[0:00]recommended recisions. However, the bill before us still rescends $9 billion that President Trump has identified as
[0:10]wasteful and unnecessary spending. Our work in this committee here today as it relates to HR4 is an exercise in
[0:20]restoring fiscal sanity that was robbed from the American people by the previous administration. The money that we're clawing back in
[0:29]this recisions package is the people's money. We ought not to forget that. House Republicans have already detailed
[0:39]to the American people the billions and wasteful spending that we're attacking in this legislation. From surgical precise cuts to waste
[0:51]within foreign aid to halting taxpayer dollars being funneled to the ideologues at PBS and NPR, we're making good on the
[1:01]mandate that Americans gave us. Let me quickly remind everyone that the process we're engaging in is not some sort of flagrant and outlandish anomaly or even
[1:13]a stark deviation from the norm as some may claim. The Congressional Budget and Empowerment Control Act of 1974
[1:23]that Congress set up more than half a century ago allows for this process of enacting recisions of funds to be carried out. This is the same process
[1:35]that has played out in previous Congresses. It's nothing new. Yes, wasteful spending does occur in Washington. The American people know
[1:45]this to be true and they want to see immediate change. Republicans in the people's house are the ones who are orchestrating that change with the
[1:54]recisions package and recisions packages to come. Americans want their tax dollars to be spent prudently and not
[2:03]chucked carelessly at things that do not allow align with their values and their own physical sensibilities. This is not a hard concept to grasp.
[2:15]Republicans understand it quite well. Believe me, it's time that we get the recisions package across the finish line and secure another significant win for
[2:25]the American people. They're looking to us to act. With that, I look forward to today's discussion, and I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make.
[2:36]>> Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And before I go to my opening remarks, I I just have a a question. Um so, uh I've been following the media reports all day
[2:46]today as as we've been awaiting um this meeting today. Um and uh it's been reported that many of the Republicans on the rules committee uh are concerned
[2:57]about the fact um that the Jeffrey Epstein issue is not going away. And we had some reporting earlier that um from
[3:06]Jake Sherman at Punch Bowl that uh uh Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team are discussing discussing offering an Epstein related resolution to try to quell the furer of members of the House
[3:17]rules committee. Uh then there's another report that just came out that says that there may be two bills that are being uh brought before the rules committee. um
[3:27]uh you know, one on the recisions uh uh the rule in the recisions package and then a separate rule on on Epstein, but we weren't noticed about the the the second rule. And so I was wondering if
[3:38]the uh chair could clarify the situation and maybe share with us the uh the language um on the Epstein matter. Um is
[3:48]it binding? Is it not? Is it I mean, so I'd yield to the chair if she could help enlighten us here.
[3:56]Well, as as I I often do, I'm concerned about the framing of your question saying there's a furer among the rules
[4:07]committee members. >> I'm reading from the press. >> From the press. Oh, okay. I I wasn't sure. As I said, I question the press often for the way the press people
[4:18]characterize things. And I I don't know about the fewer among the the um the members of the um committee. We'll have
[4:27]some time uh as the meeting goes on for motions. So we'll be uh dealing with that in later. So, but I guess we we
[4:38]would my request was whether you could share with us the language of I mean we're going to offer a motion and I can tell you right now it's going to be the
[4:48]uh the Kana Massie bill but I I think you know this is a a an important matter um whether the chair would share with us
[4:57]the language so that we would have some understanding of what we're talking about here today. Well, uh, we'll we'll look forward to getting your motion and then we'll respond.
[5:07]>> Yeah. Okay. Well, we're going to require some time to be able to digest whatever it is that um because and and and again, in defense of the reporting that there was a furer. I mean, it is um 6:00 and
[5:19]we thought we would be meeting early this morning. So, clearly uh there's been some angst amongst Republican members of this of this committee. But let me >> Don't don't don't flatter yourself too much. There's not a whole lot of angst over here.
[5:30]>> Yeah. I Well, I Yeah. It's curious that we're meeting at six o'clock. >> We're looking forward to passing the recision package. I can tell you that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, let me let me let me my opening statement here, Madam
[5:42]Chair. Uh I don't what am I even supposed to say at this point? Um the way the rep Republican leadership is running this place is astonishingly bad.
[5:53]Um I mean, the incompetence is stunning. Trump said Republicans would pass a crypto rule in the morning yesterday. But instead, you didn't pass it until
[6:02]midnight. Republicans held the vote open for 9 hours and 45 minutes, the longest vote in history. Nearly 10 hours for
[6:12]what was supposed to be a fiveminute vote. I mean, how many minutes are in five minutes? Uh, is that something Republicans are proud of? Holding a vote
[6:22]open for for 10 hours so you can buy off the most extreme elements of your conference and a nearly 10-hour vote is just the tip of the iceberg this week. Committee me committee meetings notice
[6:34]before you even know what you're meeting about. Then postpone because your leadership is in in some back room making god knows what secret deals. And another failed rule. How many times have
[6:46]we held rules committee hearings only to watch it all crash and burn on the House floor? Six. Six failed rules. Six failed rules under Speaker Mike Johnson alone.
[6:57]And nine since Republicans took the majority. You know how many rules failed when I was chair of this committee? Zero. You know how many rules failed
[7:05]under Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Also zero. I mean, this is aggravating to me because you are wasting our time. You guys are getting your whip counts from live floor
[7:16]votes. That's embarrassing and it's disrespectful to us, to the process, and most of all to the people we represent. There are real crises demanding our attention, and you're wasting time
[7:27]playing petty games and arguing amongst yourselves. Honestly, if you were in the minority and watching this unfold, what would you say? How would you defend this
[7:37]unserious process? And I think we all know the answer. You would say it's embarrassing and you would call us incompetent. And while we talk about your recisions package, please spare us
[7:47]the lectures about cutting spending when this majority just added $4 trillion to the debt so you could give bigger tax breaks to billionaires. The big ugly
[7:57]bill you passed costs $450 times what is being saved with these recisions. You passed your tax breaks for billionaires and now you're pretending to pay for
[8:06]them. That's all this is. This bill slashes funding for public broadcasting. It guts global health programs. It undermines foreign aid, including to
[8:16]Ukraine. Actually, none of you even know what's fully in this. You know, we've seen the top lines, but even Republican senators are warning we won't understand the consequences until the damage is
[8:27]done. Make no mistake, Madam Chair, democracy is messy. But this is not the give and take of messy democracy. This is a dumpster fire. This is a tugof-war
[8:39]between Republican incompetence and Republican extremism. And sadly, no matter which side wins, the American
[8:46]people lose. And finally, finally, earlier this week, Madam Chair, I gave everyone on this committee a chance to go on record about releasing files
[8:57]related to Jeffrey Epstein. It was an up or down, yay or nay vote on a very simple amendment that says the Department of Justice must preserve and release all the files. That's it. And
[9:09]shockingly, all but one of you voted against releasing those files. The speaker put out a statement, and I I got to I got to got to love this. He g put out a statement calling it an an obscure
[9:20]stunt. I I I didn't realize offering amendments was obscure. I'm pretty sure we do that all the time. And when it comes to a stunt, nothing in my amendment would have prevented your
[9:31]crypto bills from moving forward. My amendment simply said that in addition to the crypto bills, we're also going to have a vote on releasing the Epstein files. And if it was such a stunt, why
[9:42]did Mr. Norman, one of the most conservative members of this committee, vote with us? I commend him for doing what was right, especially as President Trump has suddenly decided that this
[9:52]whole thing is a hoax, that the files don't exist and that the pe people who believe this stuff are quote weaklings. But I frankly don't get why the rest of
[10:02]you voted no. Uh why why would anyone vote against releasing files that we've been told by the way by the president, by your attorney general, by the direct
[10:12]by your director of the FBI, by his deputy director. Uh what we have been told by them that that these files show the identities of those who knew that
[10:23]Jeffrey Epstein was sexually abusing children. So I hope all of you had a chance to consult your constituents and your conscience. And I hope that you will vote with us when I again offer a
[10:33]simple amendment to release the files because either one of two things is true. Either one of two things is true. Either there's nothing here and Trump
[10:43]made all this up and conned you guys into believing it. In that case, you know, why would you vote against releasing files that don't exist or there are files and you guys want to
[10:54]keep them hidden because you're afraid what's in them? Which is it? Which is it? And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. >> Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
[11:06]>> Madam Chair, >> Mr. Scott, you're >> I would just like to say I look forward to an honest, not a political debate on the issue of the Epstein files. But when you include look at the definition of
[11:17]all the files, all the files would include a list of the victims of the Epstein crimes. Yeah. >> And so I look forward to the debate.
[11:26]Now, now you had your time. You put you put you put legislation in. >> You can't censor me, Mr. >> You put you put legislation in at 3:56 when the rules committee meets at 4 and
[11:36]we were already in this room when you signed it and put it in. It was a political stunt. That's all it was. And we're going to give you a solution to it. >> And if you re and if you and if you read the amendment, Mr. Scott, you would
[11:48]realize that there were exceptions to protect the victims of these crimes. And you and by the way, our our language has been out. >> No, there are not. There are not. in the Massie in the Massie counter bill. There are
[11:59]>> That is not what you offered. That is not what you offered. You said all the files and we have a responsibility to protect the victim and we know where you are. >> Yeah, we know where you are, Mr. >> You're the party of child victims.
[12:09]That's why you open the border. That's why you open the border. How many children got raped coming across that border because of what the Democratic party did? >> People voted to cover up the facts. Okay,
[12:20]we have a hearing here and we're going to follow our regular order. Thank you very much. >> If you It It would be better, Mr.
[12:37]Norman, if we just moved on and we came to you during the questioning. >> Would you indulge me? Would you indulge
[12:47]me? Thank you, Mr. Norman. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Without objection, any prepared statements our witnesses may have will be included in
[12:58]the record. I now welcome our only panel, Representative Diaz Bellard and Ranking Member Deloro from the Committee
[13:08]on Appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Diaz Bolard, I welcome your testimony.
