receive CDLs. Legal workers and immigrants with proper status pass through easily. Those who are authorized do not. It's fair, it's simple, and it's Um, this amendment does not expand mandates or spending. It restores integrity to the system. It protects American lives. It prevents future tragedies. And one preventable death is one too many. We should put safety first. And Mr.
▶ 4:13:54Chairman, I have two articles I want to put in. Uh, one is called problems with commercial driver's license for immigrants found in eight states so far. And by the way, this is not a a red blue issue because we found these these problems in red states as well. We're trying to get at this in all 50 states.
▶ 4:14:14And another article um uh put out, illegal alien who couldn't speak English causes deadly multi-vehicle pileup in Tennessee under Biden era work Somehow an illegal alien Chinese uh um was able to obtain a CDL even though he couldn't speak English. So
▶ 4:14:35without objection, the documents are entered in the record.
▶ 4:14:37Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge everyone to support this amendment and I yield
▶ 4:14:40Gentleman yields back. So for discussion on the amendment, Mr. R. Well, I'm going to press my point of order. This might be the absolute greatest amendment in the world, but it's completely not gerine to the legislation before us.
▶ 4:14:53I'm going to withdraw my amendment. I forgot. I forgot I was going to do that. I was so excited. So excited. Dog on it. It's a great amendment. I forgot I was going to withdraw it and I'm going to reintroduce it as a standalone. Thank
▶ 4:15:06Taken. The gentleman begs leave to withdraw his amendment without objection. The amendment is withdrawn. Is there further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. Those in favor say I. I.
▶ 4:15:30Those opposed say no.
▶ 4:15:33In the opinion chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. Those in favor say I. I.
▶ 4:15:41Those opposed say no.
▶ 4:15:44The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to reported favor.
▶ 4:15:47We have recorded vote, please, Mr.
▶ 4:15:49A recorded vote has been requested. The secretary will call the role.
▶ 4:15:52Mr. Dorton,
▶ 4:15:55Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs.
▶ 4:15:59Mr. BGS votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch.
▶ 4:16:02Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie Mr. Roy
▶ 4:16:11Mr. Roy votes I Mr. Fitzgerald
▶ 4:16:13Mr. Fitzgerald votes I Mr. Klein
▶ 4:16:16Mr. Klein votes I Mr. Gooden Mr. Vandrew Mr. Nells Mr. Moore Mr. Kylie Miss Haggimman
▶ 4:16:30Miss Haggman votes I Miss Lee
▶ 4:16:33Miss Lee votes I Mr. Hunt Mr. Fry Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman Mr. Not Mr. Not votes I. Mr. Harris Mr. Ander Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil Mr. Gil votes I. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Raskin.
▶ 4:16:58Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. No.
▶ 4:17:01Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughrren, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson,
▶ 4:17:09Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipol,
▶ 4:17:17Miss Jipal votes no. Mr. Koreah, Miss Scandlin, Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Nagus, Miss McBath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes no. Miss Mr. Garcia, Miss Camlager Dove, Miss Camlager Dove votes no. Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett,
▶ 4:17:49Mr. Johnson, you're recorded as I.
▶ 4:17:52Mr. Johnson votes no.
▶ 4:17:56Mr. Massie, you are not recorded.
▶ 4:18:00Mr. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Harris, you're not recorded. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Her, you are not recorded. Mr. Honor votes I. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Isa.
▶ 4:18:19Mr. Isa votes I. Mr. Gland
▶ 4:18:33Mr. Gman votes yes.
▶ 4:18:37Mr. Bombgardner.
▶ 4:18:38Mr. Bombgardner votes yes. Have all members voted? Clerk will report the roll call. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 eyes and eight nos.
▶ 4:19:02Vote being 17 in the affirmative and eight in the negative. The bill is adopted and ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR6622, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move that the [snorts] committee report it favorably to the House. Clerk will report the bill.
▶ 4:19:34to impose certain limitations on consent
▶ 4:19:36objection. The bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Klein for an opening statement.
