[0:12]recess at any time. Pursuant to committee rule two, 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
[0:23]uh for which record a recorded vote is ordered. We now recognize the gentleman from California to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United
[0:35]States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Pursuant to notice, we call up HR 4371,
[0:51]the K Hamilton Act for purposes of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. HR43713. >> Without objection, the bill will be
[1:01]considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Uh the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, the sponsor of the legislation, is recognized for an opening statement.
[1:12]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we are here to once again discuss a tragedy uh and a bill bearing another name uh of a victim of an illegal alien crime, the Kayla Hamilton Act, named after
[1:24]20-year-old Kayla Marie Hamilton. A little more than three years ago, on July 27th, 2022, Kayla Hamilton was violently attacked and murdered in her home in Aberdine, Maryland. During the
[1:36]attack, Kayla tried to call her boyfriend to help her and ended up leaving a haunting voicemail recording the struggle. Her boyfriend later found her strangled to death, not breathing, her iPhone cord wrapped tightly around
[1:46]her neck. Authorities later determined Kayla had also been sexually assaulted. Before leaving her lifeless body, her asalant robbed her of the $6 cash that she had uh that was in her purse.
[1:58]Tragically, Kayla's horrific murder was entirely preventable. Kayla's murderer, Walter Javier Martinez, was a 16-year-old Salvadoran national. Martinez had been encountered in March
[2:10]of 2022 by US Customs and Border Patrol officials at the southwest border during the Biden Harris administration. He even admitted to authorities that members of
[2:19]his family paid $4,000 to a guide, a so-called guide, to smuggle him from El Salvador to the United States border. As is required by law with most unaccompanied alien children, Walter was
[2:31]transferred to the the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement at HHS. Rather than determining whether Martinez posed any threat to himself, to others, or the community, the Biden Harris HHS
[2:42]promptly placed Walter with a sponsor, purportedly his first cousin. although that's in dispute. He ran away from her home uh just one month after uh
[2:52]settlement and his sponsor later told ORR that Martinez left because he quote because he wanted to quote do what he was doing in his home country, get in trouble on the streets and hang out with
[3:03]gang members. Only after Kayla's murder did any government official even attempt to find out whether Martinez had a criminal history. The local police learned from the Salvador and authorities that Martinez was an MS-13
[3:15]gang member with a 2020 arrest record for illicit association with the violent gang. Martinez's HHS case file reviewed by the judiciary committee also revealed
[3:25]that he had gang tattoos. Why did no federal official try to determine the criminal history of a 16-year-old Salvadoran national entering the US illegally? Because the Biden Harris
[3:35]administration didn't care to. Instead, the Secretary of HHS, Javier Basera, cared only about moving hundreds of thousands of UACs out of HHS custody as
[3:46]quickly as possible. As the New York Times reported, Basera pressured HHS employees to expedite UAC processing and placement, saying, quote, "If Henry Ford had seen this in his plants, he would
[3:56]have never become famous and rich. This is not the way to do an assembly line." Because of this careless approach, necessary checks about Martinez's background and potential affiliation
[4:06]with MS-13 were never performed. Incredibly, Biden Harris OR officials were in regular contact with the home countries of the UAC's for reasons not associated with their criminal history.
[4:18]In a 2023 transcribed interview with the committee, the director of ORR admitted that while it was common place for HHS to contact the consulate or embassy of
[4:28]the UAC's home country to verify certain documents like birth certificates, under the Biden Harris administration, HHS was not asked those same countries about whether UAC's had any relevant criminal
[4:39]history. In Martinez's case, just one phone call would have made all of the difference. brazen criminal uh that he is, Martinez wrote a letter from prison admitting to four murders, two rapes,
[4:51]countless thefts, and other crimes. In August of last year, justice was served when Martinez was convicted of Kayla's murder and sentenced to 70 years in prison. Criminal organizations, cartels,
[5:01]and gangs have for years exploited the vulnerabilities of the UAC program. Cracks that were only widened by the destructive policies put forth over the last four years. Indeed, the case of
[5:13]Walter Javier Martinez is not isolated, but part of a larger disturbing pattern. Just a few months ago, in April, right outside of my district in Lancaster, South Carolina, a woman named Lishia
[5:24]Charerelle Thompson, a mother of two, was murdered. Miss Thompson was on her way to a birthday party when six illegal aliens schemed to rob her vehicle. Three of these individuals, a 13-year-old, a
[5:35]14-year-old, and a 15year-old, enter the entered the US as UAC's. Horrifically, these criminal aliens randomly targeted Miss Thompson, surrounded her car, and
[5:45]shot her to death for no reason at all. UAC's who have committed murder and other horrific crimes once in the US are not uncommon. In 2016, Iowa nursing school graduate Sarah Root was murdered
[5:57]by a UAC. In 2021, a UAC in Florida murdered his sponsor. In 2023, a UAC in Texas sexually assaulted and murdered a 10-year-old girl. On August 15th, 2025,
[6:07]just this year, ICE apprehended a former UAC wanted in Honduras for illegal possession of a firearm and drug trafficking. Days later, on August 18th in Virginia, a former UAC was arrested
[6:19]for aggravated sexual battery on a victim under the age of 13. The UAC was uh indeed since February of this year, at least 6,600 former UAC's have been
[6:30]rearrested by ICE for engaging in criminal conduct, including serious and violent criminal offenses. Time and time again, we see that there are dangerous and violent individuals who are spending
[6:41]time in HHS custody among the truly innocent children HHS is entrusted to protect. At the same time, we have also seen failures in the vetting of sponsors exposed over the last four years as
[6:52]record high numbers of UAC's are encountered at the border and transferred into HHS custody. The Biden Harris administration rushed UAC's out the door without waiting for the results
[7:03]of potential sponsors background checks. In some cases, HHS failed to even initiate the required background checks in the first place. Under President Biden and Secretary Basera, HHS ended
[7:14]the practice of performing background checks on all adult residents of potential sponsors households, allowing children to potentially be placed in homes where criminals lived as long as
[7:24]those adults themselves were not listed as the sponsor. With long-standing best practices in the UAC placement process stripped away, it is no wonder that the
[7:34]last administration lost track of so many UAC's. Many have ended up exploited by criminals or working in dangerous condition uh dangerous conditions that children are legally prohibited from
[7:45]performing. For example, in July of this year, at least eight UACs were found during a work site raid on a California marijuana facility. Former UAC's have also been found working on kill floors
[7:56]in meatacking plants, operating giant ovens to make Chewy or Nature Valor granola bars, or packing bags of cereal. The Trump administration has committed to locating as many of these UAC's as it
[8:08]can. Although many have aged out and are no longer minors. Thus far, the Trump administration has found nearly 23,000 of the UAC's. More than 400 sponsors have been arrested, and 27 of the minors
[8:20]have been found dead, either by murder, suicide, or drug overdose. The evidence is clear. The Biden Harris administration's policies incentivized the trafficking, smuggling, and
[8:30]exploitation of children while simultaneously endangering American communities with foreign national gang members taking advantage of the Democrats insane border policies. The Trump administration is committed to
[8:41]protecting children and bringing children, traffickers, gang members, and bad actors to justice. And the USC placement process is not functioning as intended, and it is ripe for reform.
[8:51]That's what brings us here today. The Kayla Hamilton Act will ensure that American communities and UACs alike are protected. Some of the provisions I will describe will be added to the base text
[9:02]of the bill through an amendment in the nature of a substitute. This legislation will require all UAC's to be assessed not only to ensure that the child is protected from exploitation, but also to
[9:13]determine if the child presents a flight risk, has a criminal history, or presents danger to themselves or others. For those UAC's 12 years of age or older, HHS will also conduct a screening
[9:25]for gang affiliation, including assessing the UAC for any relevant gang related criminal history or GR gang tattoos. If HHS had conducted such a
[9:35]screening in Walter Javier Martinez's case, Kayla might be alive today. Thankfully, because of the funds appropriated in the reconciliation bill, the Trump administration is always
[9:46]already ensuring these checks are being performed, utilizing HSI investigators who are trained to interview children. Additionally, under this legislation, if the checks performed reveal that a UAC
[9:57]12 years of age or older satisfies certain factors like having a gang tattoo, criminal history related to gang activity or affiliation, or an aggravated felony, the UAC will be
[10:09]placed in in a secure facility while his or her immigration proceeding plays out in court. Secure facilities are designed to house children who are a danger to
[10:18]themselves or to others. HR 4371 will also ensure that UAC's are protected from those who wish to exploit them. This legislation closes the loophole in
[10:28]current law that allows illegal aliens to sponsor UAC's. The bill also includes common sense reforms that bar UAC's from being placed with criminals convicted of
[10:38]serious crimes. UA uh finally the bill ensures that HHS conducts thorough background checks of UAC sponsors. uh that UAC's will not be placed with a
[10:48]sponsor until HHS actually receives the results of the required background checks like sex offender checks and FBI national criminal history checks based on fingerprints. Waiting for a
[11:00]background check results before placing a child with an unknown sponsor is simply common sense. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Let's honor Kayla's memory and take seriously the problem of
[11:12]criminal alien UAC's victimizing our citizens. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The ranking members recognized for an opening statement. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to Mr. Fry for bringing his
[11:22]legislation forward. Uh, what happened to Kayla Hamilton was a devastating tragedy and a horrific, outrageous crime, and I can tell you there's no heartbreak like the heartbreak of losing
[11:34]your child. Um, of course, as our colleagues often tell us, after another mass shooting in an elementary school like in New Town, Connecticut or
[11:44]Yuvaldi, Texas, or a high school like in Parkland, Florida, the occurrence of a human catastrophe does not compel a specific public policy answer. Even the
[11:55]most obvious ones like banning military-style assault weapons or imposing a universal violent criminal background check. Every bill has to be
[12:05]defended on its merits. This legislation is an example of a policy response that is a nonsequarter.
[12:14]Um, using the horror of Kayla's death as its premise, the majority has drafted a bill that seems to put politics first, not children, not parents. For example,
[12:25]the bill requires that all unaccompanied children over the age of 12 be strip searched so that a government agent or handler can inspect their bodies for
[12:35]tattoos and specifically images that the agent might interpret to be a gang related tattoo. If such tattoos are discovered, the children are then to be
[12:46]detained in a secure facility, essentially sending them to prison. Remember that tattoos are common with onethird of Americans and people all over the world having them and a higher
[12:58]proportion among young people. Um, our immigration agencies are notoriously bad at interpreting the meaning of tattoos. We all remember when the Trump
[13:09]administration claimed that an autism awareness tattoo meant that Neri Jose Alvarado Bourhees a baker and asylum
[13:18]seeker was a member of Trenagua and card him off carded him off to the notorious Salvador and Gulag SECT. Um Kayla
[13:28]Hamilton incidentally herself had autism. Um, the bill also requires that any child with an arrest record, uh, not
[13:39]a conviction, but an arrest record related to gang activity be detained in a secure facility. This sounds reasonable at first until you think of the societies where these kids might be
[13:49]coming from and the criminal justice systems that we would be relying on. Under the bill, a teenager arrested by Maduro's dictatorship in Venezuela,
[13:59]where Putin's regime in Russia could be placed in jail simply for having protested for democracy and then being
[14:09]branded a gang member by Vladimir Putin, who we all remember called Alexi Noni a gangster and a criminal. Um, this bill
[14:20]does not define gang activity in any way. Remember the Trump administration
[14:27]sent her Reyes Barios to seek. Barios uh was a professional soccer player who had protested against the Maduro regime and
[14:37]was detained and tortured by uh government agents before he sought safety and refuge here in the United States. He was sent to SECOT after being
[14:48]accused of being a gang member by the Maduro regime. And the only evidence for his imprisonment here was a tattoo on
[14:57]his body, a tattoo of a soccer team logo, something that millions of people have all over the world. That was the basis for describing a professional
[15:08]soccer player um as uh a gangbanger. The legislation also gratuitously attacks immigrant families. It says that
[15:18]children cannot be placed with a sponsor unless they are a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident. But this flies in the face of the American legal standard which is what is actually in the best
[15:30]interests of the child. Children should be placed with the adults who are best positioned to take care of them and to raise them. But this bill prohibits family members who are lawfully in the
[15:42]United States to take custody of the kids if they are H-1B visa holders, for example, or refugees or here on a student visa uh or they're here on any
[15:52]uh any of a number of different lawful statuses. This straight jacket provision will deny kids the ability to go to loving homes and force them undoubtedly
[16:03]to languish sometimes in government custody for months. Even if there are ready and willing family members wanting to take them in. If that's not putting politics over the interests of kids, I
[16:14]don't know what is. The subtitle of the bill claims its purpose is to enhance efforts to combat the trafficking of children. How does it help stop child trafficking to subject to subject
[16:25]children to strip searches and force them to remain in government custody when loving family members are ready and willing to take them in? Finally, the test right now of our commitment to
[16:37]protect children is whether we will stand by the broad public demand for the immediate release of the complete
[16:47]Epstein file. The president of the United States, who was Epstein's best friend for more than a decade, once demanded the release of the file, but he
[16:57]now uh seeks to cover it up and calls the child traffic trafficking scheme a
[17:05]hoax and totally irrelevant. Um, after Glaine Maxwell was subpoenaed uh to testify on this hallway by the oversight
[17:15]committee, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch was sent to interview her, this convicted felony sex offender, Epstein's partner in human trafficking and serial
[17:26]liar, not to gain new information about the case, but to try to exonerate Trump, whose name is apparently all over the Epstein files. It was clear from the
[17:36]interview Mr. Blanch believes he is still acting as Donald Trump's personal criminal defense lawyer. He's certainly not acting as a public official representing the best interest of the
[17:47]American people. Following their conversation, Miss Maxwell, who is seeking a pardon and clemency from uh President Trump for her sorted crimes,
[17:55]uh was moved almost overnight to a federal minimum security prison colloquially known as Club Fed. This is a prison that does not normally accept
[18:06]felony sex offenders at all. She skipped the entire process of having to prove that there is some compelling justification for transferring her from one prison to another. An
[18:17]extraordinarily difficult process that ordinarily takes 6 months or more to happen and she was moved pretty much overnight to this special cushy prison.
[18:28]Um, meanwhile, um, our friends across the aisle, with a few notable and honorable exceptions, including Representative Massie, a member of this committee, Representative Boowbert, uh,
[18:39]Representative Green, and Representative Mace, are essentially passively participating in Trump's cover up um, and dismissing the demand of the
[18:49]survivors, the victims of Epstein's crimes, who are demanding a complete accounting and release of the total
[18:57]Epstein files. Um, so I want to commend our colleagues both on the Democratic side and the Republican side who have signed on to the discharge petition for
[19:08]standing up for the victims, standing up for the survivors and having the courage of their convictions to stand up in the face of this bizarre U-turn in the president's position. If the majority
[19:19]wants to combat child trafficking, let's start by ensuring total transparency and accountability for one of the most prolific and horrifying sex trafficking rings in the 21st century. We must make
[19:31]it clear to uh anyone who participates in the exploitation and trafficking of children. Regardless of their position or their political party, they will be held accountable under the law.
[19:42]Democrats standed united on this. I'm sorry to say that our Republican friends don't, but it is not too late to join us in standing up for this discharge petition. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
[19:54]>> Gentleman yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
[20:05]>> There's an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. >> Clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment in the nature of a >> objection. And the amendment the nature of substitute will be considered as red and shall be considered as base text for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from South
[20:17]Carolina to explain the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment makes various changes to the bill including creating a consultation process to protect UAC's clarifying which individuals are eligible to serve
[20:28]as sponsors of the UAC's. adding additional relevant items to the list of information that HHS must provide before placing a UAC with a sponsor and adding
[20:38]a severability clause, effective date clause, and exempting the bill from requirements of the paperwork reduction act and administrative procedures act. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of the
[20:49]substitute to HR 4371 and I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Um, Mr. Chairman, I'd have an amendment
[21:02]I'd like to introduce. >> Clerical report. >> Point of order being reserved by the gentleman from California.
[21:13]>> Uh, hang on second report and then we'll then we'll go. >> Amendment to the amendment in the >> objection. The amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman from
[21:23]Maryland is recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you kindly. My amendment's simple, Mr. chairman. Uh it would not let this bill take effect until all the Epstein
[21:32]files are released. My uh Republican colleagues have put forward multiple bills this markup that reflect uh what they say is a renewed focus on protecting kids against trafficking and
[21:44]exploitation. Uh well, this is the test. Uh if our colleagues are serious, and I believe they are, then they should be happy and eager to join me in supporting
[21:54]this amendment. The text before you is the same text as Mr. Massie and Mr. Connor's discharge petition that every Democrat and four of our Republican colleagues uh have joined in. In just
[22:05]the last 48 hours, we've seen how important it is that the public actually get to see the Epstein files for ourselves. The oversight committee has received Mr. Epstein's entire 50th
[22:16]birthday book courtesy of Mr. Epstein's estate. This includes the now infamous and slightly juvenile birthday note and drawing that President Trump denied
[22:27]existed at all. In fact, he sued the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion for reporting that Trump had written uh this
[22:38]suggestive and lascivious uh note with the drawing of uh a uh well perhaps an underage girl's body. hard to say
[22:47]exactly what it is, but um in that note, he draws an outline of a woman's naked body, a young woman's naked body, uh wishes Jeffrey Epstein happy birthday,
[22:58]and then ends it with, "May every day be another beautiful secret." Well, this is now public and it clearly includes the president's signature. He's disputing
[23:08]that it's his signature, but it looks exactly like about a hundred other signatures that we have from the president, including on federal legislation. So, let's not allow this to
[23:19]be another beautiful secret before uh uh before we proceed. Let's open up open up
[23:29]the Epstein files. The book also includes some disturbing neverbeforeseen images that appear to depict Epstein grooming young girls and includes a
[23:40]never-before-seen document where Epstein and a longtime Mara Lago member are joking about selling a woman, a quote fully depreciated woman to Donald Trump
[23:51]for $22,500. You can see it yourself if you have any doubt about it. Look, it's time for all of us to decide. Democrats and Republicans alike. The country is
[24:02]unified around this. Are we going to be on the side of transparency and accountability? Or are we going to be on the side of the human traffickers and those who
[24:13]collaborate with them and collude with them and protect them? There is a stench of corruption, predation, and exploitation that now hangs over this
[24:23]whole matter. And we are seeing one of the greatest coverups of our century unfolding in real time. Which side are we on? And that coverup, of course,
[24:32]starts with Alex Aosta, Donald Trump's Secretary of Labor, who gave Epstein a ridiculous plea bargain, ending the federal uh case against him for no
[24:43]apparent reason other than his wealth, his connections, his political power. There was a multi-count federal indictment ready to go. and Alex Acasta,
[24:55]who was the US attorney in the Southern District of Florida, gave it up and instead traded it for one count of solicitation. It didn't even mention
[25:04]child sex trafficking. One count of solicitation under Florida state law. He got the sweetest of sweetheart contracts. He was free in the daytime
[25:15]for several months and then he went and spent the night in jail. And allegedly he continued his criminal activities,
[25:25]grooming and procuring girls and having sex with underage girls and young women. So, uh, this is about corruption. This
[25:36]is about the wealthy and powerful being able to manipulate the American justice system to get away with their crimes against kids. Let's release the file to the publics. Vote yes on this,
[25:46]everybody. Let's make some history today. Let's make some history that we are going to see that the Epstein files actually come to light. That's what America wants. The most liberal people,
[25:57]the most conservative people, people across the spectrum want to see the files. We don't want dribbs and drabs of the files they want us to see. We want the files they don't want us to see. We
[26:09]want the entire the entire case file that they've got. Let's clear the air. Let's get the truth and the facts out there. Let's put an end to this corruption and cover up. Let's do it on a bipartisan basis. I
[26:21]hope my colleagues will support the amendment. And I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from uh California. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? >> I do, Mr. Chairman.
[26:32]>> Uh the gentleman's amendment would introduce >> Mr. Chairman. I I I I fail to see >> recognized to to speak to his objection.
[26:44]I I I fail to see how the gentleman's obvious case of Trump derangement syndrome has anything to do with this bill affecting immigration law. It's therefore not gerine. I also question
[26:54]whether the gentleman's vicious attack on the president's character is in violation of the House rules, but I I'll stick with the Gerine's question for now.
[27:04]>> Uh speak the gentleman wish to speak on uh >> I certainly do. Um I don't know what deranged Trump syndrome is because I've not met with his psychiatrist. So, I don't know what you're referring to with
[27:15]deranged Trump syndrome. In any event, you haven't contradicted a single fact that I put forward. Uh, it seems like you want to try to impinge on my free speech rights or my speech and debate
[27:25]rights. That's a bizarre uh turn of events given that we've just been talking about the First Amendment and freedom of speech. But, in any event, this is completely material and
[27:35]relevant. It's about the Acasta deal is about providing immunity from federal prosecution to Epstein and all of his unnamed co-conspirators.
[27:47]They were protected by that sweetheart deal. And this is about child sex trafficking and the legislation is all about the protection of children. I don't see how it could be more aligned
[27:58]with the legislation here. Look, if you oppose it, if you don't want the file coming out, at least have the backbone and the courage to stand up and say you don't want it coming out, but don't say this isn't relevant to the protection of
[28:09]children. Give me a break. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. >> I would just point out that the uh oversight committee is conducting an investigation and in fact, it's the oversight committee that subpoenaed the
[28:20]very document the chairman referenced in his statement. So, they are doing their work there and they will be deposing the gentleman he recognized in his comments, Mr. Aosta. I think in 2 weeks that
[28:31]deposition is slated to happen. The gentleman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purposes test. Therefore, it is not gerine and is out of order. >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to appeal that.
[28:41]And the reason is, you know, Epstein used a ring of associates to rotate the women and girls in and out of sexual servitude and many of them came from outside of the country. So, this is all
[28:52]about human trafficking. They ran he ran an international sex ring and now you want to say it's not relevant to the legislation which deals with the protection of children. I do appealing the rules.
[29:02]>> Uh I I move to table the appeal. >> The the gentleman has moved to table the appeal. >> Mr. Chairman, all those in favor I have a point of order. >> Gentle lady shall gentle lady can state her point of order.
[29:13]>> Mr. Chairman, could you give the rationale for why this is not gerine? Because I don't I simply don't understand it. I mean, the fact that the oversight committee is doing something
[29:23]does not negate our ability to do something. If you want to vote against the amendment, I suppose you could do that. But why is it not gerine? This is about this bill is about unaccompanied
[29:34]minors. We know that there is trafficking. It is about trafficking. It is about sexual abuse. It is about all the things that the Epstein the release of the Epstein documents are also about.
[29:46]So what is the rationale for ruling it not germanine versus you saying that you don't support the amendment which >> No, I didn't say I didn't say I didn't support the amendment. I said that it's
[29:57]not germanine. It doesn't fit on the rules. An amendment may make the effectiveness of a bill subject to a condition if that condition is related to the provisions of the bill. An amendment delay >> is related to provisions of the bill.
[30:08]>> Does not satisfy the rules and that is why it's not germanine. >> So there's no rale. >> There's been appeal of the ruling of the chair. There's been a motion to table that. The question is on tableabling of
[30:18]the motion. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. No. >> No. No. >> Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it. >> Like a recorded vote. Mr. >> Recorded vote being requested. The clerk will call the role. >> Mr. Jordan.
[30:29]>> Uh, yes. >> Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcccleintoch. >> Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. >> Mr. Massie. >> No.
[30:41]>> Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, >> Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden,
[30:51]Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, >> Mr. Nells votes yes. Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie, Miss Hagman, >> Miss Hagamman votes yes. Miss Lee,
[31:03]>> Miss Lee votes yes. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, >> Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman, >> Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Not
[31:13]>> Mr. Not votes yes. Mr. Harris >> yes >> Mr. Harris votes yes Mr. Ander Mr. Schmidt >> Mr. Schmidt votes I Mr. Gil Mr. Bombgardner >> I
[31:25]>> Mr. Bombgardner votes I Mr. Rascin >> no >> Mr. Raskin votes no Mr. Nadler >> Mr. Nadler votes no Miss Lofrren Mr. Cohen
[31:36]Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson votes no Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipol, >> Miss Gyipal votes no. Mr. Korea,
[31:47]>> Mr. Ka votes no. Miss Scandlin, Mr. Nagus, Miss Mcbath, Miss McBth votes no. Miss Ross, Miss Ballant, no.
[31:59]>> Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove, no. >> Miss Camlager Dove votes no. Mr. Mosquitz, no. >> Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Mr. Goldman.
[32:10]Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett. >> Mr. Iso votes yes.
[32:21]>> Gooden. Gentleman from Texas. >> Mr. Gooden votes yes. Click report.
[33:15]Mr. Chairman, there are 14 eyes and 12 nos. >> Uh, the amendment is tabled. Who seeks recognition? >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to strike the last word. >> Gentleman's recognized. >> Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. uh you
[33:26]know just following up on a little bit of what the ranking member uh was discussing. There was a significant event this week uh in which this
[33:36]committee has jurisdiction over. Uh the speaker of the house, the third highest ranking US official, third in line to be
[33:45]the president, looked into the TV cameras and told us that the current president of the United States was an
[33:53]FBI informant. Uh I I consider that to be gigantic news and I'm just curious, have we reached out to the FBI to Cash
[34:04]Patel to confirm whether the president was at any time an FBI informant? I only say that because the speaker of the house obviously gets significant briefings. He gets briefings that we do
[34:14]not get uh as regular members. And so I I I think this is something that we need to hear definitively before Cash Patel comes. we should clear up maybe that we
[34:25]should send a letter to him to find out if the president was an informant. And if he was an informant, is that because he was working with the FBI after he was
[34:36]hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein? Did he turn because he got caught with Jeffrey Epstein? You know, when you're an FBI informant, there are lots of questions about how you became an FBI informant
[34:47]and then how long was he an FBI informant? When did his service to the FBI stop, you know, being a member of the deep state? When when did he stop doing that? I mean, look, any if if a
[34:58]regular member had said this, I would discount it. But the speaker of the house is the one who said it. And then he said afterwards, well, I may have misspoke. What what what was his
[35:09]misspeak? Instead of informant, did he mean agent? I mean, what is the misspeak for informant? I mean, I don't know another word that we use when we're
[35:18]describing an FBI agent or FBI informant or undercover. I mean, what what was the misspeak here? And if he was lying then, is he lying now? I'm just confused.
[35:30]Perhaps maybe the speaker should come to our committee and tell us what he meant >> when when he said that. It's just >> it's it I'm still speaking, Mr.
[35:42]Chairman. I'm still speaking. I'm >> Is there an a is there a bill or an amendment on the floor? >> I strike the last word. I'm allowed to finish my >> gentlemen. Gentlemen, gentleman's gentleman from Florida has a time. He's speaking as I think he's speaking about
[35:53]the bill. Uh well, he's not really speaking about the bill, but he's recognized to speak about the bill. >> Well, he's just been re uh interrupted for about 30 seconds. I'd ask that it be added back onto his >> Can we move to restore his time? That
[36:05]was a completely improper interjection. >> Time to stop. We'll give you plenty of time. I'm usually good about that. >> Well, thank thank you, Mr. Chairman. appreciate your indulgence and I'm I'm only bringing it up again because this committee is the committee of
[36:16]jurisdiction over the FBI and I don't think in the history of this country we've had a speaker of the house say the president was an FBI informant. I mean
[36:27]that is I mean that's a dual role if I ever heard one. >> And so I just think we have we have questions Mr. Chairman and on a bipartisan basis maybe the answer is no. He wasn't an FBI informant and that's
[36:39]fine if the answer is no. I just think we need to hear from the FBI. The speaker has confused the American people whether Trump was working with the FBI
[36:49]against Jeffrey Epstein because he had information about Jeffrey Epste because he was there for a long period of time and then and then got turned maybe by the FBI. I mean, did Trump ever go
[37:00]undercover? I mean, these are questions that the speaker has raised. By the way, president going undercover would be interesting, you know, but but these are questions that he's raised. That is not
[37:11]a missspeak. There is not another adjective or verb for FBI informant, >> right? I understand the president kicked him out of his club. That doesn't make
[37:23]you an FBI informant. So, I think we need to get to the bottom of that. Um, >> will the gentleman yield?