[13:19]>> Madame Chowan, uh, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee. It's also a privilege to be uh with the ranking member of the full appropriation committee who I have the greatest uh
[13:30]respect for. U I know you all have had long days and nights. That's what the rule committee does. Rules committee does. I will I will try to be very very brief. Madam Chairwoman, uh again, thank
[13:41]you for this opportunity. I I appear before you today to testify on the Senate amendment HR4, which is the recision act of 2025. The recession package, Madam Chair, one
[13:53]before us today, is a really important step towards greater fiscal responsibility and accountability and and and prudently realign uh starts a process of prudently uh
[14:04]realigning our national security priorities. The Senate Senate amendment to HR4 would resend $9 billion
[14:15]precisely as you mentioned, Madam Chairwoman, uh including funding for the United Nations, climate change programs, economic and development assistance, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
[14:27]In addition, uh, distinguished members, the proposal protects, I want to repeat that the proposal protects existing vital programs while also, as I
[14:38]mentioned at the beginning, refocusing programs really to their core functions, their designated core functions, including things like life-saving work,
[14:48]uh, protection of American national security, the advancement of American values, and prioritization
[14:57]and the return on investment to the pack to the American taxpayer. There's no question as you all know that u federal government spends way too much
[15:09]and this is again one more effort to re in spending but doing so madam chairwoman responsibly thoughtfully. Uh I look forward uh to any questions in
[15:20]the conversation and again I know you've all had as the rules committee always does long long days and nights. So with that uh I look forward to the questions and I will yield back. Thank you.
[15:32]>> Thank you Mr. Diaz Bolard. Ranking member Delora you're recognized. Thank you so much um uh Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern, members of the
[15:42]committee and it is a really a pleasure for me to uh be on this panel with my appropriation colleague Mr. Diaz Bolard in addition to being a colleague. He's a
[15:53]friend uh and uh we've worked together uh on on many many issues over the years. Uh, as in June, I remain strongly
[16:02]opposed to this recision bill, which is a rubber stamp on the Trump administration's stealing from the American people. Since taking office, the Trump administration has stolen
[16:14]funds appropriated by Congress. passed by Republicans and Democrats in the House and in the Senate and signed
[16:24]into law by the president, the law of the land. Appropriations bills are not a suggestion, the laws of the land. And
[16:33]this upends the separation of powers and our constitutional order. Article one, section 9, clause 7. Office
[16:44]of Management and Budget Director Russ Vote, the architect of the administration's efforts to subvert our power of the purse, has made it clear that he wants to end our appropriations
[16:56]process as we know it. According to Politico, and this was an article uh uh uh today, um uh and this
[17:05]is a quote. Vote said he's looking to change the paradigm of the way appropriations has worked. End quote.
[17:15]The article continues and I quote again when specifically asked if he would reassure Democratic appropriators that the White House would abide by
[17:24]bipartisan spending agreements or commit to not using recisions on future appropriations bills. He simply said he
[17:33]would not. End quote. We are on a dangerous and destructive path to degrade and usurp the authority and the prerogatives of the Congress and the
[17:44]appropriations committee. I'm afraid we are moving closer and closer to a paradigm, Mr. Vot's paradigm, where the
[17:53]bipartisan appropriations process is completely irrelevant. I underscore bipartisan. This is the only piece of legislation.
[18:04]The appropriations bills are the only pieces of legislation where you must have Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, agree before it can go to
[18:15]the president for a signature. If that conclusion cannot occur, the government shuts down. So he wants to make the process irrelevant where continuing
[18:26]resolutions, reconciliation and recisions are where governing happens. The appropriations committee is one of
[18:36]the last places in Congress where bipartisan bipartisans happens on the appropriations committee and which we're
[18:47]proud of it. This bill will shut down rural television and radio stations, cutting off coverage of local news, eliminating emergency information like severe
[18:58]weather alerts, jeopardizing access to PBS Kids Children's programming, Sesame Street, Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood. The bill rips life-saving support away from
[19:09]hungry, displaced, and sick people in developing countries and conflict zones and to end programs that prevent conflict and pandemics. The bill abandons the people of Ukraine while
[19:21]they resist Putin's tyranny. The bill puts America last. When we retreat from the world diplomatically and through our assistance to vulnerable people, America
[19:31]will be alone without allies in a less stable world without the support of the international community. And do you know who will come out ahead? China, Russia,
[19:42]Iran. Just yesterday in the Washington Post, retired Navy Admiral William McCraven,
[19:50]Navy Seal, uh, fourstar Admiral, warned that cutting the State Department and USAD will put every American at risk. By
[20:01]the way, he's the the the admiral who led the effort to to capture Saddam Hussein. He said, and this is his quote, and this is I' I've I've got his article
[20:13]right here from from from the Post. I I I've just have people read it. He says, "This is no time to weaken any element
[20:23]of America's power, the dismissal of highly trained diplomats at the State Department, and the dismantling of US aid will jeopardize national security
[20:33]and make the military's job more difficult." Our nation's security has never depended on military strength alone. Rather, it relies on
[20:44]collaboration with a strong foreign service and diplomatic core. End quote. This bill inexplicively carves out the
[20:53]countering PRC influence fund, which also while also cutting $500 million in disaster assistance. When people in need
[21:03]see supplies coming through and say quote USA, that shows the power of the United States. That will be traded for food aid from China. This is already
[21:15]happening when Burma experienced a devastating earthquake earlier this spring. Instead of the US being first on the scene, China surged to help. The aid that went to people in need was marked
[21:26]as China aid instead of quote from the American people end quote. All of this is being done in the name of combating waste. I will tell you what is waste.
[21:37]500 tons of food grown by American farmers destroyed at a cost of $130,000
[21:46]to American taxpayers because the chaos caused by the dismantling of US ID left it to expire. The same thing is happening to family planning and HIV
[21:58]prevention supplies. This is a bill to help Republicans claim they are practicing fiscal responsibility while concealing that what they are doing is
[22:08]ripping away health insurance from at least 17 million Americans in order to make billionaires more rich, increases our debt by three over almost $4
[22:18]trillion. It codifies the right of the Trump administration to steal from rural and vulnerable American communities, children, and the global poor for the
[22:28]sake of handing more money to billionaires. Congress needs to reassert its role and its fight for the middle class, for the working class, and the vulnerable, not protect the interests of
[22:39]billionaires and big corporations. strongly oppose this bill which forfeits our global leadership, undermines our national security, and steals from the American people. Thank you, and I yield
[22:50]back. >> Thank you, Miss Deloro. Mr. Fishbach, you're recognized for any
[23:01]questions you may have. >> And thank you, Madam Chair. And I I won't belver the point. I just I appreciate that we are uh taking up the recisions bill. Um I think it's
[23:13]important that we move it forward. We are we are talking about saving money and and I recognize that there'll be a different opinion on the other side, but this is necessary when we look forward
[23:24]and we are in the kind of debt we are in. We need to do this and so I appreciate you bringing the bill forward and I am happy to support it and I yield back.
[23:34]>> Thank you, Miss Fishbot. Mr. You're recognized. >> Madam Chair, before I get to my questions, let me let me just say one other thing on the Epstein issue. Um Mr. Scott raised the issue raised a point
[23:45]that um he didn't get our amendment in advance. Um we'll provide you the amendments we're going to offer today um
[23:54]in advance. So that and um including how it is specifically stated that uh there will be protections for the victims and I think we would appreciate
[24:05]if you would share with us what in fact you're going to do so that we have a chance to be able to digest it. Maybe in fact we we might agree. Um I don't think
[24:16]we'd agree if it's if it's non-binding um because then it's just a glorified press release. Uh but I think we will make that those te the text of our amendments available so you can go
[24:27]through them um you know during this hearing and any questions you have you could then you could then ask them but we would we would appreciate you doing the same to us. Um and with that uh uh
[24:38]let me just say uh the Republican chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Susan Collins she said the following in opposition to this recisions package and I quote she said the recisions package has a big problem.
[24:49]Nobody really knows what program reductions are in it. That isn't because we haven't had the time to review the bill. Instead, the problem is that OM has never provided the details that would normally be part of this process.
[25:00]For example, there are $2.5 billion in cuts to the development assistance account, which covers everything from basic education to water and sanitation
[25:10]to food security. But we don't know how those programs will be affected. End quote. Again, these aren't my words. This is the these are the words of the Republican chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So, Mr.
[25:21]Daspard, I'm I'm I'm puzzled by this. Do you somehow have more information than the entire Republican leadership in the Senate? I mean, do you know what specific programs will be cut in this
[25:32]recision package? Or are you comfortable voting to cut billions of dollars in foreign aid, you know, without knowing the specifics? >> If I may, Mr. Madam Chairwoman, thank
[25:43]you and thank thank you for the question. And so obviously I have the highest respect and admiration for the uh honorable chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. U let me tell
[25:53]you my circumstances. I actually had multiple meetings with uh OM including the head of OM where we discuss these issues uh at length. As a matter of fact
[26:04]u I actually was able to give him different proposals and different alternatives and he took a number of those alternatives. Did he take 100% of those alternatives? No. because you know
[26:15]that people are free to do what they want. But but I will tell you uh do I have a pretty good idea as to uh what this bill does. Of course I do. Um and remember it's very similar to what the
[26:26]House already passed uh and which was you know widely discussed. Now let's also put another thing and put in perspective as the the honorable
[26:37]chairwoman mentioned and I did too in my short opening statement. We're talking about $9 billion. Mhm. >> Um while 9 million billion dollars is a is a substantial chunk of change,
[26:48]there's a heck of a lot of money left over. And to reassure you, um this week, we passed the um subcommittee
[26:59]legislation that funds all of these issues, foreign aid, foreign policy, etc. out of subcommittee. We're already in that process. Uh I I wish I could
[27:09]tell you that I specifically know when we'll go to full committee, but I expect to do that soon. So that process has already started and that process is ongoing. Uh and uh it's a deliberative
[27:21]process. Um and I I I think you can expect Mr. McGovern as as I've done already and we're going to continue to do, we're going to look through uh with
[27:31]a very sharp pencil putting that bill together. this recision package is $9 billion. Uh and there are a lot of different areas and if you want to speak about
[27:42]some specific areas. >> I I just like for example I mean I I asked the question that um Chairwoman Collins asked. There are $2.5 billion in cuts to the development assistance account which covers everything from
[27:54]basic education to water sanitation to food security. But we don't know how these programs will be affected. So So is that $2.5 billion coming out of basic education? Is it coming out of water and
[28:04]sanitation? Is it coming out of food security? I mean, I I'm just looking for the like like where where's this where's it coming from? I mean, the bill also includes
[28:15]$500 million in cuts to global health programs where where what specific programs are being cut um under what global program? Yeah, go ahead.
