▶ 0:37:26Recorded. >> without objection. >> okay. And thank you for your testimony, Mr. raskin. >> thank you, miss scanlon. Miss haochen, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. I do not have any questions, but would like to once again go back to congressman schmidt to see if there's any additional things that you might like to add. Um, in response to anything that has been brought up in this, uh, debate. >> thank you. Representative. And, uh, I might just add that my friend, Mr.
▶ 0:37:54Raskin and I share a fidelity to the founders. Uh, we sometimes see the history a little bit differently, but that's the nature of a wonderful and diverse country. But I would suggest to the committee that our founders also never contemplated a circumstance where a federal administration would functionally look the other way for four years and allow eight, nine, ten or more million people to illegally enter our country in violation of our laws. That is three times the population of my state.
▶ 0:38:23Uh, and that's just the ones we've been able to count. Uh, our founders never would have contemplated that. We would have a government so big that we would have a large number of people who would look at fraud on publicly funded programs to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, and suggest that is not a serious problem that we need to deal with.
▶ 0:38:45Uh, and the founders certainly would not have contemplated that those two issues might have come together where people who were never supposed to be in this country in the first place are allowed to come here, to stay here, to defraud the taxpayers while here. Uh, and then at least in some cases, not all, but in some cases, I would argue, game the system to stall on their way out.
▶ 0:39:10Uh, if the committee is interested, I can share particulars, but there are many examples of cases where individuals have admitted to the conduct that this congress has determined should get them kicked out of the country, and yet they stay here for years on end while gaming the criminal justice system. Uh, those are the loopholes these bills are both designed to fix. >> thank you.
▶ 0:39:34And if you could touch on, you mentioned the the amount of, of millions of people who were allowed into in the country under the biden administration with open border policies from the democrat party, uh, and democrat representatives, um, many of those were also on the terror watch list.
▶ 0:39:54Um, as as many as 10 to 12,000 individuals allowed into the country under the biden administration, uh, were known terrorists or known to be have ties to terrorism. Could you comment on, um, the importance of these bills from an enforcement perspective, but also under the current circumstances, we have the department of homeland security that is currently being underfunded by, uh, the us
▶ 0:40:24Senate. Um, and, uh, could you just make a comment on how that makes american citizens at greater risk when, uh, the democrats don't want to fund the department of homeland security? >> well, representative, in my view at least, this is certainly not the time to have the department of homeland security, which was created in response to the worst terror attack on our soil on nine over 11.
▶ 0:40:48Uh, to be hobbled by being either not funded or sporadically funded or imperfectly funded or late funded or however you want to view it. Um, and it's somewhat puzzling to me that the fight, the political fight seems to be about the immigration enforcement agencies, which are in fact funded while the other agencies are not in fact funded. Tsa, for example, I flew in this morning and it was weather, I suppose, not funding, although I actually don't know, but it took me three different tries. But I got here. I got here in time for our hearing today.
▶ 0:41:18So it's just time to, to put this thing to rest. Um, and, uh, get the department funded. >> thank you. I appreciate your work on this, um, legislation. And madam chairman, I yield back. >> madam chair, maybe one minute. I just want to point out for the record that our founders were themselves undocumented immigrants, um, who wanted to fill this land with ambitious, restless immigrants. Um, there was no immigration law when they wrote the constitution.
▶ 0:41:44And I don't think our founders could have possibly imagined a congress that would turn its back on its constitutional responsibility when it came to war. I mean, and that is what's happening right now with this congress so cowardly that we won't even debate and vote on whether to authorize the use of military force when it comes to iran. So when you talk about what our founders could ever imagine, I don't think they could have ever imagined that we would get to this point. And quite frankly, it's unconscionable.
▶ 0:42:14I thank the gentlelady. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Uh, we can sit here for a long time and speculate what the founders thought. But Mr. jefferson did go after the somali pirates, and he didn't bother to ask for congressional approval, so I think I got ahead of. Oh, my goodness. I have awakened Mr. griffith here. Uh, he is going to speak. >> madam chairman, would you yield? >> I should never speak about Mr. jefferson to. Mr.