[37:31]>> I will. Uh I just to add on to that um in 2002 the president said that he was aware that Jeffrey Epstein likes girls
[37:42]on the younger side. >> In 2003 he uh provided a birthday card
[37:49]with the shape of a woman uh his clear signature uh for anyone who actually looks at it uh and references a secret.
[38:00]In 2004, the FBI initiated an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. >> We I would like for this committee to
[38:11]request from the FBI the opening document, the report of investigation that would have initiated the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in
[38:22]2004. Because I think we should know how that investigation began. We know that President Trump had a falling out with
[38:31]Jeffrey Epstein around that time. Was it President Trump who provided the FBI with the information that caused this investigation to be opened? This
[38:43]committee deserves to know that. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? >> Gentleman from Maryland. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U I I want to
[38:54]follow up on the excellent points made by the the gentleman from uh Florida and from New York. Um let's try this again.
[39:03]Um I've got an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk will report. >> Gentleman from California reserves point
[39:14]of order. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 4371 offered by Mr. Ras. >> Objection. The amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman from
[39:25]uh Maryland is recognized to explain the >> amendment. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ensures the release of all files associated with Alex Acasta in the
[39:34]Epstein affair. Um the gentleman from New York focuses our attention on the fact that this was being investigated
[39:42]back in 2004, five, and six. And in May of 2007, an assistant US attorney working for DOJ prepared a draft 60 criminal count
[39:54]indictment against Epstein. 60 criminal counts, statutory rape, rape solicitation, human trafficking,
[40:04]conspiracy, and so on. They had a very comprehensive and complex understanding of what Epstein was doing, how he was
[40:13]funding it, who was involved in it. And just two months later, Epstein's attorneys met with the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida. that US attorney would later become famous as
[40:24]Donald Trump's Secretary of Labor. But at that point, he uh was leading the investigation and he offered to end the investigation and throw away those 60
[40:36]federal charges completely if Epstein would plead guilty to the state charge of solicitation. Now, that has got to be the sweetest,
[40:46]coziest, sweetheart deal ever made by a federal prosecutor. They've got this guy dead to rights on 60 criminal counts of
[40:57]running a comprehensive child sex trafficking conspiracy, an international one for those of you who are sticklers for uh materiality and relevance. An
[41:08]international child sex trafficking ring. Um and they gave it all away. they accepted um
[41:18]uh a short jail stay for him. So what did he get to do down there in Florida? Well, uh he plead guilty and he got 18
[41:28]months in a minimum security facility. He was allowed to leave for 12 hours a day uh to work at a foundation he
[41:37]founded and apparently continued doing exactly what he was doing before. And I don't want to be too graphic and lurid uh because there might be kids watching.
[41:48]Um but he was doing precisely the kinds of things that we're talking about in terms of the protection of children. He was violating children, violating young
[41:58]women, and then he would go and spend the night in jail. And in the meantime, he was able to bargain immunity for all of these other people who were working for him. >> The gentleman yield.
[42:09]>> Yes, by all means. In other words, while he was uh doing all the sexual predation, the government was providing room and board and meals and making it cheap of him to do so. >> Well, that's not a bad way of looking at
[42:21]it. Uh especially because apparently it was a very comfy jail cell they set up for him. Now, I'm sure he would have preferred to be back in one of his mansions, uh, which were basically
[42:31]sexual dungeons for the young women and girls that got swept up in his sex conspiracy, which was something that the vast majority of Americans deplore and
[42:42]abore and want to get to the bottom of and want to know the truth about. But anyway, he spent those nights and then they wiped the slate clean for him to continue to go on and do it again and
[42:54]again and again. This is a guy who should have immediately been prosecuted and then convicted and sent to prison for the rest of his life for what he had
[43:03]done. Now, Glain Maxwell was prosecuted uh and convicted as a felony sex offender and sentenced to 20 years in jail. She just got transferred out of
[43:15]her prison to a clubfed uh in Texas where sex offenders are not normally allowed. Felony sex offenders are not
[43:24]normally allowed there. But after she spoke to the president's former criminal defense attorney, who's now working in the Department of Justice, and he liked
[43:35]what he heard, she was immediately uh transferred over to this very comfy arrangement in Texas. She skipped over months and months of the normal process
[43:46]where you have to prove there's some compelling reason to be transferred from one facility to another under the rules of the Bureau of Prisons. She bypassed all of that and she got sent over to
[43:57]this other prison because well, Mr. Blanch liked what he heard when he went over to talk to her. Come on. We're the Congress of the United States. The
[44:07]framers of the Constitution thought that we would stand up for integrity and we would stand up for our interests and not be survile partisan sickopants to the
[44:17]president of the United States. So let us all show some backbone today. Let's say we don't move forward on this legislation until the Epstein Acasta
[44:29]file is released. Let's vote for that everybody. And if you're serious about getting the truth of it, you will support my amendment. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, the gentleman yields back. I I would
[44:39]just point out that uh the director of the FBI will be sitting at that table one week from today and all the questions and concerns Mr. Moscowitz raised, he can ask the director, you can
[44:51]ask him right to his face, get the answers and then according and then with regards to Mr. Acasta, he will being uh be being deposed on the 19th of this
[45:01]month. So in 9 days he will he'll set for a deposition where he will be under oath. Mr. Garcia who has the job that Mr. Raskin used to have can ask him all the questions make all the points that
[45:13]uh the ranking member of the judiciary committee just raised. But >> Mr. Chairman you would agree that the question >> from California's rec. >> Wouldn't the question be more meaningful if we actually had the file? Mr. Mr. Chairman I insist on my point of order.
[45:24]>> Gentleman insist on his point of order. Does the sponsored amendment >> just recognized gentleman? >> Thank you. I I I'm I'm reminded of Churchill's definition of a fanatic, a man who can't change his mind and won't
[45:35]change the subject. But the subject has uh nothing to do with immigration law, uh which is a subject of this bill, and therefore the gentleman's amendment would introduce material beyond the
[45:46]scope and purpose of the bill before us. It violates House Rule 16, clause 7. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Does gentleman from Maryland wish to respond? >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I I suppose I am a
[45:56]fanatic for child safety. I am a fanatic against child sex trafficking. Yes, I am. And I will be a fanatic to stand up for the public interest and the vast majority of Americans who want the truth
[46:07]to come out and don't want to sweep it under the rug. This is my time. It's my time. I'm not yielding to you right now. >> I've heard enough from you. >> Now,
[46:19]Mr. Epste's victims included aspiring models from abroad, including South America. He had a whole team working in France. The gentleman the gentleman should focus on the point of order.
[46:30]>> This is a focusing on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, because I'm talking about the international dimension. >> Just reminding the gentleman who spoke more than anyone today here at this this hearing and has said that he's not going to support the bill as the gentleman
[46:41]from California just pointed out. So, if you can say, that'll be good. >> I would love to support the bill if you support the release of the Epstein file and the Costa file. I mean, let's >> we're forgetting all the information. uh
[46:52]we're forgetting all that information out and that's why I've told you about >> well let's get it out today's deposition and Mr. >> We've heard a lot of promises about getting it out we haven't seen much
[47:01]action a lot of promises but no action today we could take some action gentleman suggests that my amendment is not in order because it's not gerine to
[47:12]the question of international child trafficking and illegal immigration well Mr. Epstein's victims, including aspiring models and girls being taken
[47:22]advantage of from South American countries and from Europe and France. He used a ring of associates to rotate the women and girls in and out of sexual servitude in different countries in
[47:34]different places using fraudulent modeling visas to transport them across state lines and across international borders. He tracked their availability
[47:43]and their proximity using this database. This is exactly what we're talking about. It's hard to see how it could be more material, more gerine, and more
[47:53]relevant. It's also the case that uh air traffic controllers in the Virgin Islands observed Mr. Epstein leaving his private
[48:02]plane in 2018 with girls who testimony suggested were as young as 11 or 12 years old. In one undated incident detailed in a
[48:13]lawsuit, a 15-year-old girl attempted to escape and swim off of Mr. Epstein's island after she was forced to engage in sex
[48:23]acts with Mr. Epstein and some of his guests. The girl was found and held captive on the island after he confiscated her passport, the lawsuit
[48:32]said. So, this goes on and on. I mean, you want to close your eyes to it. Close your eyes to it and say it's not a big deal, but don't say it's not germaine. You raised the question of the
[48:44]protection of children against international exploitation. This goes right to the heart of it. And I'm happy to yield to any of my colleagues who haven't had a chance to weigh in yet.
[48:54]The gentle lady from California. >> Uh, thank you, ranking member. I too will support this amendment. I I was appalled when I heard you say that they
[49:04]were preparing a 60 criminal count indictment against Alexander Aosta. You said 60. That's even more than 37. >> But not against Aosta by Aosta against
[49:14]Epstein and they suppressed it. Yes. >> Well, I was thinking 60 and then I was thinking 37 with Trump. But 60 is a lot. And then I started thinking, you know, the underlying bill is actually
[49:26]we would be debating institutionalized child trafficking and abuse if you actually look at the text of the underlying bill. Which is why I support
[49:37]this amendment. We the Republican, you all want us to stop talking about the Epstein files, but we would stop talking about them if you just released them and popped the balloon. And of course, I'm
[49:48]not going to show up and ask Cash Patel these questions. I'm trying to figure out why all the cover up
[49:58]because at the end of the day, we are talking about a man who orchestrated the sexual abuse,
[50:08]the sexual assault, the rape of little girls, of girls under the age of 18. In many instances,
[50:18]everyone is all up and flustered when you're talking about folks being on a sex registry, about sex traffickers. But now all of a sudden with Jeffrey Epstein and all these people in these files,
[50:30]they don't want a release. They don't want the truth. That is why I support this amendment because it also begs the question of who
[50:40]else is in the files and I want to know. Well, I thank the gentle lady and I'd like to yield to the gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Gamlin.
[50:50]>> Thank you. U Mr. Raskin, just as we're coming into this, it seems so clear and it should be clear to anyone with a law degree who who has ever participated in
[51:01]litigation that you don't want to go into a deposition to question someone when you don't have all the facts that are available. So, I wholeheartedly support the idea that we need to have
[51:12]all of the Epstein files released. Otherwise, the work that this committee is going to do is going to be hamstrung. It becomes another part of a cover up.
[51:22]You know, why won't they allow these files to be released when it would do the most good for this committee and this Congress to do its work? I mean, what are they hiding? Um, I support the
[51:33]amendment and I yield back to my colleague. >> I I just would say finally, Mr. chairman. Uh this uh legislation is well-intended in different ways and it's very flawed in other ways. One of the
[51:43]ways in which it's flawed is it says that kids can only be put with a US citizen or a permanent resident but not other people who have lawful presence in the country who may be family members.
[51:55]Um don't we want a situation where all kids are taken care of so they don't uh so they don't end up in a situation like this? they might be released to someone
[52:05]uh who's actually a child sex predator. This is completely gerine and relevant and I hope everybody supports the amendment. Thanks. >> Does uh not satisfy House rule 16 clause
[52:16]7 and therefore uh the subject matter and fundamental purposes test and therefore is not gerine and is out of order. >> I'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair. >> Gentlemen appeals the ruling of the chair. >> I make a motion to table.
[52:26]>> Gentleman from New Jersey makes a motion to table. All those in favor of tableabling the the motion to appeal say I. I. Those opposed. No. >> No. >> Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it.
[52:38]>> Recorded vote. Please Mr. Chairman. >> Record a vote being uh requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan >> the table. Yes. >> Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa. >> Mr. Biggs.
[52:49]>> Mr. Mcccleintoch. >> Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. >> Mr. Massie. >> Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy Mr.
[52:59]Fitzgerald Mr. Fitzgerald votes I Mr. Klein Mr. Gooden Mr. Vandrew >> Mr. Gooden votes I Mr. Vandrew votes I
[53:10]Mr. Nells >> Mr. Nells votes yes Mr. Moore Mr. Kylie Miss Haggelman Lee
[53:22]Mr. Hunt Mr. Fry >> Mr. Fry votes I Mr. Mr. Growthman. Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris,
[53:33]Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner. >> Mr. Bombgardner votes I. Mr. Raskin, >> no.
[53:44]>> Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, no. >> Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofram. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr.
[53:55]Mr. Swallwell, >> Mr. Lou, >> Mr. Lou votes no. Miss Jipal, Miss Dipol votes no. Mr. Korea, >> Mr. Ka votes no. Miss Scandlin, >> no.
[54:05]>> Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Necus, Miss McBath, Miss Mcbath votes no. Miss Ross, Miss Ballot, >> Miss Ballot votes no. Mr. Garcia, Mr.
[54:16]Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove, Miss Camlagger, Miss Camlager Dove votes no. Mr. Moscowitz Mr. Mosquitz votes no
[54:26]Mr. Goldman Mr. Goldman votes no Miss Crockett Mr. Moore you're not recorded Mr. Moore votes yes
[54:38]Mr. Isa votes yes. >> Miss Lee votes yes. Mr. Not Mr. Not votes yes.
[55:13]Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt will die. Mr. Andre, you're not recorded.
[55:51]Mr. Andre votes yes. Miss Lofrren
[56:02]Miss Lren votes no. Mr. Chairman, do we have a result under
[57:09]regular order now? >> Not under regular order. Miss Ross, you're not recorded.
[58:01]>> No. >> Miss Ross votes no. Mr. Harris.
[58:31]>> Yes. >> Mr. Harris votes yes. Mr. Chairman, just a quick point of
[59:48]order. Are we holding it open until members can come from other markup sessions? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Mr. Swallow, you're not recorded. Mr.
[1:02:32]Swallow the snow. Mr. Noose, you're not recorded.
[1:03:12]>> Mr. Any goosebumps? No. >> We haven't even gotten to the bill.
[1:03:39]>> Mr. Chairman, a point of order. down here. >> Am I correct? >> From New York is recognized. >> This is a motion to table uh the appeal of a ruling that this
[1:03:51]amendment is not germanine. Is that what what was right? >> Was correct. >> So even if this were to be voted down, we would then just go into uh debate and
[1:04:02]discussion on the amendment with a vote on the amendment. Correct. >> No, we we would go back to discussion of the bill and who would seek recognition. >> Go back to the discussion. No, this is just geraness. >> Oh, on the Oh, yeah. We go back to the
[1:04:13]discussion of the opinion >> of the amendment. >> Yeah. >> So for for those who oppose the amendment, there will be another opportunity to make sure it uh you can voice that opposition. Is that that
[1:04:25]correct? >> Not on not on this particular amendment if it's tabled, but uh on some subsequent amendment. That's that's up to you guys. >> No, no. If it is not tabled, >> if it's not tabled certainly, but >> and we consider the amendment.
[1:04:37]>> I expect the amendment to be you're making 30 people. >> I expect the motion to be tabled. >> But you're you're making 30 people sit around waiting here when you'll have another opportunity.
[1:04:48]>> Have a number of markups going on. We have oversight. We have a marking up and we're trying to get members here. It's like the minority is trying to get members here. I'm just saying this is an irrelevant vote in many respects because
[1:04:59]you'll have an opportunity to >> I don't think any vote in the United States Congress is irrelevant. I think this is an important vote and we're going to let members get here and cast their vote. >> Well, let me rephrase. This is not a
[1:05:09]determinative vote for this amendment and so perhaps we could move on because we are all sitting here waiting. >> It's a determinative vote on the ruling
[1:05:20]of the chair which I find somewhat important. Uh, and that's why we're going to wait till members get here and get a chance to cast their vote. >> Mr. Gail, >> Mr. Gail votes yes. >> Mr. Chairman, point of inquiry.
[1:05:32]>> Gentleman from Florida will state his >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is that a new shirt and tie? >> It's an old shirt, but maybe a
[1:05:43]relatively new tie. I'm not the slave to fashion. >> No, listen. The window painting. I'm far from ever being accused of slave to fashion like my good friend from Florida with the many many pairs of tennis shoes
[1:05:55]that he tennis shoes that he wears. So, uh anyway, we will uh wait for a few more members to arrive. I just want you to know, Mr. Chairman, I
[1:06:06]noticed. Thank you so much. Miss Hagman, you're not recorded. Miss
[1:11:07]Hagman votes yes. Miss Crockett, you are not recorded.
[1:16:04]Miss Crocker votes Mr. Chairman, point of order.
[1:18:34]>> Recognized. >> Thank you. Kindly, would it be appropriate to use this downtime for some um unanimous consent requests? >> We're not able I don't think we're allowed to do that under the rules,
[1:18:44]>> but I appreciate your time to be efficient. Mr. Raskin, >> could could Should we Could we ask unanimous consent to wave the rules for the purpose of just doing some >> unanimous consent to do a unanimous consent?
[1:18:54]>> Yes. Wow, that may be a first. >> I think I think we'll I think we'll d take the vote from Mr. the gentleman from California.
[1:19:03]>> Mr. Mr. Kylie votes I and we'll patiently wait for one more Republican Mr. Bicks,
[1:19:39]>> Mr. Bigs, both high. >> Mr. Chairman, there are 20 eyes's and 19
[1:19:47]nos. The motion to table is uh adopted or agreed to, I should say. Um >> uh >> Mr.
[1:19:57]gentleman from New Jersey is >> the UC request. >> Gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized. >> Thank you. I'd seek unanimous consent to
[1:20:07]um introduce a red letter newsletter article from September 4th. What happened when an Epstein survivor confronted GOP rep Hagaman boarding a flight?
[1:20:17]>> Without objection, >> Mr. Chairman, >> you see? >> No. >> Gentleman from New Jersey. I I'll come to the gentle gentle from Washington next. gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
[1:20:28]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I guess it's one of those times I want to express that uh I don't quite understand where the other side of the aisle is coming
[1:20:38]from here. Um you know, this Epstein issue has been there for years. It was here during the Biden administration. It was here when just about all the members
[1:20:49]who spoke today were here. And yet, not a word, virtually not a peep. We're going to have the opportunity to speak to the very pertinent players in this.
[1:21:00]The oversight committee is doing good work now as we speak. But what bothers me is when you take an issue as serious as this and the legislation that we should be voting on
[1:21:12]today and mix it in with politics. And what do I mean by that? My good friend Mr. Rascin, who I deeply respect, but he didn't talk about any of this with Epstein until a few months ago. with the
[1:21:24]gentleman. Y >> No, I will not. I'm going to finish. His main account didn't even mention the Epstein files once until June 5th of this year, this very year. Mr. Goldman
[1:21:34]didn't mention it really in his files until May 12th. Mr. Moscowitz, to the best of our knowledge, has never really mentioned it until recent time. The I
[1:21:45]hear the moral righteousness, the righteous indignation, the supposed moral clarity. Where was it then? But now because there's a change of
[1:21:56]administrations now because it can sideline what's a very important bill. We're not going to let that happen. All of a sudden everybody's morally righteous. Everybody's morally pure. Everybody's
[1:22:08]morally concerned. We're all concerned about this issue. Right or left, Republican or Democrat, we are. But when it is used as a
[1:22:18]political tool, it is shameful to those young people who suffered. It is shameful to this institution. We have work here to do and to just start
[1:22:30]bringing it up now. You know, if if we saw for year after year after year after year, these folks have brought it up, but they did not. But now they do. I
[1:22:40]think that is shameful. I think it's disturbing. I don't know where the real moral righteousness or the moral clarity is because I don't see it there. So, Mr.
[1:22:50]Chairman, I you know, for one is just one member of this committee would suggest that we move forward and make sure that this good legislation that's
[1:23:00]been sponsored by Mr. Fry moves through that unaccompanied alien children under 12 years and older that we protect them and take care of them because we can do
[1:23:10]that now. We can't completely undo what is the past, but we can move forward and make sure in many ways that something else horrible doesn't happen. With that,
[1:23:21]I think somebody asked for me to yield. >> Yes, kindly. >> Ranking member, yes, I yield. >> Well, thank you very much. And it it pains me to hear you uh impute hypocrisy and surplus moral self-righteousness to
[1:23:33]me. Um and I I'm afraid >> it hurts me to have to do it. Well, I'm going to have to contradict the whole premise of uh your little filibuster against me because I'm going to
[1:23:44]introduce for the record a letter I wrote on July 10th, 2019 when I was chairman of the subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties uh of the oversight committee. It's addressed to the honorable Alexander
[1:23:55]Acasta. Dear Mr. Secretary, we're ready to invite you to testify at a hearing on July 23rd at 3 p.m. in room 2. >> I reclaim my time. I get your point. >> Okay, wait. Let let me finish here.
[1:24:06]>> I want to read exactly what it's about. >> My time, but wait a second. I'll let you go back from New Jersey. >> I will say this. You have spoken more about it today in this one hearing than in all those previous years combined.
[1:24:17]I'll yield back to you again. >> All right. So, the hearing will examine your actions as US attorney for the Southern District of Florida in authorizing a nonprosecution agreement for Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the finding by a federal court that you
[1:24:29]violated the Crime Victim's Rights Act by keeping this nonprosecution agreement secret from the many victims of Mr. Epstein's crimes. Your testimony is even more critical now that federal prosecutors in the Southern District of
[1:24:41]New York unsealed a new indictment earlier this week outlining a host of additional charges against Epste, including luring dozens of teenage girls to his homes in New York City and Palm Beach and paying them to engage in
[1:24:52]sexual activity with him. My friend, Mr. Vendrew, I was railing about this. You may have forgotten because that was during the Democratic period of your career when you were on our side of the aisle and you've blocked it out now.
[1:25:04]Okay. You may have blocked it out, but I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time. Gentleman from New Jersey. >> Thank God I did change. And this is just a good example of that. Well, you have
[1:25:14]political am. It's my time. I still have many friends on the other side of the aisle. But here's the point. You still have spoken about it more today and yesterday and the day before than you
[1:25:26]did in all those years. trusting the same fact checkers on that making much much more angry now than you ever were then and I call that into question. I do
[1:25:37]and that is my right and I respect you ranking member but I feel strongly that what you're doing here is wrong. We have an important bill here. We need to move this bill through. I yield back.
[1:25:48]>> Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from uh Washington is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk will report. Gentleman from California reserves a
[1:26:00]point of order. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 4371. >> Without objection, the mill be considered as read. The gentle lady is
[1:26:10]recognized to uh explain the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what you're hearing today in this committee is a great desire from all of us on this
[1:26:21]side to support the release of all the Epstein files. And I want to thank Representative Massie um as well as a couple of Republican members, Representatives
[1:26:31]Marjgerie Taylor Green, Lauren Boowart, um Nancy Mace for their commitment to be consistent about what we fight for here
[1:26:43]in Congress and why we as the Judiciary Committee with oversight over the Department of Justice, over the FBI
[1:26:53]should be discussing this very topic in this committee and then the hypocrisy combined with that of the cover up by the majority of Republicans of a child
[1:27:03]sexual predator and trafficker and all that enabled him. The hypocrisy of focusing on what is happening with immigrant kids while simply ignoring all
[1:27:14]of that and making gerine arguments that simply don't make sense. Let me just read to you uh what the attorneys for
[1:27:24]Jeffrey Epstein said when they were here last week. They said, "A lawyer representing some of the survivors stated that in uh in many of the victims were trafficked from other countries,
[1:27:34]including Eastern European nations where they had fewer rights and protections. Epste's pattern of exploitation often involved targeting vulnerable young
[1:27:45]children from broken homes with immigration status perhaps that was not fully uh vetted um people who had been
[1:27:55]trafficked in by people and used immigration as a means for vulnerability. So to say now that these amendments that we're offering are not
[1:28:07]germaine is simply it doesn't pass the smell test at all. You can vote them down but to say they're not gerine
[1:28:16]doesn't make any sense. The reality is that we literally, thanks to representatives Massie and Kana, had a dozen survivors
[1:28:26]of the horrific abuses of Jeffrey Epstein, Galain Maxwell, and all the rich and powerful men who used their wealth and power to corrupt justice. So
[1:28:37]my amendment says that the bill doesn't go into effect until every single one of them in the networks is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The majority claims that the purpose of the bill, the underlying bill that we're supposed to
[1:28:48]be discussing is to enhance efforts to combat the trafficking of children. Those are your words. To enhance efforts to combat the trafficking of children. How can you claim to do that with any
[1:29:00]degree of credibility when the vast majority of the participants in Jeffrey Epste child sex trafficking ring still remain at large?
[1:29:11]If we really want to combat child trafficking, we have to be clear that those who participate in child trafficking don't get a free pass in the United States.
[1:29:21]The idea that we're two signatures short still on Representative Massie and Kana's discharge petition to release all of the Epstein files is confounding to
[1:29:33]me. I've had conversations with some of you. I've watched mostly the men slink out of the room every time this topic comes up. Most of the women are not
[1:29:43]here. We got a couple of men that sit it through like my good friend Lance Gooden. At least he doesn't leave the room. But why aren't you all on that discharge petition if you believe that
[1:29:54]this is uh something that included both Republicans and Democrats? I do. I think there are Democrats and Republicans that need to be held accountable in this in
[1:30:04]this whole horrific scandal. Then get all of the files released and you can stand up for this. You can stand up for your daughters,
[1:30:16]for all of the other women out there, all of the other people who have been trafficked. And your base will love it. Your base wants these files released. So
[1:30:28]there's no political reason here for you not to do the right thing other than you're paying feelalty to a cult leader who's telling you not to do it because
[1:30:37]his name is all over this thing. So I hope that even if you're voting down these amendments or you're trying to make an argument that they're not
[1:30:47]gerine, which is ridiculous, that you sign the discharge petition. Why don't you just put your signature on the discharge petition and all of this
[1:30:57]will end because we will get to see the files in totality, not what the Department of Justice wants
[1:31:06]to release. I mean, the idea that we have uh the deputy attorney general Todd Blanch negotiate in secret an agreement
[1:31:18]to move Gileain Maxwell to a cushy prison after what she's done should embarrass everybody.
[1:31:30]Everybody, Mr. chairman and I feel like I don't know how you go home to your to your daughters and your wives and say that you didn't put your signature on
[1:31:40]that discharge petition. So I think this amendment is gerine and I hope that we can discuss it because there's a lot of information we need and I hope that uh we're able to have that conversation in
[1:31:52]this committee. I yield back. >> Gentle lady's time is expired. She yields back. The gentleman from uh California is recognized and does he insist on his point of order? >> I do, Mr. Chairman >> gentleman's recognized. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, nobody on this side of
[1:32:04]the aisle has anything but contempt and loathing for Jeffrey Epstein's predations and there are many appropriate and germanine opportunities for airing these concerns, including
[1:32:14]before this very committee next week, but it has nothing to do with this bill and therefore introduces material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us and therefore violates House Rule 16
[1:32:25]clause 7. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. sponsor the minute wish to be heard on the point of order. >> Yes, I do. >> Gentle is recognized. >> A notable example of an immigrant child exploited by Jeffrey Epstein is Marina
[1:32:37]Lassera who came forward publicly with her story in September 2025. Lera was a vulnerable teenager new to the United States living in Queens with her family
[1:32:46]when she was recruited into Epstein's trafficking ring. She immigrated from Brazil. She was 14 years old. She was struggling financially. A friend introduced her to Epstein under the
[1:32:57]pretense of a simple massage job that would pay hundreds of dollars. The situation quickly uh escalated and Epste and his associates forced her into
[1:33:06]sexual interactions. Lassarda has said that she eventually became part of a larger network of girls and young women who were recruited by Epstein in New
[1:33:16]York and trafficked from abroad. This is a pattern of exploitation and exploitation survives because people are vulnerable to whatever conditions they
[1:33:26]are under including their immigration status. This bill is about immigration and young girls children. I would >> in fact the subtitle of the bill is
[1:33:37]quote to enhance efforts to combat the trafficking of children. Would your amendment enhance efforts to combat absolutely the trafficking of children? >> Absolutely, Mr. ranking member because
[1:33:49]it shows that there is a cost to pay. Why are we letting these people get away? What example does it send? All of these survivors last last week,
[1:33:59]incredibly powerful testimonies talked about not just what it means for them, but what it means for all the other sexual predators that are out there, all
[1:34:09]the others that are being allowed to get away with continued trafficking because we don't crack down on this case. So absolutely and this is gerine to this
[1:34:20]bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask that you rule it gerine and you do what is actually right and then we have a debate on the merits of the amendment and if you want to vote it down, vote it down. >> The chair is obligated to follow the
[1:34:31]house rules. The gentleoman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purposes test. Therefore, it is not gerine and is out of order. >> I appeal the ruling of the chair. >> Gentle lady appeals the ruling of the chair. The gentleman
[1:34:42]>> gentleman from California moves to table. All those in favor of tableabling say I I those opposed no. No opinion of the chair. The eyes have it.