[28:26]>> And and I think it's a valid question. So, uh, in fiscal year 25, uh, the development assistant program was $3.9 billion. >> Uh, the recession package proposes,
[28:37]well, yeah, proposes to pull back $2.5 billion, as you just mentioned. So I I don't think it's a secret that the Biden administration unfortunately didn't
[28:48]spare this area either uh in promoting frankly wasteful radical uh controversial items in this area as
[28:58]well. Uh so I would tell you that the the Trump administration wisely in my opinion paused everything and undertook a careful review something that I think
[29:07]was merited. Um and so Mr. government. This actually caused a pipeline of funding to build up. This account was often used to support climate change uh
[29:18]programs under the guise of development programs which is something that the American people I think don't support. So prior year balances can be used to
[29:28]support development programs that are in the national interest. Um, and so again, I would argue that there is adequate funding to do what we need to do once we
[29:39]stop doing the things that were wasteful, that were controversial, and that actually in many cases hurt our national security. >> Is there is there a list somewhere? Because I mean, nothing in your recisions bill says anything about, you
[29:50]know, you know, the the specifics. I mean, if if you really wanted to cut those programs, wouldn't you specifically say that in your bill that I want to cut, you know, this line this line item and this this particular
[30:02]program? Um, you know, um, you know, I I mean, you know, I I will tell you, I I will agree with my colleagues here that there were some Biden era programs that were not the most efficient use of federal
[30:14]dollars and we should go back and we should maybe re-evaluate them. And I'd be happy to work with my Republican colleagues on on those items, but that's not what we're talking about here. I mean, this recisions bill would pull
[30:25]back unobligated funds, funds that have not yet been spent on any specific contract or program. Um, and Trump is now president, not Biden. I I don't
[30:34]think my you're accusing maybe you are accusing the Trump administration of funding woke and wasteful programs. But here's the fundamental truth. Um because Republicans have issues with a few
[30:46]extremely small grants. They want to rip away global health programs and cut funding for public radio stations that tell Americans when there has been an earthquake like the 7.3 magnitude quake
[30:58]that just hit Alaska. Um you know and for all of our districts uh that have been hit by devastating natural disasters or are currently going through one. Let's not miss the forest um you
[31:08]know uh for the trees. I mean ranking member Dora let me ask you the same question. Do you know what specific programs are going to be cut here in this recision package? Because I sure as hell don't know. Yeah,
[31:19]>> I don't I haven't been given a list. >> Yeah. No, I I think you put your your finger on what the issue is. And look, I have the greatest respect. I worked very very closely with Senator Collins,
[31:29]Senator uh Murray as as well as uh with with with Chairman Cole. But I think Senator Collins, you know, question is
[31:38]was was appropriate. We don't know how those programs will be affected. So on the development assistance uh uh side uh
[31:48]this is really the office of management and budget really has failed uh in a spectacular fashion uh to complete the most basic function. It cannot justify
[32:00]this resision's of proposal. no concrete details to inform either chamber, House or Senate, about what they would choose to cut with the broad authority to
[32:11]devastate investments uh that are in this bill. um they're not telling us what they will cut because they're going
[32:19]to cut what they want when they want and they do not think that you or me or ranking member Diaz Bolard or Chairwoman
[32:29]Fox or anybody in the House and Senate uh are the people that we we represent deserve to know what is going on. It's my understanding and I saw too in the in
[32:39]the dialogue about this is Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota said that even uh though he initially opposed the bill, he would support it because he got assurances
[32:51]from the Trump administration they would quote find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated but not a shredded detail. Now, when I when I talk about
[33:02]the public broadcasting side, I can talk about specifics because they cut all of the federal funds, all of the federal
[33:11]funds. By statute, 70% of federal funds for public media are awarded directly to locallyowned public television stations and public radio stations. So, in other
[33:22]words, approximately 700 million uh $750 million of the funds being rescended will come from eliminating small grants
[33:32]to local stations and rescending the funds. We've talked about I I I I think the best thing said about rescending the funds, which what um Senator Macowski
[33:43]said, this was the threat to public safety and emergency alerts. 7.3, you mentioned it. um of uh Mr. McGovern 7.3 magnitude earthquake off the coast of
[33:54]Alaska. She noted she noted that it was public broadcasting stations that relayed tsunami warnings that enabled local residents and summer tourists to
[34:05]evacuate to safe locations. So if you look at public broadcasting, they've cut everything. We haven't got a clue of what they are going to do on the uh development assistance side. So I guess
[34:15]the answer to my question is that we don't have the specifics. >> No. >> Um and and that really is troublesome to me just as a member of the House of Representatives as member of Congress is
[34:27]because I mean that's what we do and Mr. Dbell, I I don't agree with you on everything, but there's lots of stuff we do have common ground on. Um and you know we fight to get funding in to bills to make sure that some of these
[34:38]priorities are are adequately uh resourced. Um, but I think that's the way it's supposed to. I think I think Congress should have a role in all of this. And it seems like we're just kind
[34:49]of handing over all these decisions to the administration. And I and my last question, do you know anything about this special sweetheart deal that South Dakota got the I'm calling it the
[35:00]prairie payoff. You know what? Senator Rounds got to vote for the I mean I mean I I mean these little deals that are being made that I think we're going to
[35:10]find out, you know, in a week or two or three weeks and we're all going to be kind of shocked that these deals were made. Look, Senator Tom Tillis said, and I quote, I suspect we're going to find out that there are some things that
[35:22]we're going to regret. End quote. Roger Wicker again another Republican quote say in this situation there's a specific amount stated that will be rescended but this Congress will not be allowed to
[35:32]choose those specific cuts. This that will be done by somebody in the office of management and budget in the White House and in this situation it will amount to the House and Senate basically saying we concede that decision
[35:44]voluntarily to the executive branch end quote. And you know, I I I just I I don't think whether it's a Democrat in the White House or Republican, that we
[35:54]should blindly trust any administration on these matters. I mean, we have a role here in the House. And um and I think we're we're forfeiting that role. Um and um anyway, I don't want to belabor the
[36:05]point, but I don't think any of us know what the hell is going to happen. Miss Dolor, you want to add one thing? >> Well, I I I I just want to say I I think you've made a very strong point. I I I I
[36:15]just go back to the you know to the congressional power and the power of the purse that has been
[36:26]abdicated here in both the house and in the senate and that is to Mr. votes.
[36:36]That's what he wants to do. As I said, he is looking to this new what he calls a new paradigm and that what we've had for
[36:47]really the history here the the kind of it is a bipartisan appropriations process and I will fight for a bipartisan appropriations process but he
[36:58]wants to make that irrelevant. So he wants to rule by continuing resolution, reconciliation, recisions and that's how he sees this this this all is all
[37:09]happening and I I will tell you to anyone and I don't know what commitments he made to you um my colleague Mr. Diaz Bolard or the what he made to Mr. Rounds but
[37:20]flat out you can't really trust him. He said he lied about PEPFire decisions previously in the in legislation. Um he made this promise to the South South Dakota
[37:30]Who knows? Uh he makes promises that he can't keep. I only know what what what he wants is that uh uh he wants to eviscerate the appropriations process.
[37:41]Uh and he wants to concentrate that power of spending when he wants what he wants in the power of OM. I will just say that you if Shelanda Young had done
[37:52]this, my god, what an outcry there would be about what was happening here. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Norman, you're recognized. I want to
[38:03]>> thank both of you for taking time to come out. Let me just say, you know, the American people are excited about these cuts, the recisions. Um, you know, Mr.
[38:12]Governor, it's up to you to propose your cuts. I never saw anything during the Biden administration that you proposed at any level uh other than more government, more and more government. and the American people
[38:23]>> defense cuts >> n$9 billion dollars of them >> that uh I wish were far greater. Hopefully in the next recision package we will double that amount and what Elon Musk has done is is to to reveal to the
[38:35]taxpayers where their money is going. I can name a list of them uh name starting with the 135 million to the World Health Organization gone.
[38:45]158 million to the Lebanese peacekeeping mission gone. Three million for the Iraqi Sesame Street, gone. Six million
[38:54]for net zero cities in Mexico, gone. This is just a list. You can parse any one of them and object to them, but I've never seen you'll you'll spend other
[39:04]people's money, but you won't uh you won't give the money back to to the taxpayers and the economy. MCGover, you know, it's so rude for you to interrupt.
[39:14]This is my time. I don't interrupt I don't interrupt you and you it's not your time. You you you know you and Jerry Nadler uh you know you've never seen anybody that you don't want to
[39:25]interrupt. It's so it's it's not only can you not understand when two people are talking. I didn't inter I've never interrupted you one time and you need to get some manners to you. But all I will
[39:36]say is that that what we're doing what this president is doing is making this country over again. The economy is showing it. Uh would you like to say anything?
[39:46]>> Thank you, Mr. Norman. I I just just an observation. Look, and and and if it sounds like uh uh my colleague appropriator, Democrat appropriator and
[39:57]I have disagreements. We do. But yet we have a great relationship. We do. And so we do have serious disagreements. I I
[40:05]however have zero doubt of her fierce uh uh trying to protect right the power of the purse and and and there there we
[40:15]agree and so but but Mr. Norman, just I may be wrong, but but uh this recision, yes, is to spend a little bit less money, which I think is a good thing.
[40:26]And by the way, this is a process that's in law. This a so so when when one may complain about, you know, the process, this is a
[40:37]process that's established in law. I I don't know, and I and I may be wrong. Um I don't remember the outrage when for
[40:46]example a Democratic president decided to spend money now spend money that was neither authorized
[40:57]nor appropriated and then by the way when the Supreme Court of the United States said that's unconstitutional
[41:06]he kept doing it anyways. Now again I want to be respectful. I may be wrong because you all are here all the time and you all discuss these things. So
[41:15]from what I'm hearing uh I I it must be that all of you agreed during that moment that when a president spent more
[41:25]money that was neither authorized or appropriated by Congress and then the Supreme Court said hey that's unconstit and he did it anyways. I'm sure that was bipartisan
[41:37]outrage. Of course, it must have been right. But we know it wasn't here. What we're dealing with is 9
[41:48]billion through a legislative legal process. You mentioned some of the issues that are cut. Uh and I just think
[41:57]that this is a responsible, reasonable proposal, which is why I'm respectfully supporting it. And thank you for yielding some of your time, sir.