▶ 4:19:43Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HR6622, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act 2025. um will target sue and settlement arrangements which occur when pro regulatory plaintiffs sue willing government agencies which agree to settlements and policy changes that skirt standard rulemaking requirements to reward special interests. It's a problematic approach to government litigation and policy development when a pro-regulatory plaintiff sues and settles with an agency in ways that require certain types of rulemaking or policy outcomes.
▶ 4:20:11The rules of the plaintiff if an agency can avoid public scrutiny and congressional oversight of the agreed to policy. So sue and settle tactics can bind government agencies to policies that extend from one administration to the next, which can be inconsistent with congressional intent. This bill will fix the problem by requiring federal agencies to be transparent in their rulemaking and to act consistent with the requirements of the administrative procedures act. It's a needed reform that will guard against this misguided tactic and return transparency and congressional oversight to an important category of agency rulemaking policy formation.
▶ 4:20:39Urge my colleagues to support HR6622 and I yield Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:20:57uh HR 6622, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2025, is both a solution in search of a problem and one more attempt by our colleagues to make it more difficult for federal agencies to ensure that we breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat safe food, and take safe and effective medications. Oftentimes, Congress passes laws that require agencies to write new rules by a set time or update rules and safeguards on a recurring basis.
▶ 4:21:26When agencies miss these deadlines, one recourse is for litigants, usually not for-profit groups, to sue the government about the lapse. If a court agrees that the agency missed the deadline, the agency loses. The parties then enter into a regulatory decree or settlement that sets out a new timetable for the rules to be promulgated or the safeguard upgraded as Congress intended.
▶ 4:21:47This bill, however, would insert a number of processes that are unnecessary and duplicative of current law and that could be interpreted as allowing almost anybody to intervene in the litigation. For example, this bill requires a formal notice and comment process before any decree or settlement can be ordered by a court. But courts are not making up new rules in these cases. They're helping to enforce the timetable for rulemaking that's already subject to a notice and comment period under the APA.
▶ 4:22:16This is clearly unnecessary and duplicative and just piles red tape on red tape and deliberately so. Why does the majority want to open the door to an additional notice and comment period at this stage? It's one more method to slow down rulemaking and weaken the will of Congress, a goal that may be attractive to deep pocketed corporate interests who wish to avoid new health and safety rules, but that undermines the public interest.
▶ 4:22:42The majority claims we need this legislation because these deadline cases somehow affect the substance of the final rules or updated safeguards. This is not the case. It's never been so. Our own GAO considered this accusation, studied seven settlements leading to nine statutoily required rules issued by the EPA and determined that none of the settlements um involved affected the substance of the final rule.
▶ 4:23:11All these lawsuits are designed to do is to ensure that federal agencies that have failed to meet their deadlines follow the law as Congress wrote it. That's it. The rules at issue protect Americans from a whole array of risks, toxic air, polluted water, defective cars, unsafe workplaces, tainted baby formula, you name it. According to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an overwhelming majority of voters support strong regulation in all of these areas.
▶ 4:23:38But now the majority proposes making it tougher for the government to update these rules over time as Congress intended. I oppose this illconceived and deeply problematic bill and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Yield back. Mr.
▶ 4:23:52Gentleman yields back without objection. All other opening statements to be included in the record. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Virginia to offer an amendment in the nature of a
▶ 4:24:00Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 4:24:01Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 4:24:02Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR6. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as red and shall be considered base text for purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Virginia to explain the
▶ 4:24:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment strikes of 2025 from the short title of the bill. It's not intended in any way to alter the important purpose of the bill. I urge support for the amendment and yield back.
▶ 4:24:22Gentleman yields back. Is there any discussion on the amendment, the nature of a substitute? a gentle lady from Washington is
▶ 4:24:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman. move to strike the last word.
▶ 4:24:35General ladies recognized under the five-minute rule.
▶ 4:24:38When I read the press release for this legislation, I saw that its goals were to quote increase transparency, accountability, and public input in the federal rulemaking process. I agree with those goals, but that's just not what the bill does. What the bill will do is prevent everyday Americans from holding bad corporate actors accountable and delay rulemaking. And I want to be clear about what I mean.