[1:34:52]>> I recorded vote. Mr. Chairman and really disappointed as for recorded vote. The chair will call the role on the debate on the merits of motion. >> Mr. Jordan. >> Uh yes.
[1:35:04]>> Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa. >> Mr. Biggs. >> Mr. Biggs votes yes. Mr. Mcccleintoch. >> Hi. >> Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany
[1:35:13]>> I. Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Massie. >> Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes I.
[1:35:22]Mr. Klein. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes yes. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nells.
[1:35:31]Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes I. Mr. Kylie. Miss Hagaman. >> Miss Haggman votes I. Miss Lee. Mr.
[1:35:39]Hunt. Mr. Hunt votes I. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman. >> Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Knott
[1:35:49]votes I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Herder. Mr. Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt. >> Mr. Gil. Mr. Gil votes I. Mr. Bombgardner.
[1:36:01]Mr. Raskin. >> No. >> Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. >> No. >> Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughrin. Miss Lofrren votes no. Mr. Cohen.
[1:36:12]Mr. Mr. Johnson, >> no. >> Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, >> no. >> Mr. Lou votes no. Miss Gipol,
[1:36:21]>> Miss Jipal votes no. Mr. Koreah, Miss Scandlin, >> no. >> Miss Scanland votes no. Mr. Negus. Miss Mcbath.
[1:36:32]>> Miss Mcbath votes no. Miss Ross, >> Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballot, >> no. >> Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camager Dove.
[1:36:43]>> Miss Camager Dove votes no. Mr. Mosquitz Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Goldman. >> Miss Crockett.
[1:36:52]>> Miss Crockett votes no. >> Mr. Korea votes no. >> Mr. Nells votes yes. >> Miss Lee.
[1:37:04]>> Miss Lee votes yes. >> Mr. Bombgardner. >> Mr. Mr. Bomb Gardner votes yes. >> How am I recorded?
[1:37:13]>> Mr. Isa, you're not recorded. >> Mr. Isa votes yes. >> The name of the bill. >> Mr. Schmidt votes I report.
[1:37:50]>> Clerk will report. >> Mr. Chairman, there are 20 eyes and 16 nos. >> Uh the uh >> table motion table is agreed to. The
[1:38:00]gentle lady from Wyoming is recognized. Uh >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kayla's mother is watching this hearing. She cannot figure out for the life of
[1:38:10]her what Jeffrey Epstein has to do with her daughter and this bill. Kayla was murdered in Maryland. Where was the ranking member then? What
[1:38:22]efforts did he make to ensure that no other senseless murder like this happened? Using the life and death of Kayla Hamilton to score political points
[1:38:32]against the president is absolutely despicable. I'm going to read from the US Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General the report that was issued in
[1:38:43]March 20 on March 25th of this year entitled ICE cannot effectively monitor the location and status of all unaccompanied alien children after federal custody because that's what the
[1:38:54]point of this bill is to address. Quote, "After meeting with more than 140 individuals from DHS and other federal agencies, we determined US Immigration
[1:39:05]and Customs Enforcement cannot effectively monitor the location and status of all unaccompanied alien children once released or transferred them from the Department of Homeland
[1:39:15]Security and the US Department of Health and Human Services custody. From fiscal years 2019 to 2023, ICE transferred more than 448,000
[1:39:26]UAC's to HHS. Most were released to sponsors. However, more than 31,000 of the 448,000 children releases address release addresses were blank,
[1:39:37]undeliverable, or missing apartment numbers. ICE also was not always aware of the location for UAC's who fled HHS custody. We found that ICE did not
[1:39:48]effectively oversee UAC's subject to removal by not issuing notices to appear to all UAC's to generate assignment of immigration court needs by the US
[1:39:58]Department of Justice. As of January 2025, ICE had not served NTAs on more than 233,000 233,000
[1:40:11]unaccompanied minors. As of October 2024, ICE reported more than 43,000 UAC's served NTA's failed to
[1:40:22]appear for scheduled court dates. Finally, ICE was not always notified of UAC's status and safety unless an allegation or tip was reported. These
[1:40:32]issues occurred because ICE did not always receive information about UAC's sponsor locations from HHS and other federal agencies. ICE also had limited
[1:40:42]staffing to monitor USC's cases and did not have a policy for all officers to monitor UAC's cases. Without an ability to monitor the location and status of
[1:40:53]UAC's, ICE is unable to facilitate court appearances and has no assurance UAC's are safe from trafficking, exploitation, forced labor, or involvement in criminal
[1:41:04]activities that may pose a risk to local communities. >> Kayla Kayla Hamilton, Kayla Hamilton, >> Kayla Hamilton, >> write it down for me. The reason for
[1:41:14]what this bill is about, Kayla Hamilton, was brutally murdered by Walter Yaviar M. Martinez, a UAC who was released to a
[1:41:25]sponsor, an individual who was responsible for housing and supervising the UAC by HHS before any background
[1:41:34]checks were completed. Kayla Hamilton was brutally murdered by Walter Yavar Martinez, a USC UAC who
[1:41:45]was released to a sponsor by HHS before any background checks were completed. It is critically important
[1:41:54]that we stay on task with the issue that is before us today and that is addressing the brutal murder of Kayla Hamilton and ensuring that this kind of
[1:42:06]a tragedy never happens again. This is not about Jeffrey Epstein. If the folks on the other side of the aisle would like to bring a bill about Jeffrey
[1:42:15]Epstein, we can address that. Do not solely Kayla Hamilton's name or her memory by turning this into a political
[1:42:26]sideshow. I urge I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very well-crafted important bill. It is critical
[1:42:37]it is critical that we be able to protect people like Kayla Hamilton. With that, I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields back. Well said. Uh, the gentle lady from California is recognized.
[1:42:49]>> I'd like to strike the last word and I'd like to yield my remaining time to Congressman Moscowitz. >> Uh, thank you, uh, the gentle lady from
[1:42:58]California. I have breaking news for the gentle lady from Wyoming. The the idea of Jeffrey Epste that we could bring it. I just want to let you know that there's a gentleman that sits right behind you.
[1:43:10]His name is Thomas Massie. He has brought a discharge petition that you may not have heard about it. He's brought a discharge petition that would release all of the Epstein files because I was listening to your speech and I was
[1:43:22]listening to Van Drew's speech and it was a lot of words to say I don't want to release the files, right? Like that was a lot of words to say I don't want to release. >> Would you yield very briefly? Would you
[1:43:33]my words are about Kayla? >> Yeah. No. When I'm done when I'm done I'll yield to you when I'm done. So, there's a discharge petition that would release the files. The reason why we
[1:43:44]talk about it in all these hearings is that we can't believe that you were all for releasing the files until the mothership beamed down the instructions
[1:43:55]to not release the files. And then all of a sudden, it was a hoax. It's not real. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, right? We're gonna send the private attorney to
[1:44:06]move Gain Maxwell, right? We're going to do all of these things. We're just very surprised. And obviously, Mr. Massie has stuck to his principles and he's had a couple of others do that as well.
[1:44:17]Everybody else ran ran for cover. And so, do you want to release the files and then I'll yield? I mean, it's a yes or no. And then, will you sign the Massie petition? >> Will you yield? >> I will. >> Yes.
[1:44:28]>> Oh, I'm sorry. I got I got to yield back to the I got I got to yield back. I'm sorry. >> I'm not going to yield. I want to take some of my time because it's also
[1:44:37]very simple. Like I said before, release the files, put it out there,
[1:44:45]pop the balloon, let out all this air. I too would like to get to the point where we could discuss the underlying bill. There's a lot of problems with the underlying bill,
[1:44:56]but when we met with the survivors, they said, "We want transparency.
[1:45:08]We want action. We want accountability. We don't know why there's a flyover happening at the exact same time we're
[1:45:19]holding a press conference. We don't know why members outside of those in the women's caucus and a few other brave folks don't
[1:45:30]want to meet with us and hear our story. We don't know why we're getting thrown
[1:45:39]under the bus and treated as if we are perpetrators. And I don't know why either. We come into this committee, the
[1:45:55]judiciary committee, which is supposed to be about justice. And then we get subjective amnesia. And
[1:46:05]it's like, well, only justice for certain people, I don't know, for people who look like or look a certain way,
[1:46:14]speak a certain way, have a certain amount of money in their bank account. I thought we have
[1:46:26]one set of laws that everyone's supposed to follow. The survivors
[1:46:35]of the Epstein crimes seem to think the same too. And yet we have multiple sets of rules.
[1:46:46]So if you release the files, we can see whose rules
[1:46:53]who's allowed to follow. We heard from survivors who said Jeffrey Epstein said I own the
[1:47:04]banks. I own the government. I can do what I want. We are talking about the Epstein files
[1:47:15]related to this bill because the man was had multiple passports. He was traveling to far and away places like Monaco, Austria,
[1:47:26]Slovakia, Paris, Mexico, Morocco involved orchestrating an international
[1:47:34]ring of trafficking, young women young enough to be
[1:47:43]someone's child, someone's grandchild. So vote on the amendments to release the files to give the survivors what they want, transparency,
[1:47:55]action, and accountability. And with that, I yield back my time. >> Gentle lady yields back. Uh gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
[1:48:05]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh we're here debating this uh bill HR 4371, the Kayla
[1:48:13]Hamilton Act, which purports to actually protect uh children. Uh but at the same time, it requires that children over the age of
[1:48:24]12 be physically inspected uh for gang tattoos. Now,
[1:48:34]you know, inspecting girls 12 years and older and maybe even racially profiling and figuring that a 8-year-old might be 12 years old. So,
[1:48:46]you you um inspect a 8-year-old child um at a time when we don't know whether or
[1:48:55]not the Jeffrey X Epstein sex ring saga has been concluded or not is very disturbing to me. I don't want to
[1:49:07]enshrine in the law um a obligation for ICE goons to be inspecting the bodies of
[1:49:19]12 year old girls uh simply because they crossed the border not knowing whether or not they are a part of this child sex predator uh
[1:49:30]ring. You know, Donald Trump has uh trafficked in conspiracy theories for many many years. Q Anon,
[1:49:40]Pizzagate. These are real theories that were propounded by Trump and his supporters.
[1:49:49]The Jeffrey Epstein child sex predator ring was also a conspiracy theory and it's the only one that has legs or it's
[1:50:01]the only one that has been proven to not be just simply a uh a conspiracy. It is
[1:50:09]not a hoax. It is a fact of life that this is an international child sex predator ring spanning the
[1:50:19]globe. It's international in its in its u impact including in Putin's ch uh Putin's Russia
[1:50:30]including Russia. Putin was he involved in it? Well, Donald Trump said that when I get elected, I'm going to release the files. It's going to knock the socks off
[1:50:42]of you. The names on the client list, the names in the files. We'll get it done. And so they come in
[1:50:53]the office. Pam Bondi says on national TV, I've got the file on my desk.
[1:51:03]I'm going to review it and release it. But then shortly thereafter, within days thereafter, suddenly
[1:51:13]she takes the opposite approach. She she and Cash Patel come out and say, "Okay, uh, sorry about
[1:51:22]that. There's nothing there." Um, case closed. Uh, period. It's a hoax, by the way. Also,
[1:51:31]now the public does not believe this. The public is not satisfied. Thomas Massie is not satisfied and I'm not satisfied either
[1:51:42]and I don't think many Americans are. We need to release these files. The fact that we're talking about in
[1:51:52]this very legislation allowing ICE goons to inspect 12 year olds to unclo them and check for uh purportedly check for
[1:52:02]uh uh gang tattoos. I mean, is the Jeffrey Epstein saga alive and well? And if so, who's participating in it? We
[1:52:13]need those files opened. We need those names exposed. The American people have not forgotten. They will not forget.
[1:52:22]This is important. And I support the uh amendments that are coming uh on this uh
[1:52:31]bill. uh the Jeffrey Epstein SAGA and the Kayla Hamilton Act are interrelated
[1:52:42]and the relief that our children need is interdependent as well. And so, um, I'm I'm going to,
[1:52:53]uh, you know, and I'm not going to sit by while folks continuing continue to, uh, cast aspersions on the motivations
[1:53:02]of the ranking member for leading this effort. And, uh, with that, I will yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. >> Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Chairman, I've already given you a title.
[1:53:13]>> Yes. Gentleman from Texas recognized. >> Yeah. Uh, but my colleague, you from Georgia, you sat back for four years when Joe Biden was president. I'm curious, and I really do mean this cuz
[1:53:24]the ranking member, you read the letter uh that you were raising hell uh back when you were in your position. Will someone, and I will yield to you, will someone answer for me why Joe, let me
[1:53:35]ask the question first, >> and I'm going to take my time back if you don't answer the question because I want the question answered. >> I will happily answer. >> Why did Joe Biden not release these
[1:53:43]files? And why did none of you come out and call for the release of these files when Joe Biden was president? Why did you wait until it became a political
[1:53:53]issue if your motivations are so pure? Mr. Goldman, yes, I'll yield to you. >> So, first of all, the reason why this has become such a big issue. >> No, I don't. And that wasn't the
[1:54:04]question. The question was, why did you all not push the Biden admin to release the files? Right? >> Why did not why did not one of you say Joe Biden's Justice Department should
[1:54:14]release these files and if he doesn't, damn it, I'm going to get a discharge petition. >> So, why didn't anyone do that? >> I'm trying to answer
[1:54:22]>> that they we were not aware I I think it's safe to say that Donald Trump was in the Epstein files. >> I'm not talking about Donald Trump.
[1:54:34]Everyone in this room knew about Epstein. It was a huge national story. I'm asking you, why did Joe Biden not release the Epstein files? It's irrelevant who may or may not have been
[1:54:44]in them. Why didn't you care about these victims? Irrespective of the fact that your political opponent could or could not be attached to these files, why weren't you guys calling out the Joe Biden administration to release the
[1:54:56]files? Please, someone answer. >> I'm trying to answer. >> Well, you didn't. I'll I'll let Miss Crockett try. >> You got to let me >> Jasmine. Uh Jasmine and I'll call you by your first name cuz we are friends and I feel comfortable and you call me Lance. So, Jasmine,
[1:55:07]>> we are not. >> Oh, we are. >> Do not ruin my Don't ruin my street creed. Uh, no. Here's the thing. I will tell you that >> at the end of the day for me as a
[1:55:18]lawyer, when you have that Maxwell went through her trial in 2021, I believe that's when she was convicted.
[1:55:28]That is when Joe Biden was in power. After that, she ended up on appeal, which she is currently on appeal now.
[1:55:37]So, as it relates to whether or not that Department of Justice had even concluded their investigation, I can't say that
[1:55:46]they had number one. Number two, by releasing the files prior to her going through her appellet process, that may have ended up being an issue that that
[1:55:57]administration was concerned about. That's number one. Number two, >> she's in a pill now. So using that line, you gonna pull that back. >> I'm about to get to it cuz I saw y
[1:56:07]>> I'm gonna reclaim my time since you said we weren't friends. I'm gonna reclaim my time. >> The time belongs to the gentleman. >> I got a real hard time Democrats saying
[1:56:17]>> that this is a noble cause when y'all weren't calling on Joe Biden's Justice Department to release the files. You're all a bunch of hypocrites to say this is a noble cause because none of you did
[1:56:29]anything about it. Okay, I yield back to the chairman. >> I need time now, Mr. Chair. I need I need time now since he wanted to be selfish. >> Um >> I appreciate uh
[1:56:40]>> I move to strike the last word. >> Have you used your time? No. Okay, then I will go to the ranking member then we'll come to then we'll come down the dice. >> Okay. Um we need to clean up some
[1:56:49]unfinished business. Uh, and let let me start with uh my friend Mr. Van Drew. I understand that was a bit of an embarrassing situation for you to be in,
[1:56:59]but I want to look to the larger Oh, well, you accused us of not saying anything and I gave you a letter and we had a press conference to go with the letter. No, not yet. I I'll come to I'll
[1:57:10]come back to you. Okay. But I demonstrated on July 10th, 2019, I sent a letter directly to Jeffrey Epstein along with Chairman Cummings.
[1:57:20]May he rest in peace demanding that rather we send it directly to Alex Aosta demanding that he come in to defend the nonprosecution agreement that he made
[1:57:31]with Jeffrey Epstein behind closed doors and without consulting a single victim in that case in total violation of the Crime Victim's Rights Act. And we
[1:57:41]demanded that he come in to defend that double crossing agreement where they swept everything under the rug and we railed about it. the time. Now you you
[1:57:51]retreated from saying you didn't hear anything from me. I didn't do anything about it to saying, "Well, I'm speaking more about it now than then." Perhaps you've done some kind of comparative assessment. I'd love to see your
[1:58:02]statistical analysis of how many words I spoke back then because I was railing about it back then versus how much I'm speaking about it now. But here's the point. All of this point, the point you just made, the point Mr. Good made is a
[1:58:14]ridiculous, absurd, and humiliating distraction from the substance. In other words, you guys all agree that it should be released. In fact, uh you are on uh
[1:58:25]Mr. Massiey's bill. You're you're on the bill. So So you're saying it should be released, but you're upset because you think we're speaking about it more now than we spoke about it during the Biden
[1:58:35]administration. Give me a break. The Biden administration prosecuted and convicted Maxwell. She went to jail for 20 years. Wait, I'll I'll come back to
[1:58:46]you, Mr. Ventrew. Listen to what I'm saying. You You want to whine about the Biden administration? She was prosecuted under the Biden administration. That's why she's in prison now for 20 years. It wasn't the Trump administration. It was
[1:58:57]the Biden administration. We had every reason, as the distinguished general lady from Texas says, to believe that the investigation was still ongoing. And in fact, we learned more about it from
[1:59:07]Donald Trump, who was uh who was Epstein's best friend for more than 10 years. So, he said, "There's more there." He said, "It's all got to be released." All the Republicans were railing about the fact it got be released. We said we agree. I've been
[1:59:19]talking about this for six years and I'm going to enter this into the record and we had a press release and a press conference to go with it which I'm going to introduce as well. So don't give me that nonsense about how we didn't care
[1:59:30]about child sex abuse and human trafficking before. Okay, that's number one. Now, number two, the Trump administration today is
[1:59:40]dismantling the antihuman trafficking operations of the United States government. Okay. Doge wiped out USAID, which was a very important force in
[1:59:51]attacking human trafficking networks around the world. They they basically gutted at the US State Department the office to monitor and combat trafficking
[2:00:01]in persons. Now you say all of my colleagues over there say we all hate human trafficking. We're all opposed to the abuse of children. Really? Then work with us to restore all of the funds that
[2:00:12]have been wiped out by the Trump administration. Can we do that? So this is not just like pmical games back and forth which are not going so well for you today. I got to admit, Mr. Van Drew,
[2:00:22]if you just want to point fingers, it's not looking good for your side. Why don't you come aboard and say, "Let's restore all of the funding that was wiped out from the State Department, the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
[2:00:33]in Persons, USAD, and all of the law enforcement personnel who've been reassigned from doing human trafficking work to doing the kinds of uh
[2:00:43]immigration raids that have the country uh up in an uproar now. And I'm happy to yield to you for for a second so you can respond to why you mischaracterized my record on this.
[2:00:55]>> Mr. Raskin, thou protest too much. >> You only talked about a plea deal in that letter. You never talk that I've
[2:01:04]seen about releasing the files. Period. And let's really get back to the subject. >> The prosecutions, this is my time. I'll reclaim my time. The reason for that is because the prosecutions were ongoing.
[2:01:15]As I just taught you a second ago, it was the Biden administration's Department of Justice that brought the prosecution against Galileain Maxwell. Back to you. This could have been done
[2:01:25]for years. My point is, and it's consistent, all the moral indignation, all the righteousness, all the speeches, probably many of you have spoken more
[2:01:35]about it today than you did in your entire career. That's the reality. >> Do you want the file released? We're claiming my time. M Mr. Mr. Vandrew, I'm happy to to yield to you for this purpose and this purpose only. Do you
[2:01:45]demand the release of the entire Epstein file? The whole world's watching. Do you or do you not? >> I'm a co- I'm a co-sponsor of the bill. >> Okay. Will you sign the discharge petition today? >> That's a different issue. >> No, I know. That's why I am asking it to
[2:01:57]you. >> I should go through a proper way so they don't hurt innocent people. No, proper is going through committee and then going through the process of voting it
[2:02:07]on the floor. I said that. I said that when I co-sponsored it and I say it now. >> The bottom line is you're talking about it more than you ever did. It's political >> time of the gentleman from >> I yield back to
[2:02:18]>> but expired. Does a gentleman from New Jersey speak additional time? >> Only just quickly to say and thank you Mr. Chairman that what I'm trying to
[2:02:28]point out is here everyone cares about the issue. We on the judiciary committee are going to delve into it but you're just focusing purely on a political issue.
[2:02:39]and it isn't consistent. I don't see the moral indignation, the moral righteousness, the purity of heart that you're professing to have. And Mr. Raskin, I think the world of you, you're one of the brightest people,
[2:02:50]>> Mr. Chairman, he already struck the last word. Are you giving him a second? Are we all getting a second five minutes? >> Um, >> okay. >> I did not realize that Mr. Van Drew already spoke on the bill. We are in the
[2:03:00]bill. The gentle lady is correct. Will the gentleman from >> I apologize. >> Gentleman from Alabama is recognized to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to Miss
[2:03:09]Hegman unless Jeff, are you finished? >> Simply said, if you analyze this fact by fact, the reality is that they're in a
[2:03:20]much different place now than they were before there was a change of presidents. We all want to see the information released and it will be in an appropriate way. I yield back.
[2:03:31]>> I want to yield to Hagerman. Mr. >> Gentle Lady from uh uh Wyoming is recognized. >> Thank you. Uh, say her name, Kayla Hamilton. Say her name, Kayla Hamilton. I'm going to go back to referring to the
[2:03:43]US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General report. Uh, because that's what this discussion is about. And as the as it's already been determined, the issues associated with
[2:03:55]Jeffrey Epstein are not gerine to this bill. So, I'm going to focus specifically on what this bill is about and why it is necessary. According to this report, ICE did not have accurate
[2:04:05]or complete addresses for all UAC's released or transferred from DHS and HHS custody. Of the 448,820
[2:04:14]UAC's that ICE transferred to HHS Office of Refugee Settlement from 2019 to 2023, most UAC's were released to sponsors. According to the joint concept of
[2:04:26]operations between DHS and HHS, HHSORR should provide UAC's addresses to ICE upon release to sponsors at multiple at
[2:04:36]multiple enforcement and removable removal operations locations we visited, meaning the authors of this report. Officers noted a recurring concern about
[2:04:47]receiving incomplete or commercial addresses for UAC's instead of residences. For example, ERRO officers at one location estimated addresses were
[2:04:57]incorrect 80% of the time. Let that sink in. The addresses where unaccompanied minors were released by the Biden
[2:05:07]administration, the addresses were incomplete or incorrect 80% of the time. During one site visit, the audit team and ERRO officers attempted to locate
[2:05:19]two addresses where HHS frequently released UAC's. However, these addresses
[2:05:25]did not exist. In fiscal year 2023, HHSR released 34 UAC's to these nonexistent
[2:05:35]addresses. Of the 34 UAC's released to these two addresses, only two were in immigration proceedings, one of whom subsequently failed to appear in court,
[2:05:46]similar to Walter Yavior Martinez, who murdered Kayla Hamilton. Finally, ICE was not always aware of the location of
[2:05:56]approximately 600 UAC's whom HHS reported to ICE as fleeing HH HHS custody from 2019 to 23. One UAC fled
[2:06:07]five times in one year. Another UAC runaway who admitted to murdering someone in his home country had an international arrest warrant. And as of
[2:06:18]August 2024, the UAC had not appeared in court and had not been located. An erro official noted a different UAC ran away on multiple occa multiple occasions,
[2:06:29]assaulted HHSR staff, and admitted to being part of a Mexican cartel. Kayla Hamilton was brutally murdered by Walter
[2:06:38]Walter Yavier Martinez, a UAC who was released to a sponsor by HHS before any background checks were completed. It is
[2:06:48]imperative that we pass this bill. Thank you, Mr. Fry, for bringing it forward. With that, I yield back. >> Will the gentle will the gentle gentle lady yield? >> The time belongs to the gentleman from Alabama.
[2:06:58]>> Gentleman from Alabama yield to uh the gentleman from South Carolina. >> Yes. Go ahead, Mr. >> M. I'm struck by the the statistics that you read in the OIG report. In that same
[2:07:08]report, you've seen that 22% of cases that OR did not even conduct timely safety and well-being follow-up uh calls to either the sponsor or to the minor
[2:07:20]child as is required by law. Are you aware of that? >> I It's in the report. >> You know what's interesting about this, too, and I I don't know if you've seen this, uh, but there was a a phone call
[2:07:29]that was initiated by OR 6 months after Mr. Martinez went missing. And this the sponsor stated that the minor was not
[2:07:40]under her care any further since August of 2022. This was April of 2023, so we're talking 7 months after. Uh, and that the minor, quote, left me to be with his brother. he wanted to hang out
[2:07:51]on the streets and do what he was doing in his home country slash getting in trouble on the streets and hanging out with gang members. End quote. >> Isn't that alarming that our own
[2:08:01]government can't even identify and find where these children are? >> With that, I yield back. >> Yield back, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last >> gentleman yields back. Before recognized gentle from New York, I just ask unanimous consent to enter into the
[2:08:12]record press statement from Thursday, July 2nd, 2020. First Trump administration. This is a United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, uh uh detailing the indictment of Gileain
[2:08:24]Maxwell in federal court that that particular day. >> Yeah. Can I have a UC too? >> UC from the gentleman from Maryland. >> This is the the prior reference letter
[2:08:33]to Alexander Aosta July, 2019 and a press release to that effect also. Uh and then a letter to William Bar also uh
[2:08:43]demanding information December 20th, 2019. Without objection, gentle lady from Wam is recognized for >> I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record the US Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General
[2:08:55]final report dated March 25th, 2025. ICE cannot effectively monitor monitor the location and status of all unaccompanied alien children after federal custody.
[2:09:06]>> Uh without objection, gentleman from New York is now recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's go through the history of the Epstein files.