[42:09]Well, I'd say too that it's a tear drop in the ocean compared to what we owe and where my Democrat friends is just willing to bankrupt this country and spend us into oblivion. We're not. And we're making strides and we're going to
[42:20]make continue to make strides. And I would just what I was going to say earlier, Mr. McGovern keeps mentioning Epstein. Uh, you know, during the four years of the Biden administration, what did we hear from them? They had
[42:30]information them crickets. Nothing. What did they hear on the information they buried on January 6? Crickets. Nothing. So, um, it's a, uh, this is a day of
[42:41]transparency and it's a day that we're going to identify a lot of problems. Overspending is one of them. I look forward to many more executive uh, many more recision cuts, including the pocket decisions. Uh, Mr. Harman,
[42:53]>> Mr. Chairman, I yel back. >> Thank you, Mr. Norman. Miss Scandlin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Chairwoman. And, and we do I think everyone on this side of the aisle
[43:03]wants to thank Mr. Norman for his vote uh earlier this week in favor of releasing the Epstein files because we think this is something that clearly
[43:12]already has some bipartisan support and we think it should move forward on that basis. But we're here primarily about the recisions pract uh recisions package
[43:24]which with this package I think the White House and congressional Republicans have sunk to a new low. We're here in yet another emergency rules committee hearing because the
[43:35]right-wing zealots and project 2025 authors who are calling the shots in this Trump White House find democracy and the rule of law to be inconvenient
[43:47]barriers to their extremist agenda. So instead, they want to rule this country through a combination of fear and make believe emergencies. This time they're trying to cut federal
[43:58]funding for some uniquely impactful programs with broad bipartisan public support, including public radio and television and global healthcare and hunger relief programs. programs that
[44:09]are widely acknowledged as being critical services for local and especially rural American communities and that are important to both our
[44:18]national security and our moral standing in the world particularly with respect to the USAID programs. I hear frequently
[44:28]from constituents who are parts of faith groups including our Catholic charities and colleges, our mainline congregations, our Quaker friends, as
[44:38]well as our local Rotary clubs and other nonprofit groups that they value these programs and believe that they should receive more support, not less. So why are they under attack? Because the
[44:50]Republican party under Trump claims that these important programs which benefit the general public and our national security must be cut in order to reduce
[45:01]the national debt. The hypocrisy is astonishing. Not even two weeks ago, Republicans voted on a strict partyline basis to put the country four to6
[45:13]trillion dollar deeper in debt. Not so they could lower costs for Americans, not so they could improve Americans health and well-being or address the
[45:23]existential threat of climate change, but to give the mega rich a bigger tax cut at the expense of all other Americans. In fact, they ram through
[45:35]their grotesque, big, ugly bill knowing that it will slash health care for millions of Americans, including
[45:45]nursing home residents, children with disabilities, and hardworking lowincome Americans just trying to get ahead. It will end SNAP food assistance for hungry
[45:56]hungry Americans. And it will repeal long overdue environmental protection measures that had already started to reduce energy costs and protect
[46:06]vulnerable communities. And now Republicans want to zero out funding for NPR and PBS and programs that undergur American influence abroad ostensibly in
[46:17]the name of deficit reduction. This recession package is a cruel joke. The pattern is clear. The Trump administration, aided and abetted by congressional Republicans, is gutting
[46:28]services for working Americans, shielding the powerful, and calling it fiscal responsibility. We hear lies about deficit reduction and cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, only to see
[46:40]Trump and the Republicans add trillions to the debt. We hear lies about making the government more efficient and then see Republicans slashfunding for some of the government's most efficient programs
[46:52]while firing and defunding effective government watchd dogs. We hear lies about the actions of prior administrations only to distract from this administration's abuses and
[47:04]coverups. Meanwhile, Republicans are ignoring real areas of waste, fraud, and abuse, whether in the financial and tech sectors at the Pentagon or with big
[47:15]pharma, with the private prison contractors that they're paying to lock up law-abiding members of our communities because going after that fraud, that waste, that abuse would hurt
[47:26]their campaign donors. And then there's the waste and abuse being committed by this administration on a daily basis. Just this week, we learned that the
[47:36]Trump administration is going to destroy a million pounds of international food aid. This is food that was produced and purchased from American farmers with
[47:47]taxpayer dollars, but that has been allowed to rot in warehouses because this administration blocked its distribution and then ignored warnings
[47:58]that it would go to waste. Let this sink in. American taxpayers are going to pay for the purchase and destruction of a million pounds of food that was supposed
[48:09]to feed 1.5 million malnourished children. This isn't just unamerican, it's immoral. It
[48:19]violates every humanitarian norm. So what we get under Trump's Republican party is a mountain of debt, millions losing their healthcare, millions going
[48:29]hungry. And with this bill, millions around the globe losing their lives while here at home, milking legislative agenda that screws over the American people. But when those schemes screw
[48:40]over the wrong Republicans, that Republican senator or member of Congress goes and begs the White House for a sweetheart deal >> to exempt their state or their district
[48:50]from whatever havoc the bill is creating nationwide. This naked influence pedaling and partisanship is an astonishing breach of the principle that
[49:02]Congress and the White House should serve all Americans, not just their partisan allies or donors. If you're Republican cuts are good for my constituents, then they should be good
[49:13]enough for your constituents, too. Now, with the White House, the House, and the Senate under Republican control, the apparent operating theory of government is now to use the power of the federal
[49:24]government to benefit themselves, their friends, and families at the expense of everyone else, at the expense of the nation, and at the expense of our collective future. As we stand on the
[49:36]brink of our nation's 250th anniversary, it is sickening to see the damage to our American constitutional order, which was formed and has always been grounded in
[49:47]fairness and the rule of law. It is a disgrace. And this is a disgrace that our founders sought to prevent. They designed a constitutional system to prevent demagogues from sewing
[49:58]confusion, manipulating public passions, and abusing the rule of law. A separation of powers among the three branches of government is supposed to hold each branch in check. But that
[50:10]recong requires that Congress and specifically the majority of Congress live up to its constitutional duty instead of cowering in fear or acting
[50:21]the fool. And until the House and Senate majorities grow a spine, we are all of us in peril. So, uh, Ranking Member
[50:30]Deloro, the last time a recision measure passed the house I believe was over 30 years ago. >> So it is not something that is part of
[50:39]our normal um order of business. Can you comment at all on this recision package and the specificity or lack thereof and how it might compare to prior recision
[50:50]packages? Well, the the point in fact is as I say the uh OM director Russ vote has designed a system
[51:01]to remove the Congress and the appropriations committee in this aspect uh to
[51:10]eviscerate it so that the power to make a decision of what amount of money will be spent,
[51:19]where it will be spent, spent uh how it will be spent. No matter what the Congress has directed, these are
[51:30]congressional directed dollars and he has has the view that he has the authority to do that. He can't do that.
[51:41]There's no inherent authority to do it. The recision piece of it, yes, is a lawful process under the empowerment control act. And they don't even believe he doesn't believe in the empowerment
[51:53]control act, but this was a way for him to codify the cuts that he would would like to make because it just doesn't
[52:03]like it. How we can um and that that's, you know, not been the case in in in
[52:13]points. Look, I would be opposed to this under any of uh administration. I fought with the Biden administration when we
[52:23]and I I I'll be very self-serving. I in moved forward to say that OM had to let
[52:33]us know what money it was spending and what they were aortioning for various funds and they had to make that public. They did not want to do that. I had this
[52:44]conversation, but we did it because the public has a right to know where the their dollars are going. And under this
[52:56]process and when we look at this recision package uh particularly on the in on on the international development assistance we have no idea
[53:08]what they're doing or where they are going with this. So it is really unprecedented
[53:17]>> but unprecedented based on a on a construct of Russ vote the OM director
[53:26]that remove appropriations amass the power and it's not even power for the president I might add he is amassing that power for himself
[53:36]and that we somebody who was unelected we're going to turn over that this body, House, Senate, turn over that power to
[53:47]this individual. I find that unconscionable. If I may make a couple of points and I wanted to say that um with my colleague, we agree and we
[53:57]disagree as he's pointed out, but Chairman Diaz Bolard understands the value of some of these programs. He
[54:08]knows the value of supporting voices for democracy over authoritarianism and that we need to keep funding long-term development and education
[54:20]agriculture to support our partners build stability over time as he has mentioned he funds these programs.
[54:29]So these programs are being gutted with this these decisions and we have to con consider that. I make my final point and
[54:39]I want to if I can to Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman, today this president is spending billions of dollars that is lawfully
[54:49]unavailable to him. Congress has not improved approved it. The OM director vote has really tricked the president into suspending it anyway against the
[55:01]law. I would be happy to sit with you to go through this with you and and I would hope we could join together to hold him or quite frankly any
[55:12]president accountable and I'm happy to follow up with you. That's not the issue that we are focused on here today, but it has to do with how the appropriations
[55:23]process works, what the agreements were in the past, what money was allocated, how it was supposed to be used, and that's the law.
[55:34]So, I I just leave it there. I hope I've answered the general. >> No, I think you did. And I I just wanted to clarify one more thing. So the bill before us today, this recision package
[55:45]was prepared by Russell vote, who's the head of the office of management and budget. >> Right. That's right. >> He also is the primary author of project
[55:55]2025, is he not? >> Is that right? >> Yes. >> Yes, he is. And so this package would legitimize um the cuts that the Office of
[56:07]Management and Budget and this author of Project 2025 have made without Congress. >> He and Project 2025 read it carefully. >> You know, he talks about empowerment
[56:18]when he went for his um uh uh confirmation hearings. you know ruled in you you know that was impounded because
[56:28]he's he he said empoundment is that that is the inherent authority uh of the executive and again I've quoted here
[56:36]before not the case judge antidoncalia opined on this judge Kavanaaugh has opined on this that there is no inherent authority but I also want to be clear
[56:48]that the recision piece of that the 45day piece is something that does come out of the empowerment, you know, control act. I it is just upending both
[57:00]the constitutional power of the purse that the Congress has and to eviscerate and hopefully eliminate and for the life of me an appropriations process. I'm
[57:10]going to fight to the death for the power of the appropriations committee because I believe in it. I believe in what it has done and the difference it
[57:19]has made in a bipartisan way. I crafted deals with Tom Cole >> that increased the amount of money for
[57:28]the NIH that funded Gear Up and TRIO and education programs that made a difference that we looked at these areas and we've and and and also with
[57:39]Congressman Diaz Balard with what we've done and and what they did here was to carve out Egypt. They did. They carve out certain pieces. They want to spend it in Egypt and Jordan and spend it in
[57:49]any way they want. But we need an obligation to Jordan to do that. They're the stabilizing force in the Middle East. But you can't pick and choose depending on who you like and who you
[57:59]don't like and who you support politically and don't support politically. That is not the process. We have an established process here which is called the appropriations process
[58:09]which deals with that money. And while the president can't make want to make changes, he needs to come back to the congress to make those changes. That is
[58:20]the piece that is missing here totally. >> Well, I obviously we appreciate the work that you and Chairman Cole do with appropriations. He of course is a
[58:30]longtime member of this committee. Um, and we appreciate the appropriations process, but I would say even behind that, we have the constitutional process pursuant to article one where it's
[58:41]Congress that makes the laws and funds the government and not the executive. So, thank you for your testimony. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Miss Scandlin. Mr. Roy,
[58:51]you're recognized. >> Thank the chairwoman. Uh just just a couple quick things and um uh I would ask the uh chairman uh just real quick
[59:01]if I'm correct there significant previous presidents have submitted recisions in the past including Democrat presidents such as President Clinton. True. >> Yes sir. Because it is part it is under the law. It's allowed this is part of
[59:13]the legal process. >> Part of the law it's part of it's a normal part of the process. We're following the law. Um and so you know we can debate which things we choose to uh cut or not but the fact is it's a normal
[59:23]part of the process. Um secondly uh we're talking about uh $9 billion correct >> that's correct sir >> total outlays for the federal government this year 7 trillion
[59:35]>> approximately >> uh so we're talking about 012 or something like that I don't know yeah.133%
[59:44]>> okay uh like 0.13% or something um >> yeah so we're talking about a tiny fraction right of our overall spend Right. I >> I would agree.