▶ 0:42:42Griffith is in the room. Mr. griffith, would you like to be recognized? >> I yes, if the gentlelady would yield. I just wanted to make sure we corrected the record. The gentlelady misspoke and said that jefferson went after the somali pirates, when in fact, they went after the pirates of tripoli and the north african. >> oh, sorry. Tripoli and north africa. Thank you very much. Thank you for correcting me. I appreciate that, gentlemen.
▶ 0:43:07I see no further, um, persons wishing to ask you any questions or comments. So we appreciate you coming in today and we're you're excused. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you.
▶ 0:43:43I now welcome our second panel, chairman westerman and representative randall from the committee on natural resources. You all are making this a regular occurrence. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman westerman, I welcome your testimony.
▶ 0:44:13>> thank you, chairwoman fox, for this opportunity to testify today on some very important legislation. As chairman of the natural resources committee and as co-chair of the congressional sportsmen's caucus, which I believe is still the largest caucus in congress, I have time and again stood up in congress for the rights of hunters and anglers. H.r. 556, sponsored by natural resources committee vice chairman rob wittman, is critical to ensuring those rights are protected well into the future. Simply put, h.r.
▶ 0:44:44556 would ensure that any ban on using lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal land is based on site specific data and coordinated with state game and fish agencies. This guarantees that any ban is based on sound science and works with the agencies responsible for regulating, hunting and fishing within their state borders.
▶ 0:45:03Providing these safeguards is vital, as alternatives to lead ammunition and fishing tackle can often be very expensive, with some options costing as much as ten times more than similar lead products.
▶ 0:45:16Passage of this bill pairs well with recent actions by the trump administration that fundamentally changed the federal government's approach towards opening federal lands to hunting and fishing in january of this year, and interior secretary doug burgum signed secretarial order 3447, which directed interior's offices and bureaus to open lands to hunting and fishing unless existing authorities and unit purposes require an area to be closed to those activities.
▶ 0:45:44It also includes language requiring that any ban on the use of lead, ammunition or fishing tackle be backed by site specific science. This order sets the stage for opening thousands of acres of federal lands to responsible hunting and fishing, which is a win not only for sportsmen and women, but also for wildlife hunting and fishing. Participation generates over $1 billion a year in excise taxes paid by firearm and fishing equipment manufacturers.
▶ 0:46:10These amounts are only likely to increase under the trump administration, which is opening more federal lands to hunting and fishing. Alternatively, any ideological and unscientific restrictions on the use of lead, ammunition and fishing tackle put those dollars at risk. Instead of regulating hunters and anglers out of our federal lands, we should continue to work with state managers, conservation organizations and sportsmen and women. When lead is shown to cause harm to wildlife, it will be addressed accordingly.
▶ 0:46:40But wide reaching bans or even unit specific bans were no scientific link can be made or the wrong approach and ultimately undermine wildlife conservation. Urge the committee to report an appropriate rule so this bill can be considered in the house. Thank you and I yield back. >> thank you, chairman westerman. Representative randall, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. Well, I'm not at present a member of the sportsmen's caucus.
▶ 0:47:07I do come from a family and community of hunters, and I know that our nation's hunters and anglers are among our most dedicated conservation champions. Each year, they contribute billions of dollars through license fees and excise taxes to fund the very wildlife programs sustain our national heritage. They deserve policy that respects their contribution, not a bill that uses them as a front for corporate interests. H.r.
▶ 0:47:36556 is a direct assault on the ability of federal wildlife managers to protect our species from lead poisoning. For decades, these professionals have worked in lockstep with states to ensure federal lands remain open for hunting and fishing. This bill would shatter that partnership by disregarding the very best available science and imposing an impossible standard to meet on land managers.
▶ 0:47:59Under this legislation, managers would be required to prove that a population decline is primarily caused by lead in a specific land unit, before taking action. To understand why this is a trap, we have to look at the state of the national wildlife refuge system. 53 refuges have zero staff on the ground, 366 refuges are insufficiently staffed.
▶ 0:48:21The remaining 200 units operate with severely limited resources, expecting these chronically underfunded offices to conduct exhaustive, unit specific forensic studies on every population of loons or condors is not rigorous science. It's a bureaucratic blockade. This evidentiary bar is so high that it effectively puts a closed sign on science based management. Ironically, it may force managers to close sensitive areas to hunting rather than navigate this arduous, costly process.