[2:09:15]During the Biden administration, this was cause celeb number one for the extreme MAGA right that there was some
[2:09:25]massive conspiracy to hide democratic political involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking
[2:09:36]ring. It was promoted and perpetuated by Cash Patel and Dan Bongino over and
[2:09:45]over and over again. It is probably the number one conspiracy theory uh on the the online MAGA right and it was pushed
[2:09:57]and pushed and pushed that they had to release the files. they should release the files. And Donald Trump was asked on the campaign trail, should the Jeffrey Epstein files be released? And he said
[2:10:08]yes. Donald Trump comes into office and uh Pam Bondi releases a small
[2:10:17]portion of the Epstein files that had primarily already been public. There's an uproar on the right and by many many
[2:10:27]members of Congress about why the Epstein files were not being released. Pam Bondi says she writes a a memo or an email saying that she wants an
[2:10:39]explanation for why there aren't more files that are released within 24 hours and that within two weeks she intends to release them. Then the FBI spends tens
[2:10:51]of thousands of hours going through the files to redact them. Redact obviously what you would need to redact which is
[2:11:02]the identification information and any uh other uh information about the victims. They that lasts a couple months. All of
[2:11:11]a sudden it goes quiet. It goes quiet. Suddenly, Congresswoman Luna and others who have been pushing so aggressively for the
[2:11:23]Epstein files to be released decide, "We're going to stay quiet." And all of a sudden, they're not released. Well, what do we learn next? Oh, we learn actually
[2:11:34]this whole right-wing conspiracy theory is BS. It is bogus. And Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. So now all of a
[2:11:44]sudden the Republicans who were so aggressively intent on releasing the Epstein files because they were going to be
[2:11:55]uh a huge explosive story about uh Democrats involved with Jeffrey Epstein are quiet. So the irony of these
[2:12:07]Republicans accusing the Democrats now of only being interested in this is uh for political purposes is so thick that
[2:12:17]it is almost sucking us into the quicksand. But let's go a step further. Let's go a step further because now the
[2:12:26]cover up is getting so deep and so intense that this committee which has oversight over the Department of Justice
[2:12:36]and would ordinarily be the one that is doing this investigation is running away from it. Why?
[2:12:44]Because Chairman Comr is the useful idiot who will do the cover up for Donald Trump. And what does that mean? Oh, well now there is an oversight
[2:12:56]investigation. But you know what? They're not asking for >> those kind of comments and he knows that. Um, let's gentlemen, gentleman's recognized. >> Now,
[2:13:07]the oversight in uh committee is doing an investigation. But you know what they're not asking for? You know what? You did not put in the rule to confirm that investigation. We're not asking for
[2:13:18]the documents that were used to open the investigation. who provided the information. They're not asking for witness statements, victim witness
[2:13:29]statements. They're not asking for recordings that may exist. They're not asking for any of the evidence that
[2:13:39]might include Donald Trump. And rather than acknowledge that you're just trying to cover up for Donald Trump's knowledge and involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein
[2:13:51]scheme, you're trying to accuse us of being interested. And there's one more point that I will say quickly. This conspiracy theory that you pushed for
[2:14:01]years is bogus. And when it comes out to the American people that it is bogus, then they will know that all of your other conspiracy theories are also bogus
[2:14:12]and your credibility is nil. And I yield yield back. >> Uh gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from uh Texas is recognized. >> Thank you so much. Um I move to strike
[2:14:23]the last words. >> Gentle lady's recognized. >> And uh so a couple of things. my um not friend from Texas um specifically cut me
[2:14:34]off by the time that I wanted to indicate to him a couple of things. One thing y'all have not said thus far as far as I can tell is y'all may have
[2:14:44]amnesia about this mandate. You know, y'all kept talking about how President Trump was reelected and it was a mandate and y'all aren't talking about the
[2:14:54]campaign promises. the campaign promise that he made. You see, when we had the Democrats out there, we weren't promising anything about the Epstein files. For all I know, our DOJ was
[2:15:06]invested in making sure that they could continue to reveal other people that should be held liable. Instead, it was your side that made this a campaign promise. So, to now say that we are
[2:15:17]playing political games when we know that he actually ran on this is a farce. That's number one. Number two, everyone on this committee and everyone in Congress should have an issue with the
[2:15:29]fact that right now we know that Galain Maxwell has not only been transferred out of her housing in Florida down to somewhere that looks probably a little
[2:15:39]bit more like Mara Lago in Texas, but now there are conversations about pardoning her. So, I think that the American people should have full
[2:15:48]transparency about what took place when you're talking about someone who went in front of a grand jury and was found to have enough information to go forward and indict her and then she was
[2:16:00]convicted and then she was given 20 years yet the president is in talks about potentially letting a convicted sex offender out. That's number two.
[2:16:11]Number three, I don't know if any of y'all took the time to sit down with any of these survivors, but let me be clear. These survivors have made it abundantly
[2:16:20]clear to us that there was cooperation at all levels of government and they are talking about fake immigration papers. So all for all and they're talking about
[2:16:31]fake modeling agencies. For all we know, there are people that are still embedded in our federal government that allowed for this to take place that were
[2:16:41]benefiting, profiting from this. So, yes, this is relevant to what we're talking about. The fourth thing that I want to say is I'm tired of y'all cherry-picking one horrible event
[2:16:52]because that's what y'all do. Y'all find one terrible situation that took place and then you say that person's name and you wear it out and you make it political. The reality is this. I got a
[2:17:03]few names for you if you want to start going through names and you tell me which one of these names you've decided to do any type of legislation behind. We've got Virginia Guthrie, we've got
[2:17:14]Annie Farmer, we've got Maria Farmer, we've got Courtney Wild, Michelle Lacata, Jenna Lisa Jones, Jennifer Arazz, Sarah Ransom, Shante Davies,
[2:17:25]Carolyn Adrianiano. And the reality is that it's our understanding that there may be close to a thousand victims of Epstein, Maxwell, and others. So stop
[2:17:35]playing these games and acting like you care about one particular situation. You take a situation and then you exploit what has happened to not only that
[2:17:45]person, but you exploit those families and you make it a game. Stop just throwing a random dead person's name on something for your own political expediency. If you want to start talking
[2:17:56]about actually solving something, then maybe we should go to the other campaign promises, the ones that allegedly gave y'all a mandate. When he said he was going to lower prices on day one, yet
[2:18:07]that didn't happen. When he said that he was going to be ending wars on day one, yet that didn't happen. Where he said that he was going to save the American people, yet that didn't happen. Because
[2:18:18]as we know in that big ugly bill that every single one of you voted for except for Mr. Massie cuz he seemingly is the only one that's got any sense over there. Y'all voted for that bill and the
[2:18:29]last time I checked it's driving us further into debt while kicking people off of their healthcare in addition to making sure that billionaires which I would not be surprised if we start to
[2:18:40]roll out those names and a number of those same billionaires because these weren't $2 well they weren't $2 John's. That's not
[2:18:51]what I got from the information. So, stop telling us that you care. Show us that you care. Show those survivors that you care. Sign the dag on discharge
[2:19:01]petition. Sit down and hear their stories and then tell them to their faces that because your leader does not want to talk about this. That is who you have pledged your loyalty to and your
[2:19:12]fieldy to. And you're not going to protect them and you're not going to protect others that are suffering right now and others that will suffer in the future. and I will yield. >> Gentle yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized.
[2:19:24]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It it certainly appears that the only time the Democrats are concerned about human trafficking is when they think they can cast salacious
[2:19:33]and utterly unsubstantiated innuendos against the president. Now, we remember four years of unsubstantiated innuendos
[2:19:43]about Russian collusion. All that turned out to be a lie. And this discussion is starting to rhyme. But here's what the Democrats seem not to give a fig about.
[2:19:54]That during the four years of their open border policies, they admitted an estimated 530,000 unaccompanied alien miners into this country. Now, that's about the entire
[2:20:06]population of the state of Wyoming. Some were gang members claiming to be minors, such as Kayla Hamilton's killer. Others were innocent children placed with
[2:20:18]poorly vetted sponsors and then abandoned and lost and forgotten. Now, Miss Hagaman has um read the shocking revelations in the Inspector General's
[2:20:28]report. Are the Democrats horrified by this abandonment and endangerment of these children? Of course not. They spent four years defending, excusing,
[2:20:38]and ignoring these practices. In July 2021, concerned employees at HHS drafted a memo warning that quote trafficking was increasing and
[2:20:50]complaining that the agency had become quote one that rewards individuals for making quick releases and not one that rewards individuals for preventing
[2:21:00]unsafe releases. According to press reports, Bera told then ORR director Cindy Hang that quote if she could not increase the number of discharges, he
[2:21:10]would find somebody who could. Hong resigned a month later. Now, instead of protecting these children until they could be returned safely home or until their rightful families could be
[2:21:22]located, the Democrats HHS deliberately circumvented protocols that were designed to protect these children and they abandoned them to poorly vetted
[2:21:31]sponsors in the United States. The House Judiciary Committee estimated last year that roughly 150,000 of these children have now disappeared. They've simply vanished into a dark underworld of sex
[2:21:42]and drug trafficking, forced labor, gang activity, and crime. Of course, many are not helpless children, but rather teenagers or adults posing as teenagers
[2:21:53]who themselves present a mortal danger to the public. Mr. Fry already told the story of the tragic and entirely preventable murder of Kayla Hamilton. Maryland authorities admitted that he
[2:22:04]had gang tattoos, but the ranking member told us earlier today that we shouldn't even look for them. While the prime suspect in her murder, Martinez was placed in a foster home
[2:22:15]with other children and enrolled in a local high school. He since admitted to four murders, two rapes, and additional other crimes. Now, that could never have happened if
[2:22:27]Mr. Fry's bill had been law. What we do know is that in 2021, the Biden administration removed the
[2:22:36]requirement that ORR provide biographic and biometric data for all adult members of a sponsor's household to check for criminal histories. Once again, Mr.
[2:22:47]Fry's bill would forbid any administration from ever doing that again. Records produced by a whistleblower show that in 2021, HHS disregarded repeated
[2:22:58]warnings by a case manager about the MS-13 affiliation of one sponsor who is attempting to take custody of two unaccompanied alien children. Once again, Mr. Fry's bill would assure that
[2:23:10]that can never happen again. Now, instead of admitting the damage that these policies have done to hundreds of thousands of children that the Biden administration trafficked into
[2:23:21]this country and then abandoned, the Democrats seem to be doubling down. Even now, with the tragedy of these policies is becoming graphically clear.
[2:23:31]The Democrats still defend them or at least distract from them. Well, ne next year, Americans will need to consider if they really want to return them to power
[2:23:41]and reopen America's borders to child trafficking and the most dangerous and violent criminal gangs and cartels on the planet. I'll leave that to them and I'll yield back.
[2:23:53]>> Gentlemen yields back. Gentleman from California. >> Move to strike. Last word. >> Gentleman's recognized. I've listened to my colleagues in this
[2:24:02]Epstein debate on the Republican side ask over and over, why did the Democrats say nothing during the Biden
[2:24:12]administration? I've heard TV anchors ask, in fact, I was asked this morning the same question. Now, put aside the
[2:24:20]fact that in 2019, I called on Andrew Aosta to resign because of his connection to the Epstein files, and I wanted to learn more about why Epstein
[2:24:31]was not prosecuted. Put aside what Mr. Raskin and Mr. Cummings did. Let's just take you at your word that Democrats said nothing.
[2:24:41]Is that a reason for you to do nothing? I I don't understand the logic here that because you think the Democrats did nothing on the Epstein files in the
[2:24:52]Biden administration that to own the libs, you now have license to leave sexual assault victims unprotected. It's just crazy that you hate the Democrats
[2:25:03]so much that you would let the most notorious child sex trafficker and the people connected to him not be held accountable because you want to own
[2:25:15]the libs. Let's just take you at your word. Okay. The Democrats did nothing, so you're going to do nothing is what you were telling me. The Democrats, of course, did not do nothing.
[2:25:26]But let me boil it down to a lesson that I have right in front of me every morning when a six-year-old wakes me up around 5:45 and wants to
[2:25:37]watch the same movie over and over and over that's Frozen. And there's a lesson in this film uh
[2:25:46]where Elsa is told by one of the trolls in the movie that if you can't see the future, all you can do is the next right
[2:25:57]thing. And having seen this again a hundred times in the last couple years, my takeaway is if you don't know what's going to happen
[2:26:09]next and you can't change the past, all you can do is the next right thing. So even if you are right that the Democrats did nothing in the past, wouldn't the
[2:26:19]next right thing be to sign the discharge petition? or are you so obsessed with just scoring political points that you would punish sexual
[2:26:30]assault victims? Is that who you are? I don't think that's who you are. When I listen to some of the legislation you propose on your side, I I do believe sincerely you care about victims. And if
[2:26:40]that's who you are and you care about victims, sign the damn discharge petition. Okay? You can own us. I don't care. You can own us a thousand times. If it gets us to 218 signatures, I will
[2:26:52]let you have whatever victory you think you're accomplishing. But it seems to me that you're more interested in telling me not to believe
[2:27:02]my own eyes, which is what the president is doing. The president is telling us not to believe our own eyes.
[2:27:12]And it's not just on the Epstein files and the birthday card. And by the way, guys, we can bring in a handwriting expert, but I have two eyes, and I know
[2:27:22]what that man's obnoxious signature looks like, and so do you. But Donald Trump has told us that he
[2:27:31]would end all wars on day one, that prices would plummet and jobs would soar. And where are we? Ukraine has
[2:27:40]never been weaker. We've never seen more jobs lost in America since Donald Trump was last president. Even conservatives are complaining about
[2:27:53]how expensive grocery prices are. And even his own health, he's trying to trying to tell us not to believe his own our own eyes. Joe Biden looks like an
[2:28:04]Olympic athlete compared to a man who is hiding his illness. Donald Trump is a broken man who has
[2:28:14]broke his promises. And if we don't start checking him, we are going to be a broken country. So my friends, if you
[2:28:24]sincerely believe that Democrats dropped the ball and did not do enough under the Biden administration, then join us now in doing the next right
[2:28:33]thing and sign the discharge petition. Otherwise, you're telling sexual assault victims, this is just about scoring political points and they come last. I yield back. >> Will the gentleman yield back?
[2:28:45]>> I yield. Yes, I yield to the ranking me. >> Well, I just to add to your very eloquent statement there. Seems like these days every accusation is a confession. So, the accusation is the Democrats have somehow changed their
[2:28:55]position. We've been opposed to child sex trafficking all along. We spoke out against it. I've introduced evidence to that effect. It's our friends across the aisle who changed their position. They wanted to see the release of the Epstein
[2:29:06]files. Now that Donald Trump changed his mind, they've changed their minds. Thank you for yielding. >> I would just uh claim five minutes. I would just point to the subpoena that
[2:29:18]Chairman Comr sent on August 5th of this year. I'm just going to read it. Frankly, I'd ask you I'll ask unanimous consent to put in the record here. In in schedule to subpoena in accordance with
[2:29:30]the attached schedule instructions, you the honorable Pamela J. Bondi in your capacity as attorney general of the United States are required to produce the following documents and communications that are in your possession, custody or control in
[2:29:41]unredacted form except for redactions to protect the personally identifiable information of any victims for any child sex abuse materials defined by the Department of Justice manual or any
[2:29:50]other redactions required by law. And then there are seven seven sections here. Number one, all documents and communications relating or referring to
[2:30:00]Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, Miss Gain Maxwell, and further relating to or referring to trafficking, exploitation of minors, sexual abuse, or related activity. Number two, all documents and communications contained within the case
[2:30:12]file regarding United States versus Jeffrey Epstein. Number three, all documents and communications contained within the case file regarding United States versus Gain Maxwell. Number four,
[2:30:24]all documents and communications contained within the file pertaining to the investigation of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida that resulted in the 2007 nonprosecution
[2:30:34]agreement between the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida and Mr. Epstein. So, this would answer what Mr. Rascin I think has raised uh real questions about multiple times in today's hearing. Number five, all
[2:30:45]documents and communications relating or referring to United States versus Jeffrey Epstein, United States versus Gla Maxwell and the investigation of Mr. Epstein that resulted in the 2007 nonprosecution agreement between the US attorney for the southern district of
[2:30:57]Florida and Mr. Epstein. Uh again answering I think getting to the information that Mr. Raskin seeks all documents and meet number six all documents and communications between executive office of the president including executive office of president
[2:31:08]Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the department of justice relating to or referring to United States versus Jeffrey Epstein United States versus Galain Maxwell and the investigation of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein that resulted in the 2007 nonprosecution
[2:31:19]agreement between the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida and Mr. Epstein. And number seven, all documents and communications relating to or referring to the death of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. So, seven seven different
[2:31:30]bullet points. Every single one starts with the word all. I think the gentleman from New York earlier said that this wouldn't get the documents that started the Yes, it
[2:31:40]would. This covers everything and the oversight committee has subpoenaed all that information. and it's coming in. I think there's 30,000 pages coming in, but it's a rolling production. This is the typical the way it works. We've done a lot of
[2:31:52]investigations around here. It's always a rolling production. So, I think we're going to get the material. That's oversight committee is doing it. It's unfortunate that Mr. Goldman made the comments he did about the very fine
[2:32:03]chairman of the oversight committee, but he is getting the information that the American people asked for and that many members had demanded for a long time, including members on the Democrat side.
[2:32:14]So I'd ask unanimous can that be entered into the record who seeks recognition? >> I have an amendment at the desk. >> Gentleman from uh uh South Carolina is recognized and then we'll come to the
[2:32:25]gentle lady for her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I want to be clear about what we just heard a few minutes ago from Miss Crockett from Texas that we are doing a bill on some
[2:32:34]quote random dead person. This person was a vibrant soul, had a life, was pursuing a degree. She's not some random
[2:32:45]dead person, but she's a symptom of a larger problem which you guys have ignored for years, which is that we're going to import and
[2:32:56]fling open the gates of our southern border and allow these individuals to come into this country. That we're not going to vet them. that we're not going
[2:33:05]to uh ascertain about where they land and that we're not even going to follow up. The gentle lady from Wyoming introduced into the record a Homeland Security
[2:33:16]report. There's a Health and Human Services report about all of the systemic failures of the last administration. And the flippant and quite frankly
[2:33:26]callous response by the gentle lady from Texas is that she's just some random dead girl. Now, she just walked out of the room, so I guess she didn't want to hear this. But her mother, if you want
[2:33:37]to talk, if you want to talk to her mother, which I encourage you to do so that you understand who she was, here's a quote from her mother that she was texting with me. Kayla talked a mile a minute like a hummingbird. She loved
[2:33:49]animals, especially her cat, Oreo. She cared about the homeless. She loved her mommy. She treasured her family and friends. She loved God and loved going to church. She loved her birthday and
[2:33:59]Christmas. She loved the beach and the pool and swimming. Her voice and laugh carried across the room even when the room was quiet. She loved music and loved to have fun. She lived every day
[2:34:09]to the fullest. And boy did that girl loved to sleep. And I go, can go on and on. This was a young lady who was pursuing a degree as a veterinarian. She wanted to help people. She wanted to
[2:34:21]live her life. She wasn't some random dead person that we just plucked out of a hat. She is a she is a symptom of a larger problem that you have ignored. We
[2:34:31]had a field hearing my first term in Congress. Not a single damn Democrat showed up to look at the open border lawlessness caused by this administration. So while you sit here
[2:34:42]quietly for the last four years when Joe Biden and Kla Harris allowed and tacitly sanctioned the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of children across the border, I think it's pretty dang shameful. You said nothing while young
[2:34:54]girls and boys were raped and otherwise abused by their smugglers and traffickers. You didn't even raise a finger to help when the New York Times, of all places, not really a bastion of conservatism, exposed the labor
[2:35:05]trafficking of unaccompanied minor children. There were no consequences to the actions of the last administration, and you just buried your heads in the sand. So, Kayla Hamilton wasn't a random
[2:35:17]dead person. She was one of many people who have been victimized by the lawless border pro problems created by the last administration and you refuse to
[2:35:28]acknowledge it and that's shameful. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Texas, I believe, seeks recognition. Gentle is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
[2:35:38]>> Uh, >> amendment to the amendment. >> From Wisconsin reserves point of order. >> Nature of >> amendment will be considered as read. The gentle lady is recognized to explain her amendment.
[2:35:50]>> My amendment today would strike the provision of this bill that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who we know is incompetent, to conduct body examin examinations of unaccompanied children
[2:36:02]aged 12 and over to see if they have gang markings. I don't know what your obsession is subjecting kids to governmentmandated strip searches, but
[2:36:12]it needs to stop. Now, I want y'all to take a second and really think what you're trying to force little kids to go through. This has to be the third time y'all have tried to push a bill that would give the federal government legal
[2:36:23]authority to put kids in compromising, traumatizing situations, whether it's immigrant kids or trans kids. Every chance you get, it seems like you want to force the government to look at
[2:36:34]little kids' bodies. Now, let me put this differently. You want to give some stranger, a federal government employee, no less, for all of you small government folks over there on the other side of
[2:36:45]the aisle, free reign to examine little sixth or seventh graders for some obscure thing that isn't even conclusive evidence that they're in a gang. I mean,
[2:36:54]this is kind of insane. This provision is just another example of the hypocrisy coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Y'all love to talk a big game when it comes to protecting
[2:37:04]kids from harm and trauma, but the fact is it's all an act. Because if Republicans really cared, y'all wouldn't be refusing to release the Epstein files and bring justice to the victims of
[2:37:15]human trafficking and assault. And I do want to make sure that I put a little asterisk here. Everyone is talking about how great Comr is doing and this and that. To be clear, it was an oversight
[2:37:27]subcommittee and it was the Democrat who is the ranking member who actually brought the motion to release the files.
[2:37:36]It just so happened that there were enough Republicans on that subcommittee, seemingly more than on this full committee, that had the courage enough to actually vote with the Democrats. But
[2:37:48]let me be clear, this was Democrats leading. This was the tail wagging the dog. So, I don't want y'all to forget that part. Don't go around claiming that y'all are the heroes because now there's
[2:37:59]supposedly files that are coming out. It was the Democrats that led that. Just to be clear now, you sure as hell wouldn't be forcing kids who are in middle school into situations where the federal
[2:38:10]government is placing them in a room with a random adult, strip searching them to try to find some obscure amorphous thing. Now, I know some of my Republican colleagues here have kids,
[2:38:21]and I'm willing to bet that if your kid was going to, say, England, and you found out some random government employee over there was going to strip search your kid to look for some tattoos or markings, you would lose your damn
[2:38:33]mind. You do everything you could to prevent this from happening and save them from that trauma. And that's all I'm asking you to do today is to protect these kids. Spare these kids from the
[2:38:43]unnecessary trauma. be the adults in the room today because enough is enough. Nothing in my amendment prevents DHS or even HHS from requesting a kid's
[2:38:53]criminal record or prevents HSS from evaluating whether kids are a danger to themselves or others. What this amendment does do, however, is prevent kids from having to go through
[2:39:04]unnecessary strip searches and be traumatized for the rest of their lives. If you're really on the side of history, if you really want to be on the right side of history, then that means that you'll do all that you can to protect
[2:39:15]kids and I urge you to support my amendment. The final thing that I will say is I stand by everything that I said before. Y'all love to cherrypick
[2:39:27]because you claim that the immigrants are the reason for crime, but you have nothing to say about white supremacists in this country. I don't remember as we
[2:39:38]are headed to yet a record number of school shootings in this country as it relates to children. I don't remember y'all bringing bills in the names of any
[2:39:48]of these itty bitty children. In fact, the most recent shooting, as y'all love to send thoughts and prayers, these babies were legitimately praying when
[2:40:00]they were killed. So, I don't remember y'all trying to do gun reform for all of that. I don't remember y'all being super outraged when it came to January 6 and those defendants. Well
[2:40:12]over a thousand defendants and we're talking about they beat up on law enforcement. Now y'all love law enforcement. You love some ICE now that ICE is going around thugging everywhere. But nevertheless,
[2:40:23]I don't remember y'all even having the courage to say yes, put the damn plaque up. That was signed into law. Y'all won't even do that. So don't tell me
[2:40:33]that y'all are here being the champions for everybody. You are very selective. So yes, it is a game because if I want to do legislation, I don't have to put
[2:40:43]somebody's name on it to do right. I don't have to put one of the children's names so that I can have real gun reform and save lives. And I will yield. >> Gentle yields back. The gentleman withdrawals his point of order. The
[2:40:55]gentleman from South Carolina is recognized to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I think you should, if you will, stand by it, I think you should probably apologize to the mother and the family uh of the one that you called a random dead girl. I think that would be
[2:41:06]appropriate. But let's be clear about something right now. Uh while the the member from Texas is busy filming Tik Tok videos and dancing around the halls of Congress, maybe it would be prudent
[2:41:17]to know that we already do medical evaluations of UAC's when they come in the country. All we're asking in this bill is that you say, "Hey, that looks like a tattoo. Is that a gang tattoo?
[2:41:28]There's no material change other than that is a tattoo. That's a gang tattoo. And if we had done that, if we had done that, Kayla would still be alive. You know, the random dead girl that you just
[2:41:39]called out, Kayla Hamilton is her name. She would still be alive. So, time and time again, our Democrat colleagues seem to be more interested in defending illegal aliens, including dangerous
[2:41:50]criminals, than American citizens. The Democrats say we can't use our common sense and place children with gang tattoos in secure placements. I call BS and I think the American people do. If a
[2:42:02]teenager in HHS custody has an MS-13 tattooed across his or her forehead, why should HHS have to wait to find out more information? They shouldn't. Secure
[2:42:12]placements aren't medieval prisons, as the Democrats are making them out to be. These are safe facilities designed precisely for the purpose of housing juveniles who may present a danger to
[2:42:24]themselves or to others. I would also remind my colleagues that the provisions in this bill have no bearing on the basis for a UAC's potential for removal from the country. The bill simply says
[2:42:35]that while a UAC's immigration proceedings play out in court, if the US UAC has obvious markings that are gang affiliated,
[2:42:45]maybe they should be housed with other children or maybe they shouldn't be housed with other children and set free into our American communities. This is just simply common sense. And as we know, when aliens are in a secure
[2:42:57]facility for the pendency of their immigration proceedings, these proceedings do not drag on for years, but can be concluded quickly within a matter of weeks.
[2:43:08]I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield back. >> Gentlemen is back. Uh, gentleman from Florida is recognized. Uh, >> Mr. Chairman, uh, thank you. And, and
[2:43:19]because his name was invoked and I want to lock arms with you on this, Mr. chairman. Um, you know, because our our
[2:43:27]together dear close personal friend, our our resident Nancy Drew and drama queen connoisseur James Comr. I'm not going to stand here while people drag his good
[2:43:39]name through the mud. >> Okay. Not going to let it happen. Okay. >> We all know the good work that he has been doing in oversight that
[2:43:49]>> clear if with the gentleman just for a second. I was referring to the derogatory word that your colleague, our colleague from New York used for Mr. Comr that you know that's not appropriate. Everyone in
[2:44:00]the committee knows that's not appropriate and we shouldn't have that kind of language. And I'm here proceed >> and I am here to defend him as by far the best investigator of all time at in
[2:44:12]the capital which is exactly why all of his investigations which have used you know Chinese informants that were prosecuted and Russian disinformation
[2:44:21]people from prison. I mean, he the main thing he was tasked with last year, right, which was the Biden impeachment that that we had a vote. Oh, no, we never had a vote on that because of
[2:44:33]course he didn't find any evidence. So, this morning, uh, our close personal friend, uh, Mr. Comr said that he was
[2:44:42]not going to look into the letter or the the doodle, uh, the president's doodle. He's a decent doodler, by the way. Um, so he wasn't going to look into whether the signature was a forgery and I'm
[2:44:54]concerned about that because this is the president of the United States. If there are forgeries or forgers out there, I think we should investigate it. And in
[2:45:04]fact, this document is 22 years old. So you're telling me someone 22 years ago went back to the future and forged his signature when he was a
[2:45:16]Democrat. And somehow this person was Nostradamus. Knew he would become a Republican, become president 22 years later. So
[2:45:26]listen, I submit to you that we can solve this problem for the American people. You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take our dear personal friend, Mr. Comr's word for it.