[59:55]>> So, uh but in the process of doing that, what we're trying to do is clean up a significant amount of the spending. Is that right, >> Mr. Roy? If I may, um
[1:00:05]>> I I I think it doesn't pass the the smell test to say that every penny that the federal government spends is well spent, obviously. But I would argue and I think I think it's pretty easy to be
[1:00:17]proven, right? That in particular in the last four years, the amount of waste and misspending uh is is was was so outrageous
[1:00:26]that there needed to be a pullback. Uh and and this is an attempt to do just that. And so, and with people have gone through various lists and people have different priorities in life, but I can
[1:00:38]just tell you the people who sent me to Texas, I mean, I mean from Texas to Washington, they didn't want us to do $47,000 for transgender opera in Colombia. They didn't want us to do $2
[1:00:49]million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala. They didn't want me to do $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt. And look, I understand people have their priorities. They think some
[1:00:59]idea is a good idea. Go, okay, we got to help the Egyptians. Let's get let's go help them with some tourism. I don't know. I mean, I feel like there's a lot of good reasons to go to Egypt without that, but okay. But $6 million. Well,
[1:01:10]that's $6 million. We're $37 trillion in debt. Um, you know, $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma. I, you know, I go down a complete list of just just some
[1:01:20]crazy things. Um, $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street. We can go down the list. These lists are public. My point being, uh, there's a lot of stuff in here that
[1:01:30]we're trying to clean up what we're spending. Again, 9 billion out of the 7 trillion in outlays. Now, there's probably more coming. Um, and I know that there are there are some concerns
[1:01:41]for that, but is uh, director um, vote are they is he operating in any way outside of the law by doing this? You know, I'm glad you asked that because at
[1:01:53]the introduction of this of this uh meeting on this issue, the the honorable chairwoman talked about that this is this is established in law. This process is established in law. And I obviously
[1:02:05]have great respect for everybody here, but I will tell you, Mr. Roy, I was a little taken back when because I think it is it is absolutely healthy to disagree,
[1:02:15]>> right? I I was taking a little bit of back when when you the OMB director try to disqualify a person who by the way uh
[1:02:24]you know Senate confirmed. Now I may have disagreements, you may have disagreements, but I I I have to admit I was taken back when you try to disqualify an individual because you
[1:02:35]disagree with that individual. And I I I frankly have to admit I I look I take exception with that attitude. um uh as well as as I mentioned a little while
[1:02:45]ago uh sir uh this is a legal process number one. Number two is um there is a egregious
[1:02:56]violation of a president spending money neither authorized nor appropriated and it's not me saying it Mr. Roy the Supreme Court of the
[1:03:06]United States said that. Where was the outrage by some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Roy? And so again, to your point, yes, thank you. This is a legal
[1:03:18]process. It's fine to agree to disagree with some of the cuts. Obviously, it's a legal process. Can we absorb it? Absolutely. Uh and by the way, again,
[1:03:28]the appropriations process, which is a big part of this, has already begun. >> Two two more quick questions. you uh obviously focus a lot of your attention as an appropriator in areas such as the United Nations, World Health
[1:03:39]Organization, etc. Uh my understanding is HR4 rescends $33 million, but that's of 1.5 billion appropriated uh in fiscal year 2024 in the United Nations. And
[1:03:50]then it's going after things for example like uh UNRA and you know programs that have been severely discredited in terms of their uh support for uh uh our
[1:04:01]enemies and the enemies of Israel and enemies of our allies. U do you uh believe that this is the sweet spot in trying to clean up some of the mess and how the dollars have been flowing
[1:04:12]overseas while stilling maintain some of our engagements with uh with these uh entities? Well, I I again uh you know, the Secretary of State has clearly said,
[1:04:22]"We're going to continue to do things that are important abroad for the national security interests of the United States. We're just going to do it in a way that that supports our national security interest uh and not you
[1:04:34]mentioned some of the wasteful programs. There's so many others and and we can go on for days talking about that. So, um, you also asked a question specifically
[1:04:43]about, for example, the UN, uh, both in fiscal year 24 and this in the appropriations bill and fiscal year 25. Uh, and I think you might be glad to
[1:04:53]hear that in the fiscal year 26 bill that was passed out of subcommittee this week. Uh, we defund the general fund of the UN, we defund ENRA, we defund um,
[1:05:04]the World Health Organization, which has become a subsidiary of the Chinese Communist part record. Look, I just mentioned for
[1:05:18]the for example the bill fiscal year fiscal year 24 and 25 the appropriations bill. I have here and again I I respect it but I have here in writing um the press release put together by the
[1:05:30]leader Democratic leaders of the appropriations committee and I respect their opinion. I disagree with it. And let me tell you some of the things. I've highlighted some of the things here that
[1:05:40]that we the the appropriators in the case it was my bill, right? That they complained that we were eliminating funds for and let me just read it out
[1:05:52]loud. They were upset that we had a prohibition prohibiting prohibiting funding for the Wuhan incentive uh institute of verology, the ecoalth alliance, gain of function research and
[1:06:03]any lab controlled by China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, they say Russia
[1:06:11]twice, and Venezuela. So, uh we have a difference in opinion. We think that funds for things like this are not only wasteful, they hurt our national
[1:06:23]security interests. Uh if I may, I I don't want to go through this at nauseium, but for example, one of the things that another thing that we were criticized for is a prohibition prohibition of funds for the government
[1:06:34]of the People's Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party and that we prevent lending through the international financial institutions to
[1:06:44]the People's Republic of China. If I may, also upset, not upset, they were, you know, pointing out that they opposed cutting funds to re that because we said
[1:06:56]no funds can be used to revoke the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organizations. Now, Mr. Roy, I respect
[1:07:07]that our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to cut any spending. I respect that they believe I guess that everything is well spent. But I would
[1:07:18]argue that history would show us that when they are supporting funding things that I just read for you, this isn't
[1:07:26]writing and I I respect their opinion on it. And I would also argue that thinking that $9 billion recision is going to
[1:07:36]somehow end the world to your point because every penny is so well spent that we shouldn't touch
[1:07:47]any of it. I would respectfully say I strongly disagree. Uh this is a step in the right direction and I think uh
[1:07:57]hopefully pretty soon I hope to be able to come in front of you with the fiscal year 26 appropriations bill dealing with these issues and hopefully again uh you
[1:08:07]know hopefully in that moment we can count for your support. I'm not asking for now because you haven't seen it but I think you might be pleased with some of those issues that we have in that bill. Well, I thank my friend from Florida and um since the gentleman from
[1:08:18]Florida has used more than my time, uh I will I will only close by saying this because it's been so uh important to the people in my community because a lot of folks here talking about and extolling
[1:08:29]the virtues of of NPR, PBS, public broadcasting, and so forth. And you know, talked about how, you know, they're cutting their funding is somehow going to endanger uh communities and
[1:08:39]rural communities. Well, when the floods were hitting the people that I represent, um, it took NPR through Texas Public Radio 19 hours to post anything about the flooding on its social media.
[1:08:51]What was NPR and TPR doing in the interim? What were they doing in the morning at 4, 5, 6, 7 in the morning when private radio stations that I listened to and that I talked to were breaking in and and and presenting the
[1:09:03]information in the news? They were they were playing a program, a DCbased program, lobbying Congress for billions of dollars to continue their funding. When the flood hit at 4 in the morning, instead of providing local news, they
[1:09:15]were airing the morning edition of the Washington DC. Well, that's fine. They already had it pre-taped. I get that, but they didn't break in like the local stations did and so forth. Um, the seven private stations posted over 70 alerts
[1:09:26]on their social pages throughout the day starting at 7:24 in the morning. My point being, private stations in the communities in which I live were there for the people of Texas. They were there presenting the information necessary and
[1:09:37]the public stations were completely MIA. And with that, I yield back to the chairwoman. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Roy. Um, uh, would
[1:09:47]you like, Mr. Chairman, to enter any of that material that you read into the record? >> That would be great. And I would I would I would ask that >> without without objection. >> Thank you.
[1:09:59]>> Mr. Neoose, you're recognized. >> Well, I think the chairwoman I do just want to say to the gentleman from Texas and who I have great respect for. Uh and I certainly am keeping his constituents
[1:10:10]and his communities in my prayers. I will say uh his experience with respect to public radio and public television vastly different than mine. I represent the state of Colorado. My district has
[1:10:21]been besieged by multiple natural disasters, flash floods, wildfires, and on every occasion, public television, public broadcasting, public radio
[1:10:32]stations, Colorado public television, Rocky Mountain PBS have been there. And I I just I would take umbrage to the suggestion. I I'm not going to speak for other uh members and their respective
[1:10:42]experiences in their districts or their states, but I will certainly say for the state of Colorado, public television has played an instrumental role. uh in helping constituents during difficult times of need. I want to say thank you
[1:10:54]to the ranking member and to the subcommittee chairman. Welcome back. Good to have you both here. Uh Mr. Diazard, chairman, I want to ask you a
[1:11:04]couple of questions. So, first, how much is the total dollar figure for the recisions package? >> I believe it's 9 billion. I can get to you because
[1:11:16]>> $9 billion. Okay. Yes. And I think you described that I wrote this down as a substantial chunk of change. >> It's a it's a it's I think it's a it's a
[1:11:26]good down payment in trying to refoc I wrote them down earlier. You you So $9 billion substantial chunk of change. Would it describe you
[1:11:37]>> to learn that that is 12% 12% of the federal budget? Is that that number surprise you or? >> I take your word for it, sir.
[1:11:47]>> Okay. And I presume you're pursuing this resistance. At least you've articulated in part it's based on it's animated by concerns about the debt by the deficit. >> Well, if I may, sir.