▶ 4:25:03In many statutes, Congress requires federal agencies to issue rules by a certain deadline. These are the rules that protect civil rights, public health, public safety, and the environment. And it's how our government implements landmark legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, the Food Safety Modernization Act. The deadlines that the statutes impose are intended to remedy harms that require an urgent solution.
▶ 4:25:33So when Congress passes a law to limit corporations, for example, from polluting our communities and ensure clean air for our kids, the rulemaking process lays out exactly how that's going to happen. And the reason why we make food safe for people to eat is not just because Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act, but also because of the rulemaking process that follows.
▶ 4:26:00Way too often, agencies fail to meet the deadline that Congress has set. Every day that happens, people are less safe and consumers are worse off. When these harmed individuals sue the agencies to enforce the deadline, it's obvious that a violation of law has taken place. and all you have to do is look at the calendar to see that the deadline hasn't been met.
▶ 4:26:21Instead of dragging out the litigation, the two sides enter a settlement or consent decree that simply forces the agency to issue the rule promptly as Congress intended. The corporations then are compelled to follow the rule so that we can stem harm to individuals. This bill would actually destroy that process by introducing procedural hurdles that delay the rulemaking process so much that corporations may never be held accountable.
▶ 4:26:48These hurdles include requiring agencies to solicit and respond to all public comments to a consent decree before submitting it to the court and to submit reports to Congress detailing the agreements. The only party that stands to benefit from these hurdles is the corporation that wanted to delay protection from taking effect.
▶ 4:27:10My colleagues on the other side suggest that these consent decrees prevent corporations from having any say in the rules that regulate them. That's simply not true. And I don't think the majority of Americans would believe that. The consent decrees have no impact on the substance of any regulation. The authorizing statutes still govern the substance and the Administrative Procedures Act, which gives everybody the opportunity for public comment, still applies.
▶ 4:27:39Consent decrees allow that normal rulemaking process to start quickly. I certainly appreciate Representative Klein's attention to the issue, and I'm all for increasing transparency, accountability, and public input in the rulemaking process. That's why last month I introduced the experts act, a comprehensive blueprint for ensuring that rules are decided by experts with ample public input.
▶ 4:28:06My bill codifies Chevron deference, mandates disclosure of funding sources for studies that are submitted and explanations for withdrawn or changed rules. also establishes an office of the public advocate, requires the government to respond to citizen petitions, and eliminates negotiated rulemaking, which is yet another way that corporations delay the process. And I'm very proud that nearly 70 members have joined me to introduce that bill.
▶ 4:28:34By contrast, the bill that we're marking up today does nothing but suspend the rulemaking process and allow corporations to get away with harming consumers and individuals even when Congress is requiring agencies to protect them. I urge my colleagues to vote no and I yield back.
▶ 4:28:52Gentle lady yields back. Is there further discussion?
▶ 4:28:56Gentleman from Georgia. Oh, from
▶ 4:28:58Maryland. From Maryland, guys.
▶ 4:29:00Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. I've got an amendment at the desk. Clerk will read the amendment.
▶ 4:29:07Chairman, raise a point of order. U Virginia reserves a point of order.
▶ 4:29:14Amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6622 offered by Mr. Rascin of Maryland. Page
▶ 4:29:21Without objection, the amendment be considered read in full. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Rascin.
▶ 4:29:28Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, my amendment essentially imposes the same new ownerous procedural hurdles and um that are advanced in the bill to President Trump's um sly effort to get the American people to pay him $230 million under the federal tors claim tort claims act.
▶ 4:29:50You'll recall he filed an administrative complaint with his own underlings at DOJ saying he was owed $230 million uh because of the uh prosecutions brought against him and because of the uh judicial search warrant that was executed against him at Mara Lago. A perfectly lawful search warrant which uh was not struck down or avoided in any way. but he wants $230 million.