[2:45:37]Uh on let's bring in a signature expert. You guys pick the witnesses. bring in your signature expert, swear them under oath, and let's have the signature
[2:45:47]examined. Is it his or it is not his. We don't have to play games or or it, you know, the president says it's not his, we say it's him. No, no. Let's bring in a signature expert, a referee, because
[2:45:59]we can't agree on anything even when it's right in our face. um of whether that is indeed the president's signature or if it's a forgery, we should immediately open up an investigation
[2:46:10]into this forgery. I think that's >> Will the gentleman yield for this? >> I will have absolutely yield to my esteemed ranking member, Mr. Rasc. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Moscowitz, for this point. I know that the president of the
[2:46:21]United States brought a $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal for reporting about the existence of this. He denied that it existed in any
[2:46:31]way. What is the state of that litigation? I think wouldn't we want that resolved before we move to a handwriting expert? >> Sure. I mean I I I assume there will be obviously depositions that get taken. I
[2:46:43]assume there will be production of documents. I assume as that case goes forward they too will bring in their own expert to say it is not him. I just think, you know, because we're in the
[2:46:54]middle of this investigation in in oversight, even though, of course, this committee has jurisdiction over the DOJ and the and the FBI, but I we all know that our chairman obviously only wants
[2:47:05]to handle, you know, the real stuff, we give everything else to COMR. Um, and and and and and so, you know, I I just think that rather than this drag out for
[2:47:16]weeks or months, is it his? Is it not his? Does he like to draw? Doesn't he like to draw? Right? Like, let's just get an expert in here to tell us if and
[2:47:26]I listen, I'll tell you right now, if you bring in an expert, you pick the expert. You swear if that expert tells us it's not his signature, I will accept I will accept the results. I will absolutely accept the results that it's
[2:47:37]not his signature and it and it is absolutely a forgery. But I'm willing to bet that we won't do that. I'm willing to bet we won't do that. But prove me wrong. >> I yield back. >> One minute,
[2:47:48]>> Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman uh from New York is recognized. >> Mr. Chairman, uh I've been listening with very in with great interest to this debate and I just have a couple of comments on some of the things that have
[2:48:00]been said before. I'm not I don't remember in detail who said them, but uh let me refer first of all to someone who talked about the Russia hoax. The Russia
[2:48:11]hoax was not a hoax. It was true. And the report of the Mueller report showed that it was true. And not only did the Mueller report show that it was true, but Donald Trump said it was true. What
[2:48:22]else did he say when he got up during the 2016 campaign and say, "Russia, if you're listening, if you're listening, let me have the uh
[2:48:32]uh uh the the um Clinton emails." That's one comment. The other comment is more to the point on this bill. This bill says
[2:48:43]if they have a gang uh uh tattoo, well, the fact is we don't know what gang tattoos are unless it says in
[2:48:52]somebody's forehead MS-13. Repeatedly people have been arrested
[2:48:59]or sent to uh SECOT in El Salvador to be detained for life and and tortured because they had a soccer team logo on
[2:49:11]their tattooed or for other uh uh things tattooed. Uh people assume our government authority, some of them, the Trump administration seems to assume
[2:49:22]that they know what gang tattoos are, but the fact is they don't. And we've seen repeated mistakes. And uh no one should rely on tattoos. If you think
[2:49:33]someone has committed a crime or someone is a member of a criminal gang, prove it. Prove it in a court of law. Don't
[2:49:42]just assume it because of a tattoo which is evidence by itself of nothing. I yield back. >> Wait, I don't yield back. >> Yeah. Will the gentleman yield? >> Thank you kindly. I just want to pick up
[2:49:53]on your point about the the Russia hoax matter because I think that the deployment of this phrase conflates two very different things.
[2:50:02]One is whether Vladimir Putin commanded his internet research agency to engage
[2:50:09]in a systematic effort to uh surveil and destabilize in the United States of America in a bunch of other countries
[2:50:19]too. That is absolutely proven. It was proven in a bipartisan Senate committee report. The Senate Intelligence Committee report was proven by 17 or 18 of our own intelligence agencies.
[2:50:30]although Donald Trump refused to accept it. Um, and there were actually people who went to jail for that. So, anybody who thinks that the Russia hoax means that Russia was not involved in trying
[2:50:42]to uh affect the 2016 election just as it did in the subsequent elections. You're wrong. You're flat out wrong and you're contradicted by the facts. So,
[2:50:52]it's the other issue, the question of collusion, which of course is not even a legal concept, but the question of conspiracy. There was certainly no conspiracy shown between Donald Trump
[2:51:03]and his lieutenants and uh the Russians. There were lots of meetings shown. That's in the Mueller report as uh the former chair of the judiciary committee just pointed out. There were tons of
[2:51:13]meetings that took place and there were various people within the Trump hemisphere who actually went to jail for lying about their contacts with the
[2:51:24]Russians. So don't cover that up. And Mueller identified all of those, but he could not find, he said, evidence of an actual conspiracy that took place. That's very different from saying
[2:51:35]everything is a Russia hoax. And that language is really Russian propaganda that you're falling into. If you use that Vladimir Putin is an enemy of freedom and democracy, as the people of
[2:51:46]Ukraine know, as the people of the United States know, and nobody should be out there saying, "Poor Vladimir Putin, the victim of the Russia hoax." And now we're getting the same language from Donald Trump saying that the Epstein
[2:51:58]file, which he was demanding the release of, is a Democrat hoax. Well, if it's a Democrat hoax, he invented it. He made it up. But it's not a hoax. That's why
[2:52:07]Gain Maxwell is in prison for 20 years. She was convicted of felony uh child sex offenses, running a child sex ring. And the idea that the president of United
[2:52:18]States is running around now calling it a Democratic hoax is appalling. And I think it should make anybody who's using that language of a Russia hoax think twice about that because you can see exactly what he's doing there. He's
[2:52:29]trying to sweep under the rug this massive international child sex ring uh simply because his name has appeared in the files that were scrutinized by FBI
[2:52:41]agents and we know they were busy redacting uh and so on. But that language is just propaganda. That's pure pmics and has nothing to do with the search for the truth. I thank the gentleman.
[2:52:52]>> My time it's very clear then the Russia hoax and was was >> what >> he said the Democrat hoax.
[2:53:02]>> No, I said the so-called Russia hoax >> was not a hoax. >> There was proven collusion >> and there is proven time collusion here
[2:53:14]with the Epstein files and I yield back. The Muller report said just the opposite. The Muller report said no collusion, no coordination, no no conspiracy whatsoever. No one saying Putin's some victim or good guy. Quite
[2:53:25]the opposite, frankly. But maybe the maybe the Democrats haven't paid attention to what the director of national intelligence released 7 weeks ago, where a whistleblower has come
[2:53:34]forward and said the report got changed in December of 2016. and we'll have ample opportunity next week to question the FBI director on that and a host of
[2:53:45]other issues. But they changed the underlying intelligence used to do the president's daily brief and the intelligence community assessment. That's what the director of national intelligence, I would point out, a
[2:53:57]former Democrat member of the United States Congress released seven weeks ago. So this idea that you know this that that somehow he was the president was working President Trump was working.
[2:54:07]It's just ridiculous. They changed it. It said one thing. Yeah, Russia tried to impact the they tried to meddle around the election. They do that all the time, but there was nothing that they did. The intelligence didn't support any type of
[2:54:18]work with with President Trump or his campaign. Quite the quite the opposite because remember what they did. Remember what they did. The Clinton campaign hired the law firm Perkins Kuey who
[2:54:30]hired the public relations firm Fusion GPS who then hired a foreigner who then wrote down a bunch of baloney that became the dossier and that was used to
[2:54:41]go to the FISA court to start this whole thing. They changed the report. We'll get a chance to talk about that next Wednesday when we have the director of the FBI here. Who seeks recognition?
[2:54:52]The question occurs on Oh, I'm sorry, John from California. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, I I wanted to I want to respond to the amendment, but you know, the ranking
[2:55:04]member talked about all of this Russian information as did uh the member from New York. Well, you know, one of the reasons why we are getting um Russian uh
[2:55:15]propaganda and misinformation and probably why we will continue to be fed red lies is because we have defunded the very departments that combat
[2:55:27]misinformation coming from Russia and coming from China. Now, we actually have no guard rails up to help make sure that
[2:55:36]the American people are not being fed these red lies. And two of the comments made before about how, you know, Democrats are politicizing all of this
[2:55:47]and now we care. And I don't I can't even remember. It was actually the acting deputy chief of a justice department unit who said on hidden
[2:55:57]camera that the government should redact every Republican from the Epstein client list and leave any Democratic names.
[2:56:06]Now, obviously the man walked it back, you know, once it was revealed that he said this on hidden camera, but you know who's fooling who here? Uh, you know, I
[2:56:16]want to go back to this amendment which is really troubling. Um because nowhere in the text does it define what
[2:56:27]a gang tattoo is and what constitutes a gang tattoo. That would be subject that decision that definition would be subject to every
[2:56:38]yoka local who may or may not have an axe to grind. You know, it is really capriccious and arbitrary because what
[2:56:48]could a gang tattoo look like? Would it be a KKK? Would it be a J6? Would it be an M A?
[2:56:57]Would it be H8 or Aryan Brotherhood? Would it be Olympic rings? Would it be an A5A?
[2:57:07]Would it be a Star of David? I think if you're going to say in law that you want someone to detect what a
[2:57:18]gang tattoo is, you should properly define it and then make sure that those folks have proper training
[2:57:27]so that they know how to define what a gang tattoo is. And so you want people to randomly, I don't know, select a
[2:57:39]child 12 years old. That's like somebody's child, somebody's grandchild. So you're going to have a 12-year-old boy or girl be yanked. And according to this bill, they're not
[2:57:50]even a 12-year-old girl or boy. They an unaccompanied alien child. So I I was like, what is that? ET. But you would you're talking about an unaccompanied alien child.
[2:58:02]that you would then pull them out because you see some sort of tattoo on them and then you say, "Well, that person looks dangerous. I'm going to say that's a gang tattoo." And then you're
[2:58:11]going to subject them to a cavity exam. So, I want to know who would be the people physically inspecting these 12year-old boys and girls
[2:58:23]conducting cavity exams on these children. And I would be really concerned if you have folks with a pinchant for
[2:58:33]liking to do that always raising their hands to say, "I'm going to conduct the cavity exam of the 12 and 13year-old child." Because essentially what this bill is saying is that you want to
[2:58:44]sanction child exploitation and assault at the federal level. And I have to tell you, this actually goes on now in many
[2:58:53]instances. And those kinds of cavity exams of 12 and 13 year old boys and girls is a pretext for molestation.
[2:59:03]So we would be deputizing individuals with, you know, a prediliction for kitty porn or I don't
[2:59:14]know what nastiness, nasty behavior and saying, "Okay, yank some child out of a line, grab them, and then physically inspect them and go all up in
[2:59:26]everywhere." That's not about protecting folks. That's really essentially what we're talking about when we're talking about what Jeffrey Epstein and his people were
[2:59:35]doing. So, I support this amendment because we should be having a real conversation about what's in this bill and recognizing that it is running
[2:59:47]tandem running tandem with what folks are trying to cover up by con by continuing to deny the importance and the release of the
[2:59:59]Epstein files. And with that, I yield back. >> Gentle yields back. Gentleman from Washington's recognized. >> Gentleman gentleman yields to the gentleman from South Carolina. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I don't
[3:00:10]really know where this hyperbole is coming from about cavity searches or whatever. I mean, that's just like an absolutely ridiculous statement. This is about ascertaining whether a
[3:00:21]tattoo is on somebody that is a gang affiliation. And Miss Camelagerdove wasn't in the room earlier when we talked about this, but we already do medical inspections of unaccompanied
[3:00:32]children when they come into the country. All we're saying is that the medical examiner or the person looking at this child says, "You know what? You've got MS13 tattooed across your
[3:00:44]forehead. Maybe that's a troubling sign, right? Maybe that's a bad thing to release to a sponsor who half the time we don't even know who they are. And we
[3:00:54]don't do the follow-up calls. The HHS inspector general report. >> The gentleman yield. >> No, I will not. >> The inspector general report says 22% of
[3:01:04]cases or did not even conduct timely safety well-being follow-up calls. And in 18% of cases, the follow-up calls weren't even documented in the
[3:01:14]children's case file. So, all we're saying is that when you do this, that you should also look to see if they're have a gang affiliation. that you should also call their country of origin. Do
[3:01:26]you know how we found out >> that Kayla Hamilton's murderer was a gang member? Because the local cop, not
[3:01:34]the federal police, not HHS >> or ORR, a local cop called down there and said, "Hey, >> we got this kid, does he have any prior
[3:01:46]arrest record?" They said, "Oh, yeah. He's a member of MS13. We should be doing this on the front end >> and not releasing these individuals to
[3:01:57]sketchy people in the country so they can go wreak havoc. I mean, it's it's alarming to me if you look at this note that 8 months after he left his sponsor,
[3:02:08]eight months after he left his sponsor, then the federal government gets involved and says like, "Oh, yeah. Well, the sponsor says that he's hasn't been there for eight months." >> Would the gentleman yield now?
[3:02:19]>> No, I will not. I will not yield. That's that's alarming. So when these children get processed through as they do under
[3:02:29]existing law, all we're saying is that hey, if they've got tattoos and they're gang affiliated tattoos, maybe don't put them in American streets pending the
[3:02:40]outcome of their of their court hearing. Maybe we should put them in a secure facility until we can really ascertain who this individual is and why they're
[3:02:50]here in the country. Because if we did that, if we would do things like that and have a little bit of damn common sense in this country, maybe we wouldn't have more Kayla Hamiltons in the world
[3:03:01]who lost their lives. >> Maybe we would be a little bit smarter about who we're bringing into the country. >> No, but there's something about >> with that. Mr. Chairman, >> the gentleman yield now. on the
[3:03:12]>> the gentleman from Washington. Gentleman from Washington controls the time. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Bombgardner. Gentleman from Washington. >> Senator,
[3:03:23]>> you control the time. >> Gentleman yields back. Yeah. The uh the question occurs. Oh, I'm sorry. You got the gentle lady from Georgia. I'm sorry. Gentle from George is recognized.
[3:03:34]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And then once again, I'd like to just kind of go back to the remarks that were made by my colleague from from California. I mean, all of this verbiage, everything that we're talking about, there's no
[3:03:43]definition as to what any of these signs look like. So, I I'm in agreement with her, but I'd like to yield the balance of my time to the good our good member
[3:03:52]from Texas as she is able to defend her amendment, and I yield. >> Thank you so much um to the gentle lady from Georgia. I do want to be clear because words matter, especially as
[3:04:03]lawmakers. Um and in reading this to be clear on page four and if we look at line four the actual language of the
[3:04:15]bill says that HHS will conduct an examination of the unaccompanied alien child. It does not
[3:04:25]say that there will be a denotation because there are already um examinations that have taken place. It says that they will conduct an
[3:04:35]examination. So if the intent is just to document what is seen in a medical examination, then I think that we should
[3:04:45]consider amending this so that we are doing what you intend to do under the legislative intent instead of having sloppy language that does allow for us
[3:04:56]to sit here and disagree about what we're reading. And as a trained attorney, I am telling you that the word says conduct. It does not say to denote what is already going on. So I do want
[3:05:08]to be clear that that language may cause a problem as it relates to HHS because it looks like they have an additional thing that they are to do. And then there are no limitations that are placed
[3:05:19]on this examination nor are there any parameters for what it is that they are looking for. And again, I have concerns about the competency of HHS under its
[3:05:29]current leadership. As well as we should be talking about the fact that if you are really trying to do right, and this isn't about cherrypicking, I do want to point out that we do have some work that
[3:05:40]we could do as it relates to immigration. Let's look at the fact that right now under the current leadership, it seems like there's a current theme of
[3:05:49]failure under this particular administration, but we are on track right now to have more deaths in custody
[3:06:00]as it relates to immigrants. Now, what does that mean? That means that there is a failure somewhere. Yet, I've yet to see one bill that lists one of those
[3:06:09]persons names who has died in custody. And to be clear, it's not one, is 15. So far, we have already exceeded the number of fatalities in custody as it relates
[3:06:20]to ICE from the entirety of 2024 when we had Joe Biden in office. In addition to that, if we are talking about we really want to make sure that we are protecting
[3:06:31]people, and that's what this bill is about. It's because the immigrants are coming in and they are the ones they are causing all the crime and they are the reason for everything that is going wrong in the United States. I can point
[3:06:42]you to the over 1,500 defendants that were charged as it relates to January 6. Now, if it wasn't good enough that they went through and they ended up with convictions and then your leader came in
[3:06:53]on day one and decided that he wanted to pardon them, I would like to enter for the record a unanimous consent. You know what I'm consent? Okay. >> No, you state your state what it is.
[3:07:05]Then >> at least 10 pardon insurrectionists face other criminal charges. This is from Citizens for Ethics >> without objection. >> Without objection. >> All right. Now, if we wanted to talk
[3:07:16]about some of those crimes that they have committed, we've got child porn. We've got a murder plot. We've got reckless homicide. I don't remember any of you coming out and saying, "Mr.
[3:07:28]President, this maybe was not a good idea to release these people. I don't recall any of you proposing a bill. >> Will the gentleman lady yield? >> Yes, I will. >> I mean, on the logic that the majority
[3:07:40]presents today, the president of the United States would be responsible for all those crimes because had they not been freed, those crimes would not have happened, right? >> That is absolutely correct. >> Thank you.
[3:07:50]>> It's absolutely correct. So I would like to yield to anybody from the majority. If you have anything to say about the fact that it is documented
[3:08:01]that these people after being convicted, it was your leader that decided to release them and we have documentation of them not going out and committing small crimes. We're talking about big
[3:08:13]crimes. Y'all ain't got nothing to say about that though, huh? No. Because you want to continue to have a government that goes out and prays on vulnerable
[3:08:25]people that have decided that they wanted to come to what we said was the land of opportunity and to seek a better life. Instead, you are okay with and you
[3:08:35]are pushing a rhetoric that says that it's all right to go out and because someone is of a darker complexion because someone does not the gentle lady has out an accent.
[3:08:46]>> Time the gentle lady's expired. Um gentle lady yields back to the gentle lady from Georgia who yields back. The question occurs on the amendment offered by >> the gentle lady from Texas. >> The gentle lady from Texas. All those in
[3:08:57]favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment. >> I'd ask for a recorded vote. >> Recorded vote being requested. The clerk will call the role. >> Mr. Jordan,
[3:09:09]>> no. >> Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, Mr. Bigs, Mr. Mcccleintoch, Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Tiffany votes no.
[3:09:20]Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden,
[3:09:31]Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie,
[3:09:42]Miss Hagamman, >> Miss Hagman votes no. Miss Lee, >> no. >> Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, >> no.
[3:09:51]>> Mr. Fry votes no. Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Her
[3:10:01]>> Mr. Herder votes no. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gil. Mr. Bombgardner. Mr. Raskin. >> Hi.
[3:10:11]>> Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler. >> Hi. >> Mr. Nerler votes I. Miss Laughrin. Miss Lafrren votes I. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson.
[3:10:22]Mr. Swallow. Mr. Lou. Miss Gyipol, Mr. Korea,
[3:10:30]>> Mr. Korea votes I. Miss Scandlin, >> Mr. Nagus, >> Miss McBth, >> Miss McBth votes I, Miss Ross.
[3:10:42]>> Miss Ross votes I. Miss Balant. Miss Balant votes I. Mr. Garcia. >> Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camlocker Dove. Mr. Moscowitz.
[3:10:53]>> Mr. Mosquitz votes I. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett >> I. >> Miss Crockett votes I. >> How am I recorded? >> Miss Gaylin, you are not recorded.
[3:11:04]>> I would vote I. >> Miss Galen votes I. >> Mipal, you are not recorded. M. Dry votes I. >> Mr. Growthman.
[3:11:15]>> Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. Bombgardner. >> Mr. Bombgardner votes no. Mr. Moore. >> Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt now.
[3:12:23]Mr. Klein. >> Mr. Klein votes no. >> Clerk will report. >> Mr. Chairman, there are 13 eyes and 12 nos. >> Amendment is not >> 13 nos and
[3:12:34]>> excuse me, 13 nos and 12 eyes. Amendment is not agreed to the question. The question now is on the adoption of the amendment in a nature of the substitute.
[3:12:43]All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. And the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The chair is an amendment at the desk. The clerk will
[3:12:54]report the amendment. Amendment to HR
[3:13:07]>> objection Bieber considered as read. The child recognizes himself to explain the amendment. This is a technical amendment to update the long title of the bill. Because of the ANS that the committee just adopted amends more than just the William Wilberforce traffic and victims
[3:13:18]protection reauthorization act of 2008. The long title of the bill needs to be updated to reflect that fact. This amendment does not change the substance of anything that the committee just debated or voted on. simply updates the long title to accurately reflect the
[3:13:29]content of the bill. I urge all members to support this amendment without objection. The question occurs on the amendment. Those in favor say I. >> Those opposed, no. >> No.
[3:13:40]>> Opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. >> The eyes have it and the bill is ordered
[3:13:51]to be >> recorded recorded vote being requested. The clerk will call the uh the role on final passage. >> Mr. Jordan, >> yes.
[3:14:01]>> Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa. >> Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany,
[3:14:12]>> Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, votes I. Mr. Gooden,
[3:14:24]Mr. Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes I. Sorry, >> Mr. Kylie. >> Mr. Kylie votes I. Miss Haggamman
[3:14:36]>> I. >> Miss Hagman votes I. Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry,
[3:14:44]>> Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman. Mr. Kn. >> Mr. Knots I. Mr. Harris. >> Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Honor.
[3:14:55]>> Mr. Honor votes I. Mr. Schmidt. >> Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil. >> Mr. Bombgardner. >> Mr. Rascin. >> No.
[3:15:05]>> Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, >> no. >> Mr. Nler votes no. Miss Lofrren, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson.
[3:15:16]Mr. Swallwell. Mr. Lou. >> Miss Jipal. Miss Dipal votes no. Mr. Korea,
[3:15:25]>> Mr. Korea votes no. Miss Scandlin. >> Miss Gandlin votes no. Mr. Negus. >> Miss McBath. Miss Mcbath votes no. Miss
[3:15:36]Ross. Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballant. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove.
[3:15:45]Mr. Mosquitz. Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett. Miss Crockett votes no. >> Mr. Isa, you're not recorded.
[3:15:57]>> Mr. Isa votes yes. >> Uh, Miss Lee, >> yes. >> Miss Lee votes yes. >> Miss Laughn, you are not recorded. Miss
[3:16:08]Lofkran votes no. >> Mr. Gooden votes yes. >> Mr. Bombgardner, >> votes I. >> Mr. Bumgardner votes I. >> Mr. Growthman, >> yes.
[3:16:20]>> Mr. Gman votes yes >> cler report.
[3:16:43]>> Mr. Chairman, there are 16 eyes and 12 nos. >> The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members members will have two days to submit views. >> Okay. How's how's the gentleman from
[3:16:58]California recorded? >> Mr. Swallow, you are not recorded. >> Mr. Swallow votes no. >> Clerk will report >> 1613. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 eyes and 13 nos. >> The eyes have it and the bills already
[3:17:09]be reported favor to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. Nation for a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and
[3:17:21]conforming changes. Present to notice we call up HR 4323, the trafficking survivors relief act of 2025 for purpose of markup. Move that
[3:17:32]the committee reported favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill. >> Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
[3:17:42]Fry for an opening stable. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HR 4323, the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, is a
[3:17:52]strong bipartisan biccameal piece of legislation that will help our most vulnerable populations. This legislation passed committee last Congress uh via voice vote, and I'm looking forward to
[3:18:03]seeing it pass again today. Human trafficking, specifically sex trafficking, is a heinous crime that tragically continues to grow in America and around the world. While
[3:18:14]international sex trafficking may be more widely known, domestic sex trafficking also persists in the United States. Traffickers even use social media to lure innocent people to become
[3:18:24]victims. Human trafficking can occur anywhere. Women and children who make the dangerous journey to cross the southern border into the United States have a high likelihood of being trafficked. A study by the coalition
[3:18:36]against trafficking in women estimated that 60% of unaccompanied alien children are exploited by cartels or smugglers for for child pornography and drug trafficking. In the United States, an
[3:18:47]adult or child can be trafficked and exploited at hotels, truck stops, in their homes, and online. Trafficking victims are exploited in cities, suburban, and rural areas. It can happen
[3:18:58]anytime and anywhere. Efforts by federal, state, and local law enforcement and advocates to eliminate human trafficking and support victims have increased awareness, reporting, and
[3:19:09]prosecution of sex traffickers across the country. However, victims of these crimes are also sometimes initially charged with the crime themselves. Traffickers use force, fraud, and
[3:19:21]coercion to induce their victims to commit these crimes. This can lead to the arrest, conviction, and incarceration of in of trafficked victims without consideration of their
[3:19:31]victim status. Thankfully, we as a country have made significant progress to help victims and survivors move forward with their lives. The vast majority of states provide some sort of
[3:19:40]relief to victims for non-violent offenses committed while under the control of their traffickers. I think 47 states have something very similar, if not exactly the same, as this bill.
[3:19:52]These laws allow victims to move on from these horrors, re-enter their communities, and get on with their lives. My home state of South Carolina continues to lead on this forward victim
[3:20:03]centered approach. The Trafficking Survivors Relief Act follows the state's clear lead and provides federal relief to survivors of human trafficking who committed a non-violent offense as a
[3:20:13]direct result of having been a victim of human trafficking. For a court to grant a motion to vacate a conviction or expunge an arrest, a defendant must show that the offense was committed as a
[3:20:24]direct result of having been a victim of human trafficking. To ensure that these opportunities are only available to true victims of trafficking and not perpetrators themselves, leaders of the
[3:20:35]bill worked hard uh handinhand with law enforcement to enact appropriate safeguards for the bill. This legislation allows for additional evidence to be considered, including the sworn testimony of a law enforcement
[3:20:46]officer as to whether a victim had any role in coercing other victims into criminal offenses. This bill would restore trafficking victims and reintegrate them into their families and communities while making sure that law
[3:20:57]enforcement and the courts can protect the public safety. This legislation is endorsed by advocacy organizations, faith-based organizations, the law
[3:21:07]enforcement community. Last Congress, multiple attorneys general wrote in strong support of the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act. Simply put, this legislation strikes the right balance
[3:21:17]between victim's rights and public safety. Let's work together to fight back against the evils of human trafficking and help victims and survivors move forward with their lives. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
[3:21:28]back. >> Ranking members recognized for an opening statement. >> And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and thank you to the distinguished gentleman for his statement. I'm pleased we're
[3:21:39]marking up the Bipartisan Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, a bill which is going to provide relief to victims and survivors of human trafficking who themselves have been unjustly targeted
[3:21:50]and criminalized as a result of their involvement in trafficking as victims. We've been pushing for nearly a decade to make this relief available at the
[3:22:01]federal level. Um, and I'm delighted that we're able to work together on a bipartisan basis, and I look forward to its swift passage. But America, Mr. Chairman, is going to be wondering how
[3:22:12]we can pass a bill today called the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act when we turn a blind eye and a cold shoulder to the Trafficking Survivors who came to
[3:22:23]Washington DC last week to demand the complete comprehensive release of the Epstein files. It's not going to make any sense to America. In fact, it's
[3:22:34]going to look like we're trying um to cover up for the cover up that's taking place of the Epstein files. You know, the administration
[3:22:46]uh moved unilaterally to get uh Gain Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's uh co-conspirator, partner in
[3:22:55]sex crime, moved from her prison in Florida to a minimum security prison, nicknamed Clubfed in Texas. This shocked
[3:23:05]the Epstein survivors who came to Washington last week and said this blatantly preferential treatment of Maxwell, which may border on witness
[3:23:15]tampering, was quote, "the justice system failing victims right before our eyes."