[1:11:58]>> No, I'm just asking if it is or if it is. If it's not, if you have no concerns, >> one of the factors. That's one of the factors. That's one of the factors. I guess the question is, House Republicans
[1:12:08]literally 15 days ago voted for a bill that will increase the deficit by upwards of $4 trillion. $4 trillion.
[1:12:18]And your case here is that this $9 billion decision, which you call a substantial chunk of change, that that's that that's animated by concerns for the
[1:12:28]deficit. I mean, I it feels like if you were concerned about the deficit, voting against that that big bill uh a few weeks ago would have been the right way to do it.
[1:12:39]>> If I may again, you disagree. >> Well, let me tell you what I agree with if you would, if you would allow me. Thank you. So, so as I said, I said this
[1:12:48]is to refocus an area of spending that has been misspent, severely misspent. Not only has it been misspending American
[1:12:58]taxpayer money, I would argue that it's actually been doing so in a way that in some cases has actually not only not helped our national security interest,
[1:13:08]has hurt our national security interest. So this is a multiacet there's many reasons why why this is an important >> asking about the deficit reason. I I hear you. You said that it was a fair
[1:13:19]answer. You said I have multiple reasons for supporting this. Correct. And I'm I'm myopically focusing here on the first reason, which is you believe we should pass this recisions package so
[1:13:30]that we can reduce the debt by $9 billion. And 15 days ago, you voted for a bill that increases the deficit by $4 trillion. You could understand why the
[1:13:41]American people would be a bit confused by that that difference. >> Well, if if No. >> Well, no. Look, if if if you're saying that this is the only thing we're going to do to reduce the deficit, that would
[1:13:53]be highly >> all done. >> That would be highly inaccurate. >> Have you done anything else? >> Yes, we have. As a matter of fact, one of the things I'm very proud of is that the fiscal year 24 appropriation bills
[1:14:04]that deals with my area, right, that I chair, >> uh which by the way is in essence what we're under now because as you know, we're under a CR >> CR, correct? >> Right. Actually reduced 6%. This is
[1:14:15]after after the negotiations >> last year. >> Correct. And >> yeah, no, I'm talking about this year. >> Well, but but but if you if you'd allow me to finish. >> Sure. >> So, and the bill that I have presented
[1:14:25]that passed out of subcommittee is proposing again, you know, we have a long way to go. >> Uh 22% reduction over last year's which
[1:14:35]was a 6% reduction. So in other words, we are taking serious steps to reduce spending, to reduce the deficit, and
[1:14:45]equally as important is to make sure that the money that we do spend is well spent and in this case reflects and helps the national security interest of the United States. >> You've made the case on that uh the secondary reason, which we're going to
[1:14:57]talk about, but I >> well actually it's not to me it's not a secondary. It's a very important >> secondary might be the that's the wrong adjective. The other reason there are many reasons. So, and I don't want to blavorver the point here, but I mean we
[1:15:08]could spend some time if your argument is that if we total up the ledger. Okay. So, you've got, you know, $9 billion recision here and I guess you're you're
[1:15:18]citing the fiscal year 2024 uh uh cuts that you had shephered as chairman of your subcommittee. I don't know what the total dollar number is on that, but I'm
[1:15:28]guessing that in the aggregate, if you added it all up, it wouldn't come close to the $4 trillion deficit increase that you have saddled my children and your
[1:15:39]children, your grandchildren with. And I I just again, part of this about priorities. I hear I understand your argument about the other reasons. And so that that might, you know, make the case
[1:15:50]as you've done, but I think it's a little rich for anybody to talk about this recisions package as a deficit reduction or debt reduction measure because I don't the American people are not going to take that seriously after
[1:16:01]the $4 trillion bill last week. That's all I'm saying. >> And and I think it's fair enough to because I think it's it is obvious, right, that that um the majority of the spending is not discretionary. It's it's
[1:16:12]it's uh mandatory spending. you know, the the the big beautiful bill. We can have that discussion and I'm sure you all have had a lot and we can continue to do that. this process which deals
[1:16:24]with and you're right that's remember discretionary is less than a quarter of the of the of the money spent every year but indiscretionary uh I think it's
[1:16:33]important to do what we can to spend where possible less also to make sure that we're not misspending and that
[1:16:42]we are realigning our spending in this case to our national security interests uh and not wasting money and that's what that's what this would do
[1:16:51]>> we let's talk about that a bit. So we because you referenced earlier that your subcommittee I think is in the process now of finalizing the numbers for fiscal year 2025 and we're hoping you'll be
[1:17:03]back before the rules >> 2026. >> 26 I'm sorry. Correct. We never made it on 2024 because of the CR. So you all are in the process of that. >> Yes sir. And we I took a look at the press release that y'all issued a few
[1:17:14]days ago and it very proudly proclaims that you are fully funding the countering PRC influence fund >> of $400 million.
[1:17:24]>> That strikes me as something that's very important to you, >> right? >> Yes, sir. >> And you agree that it's important for our national security, >> right? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. The question is why didn't House
[1:17:36]Republicans include any provisions in the recisions package to protect that funding? >> Again, u if I may
[1:17:50]>> No, it's a simple question. >> No, no, I know it because I do >> the House bill that we that we that you all pass, >> correct? We actually before it went to the Senate, I'll let you the House bill
[1:18:00]before it it went to the Senate >> did not include any language protecting the countering PRC, People's Republic of
[1:18:09]China Influence Fund. Okay. Included no language. And I'm just trying to understand because you are proclaiming on your website that you're very proud of the
[1:18:20]400 million of fully funding it for next year. Why wouldn't you have protected it in the recisions package that you passed? >> I don't
[1:18:31]again I don't see those two issues being mutually exclusive. By the way, I well because because well again hopefully assuming we get some support for the bill, right? This is a process. Um we
[1:18:43]have funded it in the past. >> My intention would be to continue to fund it in the future. And uh so I don't think that's mutually exclusive. >> Okay. Let me let me walk through this. >> Mhm.
[1:18:54]>> The PRC, the countering PRC influence fund, right, is one of the funds that was identified in the $9 billion
[1:19:04]recision. It's one of the sub accounts. Okay. So, House Republicans passed this $9 billion recisions package and did
[1:19:13]nothing to protect that account from being zeroed out by Russell vote and the OM. I I see what you're saying. >> When it got to the Senate, >> I see what you're saying.
[1:19:24]>> There were some Republicans in the Senate. >> Okay. I see what you're saying. >> Who decided that it was really important and so they added language. >> Yep. >> Right. >> No, you're No, no, no, no. I They added
[1:19:34]I'm glad that Okay, I see. I I see where you're going and I I do now. Okay. >> We're on the same page. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, no, >> I get that. By the way, I I because
[1:19:44]>> and obviously I was mistaken. I just thought that the Senate rules that we couldn't add text under the 1974 law. >> Oh, >> and so by the way,
[1:19:56]>> now you know. >> Yeah. >> So from now on when decisions package comes in next time you're going to you'll add language here on the front end rather than doing it on the back end.
[1:20:04]>> On again like I I I totally support >> on that aspect that you're just mentioning. I I totally support what the what the Senate did there.
[1:20:15]>> Yeah. Um, again, I I claim I don't claim to be an expert on Senate rules, >> right? And so, uh, are there potentially, by the way, who knows other
[1:20:26]areas that, you know, that we would add or I would have added language if I thought that it was okay according to the Senate rules. Uh, so I will what about PEPAR? I will I will I will always
[1:20:37]>> always I will never claim >> to be an expert on Senate rules and I will tell you uh I do I support that language? Yes. Not only do I support it
[1:20:47]again, it's reflected in the fiscal year 26 bill, the 24 bill, which is what we're on right now. And again, that to use and I'm I want to be respectful
[1:20:57]because this is to use your language about you think it's rich. I also think it's rich that uh I was criticized by my colleagues appropriating uh which
[1:21:08]who I respect for actually the language that I just read that hopefully will be in the record precisely because I was so strong and continue to be so strong about making sure that money doesn't go
[1:21:18]to the PRC no money should go to pay back uh the PRC you know goes to international institutions so on that question so yeah so I so I agree with the Senate language subject I agree with the Senate language
[1:21:29]>> I I and And I'm I'm grateful you agree with the Senate language. And I guess I would just say that House Republicans had every opportunity to do that on the front end here in the House before it
[1:21:40]got to the Senate. And I I think it's a bit convenient now to say, well, it's, you know, I I wasn't familiar with the recision rules in as to whether or not we could add language to protect aid to
[1:21:50]Egypt or uh the the PRC language or a variety of other language that was added in the Senate with respect to HIV and AIDS. But let's put that to the side.
[1:22:00]PEPAR because this wasn't about language. This is about funding, right? Senate made the decision to pull $400
[1:22:08]million, the PEP FAR recision out of this bill, >> correct? >> Correct. >> All right. And you support that? >> I I support the bill. Absolutely. >> I know you support the bill, but you
[1:22:20]support that that I mean the PEPAR funding is no longer part of the recisions bill. >> Yeah. I mean, I look um by the way, for the record, I support PEP FAR. Um, and we've actually Yeah. And we've actually
[1:22:31]had hearings on Pepar, you know, not not >> why not support it in the House, >> if I may. Because do I think that we could absorb
[1:22:41]the original House language on PER? Absolutely. Um, the the Senate believes that, you know, it's potentially safer to do it their way, but I it's it's not
[1:22:51]a huge it's not a huge change. So uh but but again if I may and this is not really your question. I do support PEP FAR in the hearings that we've had even on things that are as important that
[1:23:02]that for example that I support. There has to be the question asked should we do it forever. That's not what we're talking about now. Uh but that's something that we are looking at in the appropriation bill. >> Yeah. And I just I would say Mr. Chairman I'll move to a separate subject
[1:23:14]but I I just will say th this is I think we're getting a game of semantics here. The PEPAR funding is is quite substantive. This Most of the Republicans, overwhelming majority of
[1:23:25]the Republicans in the US Senate voted against the amendment to strip PEPAR funding out of the recisions package. They did
[1:23:36]that not because they thought this was a less safe for more safe approach. They did it because they opposed pulling it out. They wanted the PEPAR funding rescended as the vast majority
[1:23:47]of your colleagues do here in the House on the Republican side. And so I was just asking you, I'm trying to get a sense of do you you say you support the program? If you support the program,
[1:23:56]then I would hope that there would be a similar effort here in the House on the front end to pull that funding from the recisions package before it made it to the floor. But in any event, another
[1:24:07]piece of uh your fiscal year 2026 budget on the foreign foreign subcommittee that you lead is around countering efforts
[1:24:17]with respect to our adversaries. Correct. >> I want to get a sense, this is back of the envelope. It really is. I'm just kind of curious. How much does the budget include for fiscal year 2026?