▶ 0:48:51The science is settled. Lead kills wildlife. It has been documented in over 130 species across the west, and arizona and california and oregon. We've seen the heartbreaking impact on iconic species like the bald eagle and the california condor. This is not a hypothetical threat. It is a documented reality.
▶ 0:49:09Further, this bill is so arcane that it overrides local wisdom even in states like maine, new hampshire, and massachusetts, where local governments have already acted to restrict lead, a federal manager would still be forced to repeat that wasteful process before aligning federal protection with state law. This bill is not about protecting the average hunter. It is about protecting ammunitions manufacturers.
▶ 0:49:33Today, non-lead alternatives are high performing and cost competitive, and prices are continuing to come down as adoption grows. For most hunters, the switch costs less than their annual hunting license. 38 states have already shown us the way forward through voluntary buybacks, gear exchanges and retail partnerships. These programs protect wildlife without creating a fight between the sporting community and land managers.
▶ 0:49:57We should be investing in incentives and research, not tying the hands of those tasked with guarding our environment. I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical political theater, and let's focus on real solutions that preserve our outdoor traditions and ensure our nation's bird, the bald eagle, is here for the next generation. Thank you. >> thank you, miss randall. Mr. griffith, you're recognized. >> yeah. I'd ask the chairman.
▶ 0:50:29Is there. There's my my son who hunts and fishes and does all that. Doesn't seem to think there is. Is there a cost effective alternative? >> no, not with the performance of lead. I mean, when you hunt waterfowl, you use steel shot. Um, which there's problems with that because the, the kill ratio is not as high. So you, you wound a lot more, um, uh, waterfowl with steel shot.
▶ 0:50:57But when you start looking at the alternatives to lead like tungsten and bismuth, it's, it's much higher. You can be talking as much as three, four, $5 per shell on a shotgun shell. Yeah. And then you think about fishing tackle as well. All of the lead that's used in that and the alternative are quite expensive. >> I appreciate that because I heard something to the contrary. And I thought, wait a minute, that's not not been my understanding. So I appreciate you clarifying that.
▶ 0:51:26And I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. You're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. I again, I'm going to say what I said before. I mean, with all this going on in the country right now, with all this going on in the world right now, this is what we're doing. I mean, gas prices are going through the roof. We've already spent $22 billion in iran, and we can't even find the time to vote on whether to authorize that illegal war. Um, and we're doing this, um, I think our priorities are all screwed up around here. Um, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr.
▶ 0:51:58Langworthy. >> thank you, madam chair. Um, hunters and anglers have long been some of the strongest supporters of wildlife conservation in the united states and through excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, sportsmen and women contribute more than $1 billion each year to conservation programs and support wildlife habitat management in rural districts like mine. In western new york, hunting and fishing aren't just traditions. They're a way of life and a key part of how we support wildlife conservation.
▶ 0:52:28Uh, unfortunately, italy, in the past administration, federal agencies pursued sweeping restrictions in the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle without relying on site specific scientific evidence. And these policies threaten to increase costs for hunters and anglers while putting conservation funding at risk. Chairman westerman, can you explain how requiring local scientific evidence before imposing bans helps ensure conservation policies remain effective, while protecting access for hunters and anglers?
▶ 0:52:59>> it comes back to trusting the science. But you gotta have science to trust, so you got to do the research and determine if there are, um, adverse effects of using, um, lead shot or lead fishing lures in a, in a certain area.
▶ 0:53:16Uh, and because we just see these broad strokes painted to try to get rid of, of lead, what that does is it affects districts like mine as well, where, you know, hunting and fishing oftentimes is, is considered a, a poor man's way to recreate. And if, if you can't do that, then there's not a lot of other things you can afford to do.
▶ 0:53:45And if you start increasing the cost of fishing lures, the cost of ammunition, you're just putting more barriers there for people to, to, to hunt and fish. And you're also making it harder for future generations to get into the sport. And we know that hunters and fishermen are the greatest conservationists and environmentalists in our country. So a lot is at stake when we talk about, you know, it's just the cost of ammunition or it's just the cost of, of fishing tackle.