[3:23:26]But this isn't just about Jeffrey Epstein or Gla Maxwell. I mean, who's being protected
[3:23:35]by the members of Congress who refuse to sign on to the discharge petition? By the way, um we have a new member of
[3:23:43]Congress today from uh Virginia who has uh just come to join us and he's adding his name to the discharge petition. means any one of my colleagues on the
[3:23:54]Republican side can be the deciding signature on the discharge petition. You can take a stand and be a profile in courage, at least in
[3:24:06]standing up against Donald Trump. It's not really a profile on political courage because the vast majority of the American people want to see it. But I guess these days standing up against Donald Trump is what qualifies as
[3:24:16]political courage in Lincoln's party. But look who's being protected if you don't sign it. Well, all of those who abuse children right alongside Jeffrey
[3:24:28]Epstein. All of his unnamed, unidentified co-conspirators who were protected by Alex Acasta's original corrupt bargain immunity agreement. All
[3:24:39]those people are being protected by your silence, your passivity. all of the banks like Deutsche Bank which allowed,
[3:24:48]facilitated and um failed to report the transactions that allowed this massive child trafficking ring to proceed.
[3:24:59]Millions and millions of dollars moving around the country to give to the girls to cover it up to pay people off. And then the modeling agencies that were
[3:25:10]used as a big cover story to traffic and abuse these children. That's who's being protected by your complicity with this
[3:25:20]new plot after Donald Trump performed a U-turn and decided no, he didn't want Epstein files out anymore. But that's not all because this administration has
[3:25:32]been systematically dismantling 25 years worth of bipartisan progress made in combating trafficking and in protecting the victims and and survivors all while
[3:25:43]claiming they're making America safe again. But they're starving the offices and programs of funding and of staffing. Um, and they've made it much harder to prosecute child traffickers and sex
[3:25:55]offenders. In February, the DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women removed all information on funding opportunities against human trafficking from the website. In April, the DOJ's Office of
[3:26:07]Justice Programs terminated hundreds of grants awarded to state and local law enforcement, defunding the police and nonprofit groups that help survivors of
[3:26:17]sexual and domestic violence. Take the Hope and Healing Survivor Resource Center based in in um the chairman's beautiful home state of Ohio.
[3:26:28]Um Hope and Healing provides emergency shelter, crisis services, and support to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, including women like Casey, a Sato mom
[3:26:40]who found a loaded pistol and two shotguns hidden in her house just days after her husband sexually assaulted her. Hope and Healing was able to get Casey and her kids out of the house and helped her to land on her feet. Federal
[3:26:51]grants make up 75 75% of that group's budget. Losing that funding would force Hope and Healing, to fire their staff, including court advocates who help
[3:27:02]survivors navigate the legal system. This is going on throughout the federal government. They are gutting the antihuman trafficking programs. So, leaving aside all of the political
[3:27:14]fingerpointing back and forth and who got there first to denounce child sex trafficking and so on, let's leave that let's leave that to the side. Why don't we get together and say that we are
[3:27:25]going to work together to restore all of the funding and all the programs that have been gutted by the Trump administration so far. And we'll have more to say about exactly how that's
[3:27:36]happening. I'm glad to see Congress is going to act to support victims and survivors in this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, but I would also encourage all of our colleagues across the aisle to join committee
[3:27:48]Democrats to ensure that the federal government is doing whatever it can to empower the survivors and the victims of sex trafficking. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back without objection.
[3:27:59]All other opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> Report the amendment. >> Amendment in the nature of >> objection. The amendment in the nature
[3:28:10]of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina to explain the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply makes a small change to the short
[3:28:21]title that does nothing to alter the substance of the bill. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. >> What is the gentle lady from Georgia?
[3:28:36]Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. J >> is recognized. >> Thank you. HR 4323, the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, is critical bipartisan legislation that would
[3:28:48]provide long overdue relief to victims and survivors of human trafficking to help them overcome the lasting effects of being trafficked and to allow them a
[3:28:58]chance to heal. This bill recognizes their unique vulnerabil vulnerabilities and challenges they face and seeks to ensure that they can rebuild their lives
[3:29:09]and move forward. Victims of trafficking are demeaned, dehumanized, and coerced by their traffickers who do not see them as people, but as objects to be bought,
[3:29:20]sold, and abused. But we see them, and we must give them the help that they need. As a direct result of being forced to participate in criminal behavior,
[3:29:31]trafficking survivors can end up with criminal records that have serious and longlasting consequences. However far However far survivors may get from their
[3:29:42]traffickers, their records follow them, making it hard to find a job, pursue an education, find a safe place to live, or even get treatment for the trauma that
[3:29:51]they have escaped. The barriers they face as a result of their records often serve as a constant reminder of their trauma and often force them back into
[3:30:02]the clutches of their traffickers. Many states, including my home state of Georgia, have already passed laws like HR 4323.
[3:30:13]It's past time that we take similar steps at the federal level. Survivors agree. A woman who was trafficked for over a decade
[3:30:23]said, and I quote, "During that time, I was forced by my trafficker by threat, intimidation, and physical harm to commit many crimes. Since that time, I
[3:30:33]spent almost 20 years with my criminal record, determining where I could go, where I could live, what jobs I could obtain. No victim of trafficking deserves to have to live with the
[3:30:44]consequences of the actions. they had no choice in committing for the rest of their lives." End quote. And I think we would all agree that this is simply
[3:30:54]unfair. Allowing survivors of human trafficking to expune their arrest records or vacate nonviolent convictions related to their exploitation is
[3:31:04]essential to their restoration. For these survivors, the opportunity to clear their records is a chance to overcome their victimization and to pursue a better future for
[3:31:15]themselves and for their families. This bill takes a meaningful step towards achieving justice and healing for those whose lives have been disrupted by these
[3:31:25]horrific crimes. This legislation makes clear to victims and survivors that we stand with them and that we are committed to helping them overcome many
[3:31:35]challenges that they face daily. Just as we must allow them the ability to shed the lasting remnants of their victimization, we must also provide them
[3:31:45]with the resources and services that they desperately need. That is why we must insist that the Trump administration work with us and not
[3:31:54]against us. Instead of helping victims and survivors, this administration has prioritized the interests of people who commit sex crimes, made it easier and
[3:32:06]safer and more profitable to commit human trafficking offenses. It has decimated USID, the agency that prepares the congressionallymandated
[3:32:17]trafficking in persons report and fights human trafficking abroad and diminish the manpower and effectiveness of agencies including HSI that focus on
[3:32:27]combating traffickers here at home. In less than a year, this administration has destroyed 25 years of work done by Democrats and Republicans to protect
[3:32:39]victims and survivors, prevent trafficking, and prosecute those who would dare place another human being into modern bondage. I am more than
[3:32:49]pleased that we are marking up this bill today. It's about time. I hope that this has brought this will be brought swiftly to the floor and then to the Senate for action so that this important measure
[3:33:01]becomes law quickly. But I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting victims and survivors in every way. I thank Reps Fry and
[3:33:12]Johnson for championing this important legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back. Um excuse me. Um Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous
[3:33:24]unanim unanimous request request uh from survivors and coalition letters of support. Uh I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from
[3:33:34]world without exploitation signed by 168 survivors from more than 41 states. Write >> I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from a coalition of 80 non-governmental
[3:33:44]organizations and anti-trafficking letters leaders who support the trafficking survivors relief act. >> Objection. And also finally, I ask unanimous request to consent in consent
[3:33:56]to enter into the record a letter from Miss Carrie Alice Robinson, CEO of Catholic Charities USA, expressing support for this piece of legislation. >> Without objection. >> Thank you.
[3:34:06]>> Gentle yields back. >> The gentle lady from Florida, >> gentle lady from Vermont is recognized.
[3:34:16]>> Recognize you make Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I first want to thank the members of the committee who have spent time to move this muchneeded legislation forward and I will of course
[3:34:28]be supporting it. Uh trafficking survivors deserve a federal legal pathway to clear their record and many states uh like Vermont, my home state, um has already taken these steps and I'm
[3:34:38]glad that finally on the federal level we see that there has to be a tool for survivors to remove convictions from their records. So, I am grateful that
[3:34:47]we're working in a bipartisan manner and the effort is rightly focused on the victims. But, you know, I've been sitting here
[3:34:58]for hours and a couple times I actually just had to leave because sometimes it feels in here like it's a game and we're trying to one up each other.
[3:35:10]And just looking around the room earlier, one in five women in this country are going to experience sexual abuse or rape in their lifetime. That
[3:35:20]means members of the committee, members of the staff, members of the public, members of the press who have been in here
[3:35:31]continue to struggle with their experiences. And we heard from the victims last week who said, "What we want is for people to
[3:35:41]listen to us, to listen to our stories." And it was a bipartisan group of women. And there were Republican women who
[3:35:49]showed real courage on that day who stood up in front of cameras and in front of the press and said, "It isn't about politics or oneupping each other.
[3:36:01]It's about our lives." And we sit in this committee and we forget people watch what we do here. Girls, teenagers, women who have been abused, they watch
[3:36:12]what we do here and they watch to see if we are taking their experiences seriously. And it's shocking to me with every little bit of information that comes out
[3:36:23]about what was in that birthday book. Let's just look at the birthday book that was released this week. Those men knew exactly what was going on
[3:36:35]and they condoned it. Powerful men were protecting powerful men and it continues to go on in Congress.
[3:36:46]Powerful people are protecting powerful people. And I don't care where the evidence goes. These women deserve to have all of the information released,
[3:36:57]not just what the committee down the hall decides is going to be released. They deserve to have everything into the
[3:37:06]light of day to have the sunlight be shown. And we have a responsibility to stand up for those women. And you
[3:37:18]know, I was sitting here looking at all of our records in terms of like how many of us have kids? And on that side of the aisle, I counted 50 kids and over 10
[3:37:29]grand kids. I know if I did the same count over here, I'd get a similar outcome. If you are not willing to risk anything
[3:37:39]as a member of Congress, if you are not willing to risk your seat, then you are not brave. Courage takes actually risking something.
[3:37:50]And it took real courage for those people to stand up last week and say to the president of the United States, "Come down here. We are not a hoax. Our
[3:38:01]experiences are not a hoax." And every time you say it, it is a hurtful thing to us. So if you can't do it,
[3:38:12]>> if you can't do it, it says something about your willingness to show real courage in this job. Every
[3:38:22]day I wake up and I walk towards this building and I say, I will never ever think, what if I lose my seat over this vote?
[3:38:32]What if I lose my donor support? What if the president does not stand with me? Again, if you're not risking something,
[3:38:42]then you are not showing courage. And I I can't believe that we just need one more vote now with this member coming. We need one more person, one more
[3:38:52]signature. All it says is release all of the information and let's see where it takes us. I think we owe these women this, especially after the raw deal they
[3:39:03]got from AASA. Let's try to make it right here. And I hope and pray that someday you do not need to look into the eyes of your
[3:39:12]kids when they realize you did not stand with the victims. I yield back. >> Gentle yields back. Question occurs.
[3:39:23]The question occurs on the uh adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor
[3:39:33]say I. I. Those opposed no. >> No. >> Oh no. I retract my no. Yes. >> That's called a double negative. >> It was >> which means which means a positive,
[3:39:44]right? >> A little pavlovian. >> Yeah. Uh in the opinion of the chairs, the eyes have it in the amendment the nature of a substance adopted. Uh question is now on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor
[3:39:54]say I. I. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it. The bill is ordered to be reported favor 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
[3:40:06]adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. How's
[3:40:25]going He's
[3:41:14]coming. >> Committee will just be at ease for a minute or two as we wait for the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Isa, to >> arrive. Pursuant
[3:43:35]to notice, I call up HR 3770, the Firearm Act, for purposes of markup, and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. >> HR3 objection, the bill will be
[3:43:47]considered as read, open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from California, Mr. Isa, for his opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In June of
[3:43:58]20121, President Biden uh or whoever was running the White House DOJ at the time adopted a zero tolerance policy to revoke federal fire alarms license or
[3:44:10]FFL license from those who commit willful violations of the law. And although that seems reasonable, in fact, it wasn't. They didn't mean falsifying
[3:44:21]records or failing to maintain records needed for successful firearm tracing. The new classification allowed for and caused the ATF to revoke the license of
[3:44:32]FFLs who for the simplest technical failure, sort of not dotting an eye, not just figuratively but somewhat literally
[3:44:43]was sufficient to revoke licenses. In 2021, the ATF revoked only
[3:44:50]five licenses. Well, in 2024, it rose to 195. the highest in over two decades. My
[3:44:59]fire firearm act will put to an end this weaponization the ATF and empower FFLs to self-report minor technical changes
[3:45:11]so to speak the dot the period or the misspelling of a name and other trivial violations that the ATF uh is usually
[3:45:22]in fact more than willing to over to uh uh not put somebody out of business over but has been forced to by the existing uh directive. Additionally, the bill
[3:45:34]gives cancelled FFLs a path to apply for a new license that per that if in fact they can show they were denied reasonable due process and their
[3:45:46]failures were minimal. Well, President Trump rescended Biden's ATF's anti-gun policy this year. The Firearm Act is a permanent solution needed to protect the
[3:45:57]sacred rights of people to keep, bear, and yes, purchase the weapons. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible technical correction, and I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. The gentleman
[3:46:09]from Maryland is recognized for opening statement. >> Mr. Chairman, thank you. Um, two weeks ago, gunfire tore through the Annunciation Catholic Church in
[3:46:19]Minnesota, disrupting a mass during the first week of the school year. Two children, Fletcher Mkeuel, 8 years old, and Harper Mavski, 10 years old, were
[3:46:29]shot and killed in this act of grotesque mass gun violence. 21 other people were injured. This was one of nearly 300 mass shootings that have occurred so far this
[3:46:40]year. We've lost more than 10,000 Americans to gun violence so far this year, not counting people who took their own lives. This is our first markup since this latest horror. But instead of
[3:46:52]addressing our nationwide gun violence crisis with a universal violent criminal background check supported by more than 90% of the American people,
[3:47:03]the committee is advancing a bill to let gun dealers stay in business even when they break the law. Under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
[3:47:13]focused on enforcing the law against one of the greatest threats to public safety, gun dealers who willfully put guns in the hands of violent criminals. It's a very small
[3:47:24]percentage of the gun dealers, these are the bad apple gun dealers. Well, when President Trump took office, that changed. The overwhelming majority of
[3:47:33]good Apple gun dealers in America had no problem operating in an environment that focused on the most dangerous in offenders. In fact, just 5% of gun
[3:47:43]dealers are responsible for 90% of recovered crime guns. But the Trump administration swiftly repealed the Biden era strategy and invited the gun
[3:47:52]dealers who lost their licenses to reapply. You heard that right. Trump is putting law-breaking gun dealers back in business. This move is a boon to the
[3:48:04]criminals who rely on the bad apple corrupt gun dealers as a source of guns that can be diverted to the black market where they can be trafficked and used to commit more crimes. The irony is hard to
[3:48:16]miss. Trump says there's a crime wave so out of control that he wants to occupy our cities with the military violating
[3:48:24]our entire historical prohibition on the use of the military for law enforcement purposes embodied in the comm the posi kamatadatus act and he wants to blast
[3:48:36]the drug cartels out of international waters but his own policies make it much easier for drug cartels gangs and gun traffickers to get get the guns in the
[3:48:47]first place, the guns that are fueling the drug wars and gang violence. So now our colleagues want to double down on this dangerously incoherent strategy. The bill would effectively
[3:48:58]grant amnesty to lences who have willfully violated the law and are a disproportionate and significant source of crime. guns. For example, the bill
[3:49:09]grants dealers amnesty for willfully violating the law if they report their violation to ATF before ATF discovers it. There are no time limits for self-reporting. So, a lency might
[3:49:21]intentionally break the law for months or for years, skipping background checks completely or lying on forms, hope to avoid inspection, and then self-report
[3:49:31]on the day an ATF investigator arrives. under this bill, that criminal enterprise would face no consequences. That's quite a deal. It's like you've
[3:49:41]got the power to go and rob a bank and the minute the police show up at your door, if you say, "Oh, I robbed a bank." And you give it back, then there are no consequences for you. Another amnesty
[3:49:52]provision requires ATF to wait 30 business days before bringing any kind of enforcement action, giving dealers the chance to correct violations. The 30-day waiting period doesn't begin
[3:50:03]until ATF gives the Lency actual notice of the violation, including a detailed explanation of the violation and all the evidence that ATF has in support of
[3:50:13]revocation. This means again a lency could willfully and repeatedly break the law, wait until ATF learns of the violations, wait to learn exactly which
[3:50:23]violations ATF discovered and what the evidence is, and then corrects only the violations listed in the notice. That's quite a deal for lawb breakakers.
[3:50:34]The bill is designed to stop enforcement actions before they begin by requiring ATF to go above and beyond the willfulness requirement that's already the law. Under the bill, ATF would have
[3:50:44]to prove not just willfulness, but also deliberate planning or specific intent. And willfulness cannot be inferred from prior conduct. In other words, it's not enough to know that a corrupt gun dealer
[3:50:56]is breaking law. ATF would also have to show how the corrupt gun dealer planned to break the law before they can stop the dealer from selling more guns on the
[3:51:06]black market. The bill also creates a presumption that quote minor clerical or curable conduct is not willful under the statute. This clerical exception alone
[3:51:17]could make it all but impossible to enforce our gun laws since many of lenc's obligations involve precisely creating and maintaining specific
[3:51:27]records of gun sales. The bill also allows gun dealers to stay in business while they challenge their revocation in court no matter the risks they pose to the public. Finally, this bill seeks to
[3:51:37]upend the past work with ATF by allowing bad gun dealers who just lost their licenses to reapply under more lenient standards. ATF agents and investigators work to keep guns out of dangerous hands
[3:51:49]and to prevent corrupt gun dealers from putting the public at risk by arming criminals and gangs. This bill's a slap in the face not only to ATF, but also to
[3:51:59]the state and local officers who work with ATF to disrupt gun trafficking networks, trace guns to their source, and prevent violent crime. The bill would force ATF to turn a blind eye to
[3:52:10]those who are breaking the law and putting American lives and communities at risk. It would force federal law enforcement to fight gun violence with their hands tied behind their backs. We should be investing in ATF and
[3:52:21]supporting their work. Often I hear from my colleagues, we don't need need new laws. We just need to enforce the laws we've got. This this legislation would make it impossible to enforce a lot of
[3:52:32]those laws. But this bill is a part of a broader trend, moving everything in the wrong direction. Republicans are gutting ATF's budget. They're firing ATF staff
[3:52:42]and they're reversing the gun violence prevention work that has contributed to record low murder rates in cities across the country. The irony of course of the
[3:52:52]deployment of US military forces in the National Guard against our cities is the murder rates have been going down because of effective work that was done with the Biden administration and the
[3:53:03]mayors. We should have a nationwide summit, federal, state, local working together to talk about what's working, not deploying our military forces against our people. That's why we had a
[3:53:13]revolution against the king because the king deployed military forces against the people in the colonies. So, let's continue the real serious work that's
[3:53:24]taking place in cities and states. Let's build on those successes, but let's not take huge step backwards with this Swiss
[3:53:33]cheese legislation. It's all holes. It's all about gaping loopholes, introducing them into the law. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized. Well,
[3:53:44]excuse me. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes gentleman from California for an amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> Report. >> Amendment in the nature.
[3:53:56]>> Without objection, the amendment nature substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. Chair now recognized the gentleman from California. Explain the amendment. >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This is simply
[3:54:06]minor technical corrections. Uh but I have to make a more significant technical correction. My colleague uh the ranking member apparently is reading
[3:54:17]a different bill than the version that we put out. And I would appreciate if he would please look again. Nothing in this bill uh would cause someone who has been
[3:54:27]allowed to buy a weapon that should not have bought a weapon because of a failure, an incorrect or in uh illegal act by an FFL. In no way, shape or form
[3:54:38]does this bill consider that minor or allow them to reapply. So when we talk about people who got guns who shouldn't have gotten guns from FFLs that are not
[3:54:49]doing their job, nothing in this bill and nothing on either side of the aisle is intended on those people continuing to be able to sell weapons. Uh the fact
[3:54:58]is we do define it as minor technical and we do recognize that just as the ranking member can correct his tax
[3:55:08]filing before the IRS discovers he's made a mistake and avoid uh any kind of a willfulness. This is the same thing. And by the way, the word willfulness is
[3:55:19]important because if it is willful, no matter how minor, in fact it is not protected. Uh the uh the changes in this
[3:55:30]in the technical correction are minor but the core bill remains the same. One that is intended to deal with the the comma the dot the inadvertent uh
[3:55:41]eliminate failure to put in a middle initial or a middle name putting something in the wrong line things that happen every day in this lengthy and
[3:55:51]unfortunately not well uh automated system that we operate on today. So, I do share with the gentlemen the desire
[3:55:59]that we we call out gun violence. We call out the terrible things that have happened, including last week. But this bill was drafted before that. It was put
[3:56:10]out there because of a need to make permanent, a standard that everyone would appreciate being able to live under, which is it's not a gotcha game
[3:56:19]on FFLs. It's a get them to do the job well. And that's the reason this bill does just that. Encourages the proper behavior and if there's a technical
[3:56:30]correction holds harmless the FFL self-reporting so in fact they can uh be more accurate and we can all live in a safer world. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[3:56:41]>> Gentleman yields back. >> Gentle lady from Georgia. >> The gentle lady from Georgia is recognized. >> Did you want to? >> Gentle lady from Texas is recognized.
[3:56:52]Then I'll come to the gentle lady from Georgia. >> But did you have a >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
[3:57:02]>> Clerk will report >> reserve a point of order. >> Point of order being reserved by the gentle from California. >> It's all good. >> Amendment to the amendment.
[3:57:15]>> Objection will be considered as read. The gentle lady from Texas is recognized to explain her amendment. My amendment today would create an additional exception under the bill's self-reporting section whereby if a firearm is transferred to a person and
[3:57:27]that firearm is used and results in the death of or injury to law enforcement, the LE may not use the self-reporting
[3:57:37]process. Let's be honest about what's really going on here with this self-reporting process. This provision isn't about public safety and it sure as hell isn't about accountability. It's
[3:57:47]about a get out of jail free card. Plain and simple. Under this provision, lences will now be able to say, >> "Yeah, >> yes, we messed up. We had a violation."
[3:57:59]But because we're telling you about it, we don't have to face any consequences. Now, because of how this bill text is written, a Lency could willfully violate the law. for example, by willfully
[3:58:10]falsifying a firearms transaction form using a fake buyer name, then report that violation to ATF and not face any real accountability at all because of
[3:58:21]the self-reporting. Now, let me tell y'all, when these violations happen in the real world, innocent people die. People get serious, life-changing
[3:58:30]injuries, families get destroyed. And it's not just everyday citizens. It's also our law enforcement officers, folks who put their lives on the line every single day to protect our communities.
[3:58:41]Now, look, there's a lot we could do we could be doing to actually address gun violence in this country. We could pass laws creating stronger background checks. We could pass gun storage laws. We could pass wait time requirements.
[3:58:53]But instead, we're here pushing a bill that gives lences a get out of jail free card with a pat on the back. All because they admitted they did something wrong after the damage has already been done.
[3:59:04]It's not right. Now, before my colleagues try to mischaracterize my amendment and twist my words, I want to be very clear. Nothing in my amendment automatically revokes or denies the
[3:59:14]renewal of someone's license. What this amendment does is ensure the attorney general still has the authority to decide whether the lenc's actions as it pertains to the violation warrants
[3:59:25]denying or revoking their license when that firearm is transferred is used and results in injury or death of a law enforcement officer. This is about
[3:59:37]accountability. This is about letting the process play out. So if you care about law enforcement, if you believe we shouldn't let lences whose violations result in injury or deaths of law
[3:59:48]enforcement be exempt from certain punishment, punishment that the attorney general would still be required to decide whether or not it's warranted,
[3:59:57]then I urge you to support my amendment. >> Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized.
[4:00:08]>> Mr. Chairman, I uh I rise in opposition to the amendment. Uh I believe that it is although probably well intended, it misses the mark. And if uh all of us
[4:00:18]would look on page 2, line 8, the term uh parenthesis 41, the term uncorrectable violation means any violation that despite best efforts
[4:00:29]cannot be corrected by the LE, including a violation in which the LE transferred a firearm to a prohibited person. It already covers the sending to a wrongful
[4:00:40]person. What the amendment would would potentially, not potentially, would clearly allow for is a perfectly legitimate sale with absolutely no
[4:00:51]wrongdoing by the FFL and initially no wrongdoing by the individual that later leads to an adverse effect would in fact
[4:01:02]can be considered quote uncorrectable. So although I know the intent was good, I would ask that this be defeated in favor of the existing language page 2
[4:01:12]line 8 through uh 11. And with that, I have no more to say and I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from
[4:01:21]Georgia is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. >> Is recognized. >> Thank you. Just before Labor Day
[4:01:30]weekend, 8-year-old Fletcher Merkel and 10-year-old Harper Mioski had just begun a new school year and were attending a morning mass at Annunciation Catholic
[4:01:40]Church. They had their whole lives ahead of them. But instead of planning Labor Day outings or their futures, their parents had to plan their funerals.
[4:01:50]Fletcher, Harper, their schoolmates and teachers became the latest victims in yet another mass shooting, a uniquely American crisis where this year alone
[4:02:02]874 children and teens have died from gun violence. I'm going to read this again. 874
[4:02:12]children and teens have died this year from unacceptable gun violence. the leading cause of death in this country
[4:02:21]for our children. We should be convening today to take action to keep our children and all Americans safe from gun violence instead of making it harder for
[4:02:32]the ATF to do its job. As 130 of my colleagues and I pointed out in a letter that we sent to Speaker Johnson last week, the Gun Violence Prevention Task
[4:02:44]Force has introduced legislation to expand background checks, keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and ensure our communities are safe. Our
[4:02:54]Republican colleagues refuse to join us to pass this common sense legislation. My Republican colleagues wouldn't even
[4:03:04]stand against this administration's cut of 108 $158 million of funding for gun violence prevention evidence-based
[4:03:13]programs that have reduced gun violence in red states and blue states. Although the grants had already been awarded to organizations, my Republican colleagues have done nothing to make sure that this
[4:03:25]lifesaving work continues. But here we are in all too familiar scenes. Instead of addressing the nationwide gun violence epidemic with
[4:03:35]common sense, effective solutions, my colleagues offer very stale thoughts and prayers. And American people are tired of it to the ever growing number of
[4:03:47]victims that we have every single day. Bring us together. I mean those kinds of victims and things that are happening
[4:03:56]that brings us together to hamstring the ATF and the work that they do that is so vital. The firearm act would create procedural hurdles that will give a pass
[4:04:08]to gun dealers who are actually violating the law. Alarmingly, it would allow dealers who challenge their revocations to continue to operate, even if that means more illegal guns are
[4:04:19]sold. It would also allow dealers who already lost their licenses to reapply under a new lower standard. Take a dealer like Arrowhead Pawn and Jewelry.
[4:04:30]In my home state of Georgia, Washington Post investigation found that between 2006 and 2010, over 1,700 crime guns
[4:04:39]were traced back to Arrowhead, making it the fifth largest source of crime guns in the country at that time. Although the NYPD previously identified it as the
[4:04:50]top outofstate supplier for the city's crime guns, a gun traced back to Arrowhead was used to kill two NYPD police officers in 2014.