▶ 4:30:16And as we understand the process, uh the number two at the Department of Justice could just write him that check for $230 million, which would be about half of what goes out annually to all Americans seeking relief under the Federal TOR Claims Act. It's just uh unheard of that these are settled in that way by the DOJ. So, um what would this do?
▶ 4:30:43It would simply say that the exact same procedures that would apply um in this uh odd circumstance which we think are unnecessary but would apply in the context of the president trying to get uh a payment directly from the American people and there it's far more justified to establish uh more process uh because it's not governed by the APA generally.
▶ 4:31:12So even the president himself acknowledges the radical and unprecedented nature of the demand he made. He said at the time, "And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself." In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much money you're paying yourself in damages? Nope. We certainly haven't heard of any case like that. Everything about his lawsuit is strange, unprecedented, uh, ill-based, flimsy, unconstitutional, and profoundly corrupt.
▶ 4:31:42The American people deserve the chance to comment in an open process on whatever settlement the Department of Justice might want to reach here. It is our money that's on the line. I urge all of my colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side to support this common sense amendment, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The committee will suspend for a moment.
▶ 4:33:27The uh committee will resume. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
▶ 4:33:32I do, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:33:33Gentle uh gentleman's recognized.
▶ 4:33:35The gentleman's amendment uh would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us and therefore violates House Rule 16 clause 7. Yield back.
▶ 4:33:42Does the sponsor of the amendment wish to be heard on the point of order? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would well that was just a conclusory statement of the rule. I wonder what it is that the distinguished gentleman is finding not germanine in in the bill rather in in my
▶ 4:33:57Mr. Chairman, I would respond by saying that uh the the gentleman's amendment does not have to do with rulemaking, which is uh what this bill intends to address and the litigation that may be involved in rule making or related to rulem.
▶ 4:34:17What the gentleman's amendment does is address civil actions uh that uh are are being sought by the president or others unrelated to the the regulations that are being promulgated. So I insist on my point of order if I might. Mr.
▶ 4:34:38Chairman, you know, the the purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is to say that if there's supposed to be uh renewal of um regulations and and authorizing agency fails to do it, then they can be taken to court and they can be forced to do it. um we believe it's unnecessary and redundant. But then this legislation says, well, we think there should be a notice and comment period about that.
▶ 4:35:08And what we're doing is simply we've expanded the language to say that the notice and comment period should also apply to uh the settlement of a civil action in a case like the one at the Department of Justice. So essentially, we're using the exact same mechanism, which is the notice and comment period. Is there further discussion on the point of order? Seeing none, I'm prepared to rule the gentleman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purpose test.
▶ 4:35:36Therefore, it is not germanine and is out of order. Is there further discussion on the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland? Mr. The gentleman from George is recognized.
▶ 4:35:47Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a quite eventful year so far. It was rung in with a bang by this administration with the enthusiastic support of uh constitutionalist on the on on the um on this committee. Uh an attack an unconstitutional attack on a sovereign country. Uh an invasion and a bombing of of a country.
▶ 4:36:15A declaration of war which is only within the power of Congress to do. But nevertheless, this president has done it with your enthusiastic support, declared war on the nation of Venezuela and kidnapped its leader and uh brought him to America to face trumped up charges uh a pretextual indictment uh issued last week in the Southern District of Georgia, excuse me, New Um
▶ 4:36:45and then after that, uh we have a woman who is executed on the streets of our nation by ICE agents unleashed to invoke terror in our communities throughout this country. A woman, innocent woman, 37 year old has uh lost her life.
▶ 4:37:06And today, this committee is taking up legislation first to deny bond, a signature bond, uh, cash bond, cashless bond, uh, to peaceful And then you pass legislation that would hold groups that would try to help peaceful protesters get out of jail on bond.
▶ 4:37:35since you've denied signature bonds, then you're going to prosecute those groups for insurance fraud. That's the legislation that we passed today. And then uh on top of that, now we get to a a a piece of legislation that is going to cost the American people money. It's going to make their food more expensive in addition to adversely affecting their public health and safety.