▶ 0:54:13Uh, and you combine that with the restrictions on accessing public land, as expensive as it is to, to lease private land these days, uh, you just create barrier after barrier to entry and for people to practice this time honored tradition of hunting and fishing in our country. >> you know, that's exactly the point. Thank you very much. This legislation does not eliminate regulation.
▶ 0:54:39It simply ensures that federal agencies rely on real science and local data before imposing costly restrictions and regulations on hunters and anglers. This bill helps protect access for sportsmen while ensuring conservation decisions made grounded in evidence, and I urge my colleagues to support it. And I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you, Mr. langworthy. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> thank you.
▶ 0:55:03Um, miss randall, am I correct that this regulation that the bill seeks to overturn was introduced because of the lead poisoning that we are seeing to a variety of animal species? >> yes, it absolutely is. Um, the case and, you know, we have real scientific data that led poisoning kills animals. That's why we have the protections that we do.
▶ 0:55:33>> and, and that this lead poisoning is linked to the use of lead shot lead weights with fishing, etc. >> indeed. >> okay. I thought that was the case, but the conversation seemed to have gone a little bit astray. Um, you know, as a representative from philadelphia, we are very fond of our eagles, um, particularly bald eagles. Um, but as I was preparing for this hearing, I'm seeing that more than half of bald eagles suffer from lead poisoning.
▶ 0:56:00And that's one of the reasons, along with ddt and other other reasons that we had seen such a reduction in their population across the country. Um, I find it very hard to understand why we would turn back the clock with legislation that, um, would undermine the progress that has been made with respect to eagles and other animals.
▶ 0:56:23Although, as I think about it, perhaps the symbolism of our national symbol, the eagle being afflicted with lead poisoning may be, uh, you know, appropriate for the damage that this congress is inflicting on the environment with bills like this. Um, there's been a little bit of discussion here. And like many of you, I too have a family that engages in hunting and fishing.
▶ 0:56:47So I was looking on the ducks unlimited website and it was talking about the fact that since lead was banned from, uh, the use for shot for waterfowl 30 years ago, the ammunition manufacturers have adapted and brought forth new methods which are comparable in price. Is that correct? >> that is correct. And I don't have a full price list of every kind of ammunition that you could buy right here before me.
▶ 0:57:16But I will say that, um, recent studies show a really minimal and decreasing price gap. Uh, winchester xp led a mission for a 270 example. Costs, for example, costs $34.99 while their xp copper impact on lead costs 42.99, just $8 difference.
▶ 0:57:39And meanwhile, premium bonded lead core ammunition costs 59.99, making some non-lead options actually cheaper than the premium lead alternative. >> okay, so. So a simple google search on ducks unlimited. And then this other evidence shows that, in fact, american innovation is addressing the changed regulations. Is there anything else, um, you want to add with respect to the arguments we're hearing?
▶ 0:58:07>> I think, um, you know, we've, we've covered a lot, but a really important, um, you know, underlying idea that is striking to me is that when we decide that science is important, when we decide that we need more science, and right now when we are unhappy, when the majority is unhappy with the scientific data that is before us, that is when we have decided we need new and more science, not when nih funding
▶ 0:58:39Is at risk, not when we are seeing, um, an attack on scientific research across um federal agencies. But now when, when the science isn't telling us what we want it to tell us, that's when we are demanding more. >> okay. Thank you. I yield back. >> thank you very much, miss scanlon. Miss horton, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. Um, thank you, chairman westerman.
▶ 0:59:09I appreciate you bringing this legislation before us. I was in the state senate in indiana for eight years. And during that time, uh, in an attempt to expand hunting opportunities in indiana, uh, the general assembly, uh, inadvertently outlawed certain types of hunting on public land, which is one of the issues that I heard about most from constituents, um, because they do want access to those opportunities for hunting and
▶ 0:59:39Fishing on our public lands. And so I appreciate your efforts to, to make sure that those opportunities are readily available. Um. So I just wanted to express my gratitude for that and give you an opportunity to, um, address any of the other comments that have been made to this point in the hearing. >> well, thank you, representative horton. And again, access to our public lands is critical.