[4:05:02]Despite receiving numerous citations and warnings from the ATF over the years, Arrowhead only stopped selling guns after the Biden administration
[4:05:12]implemented its zero tolerance tolerance policy. It ultimately closed down because the ATF was empowered to crack down on rogue gun dealers and revoke
[4:05:23]their licenses when they egregiously violated federal law. Under this bill, a seller like Arrowhead could obtain a a
[4:05:34]new license and resume operation. Every day, we are losing more than 100 Americans to gun violence. That's a hund more than a hundred lives that are lost
[4:05:46]and gone unnecessarily. We should be talking about bills like the bipartisan background checks act of 2025 that would establish universal
[4:05:56]background checks for firearm purchases. A policy supported by over 90% of the American people or my assault weapons ban that was supported by previous
[4:06:06]Republican administrations and it actually saved lives. We should all be able to agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals and that
[4:06:16]the few federally licensed gun dealers that do not follow the law should be held accountable and put out of business.
[4:06:26]I oppose this legislation. I hope to be able to amend this legislation, but at this point I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well. And I yield back.
[4:06:37]>> Gentle yields back. who seeks recognition, gentleman from Georgia. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, we we have the gun show loophole, which
[4:06:49]is actually just a loophole in the law that allows for unlicensed gun dealers to stand beside uh licensed gun dealers and sell as many
[4:07:00]firearms as the licensed gun dealer. And um so that's the gun show loophole. or the unlicensed gun dealer loophole.
[4:07:10]And here we should really rename this legislation uh the licensed gun dealer loophole act. Uh I rise in strong
[4:07:20]opposition to HR 3770 and in support of the um uh Crockett amendment.
[4:07:30]Um, last year there were 16,576 firearm deaths, not including suicides, and 5,151
[4:07:41]children and teenagers who were shot. And just last month in Atlanta, a man fired more than 180 shots,
[4:07:50]actually 500 shots. 180 uh penetrated the glass, but he fired over 500 shots with a long gun at
[4:08:00]the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Given all this, we need licensed gun dealers to do their part to prevent guns
[4:08:11]from being sold to people who should not and cannot legally have them, to prevent gun trafficking, and to enable law enforcement to trace guns that are
[4:08:22]involved in crimes. Yet, this bill would let licensed gun dealers off the hook, allowing them to operate without any guard rails on who they can sell a gun
[4:08:33]to and where the gun goes. This bill grants amnesty to licensed gun dealers who willfully violate the law in multiple ways. First, it would narrow
[4:08:45]the definition of willfulness so that previous bad conduct cannot be used to infer intent on the part of the gun dealers. Second, this bill would allow
[4:08:56]firearm lens sees to break the law until they get caught and then change their tactics long enough to keep their license knowing that there will be no
[4:09:07]consequences for their illegal acts. And I know that uh it's difficult for uh some in the audience to hear, maybe not
[4:09:17]those on TV because we got a lot of chatter going on around here. But third, this bill creates an amnesty provision for self-reported violations if it is
[4:09:29]theoretically possible for the lency to correct in the future, allowing them to keep their license whether or not they actually correct their behavior. Also,
[4:09:41]this bill would make it impossible to enforce a lences obligations involving creating and maintaining records of gun sales, which are very important for
[4:09:51]tracing. And finally, this bill creates a paradox where the standard is higher to get an initial firearm federal
[4:10:01]firearm license than it is to get another federal firearm license after your first one was revoked for blake breaking the law. That makes no sense
[4:10:11]and it endangers the public health. And therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. support the amendment but vote against the bill and I yield back.
[4:10:22]>> Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Ice, I have a question for you and and uh after hearing the summations from the other side of the aisle, I think there is a a
[4:10:33]relevant point of clarification here. Um, as someone who knows many in the uh, gun business, uh, I think it's a safe characterization and an accurate
[4:10:44]characterization to say that the Biden administration utilized the bureaucratic might of the executive branch to u really in a in a roundabout way put gun
[4:10:55]stores out of business. and they used the regulatory authority they had to put undue burdens, undue harassment on gun stores for paperwork violations
[4:11:06]essentially, whether it was mislabeling a a uh serial number, filing the wrong registration in the wrong place, something minor. And I want to be very clear here, the previous congressman in his summation, he said that there would
[4:11:18]be a an amnesty for criminal conduct. And I've read your bill. I think that is a gross mischaracterization, but it essentially is I read it. It protects
[4:11:28]against undue burdens and harassment from the executive branch on small businesses. And so I yield you the balance of my time, but I think that this bill is being grossly mislabeled by
[4:11:39]the other side of the aisle. And I ask for your clarification. I thank the gentleman for yielding and and I couldn't agree more that um their misunderstanding seems to be continuing.
[4:11:49]Uh, one of the points being that minor, although not defined in some specific way, it is by exclusion defined. For
[4:11:58]example, on page four, when it speaks to those things that cannot uh be excluded, it says on beginning on line 13 on page
[4:12:08]four, the attorney general may not bring enforcement actions blah blah blah unless the violation involves a prohibited transfer of firearm or other
[4:12:18]other uncorrectable violation that creates direct or acute risk, not just loss of life, but risk or death or serious bodily injury as a result of the
[4:12:29]uncorrectable violation. That's a very interesting way pursuant to the language that's already in uh the law. It makes it clear those are the things you can't
[4:12:40]correct. If you put the gun in the wrong person's hand because you've sold to someone that isn't supposed to have it, it's not correctable. On the other hand, if you accidentally claim something is a
[4:12:50]long rifle and it's a shotgun, even though you put the right serial number in, you can recognize the mistake and correct it. And you said it very very well. And I think your both your your
[4:13:01]legal background, but also your small business experience helps us understand these are paperwork intensive transfers. selling a weapon has been made a pile of
[4:13:12]paperwork and small mistakes do happen uh just as they happen with federal workers especially if they're using paper. This simply says you put the the
[4:13:22]dot in the wrong place. You make another minor correction. you're you can in fact self-correct, but in no way, shape or form, according to the the body of the
[4:13:31]existing uh uh bill, can you correct something that even could lead to bodily injury, much less to the actual transfer that does lead to it? And I I appreciate
[4:13:42]the gentleman clarifying. >> May I ask one more question in in in this way? The bill also establishes an incentive to police your own paperwork, to make sure that it's accurate, to make
[4:13:52]sure that errors are being corrected. And that's the part that I think is being so grossly misrepresented here. You are encouraging the business owner to get it right. >> I couldn't agree with you more. The fact is if it doesn't get caught in the first
[4:14:03]audit, it's really only the individual FFL that's going to realize that perhaps they put the wrong part number, the wrong uh nomenclature or anything else
[4:14:15]of that sort which they can correct, which helps makes the records complete. And when you're looking to trace back a weapon that may be used at a later time or even is stolen, it is critical that
[4:14:27]it be accurate and this encourages that kind of behavior. >> Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. Ranking members recognize. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I I
[4:14:38]want to pursue that line of questioning our colleague from North Carolina just initiated. Um f first of all, um Mr. I said this is um I think very dramatic
[4:14:49]legislation which introduces a rather dramatic principle which is that people who violate the law should be given 30 days uh to correct their action and then
[4:15:01]everything's going to be all right. And I just wonder would you pursue this in another context like say take for example the Internal Revenue Service. Um a lot of people make paperwork mistakes
[4:15:12]there as you're describing them. All of it is paperwork in some sense. Um but we also know a lot of people uh a lot of corporations certainly are cheating on
[4:15:20]taxes. Should they be given um actual notice of the violation and then 30 days within which they can go in and self-report and then they're held clear
[4:15:32]of their violation which essentially what you're doing. >> The gentleman would yield. Yeah. >> I I couldn't agree with you more that that's a a perfect example. If in fact a corporation makes a mistake, they are
[4:15:43]normally shown and if it's not willful, normally there are no punitive benefits requirements. You do pay your taxes ultimately. This legislation actually
[4:15:55]does exactly what you're hoping for, which is it sets a standard that if it's willful, it is not correctable. If it's willful, it does not get a pass. You
[4:16:05]must not be willful in order to have the correction be >> aren't you requiring something more than willfulness. You're requiring planning to be shown. >> Well, we we actually no we we uh we set
[4:16:16]a standard that uh that if it's willful, it's willful. Now, how you determine willfulness. >> That's the current standard. I thought you were adding this idea that the government's got to show that there was
[4:16:27]actual planning that went into the violation. Well, in order to and I appreciate the gentleman if you'd further yield, willfulness has to be sought as to what
[4:16:39]occurred that causes someone to say willful. And we're in no way, shape, or form wanting to make that more difficult. But to simply say it's willful because there's a mistake does
[4:16:48]isn't the same as saying it's willful and here's why we say it was willful. >> All right. Well, you know, I'm going to ask my staff to go back and check that because I read it as saying this new planning standard is what applies and
[4:16:59]that mere willfulness is not enough. But let me ask you about another part of it, which is the self-reporting requirement. As I understand it, what this does is
[4:17:08]say so say I'm the a licensed uh gun dealer and I'm not one of the good apples, which is 95% of them. I'm one of the bad apples. And so a friend comes in
[4:17:18]and says, "Will you sell me these uh uh assault weapons um and then um I say,"Yeah, you know, I'm supposed to do a background check on you, but I'm going
[4:17:28]to let you go. You're my friend. I know you're a you're a good guy or whatever. Um and I know you've got some misdemeanors. I don't know if they would create a problem for you or not. I'm just going to let you go." Now, under
[4:17:39]the amendment, uh the the amendment says if that gun ends up being used to slay a police
[4:17:46]officer, then I don't at that point um I I no longer have the self-reporting out
[4:17:56]the exit plan under the bill. I can't say, "Oh, um you know, I saw that my friend was just involved in a shooting of police officer." I'm going to rush in and say, "Oh, by the way, I didn't do
[4:18:07]any of the paperwork on this person." Now, under your bill, I'm going to be clean there, right? Because that person,
[4:18:16]if uh it's correctable in the sense that I can go back and fill it out after the fact, right? And I can I can fill it out for my friend that I sold to and
[4:18:28]that that would be something that's therefore correctable. And that's all right. >> Would the gentleman yield? >> Yeah, please. Not doing a background check is an uncorrectable error. >> So, right off the bat, the particular
[4:18:39]example doesn't apply. >> Well, if that's the case, can we add that specifically to the bill? >> It is in the bill. >> It says it it says uncorrectable errors later. >> I read it already.
[4:18:50]>> Well, the gentleman I I think I think I think the gentleman from California cited this earlier, >> page two, line eight. I think I think gentleman from California already cited this. The term uncorrectable violation
[4:19:02]means any violation despite best efforts cannot be corrected by the license including this is the key part. This is what I think was in the ranking members yeah uh example a violation which a license transferred firearm to a prohibited person.
[4:19:13]>> But that's not a prohibited person in my hypothetical. It's a friend of mine right who's not prohibited but I I just don't go through the background check but that's a willful violation of a
[4:19:23]requirement. So and and the term willful on page one uh beginning with line 15 the term willful is defined by the meaning in term section existing law
[4:19:34]5336H of title 31 >> would the gentleman yield >> very specifically this is a defined term >> well well it also it also narrows the
[4:19:46]>> hang on the time of the gentleman from who's got the time I think >> Mr. Raskin. So I will recognize another Democrat. Well, we got to go to >> Is there anybody else who can
[4:19:57]>> Mr. Johnson? >> Mr. Johnson. >> Yes. >> Yield to the >> willfulness uh is limited in this legislation. It limits what can be shown as to be
[4:20:08]willful behavior. It says that uh willfulness only includes conduct resulting in uh or resulting from
[4:20:19]deliberate planning or specific intent. And willfulness also cannot be inferred from previous conduct. So you're making it more
[4:20:29]difficult to prove willfulness. And you're also adding the fact that a that curable conduct, whatever that is, is presumptively
[4:20:40]uh not willful. >> Will the gentleman yield? >> I do. >> But thank you very kindly, Mr. Johnson, for that clarification. And this goes to the original question that that I posed our distinguished friend from
[4:20:49]California. Um, you were you were retreating to the original definition of willfully under the statute today, but your bill says the term willfully is the
[4:21:00]meaning given the term in existing statute except that the term only includes conduct resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning or specific intent. So, I think Mr.
[4:21:10]Johnson's right. We've altered the definition of willfulness to show that there's got to be deliberate planning. My hypothetical holds because in my hypothetical it's not a prohibited
[4:21:21]person. It's a person who would have been allowed to get it. >> Well, the gentleman yield. >> Yeah. >> Would that not be a willful act though? Refusing to do the required background check in. >> That's not an oversight. That's not
[4:21:32]negligence. That's willful. >> Exactly. It's willful under the current definition, but not under the new definition. But in any event, our point, it seems to me the point of the
[4:21:41]amendment is if a a firearm is sold in a way that's contrary to the law, and it ends up killing a police officer, they should not have the benefit of this new
[4:21:53]self-reporting uh escape hatch. Uh if the gentleman from Georgia, I guess, would further yield to me. >> It's your it's your time. >> Yeah, I'll yield to you.
[4:22:04]>> Thank you. Um, if the gentleman would like, we're more than happy to put in the example he gave to make it clear that a a failure to do required acts is
[4:22:16]not forgivable and we're not intending on it. In other words, when you don't get a presumption that if you didn't check on your friend that somehow that's not a deliberative act. It is a deliberative act and it and we would consider it willful. So at least as to
[4:22:27]the example you gave, we would totally be willing to make sure that was there to the extent that that that for example
[4:22:37]the wrong line on the wrong place has has something that is the type of thing we're looking at correcting. The three items though that we put there that
[4:22:47]further define A, B, and C there. First of all, I think we can all agree minor uh minor clerical or correctable conduct is already defined in law. So we're
[4:22:58]we're only saying that that is the minor conduct. It does not include the uncorrectable which includes selling to an unauthorized person or failing to do things you're supposed to do. The
[4:23:08]willfulness standard not being inferred from previous conduct simply says that each each time you see something it stands on its own. Okay? that that
[4:23:19]somebody not be able to say well this has happened two other times on unrelated individuals that there were clerical heirs. Uh the first term very
[4:23:30]clearly u through deliberate planning or specific intent. Okay. The example you gave couldn't be more specific intent. failing to do your job in any way,
[4:23:42]shape, or form or neglect of your job is in fact and and we're happy to have willful negligence, you know, those kinds of terms if that really would make
[4:23:53]the gentleman vote for the bill. Our goal is literally to take those things which have historically been correctable under the Clinton administration under plenty of pre Truman administration for
[4:24:05]that matter and simply say we want to have the paperwork done right. If it's done wrong for some reason we want it corrected and if there are violations we still want these FFLs to be held
[4:24:16]accountable. We couldn't share with you more of the example of Arrowhead being the kind of organization that it has to be investigated and reinvestigated when that many weapons end up doing things
[4:24:28]illegally. Okay? And so, um, I know that the gentleman came believing that we're trying to do something nefarious. As the author of the bill, I can assure you and
[4:24:38]the gentleman from Georgia, all we want to do is make sure that the paperwork nightmare that does exist doesn't cause small business to go out of business. >> We're reclaiming my time. Of course,
[4:24:49]it's only 15 seconds, but this legislation makes it more difficult for prosecutors to prove willfulness on the part of licensed firearm dealers and
[4:24:59]makes it easier for them to maintain their license and makes it easier for them to reoptain a license after their license has been revoked. So, it is
[4:25:10]indeed a uh licensed gun dealer uh loophole and I'd uh encourage my uh colleagues to vote against it. >> Gentlemen's back.
[4:25:31]>> Gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized. Do you >> someone someone step up? >> Nobody. >> Mr. Chairman. >> All right.
[4:25:42]>> Can I uh ask unanimous? >> Sure. Can >> I'd ask you >> I would prefer this. >> Can we
[4:25:53]do >> Mr. Chairman? I will be >> The question is let's >> Yeah, let's let's >> The question is on the amendment I believe. >> Yeah. >> Or on Miss Crockett's amendment. And I think you have something to do with the
[4:26:05]bill. >> Correct. >> So if no one's going to talk on the amendment, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from uh Texas. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed? No. No. Can you the chair
[4:26:16]of the nose have it? Uh who seeks recognition? >> Miss Gantley. >> Well, actually was Democrat time. So we can go first to the gentleman. Are you getting something drafted?
[4:26:28]>> Yeah. >> Okay. Then we will go back to M. >> Mr. Chairman, I I will have an amendment uh further amendment available to deal with the ranking members concern and we'll we'll add it at an appropriate time.
[4:26:39]>> Great. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania. >> Thank you. I'd move to strike the last word. >> Gentle lady recognized. >> This bill, the Firearm Act, creates more obstacles to gun safety and would
[4:26:51]effectively grant amnesty to gun dealers who've broken the laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Pennsylvania has been
[4:27:00]fortunate in that our governor, when he was attorney general, initiated a program to aggregate data to determine where crime guns were coming from. And
[4:27:11]the data was shocking and very, very clear that a small number of gun dealers are responsible for supplying the majority of the guns used in crimes in
[4:27:21]Pennsylvania. These are not just bad apples. These are rotten apples and they should be subject to more oversight, not less. In Pennsylvania, we found that
[4:27:31]more than 20,000 crime guns had been purchased from just 11 gun dealers. Understand? 1% of the dealers in the
[4:27:41]state sold 50% of the crime guns used in our region. That's not an accident. It's not something that just happened to
[4:27:51]happen. These are dealers who display repeated lack of compliance with federal regulations, including transferring firearms to prohibited purchasers,
[4:28:01]facilitating the straw purchase of firearms, missing firearms, and a failure to respond to ATF trace requests in a timely manner. We're talking about
[4:28:11]gun dealers who break the law and endanger American lives. These are reckless businesses that are not responsible enough to sell firearms and
[4:28:21]they need strict oversight. But Republicans on this committee want to just let them off the hook, create more loopholes, hamstringing law enforcement's ability to enforce the
[4:28:32]rules and allowing illegal firearms to continue flooding our neighborhood streets. As people across our country
[4:28:41]continue to live with the fear and the grief caused by senseless gun violence, congressional Republicans and their White House allies want to upend all of
[4:28:52]the progress that we've been trying to make over the past few years to tackle this uniquely American problem. It's especially outrageous when as we sit here in this committee room, we continue
[4:29:03]to lose people to this crisis day after day after day, including the horrific shooting at Annunciation Catholic School
[4:29:13]in Minnesota just a few days ago where two children were killed and others were grievously injured while sitting in a back- tochool mass.
[4:29:24]One of my best friend's grandchildren were attending that back to school mass when the shooting occurred. These eight and 10year-old children saw their
[4:29:34]classmates murdered and maimed and they were covered in their classmates blood. The trauma these children experienced
[4:29:42]will be with them, their families, their church and their community forever. This is sick. We do not have to live this
[4:29:52]way. Our children should not be forced to live and die this way. Congress should be doing more, not less, to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous
[4:30:02]people. This bill will make it easier for rogue gun dealers to profit off their sales to criminals killing children. I'd ask why Republican members of this committee value the gun lobby
[4:30:14]more than the lives of our children. Americans are crying out for action and this Republican Congress and this White House are failing them. I oppose the bill and I yield back.
[4:30:26]Lady yields back. The chair chair is recognized. I never forget what uh what happened on March 19th, 2024. >> I think the gentleman from North Carolina talked about the bureaucratic
[4:30:36]might of the ATF under the Biden administration. March 19th, 2024, 10 cars pull up pre-dawn raid. Brian
[4:30:45]Malinowski's house. First thing they do is walk to the doorbell cam and cover the cam with tape. 53 seconds later, Brian Malinowski has been shot. He dies
[4:30:56]the following day. What did he do wrong? We don't know. They thought he was dealing guns like he shouldn't have been. But what we do know about Mr. Malinowski. What we heard from former US
[4:31:06]attorney Bud Cummings when he came and testified. What we do know is he was the highest paid official in the Little Rock Municipal Government, ran the Bill and Hillary Clinton airport.
[4:31:17]We know that the FBI and the ATF, excuse me, the ATF surveiled Mr. Malinowski for weeks, knew they could go, it was a search warrant. They could go confiscate any firearm, search his property, but
[4:31:28]instead they're going to wait until he's there. In fact, the week before they were all lined up. The cars at the Walmart were all lined up. We learned this again from the testimony of Mr. Cummings. They were all lined up to go
[4:31:38]and and figured out Mr. Malinowski was out of town. They waited until he was there, making a situation much more dangerous. And then they go and Brian Malinowski thinks he's getting robbed. He goes to
[4:31:50]defend himself and his wife, who by the way, Mayor Malinowski sat in that first row right there, never forget her. Amazing lady. That's the bureaucratic might of the
[4:32:00]ATF. And all this bill says from an ATF who did that is if the if the FFL guy filling out the forms says Joe Smith
[4:32:10]lives on North Washington Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, and he actually lives on South Washington Street. You can't take his FFL from him and prosecute him and and do do whatever. Just if it's a
[4:32:21]clerical error, that's all it says. But never forget never forget what the Biden ATF did. Brian Malinowski is
[4:32:32]no longer with us and his widow came here, heard that testimony. They could have handled that so many different way any law enfor they could have done it so many so much
[4:32:54]different. This legislation is common sense. That's what it's trying to do. is common sense. >> Will the chair yield? >> I'll yield or I'll rec No, you've
[4:33:05]already been recognized. I'll yield. Well, actually, I got to yield to I'll yield to our member first and I'll come back to you. The gentleman from Virginia. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're absolutely right. This is Well, move to strike last word.
[4:33:17]>> What's that? >> You're on my >> Oh, okay. Mr. Chairman, um I don't know how much time you you have 10 two minutes. Okay. Uh I'll be quick. Um this
[4:33:27]is common sense legislation. It is clear from the gentle lady's comments from the comments on the other side that what they're after are are not u just simply
[4:33:39]gun uh dealers that are u operating against the law or somehow dealing illegal weapons. They want all the guns. They want to take the guns from
[4:33:50]law-abiding American citizens. And when the Supreme Court decided in Heler that individuals have a right to own a gun, they said, "Well, we've got to get pretty creative. So, let's weaponize the
[4:34:00]bureaucracy and shut down the dealers. If we can't take the guns away from the individuals specifically, then we'll take them. Then we'll shut down the dealers. And that way, we'll make sure
[4:34:11]that law- abiding Americans can't get legal firearms. And we'll do it by weaponizing the bureaucracy, going after
[4:34:21]these dealers for small clerical errors, shutting them down one by one by one. And it's, you know, creative way to get around the Heler decision to take guns
[4:34:33]away from law-abiding Americans or prevent them in the first place from ever being able to buy them by shutting down the dealers. So, you know, it almost worked. Uh, fortunately, the
[4:34:43]Trump administration is making sure that these FFLs, these law-abiding FFLs can operate, law-abiding Americans can buy weapons, and I commend the gentleman for his legislation to make sure that what
[4:34:55]happened under the Biden administration never happens again. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. >> Gentleman yield. >> I'll yield 30. Well, >> chairman talked about the bureaucratic
[4:35:06]might of the ATF. I want to talk about the bureaucratic might of the HHS. $175 billion is what this committee uh
[4:35:16]authorized for for that agency to morph into the biggest law enforcement agency uh on the planet. >> I think we're talking and and at the same time the Trump administration is
[4:35:27]reducing the >> I'm talking about the firearm act, not the big beautiful. >> I'm just talking about what you just said. >> No, I'm talking about I'm talking about the I'm talking about the HHF.
[4:35:38]The time the time belongs to me and I'm now out of it. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, I think. Well, >> we we're still on the >> MC. You go to the other side. We'll go
[4:35:48]to Miss uh >> Miss McBth just spoke. Do you have an amendment? >> She has an amendment. I haven't spoken. I've been waiting. >> All right. Gentle is recognized.
[4:36:00]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I have an amendment at the desk. >> Well, that's what I was asking. You you spoke on the bill, but you're you're a we got an amendment from Mr. Ice, I think, first. Is that correct? Still we
[4:36:11]we'll go ahead and do hers. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is recognized >> my amendment simply >> report >> amendment to the amendment in the name >> report >> without objection amendment be
[4:36:22]considered as read point of order being reserved by the gentleman from California. The gentle from George is recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. My amendment simply adds the word lawful to the provision that says willfulness shall not be
[4:36:33]inferred from previous conduct. This clarifies that when deciding whether to revoke or deny a firearms license for willful violation of the law, the attorney general can consider prior
[4:36:44]unlawful conduct conduct that broke the law. This is just something simple and it's common sense. When a person gets a parking ticket for parking in the wrong
[4:36:54]spot, it is reasonable to wonder the first time if they knew that they couldn't park there. But when they do it again and again and again, getting ticket after ticket after ticket, maybe
[4:37:05]even paying for those tickets at some point, we can be pretty confident that they know that they can't park there and they're doing it anyway. Similarly, under current law, when an ATF
[4:37:16]inspection reveals that the dealer has violated the Gun Control Act, ATF, often issues a warning letter that outlines the violations, instructs them to
[4:37:27]correct them, and warns the dealer that they might lose their license if they don't correct the violations, and start following the law. If ATF learns of
[4:37:37]another violation, there could be another warning letter or a warning conference in which the dealer is required to meet with the ATF to discuss
[4:37:47]the violations and how to fix them. If a dealer continues to violate the same laws after warning letters and
[4:37:56]conferences based on their previous conduct, we can be pretty sure that they know that they're violating those laws. In fact, current ATF guidance says that
[4:38:07]ATF can establish willfulness in part by a dealer's repeat violations with documentation that ATF personnel discuss
[4:38:19]the violations with the dealer. This includes warning letters and warning conferences. As written, this bill could
[4:38:27]be read to require ATF to turn a blind eye to repeated violations of the law even after ATF has issued multiple
[4:38:37]warning letters or conducted a warning conference since these could be considered previous conduct. My amendment simply just fixes this by
[4:38:48]making clear that ATF can't infer willfulness from previous lawful conduct. When a dealer follows the law,
[4:38:58]as the vast majority of our dealers do follow the law, they can rest assured that they have nothing to worry about. We want them to be able to lawfully sell
[4:39:08]their guns and in many cases ATF will work with them to correct violations and bring them into compliance. But when a dealer is worn repeatedly and
[4:39:19]even meets with ATF, then continues to still break the law, ATF should be able to consider that previous unlawful
[4:39:30]conduct in deciding whether or not to revoke that license. Without this amendment, dealers could be allowed to break the law over and over again,
[4:39:41]putting the safety of our communities at risk without any accountability. And I'd like to say during the recess, I spent a great deal of time in Georgia at the ATF
[4:39:50]and also Brunswick at Fletsy. I spent two full days just really getting to understand the work that they do and the complications and the problems that have
[4:40:00]been arising due to the increase in gun violence. And what the ATF said that they really depended on us, Congress is
[4:40:09]really helping to make their jobs easier and that the increasing rates of rhyme uh uh crime that they feel oftentimes too that they're outgunned, they're
[4:40:21]outmanned. This simply this small amendment simply helps them to do that very thing. It's not a big ask. So, if we really care about keeping our
[4:40:32]communities safer, if we really care about helping, you know, law enforcement specifically because they have such a difficult job to do, this is just a
[4:40:42]simple amendment that builds more protection against um you know, individ against violations that are made by our guns. >> Would the gentle lady yield? >> Yes, I do. >> Uh if I'm prepared to accept your
[4:40:54]amendment, will you vote for the bill? I have to discuss it with my staff. >> But you'll consider it. I >> I will consider it >> then. Uh if you'll yield back, I'll
[4:41:06]>> And I yield. >> Chairman yields back. >> Gentle yields back. Gentleman from California. >> Chairman, I withdraw my reserve. Uh and uh I'm prepared to accept this uh
[4:41:15]sensible amendment. Uh I don't believe it it particularly changes the intent. I believe it's well intended. It is clear that we do not want to have prohibitive
[4:41:25]or unlawful conduct. Uh one could have put the word unlawful as easily as lawful in there. And so uh I'm prepared to accept it and hope that it'll cause the gentle lady to vote for the bill.