[1:24:29]Just, you know, you sort of again back of the envelope for countering efforts regarding Cuba >> in the 2026 bill. >> Uhhuh. Yeah. >> Um >> couple hundred million or what? >> No, no, no, no, no.
[1:24:40]>> Or what's the >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's it's No, it's less. It's it's uh again it's I believe it's about I think it's the same that as it was in in uh in the original bill in >> 30 million or
[1:24:52]>> it's about I I want to say maybe 30 but don't quote me on the ball in the ballpark. >> So okay here's the question. >> So let's say that $30 million
[1:25:02]I understand very important to you and your constituents and I think a lot of Americans, right? Let's say that Congress appropriates that that figure and we approve that.
[1:25:14]Do you believe that that number the $30 billion >> million >> million? Sorry be there. $30 million for countering Cuba. Do you believe that
[1:25:26]number is a floor or a ceiling? There is no disagreement I think among a
[1:25:35]lot of the appropriators that when we put the appropriation bills together the goal is to have the administration follow that.
[1:25:46]>> So I hear you right so there's no there's no disagreement on that but I do but but the recision process is part of the process. >> I I hear you. This is actually about the decision.
[1:25:55]>> Okay. So I'm I'm not So the $30 billion >> million. >> Okay. That's going to go to the State Department to spend on countering Cuba.
[1:26:06]I'm just trying to get your sense. Is that number the floor or is it the ceiling? That's all I'm asking you. Is it which is it? >> You're saying once it's law, whatever
[1:26:17]that number is. Once it Yeah. >> Well, no. It's it's once it's law, it's law. It's the It's the law which >> Excuse me. It's the which which by the
[1:26:27]way which by the way and and so look >> it's the Wait no sorry I'm not interrupting you. Go ahead. No. >> It's the it's the floor. >> Well, no. Theoretically you're not
[1:26:37]supposed to pen above that either. >> It's the floor and the ceiling. >> I want to make sure I get that right. But >> yeah. All right. So >> both there. Well, actually, can I can I
[1:26:48]tell you in the actual bill how I have it? It's the floor >> in the way I have it written. No less than. >> No less than. >> Correct. Perfect. >> But that's how it's written in the bill on that. >> That's how it's written. So that part,
[1:26:58]you know, that goes to whether it's Secretary of State Blinken, you know, two years ago, a year ago, or whether it's Secretary of State Rubio today. Here's the money that Congress has appropriated
[1:27:10]for countering Cuba. And you cannot spend any less than this. And you are required to spend this number, right? It is the floor. You can't you're
[1:27:21]not you're not we're not gonna have you spend less than that amount. >> Correct. >> If that language holds, that's what it would be. If that language holds, that's
[1:27:33]what it would be. >> Here's why. I mean, and I I get I I can glean from your reaction that is a bit surprising on my question. >> No. And the reason why is always actually appreciate your question. >> Well, I appreciate that. Well, because
[1:27:43]here's why. You and I agree. Ranking member Rosen Deloro agrees. Every single Democrat, I think it's safe to say, in the House of Representatives,
[1:27:52]agrees with you. Russell Vote does not agree with you. In politico, this says today, as he's describing the spending powers of the Congress, it is one of the most constitutional foundational
[1:28:04]principles. But that power of the purse does not mean it's a ceiling. It is not a floor.
[1:28:12]Right? OM director votes view which is a ludicrous view unmed from any kind of
[1:28:23]constitutional or statutory basis is that if we appropriate dollars if you appropriate $30 million to counter Cuba
[1:28:33]very important to your constituents Secretary Rubio can look at the document and say I'm going to spend $10. That's how much I'm spending in fiscal year
[1:28:43]2026 because it isn't a floor. The rest of this I understand it's important to Mario Diaz Bollard Congress but he's but I'm not entitled or required to spend a
[1:28:54]single dime more than what I deem necessary as the executive. >> I clearly see your point. I clearly see your point. I you disagree with him. >> Well, no no no no no. Wait, hold on. I just It's very important to make a
[1:29:06]important observation which is it it's dependent. It depends how it's written. In some cases we give flexibility. In some cases we say not less. In some cases we say not more. So I just want to
[1:29:16]make sure that we make the point that it's a little bit of a generalized statement and and I just want to make sure that that we're accurate what we're saying. >> But what your your staff had just handed you
[1:29:26]>> in that case in that specific case uh then I would agree with you. >> I appreciate that. And I and I I will just venture to say and then I have one last question. Um, but I will venture to
[1:29:36]say that that that quote there might end up in a lawsuit here in the next couple weeks because the administration, as you know, we're we're in deep in litigation now for empalment. Um, I appreciate the chairwoman. I I will speed it up. I just
[1:29:48]have one question. You represent >> a long time to ask question. >> Well, Mr. Mr. Diaz >> and the answer needs to be
[1:29:58]>> Well, I I agree with you on the answer part. I don't know about the question, but um I hear you. I'm trying to get to it, Madam Chair. I appreciate your indulgence. I just want to talk a bit. I'm trying to look for the uh piece of
[1:30:08]paper here. Here it is. You represent South Florida. Um town of Miami Lakes >> among others. Yes. >> Among others. And the town of Miami Lakes, my understanding is is getting a new zip code because of your efforts. >> Uh that's
[1:30:20]>> you're working on it. >> Working on it. Yes, sir. >> House is going to vote on a bill soon. >> Uh hopefully. >> Very exciting. I know how important that is to communities in my neck of the woods. You know, I was looking online.
[1:30:31]You know how I had discovered that the town of Miami Lakes was getting a new zip code potentially because of your efforts? I was looking at WLRN. It's the
[1:30:40]only publication I could find that would print a story about your efforts regarding a new zip code for the town of
[1:30:49]Miami Lakes. WLRN is a public affiliated station, right? >> Uh yes, I I I believe so. I can assure you it's public television. >> Okay. >> These cuts are going to be devastating.
[1:31:00]They're going to be really devastating to public television, to public radio in every state in the country, including in Florida, and of course in Colorado. It's a shame. I wish I wish you all would would reverse.
[1:31:10]>> Can I just put one one uh just little uh clarification in in South Florida, there are numerous local publications which which uh you know, we have for example,
[1:31:21]the community newspapers, that's in all the communities. Uh so uh just so you know just to make you feel comfortable uh there are numerous private publications that cover what happens in
[1:31:33]DC locally uh and so you I hope you feel reassured but that's not the only one. >> None of them about your legislative efforts on the zip code except for public radio.
[1:31:43]>> I yield back. >> Thank you Mr. Scott. You're recognized. >> Thank you Madam Chair. And um
[1:31:54]Congressman Diaz, I I I do have a qu I don't remember exactly. Did did the inflation reduction act money did that go through the appropriations process and the American Rescue Plan? >> No,
[1:32:05]>> it did not go through the appropriations process. Did it? >> I I didn't think it did. And I just listened to >> recon. Mhm. >> But it did not go through appropriations.
[1:32:16]>> Correct, sir. >> Right. And it went through without a single Republican vote. Both of them did. Correct, sir. >> Correct. We're on. All right. So, uh I'm I'm looking at these numbers. I know you
[1:32:26]may not have the exact numbers year to date, but right now I'm looking and it says that the federal government has spent 5.345 trillion year to date. Now, that would
[1:32:38]include um mandatory spending and and uh other things, but the the second largest category of spending right now is the interest on the national debt. Is that
[1:32:50]correct? >> That is my understanding, sir. >> That's that's that's what it says. Anyway, here >> u would you be surprised to know that
[1:32:58]federal spending is up $318 billion this year over last year? >> Um that unfortunately does not surprise me.
[1:33:08]>> So So when we talk about uh an 89 billion dollar cut right here in this piece of legislation, is that correct?
[1:33:18]>> That's it. Okay, $9 billion. So if we just use these numbers here, so total federal spending is up $318 billion. If we take this 8 billion, total federal
[1:33:29]spending is still up 310 billion instead of 318 billion. I I I'll be honest with you, I'm a little taken back
[1:33:40]at the whining and crying over what amounts to less than 1/ half of 1% of discretionary discretionary
[1:33:51]spending. And I'm a little embarrassed, candidly, that with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, that we can't actually
[1:34:02]uh cut a little more. And uh I I just hope we're able to continue to show the American taxpayers where their dollars have been going. We showed them uh tremendous sums of waste, fraud, and
[1:34:13]abuse over the last several months. Uh, I hope that we're able to get back to showing the American taxpayers where their dollars have been going and that we're actually able to come back with a
[1:34:24]recisions package that does significantly more than the $9 billion. And again, I want I want the American citizens to know total federal spending
[1:34:34]this year from last year up $318 billion. Now, you would think the sky was falling and the sun wasn't going to come up tomorrow. If you listen to all of the whining and crying, but just
[1:34:44]factually speaking, if you take this recision of 9 billion out of the $318 billion increase over last year, you still got a $310 billion increase in
[1:34:56]federal spending. That's year to date, by the way. It will be more than that at the end of the fiscal year. uh we got to do a better job of reducing the deficit and uh getting economic
[1:35:07]growth and uh if if we don't the interest cost is going to consume
[1:35:16]uh the majority of federal spending in the near future. And with that, Madame Chair, I'll I don't have any questions for the gentleman. I just wanted to make the point uh this a drop in the bucket
[1:35:28]and we're just getting started on reducing the deficit in this country. I yield back. >> Thank you, Mr. Scott. Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized. >> Well, thank you, Madame Chair, and thank
[1:35:39]you for that very understanding look in your eyes as you recognize me, you know, um, and and as I listen to this
[1:35:47]conversation and the comments, it just gets me every single time when they talk about the need to reduce federal spending, the need to address deficits.
[1:35:59]Anybody anybody who voted for that big ugly bill that is now law which increases the
[1:36:07]deficit by $4 trillion should feel ashamed about talking about deficit spending and debt. It's $4 trillion
[1:36:19]$4 trillion. The interest rate is taking it up to that and even more. And that's why when they talk about attacking,
[1:36:28]raced, fraud, and abuse to save American money, those are meaningless words after you voted for that bill. Those are
[1:36:38]meaningless words. When in addition to increasing the deficit, the main beneficiaries of that bill were the
[1:36:48]billionaires. We're the billionaires. That is waste. Because the reality is they don't need the money.