▶ 1:00:04Whether you're wanting to hunt and fish or just enjoy the outdoors and whatever activity you're doing. I did find it interesting. I haven't seen that study that ducks unlimited did, but the fact that ducks unlimited would do a study on 270 core lock ammunition, which is a rifle. When duck hunting is done with a. Or waterfowl hunting, I think it's illegal to hunt it with anything but a shotgun and.
▶ 1:00:38Oh well, wherever that came from. So the alternative on waterfowl hunting, you can go steal, which is priced comparable to lead shot. But again, it's it, it's not nearly as effective as, uh, as a kill rate. Then you start looking at bismuth and tungsten, these heavy shot loads and it gets very expensive.
▶ 1:01:01If you've ever been duck hunting and if you're if you're not a very good shot, you can go through a box of 25 shells in a, in a hurry. Um, so it is, it does add expense to it just when you're talking about waterfowl, which again, this doesn't change anything about you. This doesn't say you could hunt waterfowl with lead shot. You still have to use non lead shot for waterfowl.
▶ 1:01:25This is looking at all the other regulations that are trying to be forced on americans to deer hunt. Whatever you're hunting with a lead alternative to fish with a lead alternative. And that gets to be very expensive. >> thank you.
▶ 1:01:46I appreciate that insight and your expertise, not only as chairman of the committee, but also, um, on these types of bills is, uh, greatly appreciated. Uh, you're one of a few that has that much expertise in this particular arena.
▶ 1:02:03I will note that, um, I did lead a letter to our governor when that error was discovered, it wasn't my legislation, but we led a letter to the governor, uh, trying to fix the issue before hunting season opened and were successful in doing that. And then we came back the next legislative session and fixed it. Um, but I know that my constituents in the state of indiana certainly appreciate your efforts to expand and preserve hunting and fishing opportunities. And we thank you. I yield back. >> I'm glad you got it fixed. >> me too.
▶ 1:02:35>> thank you, miss halter. Miss fischbach, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. And I will just say I support the legislation, and I do appreciate you bringing it forward because obviously minnesota. Not right now with the snow, but we are hunting and fishing, maybe ice fishing right now, but I yield back. Thank you. >> thank you very much, Mr. jack. You're recognized. >> just one question, chairman. I appreciate you noting that, uh, hunters and fishermen are some of the greatest conservationists we have. Could you expound upon that just a bit more before we move this?
▶ 1:03:06>> yeah. I mean, it's just practical life experience that people who love spending their time outdoors want to take care of those outdoor landscapes. Um, people like to hunt and they, and they like to fish in places where there's wildlife and where there's fish. And they know that the way you have more wildlife and how you have more fish is you take care of the habitat where the wildlife and the fish reside.
▶ 1:03:34They know that you follow the laws that have been put in place, hopefully by scientific study, to say, this is the best way to manage this, this wildlife. It's so that you don't overfish a fishery. You know, the tragedy of the commons is a concept that came from an individual thinking they can, uh, they can catch all the fish they want and they're just a small player in the, in a big area.
▶ 1:04:01But if everybody's doing that, you, you deplete the resource. So sportsmen and women are true conservationists. They love the outdoors. They love the opportunity to be able to pass those traditions on to their children and their grandchildren. And they know that they have to take care of the habitat and take care of the resource.
▶ 1:04:24And they have a passion for it, like none others that I've seen, and a true compassion and a true work ethic to take care of, of what we've got and to pass it along in better shape. And that's the ultimate definition of a conservationist, someone who believes in, um, long term stewardship and that we should leave what we have in better place for the next generations. >> very well said. I yield back, madam chair.
▶ 1:04:55>> thank you, Mr. jack. And I want to say that I, I agree with you completely on, on particularly on that last statement that you made. I think, uh, we all know, um, people who hunt and fish and, and love the outdoors and, and they do want to preserve it, uh, for themselves and, and the future. Uh, I see no one else wishing to ask a question of you all.