[4:41:37]>> The uh the question is on the amendment offered by the gentle from Georgia. All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed? No. In opinion the chair of the eyes have it in that wonderful bipartisan spirit. We will now go to the gentleman from California who
[4:41:48]I think has an amendment as well. Mr. >> Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk report. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without >> objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Uh the gentleman from California is recognized to explain the amendment.
[4:41:59]>> Chairman, again, in the spirit of wanting to make this a a truly bipartisan bill, one that limits only to clerical mistakes, uh and nothing more.
[4:42:10]On page two, line 11, we're inserting or fail to perform a required background check after uh and that goes after prohibited person to specifically make
[4:42:22]an example of something we believe was covered, but we absolutely want to make sure there's no doubt is covered. So, the bill would now uh include required background check.
[4:42:33]>> Gentlemen uh gentleman yields back. Uks recognition question. Let's Mr. >> Chairman passing it out.
[4:42:43]>> Let's go to Mr. Raskin and then Mr. Not. >> Thank you, Mr. Eisawway. Is this amendment in response to the colloquy that we had before? >> Yes, it is. >> And I appreciate uh you're doing that
[4:42:54]very much. And uh I I took it it was not your intention to uh exclude the failure to perform a required background check. Um and so I will strongly support this
[4:43:05]amendment. I just want to um inquire um about something else which again might just be completely accidental in terms
[4:43:14]of the drafting of this but right now um there's an there's a provision a safe harbor provision you can look at it that way. We've been calling an amnesty provision. It doesn't make any
[4:43:25]difference but a 30-day waiting period after the ATF tells you that there's giving that it's giving you actual notice of a violation. Then you have 30
[4:43:36]days within which you can essentially cure your violation. >> A a curable violation. Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. A curable violation. Okay.
[4:43:45]But what it doesn't say is that a willful violation is not curable. So >> that that right it doesn't say that a
[4:43:54]willful violation is an uncorrectable violation. And so you start off by saying of course if somebody's deliberately trying to violate the law, get around the terms of the law, deal
[4:44:06]into the criminal underworld, whatever, they shouldn't be covered. But I think it's quite by accident. I think it's advantitious here. But the way it's written, it says the ATF must honor that
[4:44:17]30-day waiting period even if we're talking about a willful, deliberate violation of the law. And I just wonder if you would be amendable to a similar
[4:44:27]amendment correcting that. >> Absolutely. The uh uh if the ATF uh believes they have a strong case for a willful violation or they have a case
[4:44:37]for a willful violation, there'd be no reason not to pursue uh that immediately. So we can work together on the language and get that either now or before it goes to the floor. No question
[4:44:48]at all. That's a sensible thing to make sure we have. >> Correct. >> Question. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Question which is one other similar question. Uh if if I got a sec, which is that um
[4:45:00]>> let's see. The attorney general is prohibited from bringing enforcement action for a self-reported violation if it's correctable, whether or not it's ever actually corrected. And so my question as I was
[4:45:10]reading it was, is it enough that the violation is one that's theoretically correctable or that it actually is corrected? And again, >> just add one that's uncorrectable. Now we know more,
[4:45:20]>> right? and and I assumed that it meant it's correctable and the dealer actually does correct it. >> Uh I would absolutely agree with the gentleman. We could make sure that's part of our technical correction package
[4:45:31]so that it that it requires that they do do correct it uh in a timely fashion and that and to be honest Jamie that's the reason for this 30 days is we if they
[4:45:42]don't correct it within 30 days then the attorney general's obeyance is gone on a correctable. So absolutely we we expect that you get notice and you've got 30
[4:45:53]days and if you don't do it then it becomes a violation that is now executable as it was under the old rule. >> Gentleman gentleman yields back. U the
[4:46:05]question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All >> chairman I would ask unanimous consent that that be uh >> you can do it that way if you want. Unanimous consent to accept the amendment. Uh hear no objection. The
[4:46:17]amendment is now part of the legislation. The question occurs on the amendment the nature of a substitute with amend as amended. Uh >> Mr. Chairman, I I just had one other
[4:46:28]amendment again following you know Mr. Isa's um I think clarification of his intent. Um what we did there was we said
[4:46:40]um that if there was a deliberate uh violation um that that's something that should not be included. There were three other
[4:46:50]things also that I think may have been accidentally excluded. One was refusing to allow an ATF investigator to conduct an inspection. Two is falsifying
[4:47:01]records. And three failing to respond to a trace record. Again, those are three things which I don't think you meant to
[4:47:11]rewrite here. I mean, in other words, it's parallel to what we just did. >> And we'll take a picture and circulate it. >> Yeah. And so, but but I just want to
[4:47:21]introduce an amendment which also makes clear that they also um are bracketed
[4:47:29]and unc unorrectable. U you know we would we would work with the gentleman because it we don't consider what you've just described any
[4:47:40]of it minor clerical so we're happy to make that clear in the in the final bill as we come to the floor. >> Okay. Well then but I look forward to working with you further on that. >> Absolutely. >> I just want to be clear you don't have an amendment at the desk.
[4:47:51]>> No no we can we can do these in technical corrections. I think they're well agreed to. >> Question occurs on the adoption of the amended amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed
[4:48:01]immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed, no. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment, the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is
[4:48:12]in favor of reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed? No. >> No. >> The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favor to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. >> The
[4:48:24]>> we have a recorded vote of the recorded vote been requested. The clerk will call the role. >> Mr. Jordan. Yes, >> Mr. Jordan votes. Yes, Mr. Isa. >> I.
[4:48:33]>> Mr. Isa votes I. Mr. Biggs. >> Mr. McClento. >> Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie.
[4:48:44]Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. >> Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klein. >> Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden. Mr.
[4:48:53]Gooden votes I. Mr. Vandrew. >> M. >> Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nell's Mr. Moore
[4:49:03]Mr. Moore votes yes Mr. Kylie Mr. Kylie votes I Miss Hagaman Miss Lee Miss Lee votes I Mr. Hunt
[4:49:14]Mr. Fry Mr. Fry votes I Mr. Growthman. >> Mr. Growthman votes I Mr. Knot Mr. Knots I Mr. Harris
[4:49:25]Mr. Ander Mr. Herder votes I Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Bombgardner.
[4:49:41]>> I, >> Mr. Bombgardner votes I. Mr. Raskin, >> no. >> Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, Miss Lofgrren, Mr. Cohen,
[4:49:53]Mr. Johnson, >> Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell. >> Mr. Swallwell votes no. Mr. Lou. Miss Gyipol.
[4:50:04]Mr. Korea. Miss Scandan. >> Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Negus. Miss Mcbath. Miss Ross. >> No.
[4:50:15]>> Miss. Ross votes no. Miss Ballot. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia. >> No. >> Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camlagger Dove. Miss Camlager Dove votes no. Mr. Mosquitz.
[4:50:26]Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett, >> Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I
[4:50:55]>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 eyes and eight nos. >> The uh amended amendment nature substitute is adopted. Without objection, the bill will be >> favorably reported. >> Favorably reported. Yeah, it's favor
[4:51:06]reported. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. The nature of substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. He'll be here in a minute.
[4:51:34]As long as there's not as long as there's not a recorded vote. We have nine technical correction bills
[4:54:09]to consider consistent with the committee practice. Without objection, the committee will consider these nine bills in on Blanc. A hearing none pursuant to notice. to call up HR 4465,
[4:54:18]HR4499, HR4523, HR4584, >> HR5185, HR5182, HR5174, HR5210, and HR5204. The clerk will
[4:54:29]report the bills. >> HR without objection, the bills will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California. I actually chair not recognized himself. These nine bills before us today were
[4:54:41]submitted to the committee by the office of law revision council. The OLRC is a small office in the House of Representatives that is responsible for preparing and publishing the United States code. As Congress passes laws,
[4:54:52]the code needs to be updated to incorporate those new laws and to ensure that references are correct. Providing the maintenance of the code is the responsibility of the judiciary committee and the ORC assist us in doing
[4:55:03]that. The bills before us today make technical editorial corrections to update the code and incorporate laws passed by Congress. These bills do not change the meaning of any law on the books today. Our committee has historically dealt with these bills in a
[4:55:15]bipartisan manner and we will continue to do that. Uh this Congress which traditionally divide these bills equally between the majority and the minority. Uh sometimes like today we have an odd number of bills. Last Congress our
[4:55:26]Democrat colleagues agree to alternate which party receives the extra bill in this situation. We had an extra bill last Congress and pursuant to that agreement the Democrats have the extra bill today. Uh, I want to thank our Democratic
[4:55:37]colleagues, our staff and their staff for working uh with us to advance an uneven number of bills so that the Americans can have an upto-date and accurate code. And I want to thank Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Harris, Mr. Honor, Mr. Ber,
[4:55:48]Mr. Raskin, Mr. Goldman, Mrs. Comm Logger, Miss Crockett, and Mr. Muskitz for sponsoring these bills. I urge all members support the bills. The chair now recognize the ranking member. And >> thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's
[4:55:59]a bipartisan set of non-controversial bills that will keep the US code up to date and accessible to all of our citizens. So, I'm very pleased to support them. I thank the chairman for his leadership and putting all together.
[4:56:10]Currently, consisting of 54 different titles, the US code is a compilation of the vast array of federal laws that we've got organized and co into coherent
[4:56:20]subject areas. As new laws are passed, they get integrated into the code, which is a painstaking process undertaken by the very dedicated professionals in the Office of Law Revision Council. As part
[4:56:31]of the office's efforts to maintain the code, they work to make it more efficient and easier to navigate. This includes correcting technical errors, removing ambiguities, updating statutory
[4:56:42]cross references, and repealing obsolete provisions. The bills we're considering today are a result of this exhaustive process. It's important to note these bills make no change to the meaning or
[4:56:53]effect of any existing laws. They're purely technical in nature and will help ensure the code is authoritative, accurate, and accessible. I want to thank the chairman for continuing this committee's long tradition of
[4:57:03]considering these bills in a completely bipartisan manner. And I want to thank the sponsors of each bill for bringing them forward. I urge everybody to support the legislation. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. >> Chairman, without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in
[4:57:14]the record. There is an ANS uh for one of the bills today. Um, after Mr. Harris introduced HR4499, the OLRC notified us that they needed to
[4:57:26]make a couple of corrections. So, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to offer that amendment. >> Chairman, I have an amendment to the desk. >> Report. >> Amendment in the nature of >> objection. The amendment will be considered as red will be considered as base text for purposes of the amendment.
[4:57:38]The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to explain the amendment. >> Chairman, the explanation you gave is more than sufficient. uh they found a further uh need for a revision after it
[4:57:49]was delivered to us, delivered it to us and we are now implementing it and I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. The question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR4499. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the
[4:57:59]bills. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in nature of a substitute is adopted. The questions on favorably reporting the
[4:58:08]bills in the case of HR 4499 is amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it and the bills are ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will
[4:58:19]have two days to submit views. Without objection, HR4499 will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical
[4:58:28]and conforming changes to the bills. We will now go back to Mr. Hunt's legislation. >> Uh the chair recognizes a gentleman from
[4:58:44]Texas. >> Oh, pursuing to notice I call up first HR 3592, the protected LG act of 2025 purpose of markup and the move that the committee report in favor to the House. The clerk will report the bill >> HR 35.
[4:58:55]>> Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Now, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt, for an opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the energy congressman of the world, from Houston,
[4:59:06]Texas, I have traveled the entire country visiting energy assets all across America. From the Peran Basin to the Marcelo Shell, from the Gulf of America to the beautiful state of Iowa. Throughout my travels, I've heard time
[4:59:17]and time again about the incredible opportunities America's energy industry provides. I don't just mean air conditioning during the summer months in the hot Houston heat. The oil and gas en
[4:59:28]the oil and gas and energy industry and our great nation provides more than just energy. provides opportunity. Opportunity for those who deserve a second chance at life. Opportunity for
[4:59:38]those who couldn't afford a college degree. Opportunities for communities that have been left behind by Washington DC. The energy industry in America provides millions of Americans with
[4:59:48]employment who contribute to our great nation. However, since my time in Congress, I've come to realize that the climate cartel and radical environmental groups will sue any and all energy
[4:59:59]projects so just so they could stifle the opportunities that I just mentioned. That's why my legislation, the Protect LG Act, is so important. The Protect LG Act, aims to limit frivolous litigation
[5:00:10]that attempts to stop America from producing the cleanest, most abundant, and safest energy on planet Earth. My home state of Texas is the leading exporter of US LNG and the radical left
[5:00:21]has targeted it for extinction. Never and not on my watch. So, this legislation does three things. It clarifies lawsuits that will be heard
[5:00:31]by federal judges where LG facilities are located. It prevents activist groups from filing lawsuits more than 90 days after the project is permitted. and it
[5:00:41]mandates the federal court's uh grant expedited decisions for LGUh facility lawsuits. The United States LG industry has the power to lift the world out of
[5:00:52]poverty while providing tens of thousands of jobs to my fellow Americans and also my home state in Texas. US LG happens to be the fastest and cleanest LG found anywhere in the world. The
[5:01:03]Protect LG Act is necessary to ensure that companies no longer face frivolous lawsuits that stifle and prohibit newly permitted projects. I'd like to thank Chairman Jordan and Cong and and
[5:01:14]Congressman Isa for joining me in this very important effort. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the remaind of my time and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you.
[5:01:25]>> The ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I oppose the legislation which exempts one kind of fuel, liqufied natural gas, LNG, from
[5:01:36]key laws that govern the industry to protect the public health and safety and to ensure that the American people have a say in matters that affect their own
[5:01:46]properties and community. LG is a fuel that is dirtier and more carbon intensive than coal and is most often derived from fracking. Texas Republicans, who are the main supporters of the bill, are so eager to protect the
[5:01:57]fossil fuel industry, they now want to exempt the approval of permits for LG terminals and LG export authorizations from the general laws that Congress has
[5:02:07]passed and from all judicial review, even if a court finds that the agency broke the law to issue a new LG permit, this bill blocks the court from vacating
[5:02:17]the permit and requires that the matter be remanded to the very agency that broke the law in the first place. Approvals of new fracking fuel export sites are subject to a range of laws
[5:02:29]including the administrative procedure act, the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and the Natural Gas Act. Collectively, they require that the environmental and health consequences of
[5:02:40]new or modified sites must be taken into consideration to ensure that the export sites do not threaten the people's health or endanger community safety and
[5:02:51]also provide the American people with the right to comment on and challenge site approvals in court. Under these laws, everyone who's affected by a new site can obtain justice if they're
[5:03:02]harmed. and our courts have the right to review and if necessary require corrections before permits are issued and projects begin.
[5:03:11]This bill, the Protect LG Act, would silence the public and limit our courts, stifling proper participation in the process. It would undermine the critical
[5:03:22]safety bills Congress passed that protect our health, our environment, our communities. It would funnel all appeals regarding the export of LG fuel or the
[5:03:32]creation, expansion or operation of an LG fracking facility through the jurisdiction where a facility is or would be located. As a practical matter, this would direct most cases through the
[5:03:44]extremely conservative mega judge packed fifth circuit. But even those judges won't have the ability to reverse relevant fuel export site deci decisions. Instead, the manner the
[5:03:55]matter would have to be remanded to the agency. In other words, the bill makes it harder to hold big fossil fuel companies to account when their projects threaten to pollute groundwater,
[5:04:06]destroys wetlands, degrade air quality, emit chemicals that cause cancer, harms wildlife, or endangers Gulf Coast fisheries. Republicans want to exempt
[5:04:17]this one type of fuel from the environmental laws Congress has pack has passed to protect against precisely these kinds of harms. Why is LG so
[5:04:27]special? We lead the world in the export of this fracking fuel and there's no danger of us losing our edge. This fuel is not cleaner, safer, or more special in any way that should merit its
[5:04:38]extremely special and prized status and treatment under this bill. Earlier this year, my Republican colleagues passed the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, a bill to ensure judges interpret
[5:04:48]the law without any deference to agency interpretations. This generally has been the majority's approach, arguing often and always that we cannot trust the
[5:04:59]expert civil servants in our federal agencies, that instead we should leave key matters of legal interpretation to judges, people in the judicial branch. But today, the majority wants to advance
[5:05:10]a bill that strips federal judges of their power over agency decisions about LG permits and instead vests it all with the agency, effectively giving one
[5:05:21]agency discretion that was just overturned by the Supreme Court in the loperbrite decision that my colleagues and I have praised. There is no reason
[5:05:32]to exempt this one dirty carbonintensive fuel from our laws and from our courts and from ordinary process. My colleagues who support this legislation want to
[5:05:42]accept LG, a fuel derived from fracking, from our laws and our courts. And they are making it clear that they privilege the success of this one industry over the health of the people in your
[5:05:53]community. Under current law, communities where a fracking export facility is located have a legal right to challenge polluters in court. But Republicans seem to want to close the courtroom door to these challenges and
[5:06:04]any others. As one Louisiana resident noted, "I can't go in my backyard and plant a garden because the soil is so polluted today. Republicans want to make sure those harms are unheard and
[5:06:15]unlitigated and that an agency can approve the sites they want without any oversight or participation or push back from the public. A vote for this bill is a vote for the fossil fuel companies and
[5:06:26]billionaires who will benefit from this striking exemption. This bill is an abdication of our general obligation to protect our constituents across the country. Under the bill, um, our
[5:06:38]response to a finding of serious environmental flaws is to leave the permanent in force and not freeze a given project. This will undermine our environmental laws, weaken public health
[5:06:48]protections, and seed power to the industry itself. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this effort to exempt LG from our laws, from the oversight of the courts, and from the
[5:06:59]public. And uh, we also would like to introduce Mr. Nabler's opening. If that's okay, Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you. >> Unanimous consent to enter representative Nat statement in the record without objection. Uh the the
[5:07:11]ranking member yields back. Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> The chairman have an amendment at the desk. >> Report the amendment. >> Amendment in the nature. >> Without objection, the amendment in the
[5:07:22]nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base texts. Uh will be base texts for the purposes of amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas to explain the amendment.
[5:07:33]>> Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes quote of 2025 from the title of the bill. This change is not intended in any way to alter the important part of this bill. Uh I urge my support for my colleagues and please accept my
[5:07:44]amendment. I yield back the rest of my time. >> Gentleman yields back. >> Anyone anyone wish to speak? Question. Gentleman from uh Arizona is recognized. >> I have an amendment at the desk.
[5:07:56]>> Gentleman has an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report >> amendment to the amendment in the >> objection. The amendment be considered as read. Gentleman is recognized from Arizona to explain his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'll
[5:08:07]explain my amendment by saying thank goodness for the underlying bill. Thank goodness for that. You know what? Natural gas has been proven to be
[5:08:17]cleaner. It's cheaper and it will benefit consumers all over this country regardless of their income or demographic.
[5:08:28]Thank God for that. Thank you. So, my amendment uh basically says all the people that are going to come file the lawsuits, because they're going
[5:08:40]to come file the lawsuits, you know, they are. It simply prohibits plaintiffs from being awarded attorneys fees under the proceedings covered by the bill. This amendment dissuades activist plaintiffs from filing frivolous suits
[5:08:52]or petitions to stop the operation of already approved facilities. Already approved facilities. That's where they want to come in. They want to come in. They've already been approved and they're going to sue.
[5:09:03]That's that's what happens here. And they hope to settle. And so we simply say on you. No, you don't. I urge adoption of the amendment and I yield back.
[5:09:14]>> Gentleman yields back. >> Um question. >> Oh, sorry. >> I was going to go to the amendment unless you want is who? >> Yeah. But I was just going to say one thing about the amendment. Gentleman's >> recognized. Well, we oppose it strongly.
[5:09:25]I mean, if you want to uh overturn the uh Administrative Procedure Act, the NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Natural Gas Act, fine, go ahead
[5:09:35]and do it. But all of those are laws that have been passed by Congress that have been working to make sure that the people can be heard. So, our communities are not polluted by people who take the money and run. So, we've got the
[5:09:47]opportunity to sue if they're violating the law. Now you want to strip away uh their ability to find lawyers by saying that lawyers can't get paid. I mean it's
[5:09:56]ridiculous. So we strongly oppose that and uh you know I I take it there are people who would like to reverse all of our environmental laws. Then they should just go ahead and do it but we should
[5:10:08]certainly not do it by the back door simply by saying we're not going to allow anybody to find a lawyer. So we oppose it strongly. >> Question occurs. Question occurs. Gentle lady from California is recognized to
[5:10:19]speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I, you know, I don't support this amendment at all and I don't support the underlying bill. No, thank God for the underlying bill. This
[5:10:29]I feel like this is like national make this country less healthy and safe day based on these bills that we've been
[5:10:38]considering in committee today. We're basically saying it's okay to have more and more bad guns on the streets.
[5:10:48]Um, making our communities less safe and making law enforcement less safe, making them work harder with less money. That's what the last bill was about. And now
[5:10:58]this bill, this is not about healthy, thriving communities. communities are already struggling because we cut, you know, Medicare and we're going to be closing down
[5:11:10]hospitals and community clinics. And now you're saying that communities who are struggling because they might be in the
[5:11:18]proximity of oil fields or, you know, um will have less opportunity to fight for their own safety and health.
[5:11:29]You know, my district has the Englewood oil fields. It is the largest urban oil field in the country. And my district has something called cancer
[5:11:40]alley where a disproportionate number of constituents, two-legged and four-legged, okay, pets
[5:11:50]and people dying from cancer at alarming rates. And we have stud have had studies up the wazoo
[5:12:00]because it's not just crazy activists complaining about oil. It's about people dying from cancer. And earlier this year, you all cut
[5:12:10]funding for cancer research. So folks going to be dying all kind of ways because they continue to get shot and you don't want ATF to regulate and make sure that bad guns aren't off the street. they're going to continue to go
[5:12:22]to hospitals because uh they have to go to emergency rooms and urgent care because they don't have health care. And now you're saying, "Well, get cancer. Stop the research and just make it more
[5:12:34]difficult for you to sue and get what's rightfully yours and maybe stop bad actors from continuing to pollute communities."
[5:12:44]How about that? I can't tell you how many town halls I have had in my district where grandparents have talked about having to
[5:12:56]put metal stints in their grandchildren's bodies because they're having a hard time breathing or because they got asthma at
[5:13:05]a young age and cancer. So, I know there's so much politics and
[5:13:13]performance and propaganda all up in these committees, but at some point, we just have to face
[5:13:24]real facts. And it's like, I cannot believe we are talking about a bill that's saying if you know, if you want to sue because people are putting toxins in your community, we're going to make it more difficult for you to do that.
[5:13:35]And you know, we actually do live in a country where sometimes the only way you can get something is to sue to make people pay so that maybe they'll think
[5:13:45]again before they do something bad. I mean, that's what even all the stuff is about Epstein. Like just like fight and make people hold people accountable
[5:13:57]so people will think twice before they do something bad. So, you know, yeah, we're not making communities healthy. We're not helping
[5:14:08]them get more jobs. We're tying people's hands who already feel like the government is out to get them. I mean, and this committee passes so many bills
[5:14:19]that says we want the government to do less. Hey people, you're on your own. It's like we're telling the American people, well, I'm not, but it's like people in this committee are telling the
[5:14:29]American people, screw you. And it's the ones that need our help and protection and due process the most.
[5:14:39]It's the halves and the have nots. And this is about just giving so much more to the powerful. So, I just have to oppose this on behalf of all the
[5:14:49]constituents in my district and South LA and Culver City who've been fighting against the Englewood oil fields who are like we deserve the right to sue to try to make sure that our community is safer
[5:15:00]and healthier. I would ask that you vote no on this and on the underlying bill. And with that, I yield my time. >> Gentle lady yields back. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the
[5:15:12]gentleman from Arizona. All those in favor say I. I those opposed no opinion of the chairs the eyes have it question now occurs on the
[5:15:23]>> can we have a recorded vote if we could >> recorded votes requested on the amendment from the gentleman from Arizona the clerk will call the role >> Mr. Jordan >> yes >> Mr. Jordan votes yes Mr. Isa
[5:15:34]>> Mr. Isa votes I Mr. Biggs >> Mr. Biggs votes I Mr. McCcleintok Mr. Mcccleinto votes I Mr. Tiffany Mr. Massie
[5:15:44]Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden,
[5:15:54]Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kylie,
[5:16:04]Miss Hagaman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt. >> Yes, >> Mr. Hunt. That's Yes. Mr. Fry.
[5:16:15]>> Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman. >> Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Knot. >> Mr. Not votes I. Mr. Harris.
[5:16:24]>> Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander. >> Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gil. >> Mr. Bumgardner.
[5:16:35]>> Mr. Bombgardner votes I. Mr. Rascin. >> Uh, no. >> Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Miss Lofrren, Mr. Cohen,
[5:16:46]Mr. Johnson, Mr. Swallwell, Mr. Lou, Miss Gipol, Miss Gipol votes no. Mr.
[5:16:55]Korea, Mr. Ka votes no. Miss Scandlin, Miss Gandlin votes no. Mr. Negus, Miss McBath, Miss Ross, >> no.
[5:17:05]>> Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballot. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camelager Dove. Miss Camelager Dove votes no. Mr. Mosquitz.
[5:17:16]>> Mr. Goldman. Miss Crockett. >> Mr. Andre, you're not recorded. >> Mr. Her votes I.
[5:17:27]Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Gooden votes yes. I got
[5:18:02]>> clerk report. >> Mr. Chairman, there are 13 eyes and eight nos. >> The amendment is adopted. Question now occurs on the um
[5:18:14]>> the amended amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed me by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. >> Opinion of the chair the eyes have it. The amendment in the nature of the
[5:18:25]amended amendment nature of substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor will say I. I. Those opposed no. >> No. >> The eyes have it and the bill is ordered
[5:18:35]to be reported favorably to the house. Could we have a recorded vote? Recorded vote being requested. Uh, clerk will call the role. >> Mr. Jordan, >> yes. >> Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa.
[5:18:45]>> Mr. Isa votes I. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie,
[5:18:57]Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klene, Mr. Gooden,
[5:19:07]Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Kylie,
[5:19:16]>> Mr. Kylie votes I. Miss Haggamman, Miss Lee, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Hunt votes I. Mr. Fry,
[5:19:26]Mr. Growthman. >> Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Knot, >> Mr. Knots I. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Ander. Mr.
[5:19:38]Herder votes I. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gil. Mr. Bumgardner. Mr. Bombgner votes yes. Mr. Raskin. >> No.
[5:19:49]>> Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nodler. Miss Lofgrren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson.
[5:19:59]Mr. Swallow. Mr. Swallow votes no. Mr. Lou, Miss Gryal, Miss Gry votes no. Mr. Korea,
[5:20:08]>> Mr. Korea votes no. Miss Scandlin, >> Miss Scandlin votes no. Mr. Negus, Miss McBath, Miss Ross, Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballot, >> no.
[5:20:20]>> Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia. >> Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camogard. >> Miss Camogard votes no. Mr. Mosquitz,
[5:20:29]Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett, Mr. Gooden votes I.
[5:20:41]>> Gentleman from Virginia. >> Mr. Klein votes I So good.
[5:21:12]>> Clerk report. >> Mr. Chairman, there are 14 eyes and nine nos. >> The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit
[5:21:23]views. Without objection, the bill will reported as a single amendment in nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and confirming conforming changes. Um I
[5:21:34]think that concludes today's business. The meeting is ajourned.
[5:21:43]Great.