▶ 4:38:03with this legislation, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. This is what this Congress is doing during the early days of 2026, which is a repeat of the horror film of 2025. Doing nothing to make prices uh more affordable. Doing nothing to lower costs for families.
▶ 4:38:28doing nothing to help people get health care, doing nothing to protect their First Amendment rights, doing everything to deprive them of their rights. This is what this Congress will be about. I guess the way you start is the way that you finish. And um this is an election year.
▶ 4:38:54And so all my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing is passing red meat legislation that they think appeals to the American people. But the American people are waking up. They are awakening to the fact that they've been hoodwinkedked. They have been deceived, [snorts] lied to, tricked. He told him that he was going to release the Epstein files. He did not do it.
▶ 4:39:19still has not done it even though Congress has passed a law and he's signed a law his own administration to uh release the files. He's failed to do that. He's failed. He lied about keeping costs low. Hasn't done a thing. In fact, prices have gone up. And you know what else has gone up? His net worth. net worth increased by $3 billion.
▶ 4:39:50Where do you think that money came from? Where do you think his net worth came from? And by the way, did your net worth go up? It went down as prices have gone up. Rich have gotten richer. Middle class has shrunk and the poor getting poorer. And it's getting harder to get to the middle class.
▶ 4:40:13But yet there's a party going on by those folks who are at the White House and at the Kennedy Center uh awaiting the gilded ballroom that this president is building after deconstructing the east wing of the White House. It is outrageous what's going on in this country and it's business as usual in this committee. And uh quite frankly, I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed of what we're doing to this country.
▶ 4:40:42the 250 year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence from a king and here we are subjugating ourselves to a 21st century king who goes by the name of Donald Trump.
▶ 4:40:56Gentlemen's time is expired. I will further discussion on the amendment the nature of a substitute.
▶ 4:41:02Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. Those in favor say I.
▶ 4:41:09I. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 4:41:12In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The amendment in the nature of substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill is amended. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say no.
▶ 4:41:22The eyes have it. The bill is ordered, reported favorably to me.
▶ 4:41:25Roll call.
▶ 4:41:25Gentleman's requested a roll call vote. The clerk call the role.
▶ 4:41:29Mr. Jordan.
▶ 4:41:31Mr. Isa.
▶ 4:41:33Mr. Isa votes I. Mr. Biggs.
▶ 4:41:36Mr. Bigs votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch.
▶ 4:41:39Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Mr. Mr. Massie,
▶ 4:41:44Mr. Massie votes I. Mr. Roy,
▶ 4:41:47Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald,
▶ 4:41:51Mr. Klein,
▶ 4:41:52Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden,
▶ 4:41:54Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie, Mr. Kylie votes I. Miss
▶ 4:42:07Miss Hagman votes I. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Hunt Mr. Fry.
▶ 4:42:14Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman.
▶ 4:42:17Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Kn.
▶ 4:42:22Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Herder.
▶ 4:42:24Mr. Honor votes I. Mr. Schmidt.
▶ 4:42:26Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil.
▶ 4:42:30Mr. Bumgardner.
▶ 4:42:31Mr. Bumgner votes I. Mr. Rascin.
▶ 4:42:35Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler.
▶ 4:42:37Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofrren, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Mr. Lou, Miss Jipal, Miss Dipol votes no. Mr. Koreah, Miss Scandlin,
▶ 4:42:55Miss Scanland votes no. Mr. Nagus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross,
▶ 4:43:02Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballot, Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia, Miss Camager Dove, Miss Camlager. That's no Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett,
▶ 4:43:19Mr. Fitzgerald, you are not recorded. Mr. Fitzgerald votes I Mr. Not, you are not recorded.
▶ 4:43:28Mr. Not votes I. All members voted. Clerk will report.
▶ 4:43:48Mr. Chairman, there are 18 eyes and eight nos.
▶ 4:43:51Vote being 18 in the affirmative and eight in the negative. The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
▶ 4:44:23Seeing no further business come before the committee um that concludes the committee's work. The meeting is