▶ 1:05:23So with that, you are excused. This panel is excused. >> thank you, madam chair. >> is there anyone else seeking to testify on h.r. 1958? H.r. 4638, or h.r. 556? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting.
▶ 1:05:47The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from virginia, Mr. griffith. >> thank you, madam chair. Madam chair, I move the committee grant h.r. 556, the protecting access for hunters and anglers act a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment. The nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill, should be considered as adopted in the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
▶ 1:06:16The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 1958, the reporting fraudsters act of 2026. Under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 1:06:40The rule provides that the amendment, in the nature of the substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 4638, the bow wow act of 2025.
▶ 1:07:10Under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment. The substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary, now printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in the rules committee report, shall be considered as adopted in the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. Rule provides one motion to recommit.
▶ 1:07:40Finally, the rule provides that debate on motions that the house suspend the rules under clause one of rule 15 relating to h.j.res. 139 shall be extended to one hour. >> thank you, Mr. griffith. Um, you've now heard the motion from the gentleman from virginia. Is there further discussion. >> madam chair? Yeah, I just will point out for the record, two more closed rules, completely closed rules.
▶ 1:08:09But, um. I'm sorry, three, three, three closed rules. Um, I, um, I but I have an amendment to the rule. Uh, I move the committee strike section four from the rule, which grants extended debate time for h.j.res. 139 proposing a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. Madam chair, the fact that republicans are bringing this up for a vote right now is truly astonishing.
▶ 1:08:34If republicans were serious about balancing the budget, they would do it through the reconciliation process. Instead, they use that process to add $4.7 trillion trillion with a t to our nation's debt, to pay for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit corporations and the ultra wealthy.
▶ 1:08:57And trump's illegal war in iran, which this congress refuses to debate or vote on, um, has already cost american taxpayers more than $22 billion. The president has proposed increasing the defense budget by half $1 trillion every year. This is a hypocritical charade, plain and simple. And this closed process only exacerbates the measure's deep flaws.
▶ 1:09:24It would likely lead to massive cuts to snap medicaid, medicare, and social security. In the past, democrats have offered amendments to protect these programs, but republicans are preventing any alternatives from being offered, providing it with and providing it with an extra 20 minutes of debate. Boy, how generous is that?
▶ 1:09:45Um, you know, I think that that is the is the way to, you know, to increase the so-called seriousness of this. I mean, that is a sad joke. I, I urge a yes vote on my motion. Um, and I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Um, does any other member wish to speak on the amendment miss scanlon recognized? >> yeah. I would have to support the amendment.
▶ 1:10:15And and I too am very concerned about this push to introduce this balanced budget amendment, particularly given the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration. I mean, if we're going to my my constituents can't afford to balance this war on their backs. Um, so I will be voting for the amendment.
▶ 1:10:38Um, we did try to put through when h um, j res when the balanced budget amendment went through the judiciary committee, our republican colleagues voted down amendments that would have exempted social security and medicare from the requirements of the balanced budget. So it would cut into, um, earned benefits for americans as well. So with that, I yield back. >> thank you, miss scanlon. Any further discussion on the amendment from the gentleman from massachusetts?
▶ 1:11:07Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed. >> roll call. >> vote. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> miss fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No, Mr. norman. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mrs. houchin. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy, no. Mr. scott. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin, no. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr.
▶ 1:11:35Mcgovern, I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. joe neguse. Miss. Leger. Fernandez, madam. Chair. No. Madam. Chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> two yeas. Six nays. >> the nos have it. The amendments not agreed to. Is there any further discussion on the rule? Um. Amendment not ruled. Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by.
▶ 1:12:08On the motion from the gentleman from virginia. All those in favor signify by saying I, I those opposed say no, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. mcgovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach yes, Mrs. fischbach, I. Mr. norman. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mrs. horton, I. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy, I. Mr. scott. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin, I. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. I. Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 1:12:40Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss. Scanlon. Miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. joe neguse. Miss. Leger. Fernandez. Madam. Chair. Madam chair, I. >> the clerk will report the total. >> 62 nays. >> the ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. I'll be managing the rule for the majority. >> I'll do it for the minority. >> and Mr. mcgovern for the minority. Uh, without objection, the committee is adjourned.