[1:36:59]And it was pointed out earlier that the Trump administration is burning 500 tons of food that went to waste instead of
[1:37:10]feeding the hungry. And since his inauguration as president, Trump has made millions,
[1:37:20]millions off of his presidency. He's made more than 320 million in fees alone from his meme coin. And now he's exempt
[1:37:29]from regulation. No president in history has ever made so much money selling his presidency in influence ever. So when we
[1:37:39]talk about fraud and abuse, let's talk about that kind of race, fraud, and abuse because what I see it
[1:37:48]is destruction, deception, and corruption. So in this bill, we see Republicans once again taking away from the poor and
[1:38:00]rural areas. So when I hear my colleague who's now left saying they shouldn't why are they fringing whining about this $9 billion
[1:38:09]it's because I know the places that going to suffer when they lose NPR PBS and public broadcasting station because
[1:38:19]it's the local stations that are going to be hurt the most and you know they keep doing it Republican bills and Doge and Trump want to destroy Sorry. Public
[1:38:31]education, public health care, public lands, and now public broadcasting. So, let's talk a bit about public broadcasting. We heard earlier today um
[1:38:42]that Americans really want and are looking forward to us cutting public broadcasting. Do you agree with that, Representative Dasart? >> Can you please repeat that? So earlier
[1:38:54]today in this hearing um uh I believe it was Representative Norman said this is what Americans really want. They want us to cut the corporation for public broadcasting. Do you agree with that?
[1:39:05]>> I I I don't know if he quite said that but he may have. Uh I do agree that there has been like in unfortunate other parts of the government a lot of waste, a lot of misuse. there was which I did
[1:39:16]not participate in but I I watched part of it on uh uh you know on on the TV while I was in this process where there was a hearing on that and it was pretty
[1:39:26]evident that u there has been a lot of waste a lot of misuse uh and I think that's >> part of the reason why this is part of the reason that's that's why this is here
[1:39:36]>> yeah do you think Americans want you to cut to do these cuts >> uh I I I do think that there are multiple alternatives private sector alternatives. You know,
[1:39:47]when I was a child, there were only a couple channels. Now there are hundreds or thousands of channels. And I think there is a valid question is whether the taxpayer when there are hundreds if not
[1:39:57]thousands of channels. >> Question was about whether Americans want this. And let me tell you what it looks like what Americans want. >> So one in three Americans use public
[1:40:08]radio at least once a week. 70% of public radio is considered they Americans think 70% of Americans think
[1:40:19]public radio provides a valuable service and you might be interested in that. That includes 64% of Republicans they trust the news from public radio. Three
[1:40:30]in four Americans agree it's important to have public radio for emergency alerts and public safety. And this is a poll that was done recently because
[1:40:41]people recognize the importance of public radio and public broadcasting. And they recognize the importance of it because these rural radio stations
[1:40:53]especially, and let me tell you, Republican states, they rely on it. Alaska, Alaska, if you go and read the news in
[1:41:04]Alaska, they rely on it. In New Mexico, our tribal radio stations are essential because some of those places there aren't the alternatives that you
[1:41:15]mentioned and there or they aren't for free. And that's the importance of public that's the important of the public. So, we know that we know that there was a
[1:41:26]desire by Senator Rounds to preserve uh tribal broadcasting. Uh can you tell me where in the bill? He said he's voting for this bill because they're going to
[1:41:37]preserve funding for tribal broadcasting. Can you tell me where in the bill there is the preservation for tribal public broadcasting? >> Let me see if I can if I can get you
[1:41:46]some specifics uh on that. I I I would I would by the way uh respectfully mention that um when you're saying that it it is so popular and it's so there's so much
[1:41:57]audience. Great. Great. And then the question I think there's a valid question as to well then why should the taxpayer have to pay for it and I just again respectfully when you say it's not
[1:42:09]for free uh it's not free it's being paid for by the taxpayer when government provides a service not only
[1:42:19]is it not free most usually it costs a lot more than when the private sector provides it. So I and again very respectfully I just think there's that's
[1:42:30]that's a little bit of kind of highlights kind of the disagreement when you say government programs are free I would respectfully say government
[1:42:41]programs are not free and what we can show time and time again as usually government programs are a lot more expensive than those that are provided
[1:42:52]by the private sector. Uh so respectfully I think that's part of the disagreement. There is a disagreement not on whether it who is it free for and
[1:43:01]that's the purpose of public that is precisely the purpose of public and it is an ideological difference I agree with you I agree with you that when you
[1:43:13]talk about everything being for profit and profit making that means you are going to be inserting profit in everything they do and that is the difference we heard in this committee oh
[1:43:24]they shouldn't worry about Sesame Street and these important public programs because they're going to get picked up by Netflix. That is not free to the
[1:43:36]family that cannot afford it. So who is I'm talking about free for everybody in the public >> and there are and and so that was what I was saying okay is who are they free to
[1:43:47]and I think that it is important to have public education even though there are private schools. I think it is important to have public transportation. Even though you can have toll roads and you
[1:43:58]can have your own private car, there are certain goods that are important that are key and that's why somebody in
[1:44:07]a Republican state like Alaska voted against that. And so was there anywhere in the bill that protected >> uh
[1:44:17]not that I can find that I cannot find anything in the bill that specifically protects what you were asking. >> Right. Because there's nowhere in the bill that protects these kinds of
[1:44:28]services. There all these deals made and then there's these pinky promises that oh we're going to protect tribal radio. And I think that that's what's really key is with regards to tribal radio.
[1:44:38]They understand that. I have a letter here from the National Congress of American Indian and what they say is enactment of HR4 and eliminating the
[1:44:49]Corporation for Pro public broadcasting funding would devastate tribal communities by severely impacting tribal
[1:44:57]broadcast capacity and essential tribal public safety infrastructure that protects communities during emergencies.
[1:45:08]It would put tribal lives at greater risk. Madam Chair, request unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter from the National Congress of American Indians uh stating this and it
[1:45:19]is dated. >> I need to make sure >> it's okay. You're going to hand it in. We'll get it. >> June 10th, 2025. Well, you know, some people are strict on this and I admire
[1:45:31]the requirement to actually have that data here. Madam Chair, >> without objection >> and this is the point that I am making
[1:45:40]is that there are things that are about emergencies that are about the public that are key and that I think are important. So if you think people should
[1:45:52]just pay for everything and there should always be a profit motive, that is honestly an ag disagreement we have about how we look at things. uh because
[1:46:03]I do think that we should not be having those kinds of problems and you know the emergency alerts. There is nothing in
[1:46:13]this bill that would protect your beloved communities who might be relying on the multiple sources of public radio
[1:46:23]and public television that you also just pointed out. is there >> u again u and that's why I want to make sure I'm accurate with my answers and so
[1:46:34]I got you that that specific uh there's no doubt that there are and because I do live in an area that's obviously prone to storms right and there are
[1:46:45]fortunately and of course I with a caveat or the understanding that I happen to live in one of the states that's the most prepared for you know hurricanes for obvious reasons uh there
[1:46:55]are mult multiple multiple multiple ways uh that uh people get that information and I'm again I'm speaking for the state of Florida. >> You're speaking for the state of Florida and and this is the thing because as it
[1:47:06]was pointed out for Colorado as we've heard and if you co-employ Kansas the people in Kansas are terrified because they rely on these programs. The people
[1:47:16]of New Mexico know that that the public radio stations are essential. We just heard about the important role they po play in Colorado. Not everywhere
[1:47:27]has is densely populated with multiple avenues. And that's the other thing about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the educational programs
[1:47:39]that are available for free. I was reading an article online about a Kansas grandmother who said, "My days are filled because I can see the antique road show, but more importantly, my
[1:47:48]grandchildren learned how to count with Count Dracula, right? Who in this room I mean I ask around is like did any of your kids watch Sesame Street? I'm
[1:47:59]looking Mr. Jack, Representative Griffith, you always have." None of your kids did. Well, you are probably the exception because so many others did. in the audience, everyone raise their hands
[1:48:10]who, you know, oh, look at the smiles on the faces that are coming up because people do look at these things and you know,
[1:48:20]we fell in love with Sesame Street. We fell in love with the kindness and understanding shared among the
[1:48:30]characters. And I think that this idea of keeping kindness and generosity
[1:48:40]in our public arena and as one of the public goods that we do is so key and that is what the public television programs do. Think
[1:48:52]about that. Think about how kind like even Grouch the Grouch right Oscar Oscar like everybody's nice to Oscar and
[1:49:02]helps him get through these things, right? We need a we need we need all all to see like maybe we're a little too grouchy sometimes because of this role we play but like if you step into that
[1:49:13]role of what Sesame Street cheats it's let me understand why you're grouchy and maybe I can understand that right but right now you know all these recisions they're sort of like the cookie monster
[1:49:24]like the cookie monster you know he's eating caviar instead of cookies because you know we're giving all these tax benefits to the billionaires and we're eating up the public good and we're
[1:49:34]eating up kindness and generosity and things that are free to the people who most need them. Uh, Representative DSB law and that's what I was talking about
[1:49:45]>> and I and I and I thank the general lady but again I just I just remind everybody respectfully it's not free. It's very expensive. >> The taxpayers are doing it and that's
[1:49:55]the question is is and the taxpayers pay for a lot of things. We just in that big ugly bill you actually cut royalty rates for oil and gas companies. You cut them
[1:50:07]by about 4% down to 12%. Which gave away millions of dollars, which gave away more than the nine than the billion dollars that you're cutting from this.
[1:50:17]And let me tell you, there was no need to do that. We have record oil and gas profits. And in the state of New Mexico, we have twice the royalty rate now, 25%
[1:50:29]record sales on our latest lease. So, it's all who's paying for it. The decisions you made in that bill were that Big Bird didn't deserve it. The people who cannot afford to stream and
[1:50:40]pay for Netflix didn't deserve it, but oil and gas companies deserve it. It's never free, but we gave away some freebies to the oil and gas industry. Representative Delaro, uh, the Trump
[1:50:52]administration, uh, this night life-saving nutritional aid, um, I it it was was it about 1.5 ch children could
[1:51:01]have been fed with that for a week? >> It's
[1:51:16]unbelievable. rotting in a storage uh space because no delivery mechanism no delivery mechanism put together because
[1:51:26]it's been shuttered >> and and and is that do you consider that representative diaspora the idea that we would let that much food go is is that waste in your mind
[1:51:37]>> no I think I think that was highly unfortunate highly unfortunate and frankly uh something that I I I would never try to justify >> it's it's waste and and that's not a
[1:51:48]good use. That is that is like wasting taxpayer dollars. Uh you know why is that not good? >> There is a cost to that. There is a so I I wanted to just go and quickly because
[1:51:58]I'm I don't want to get tagged by our wonderful chairman woman here. Um so as you were having all of this discussion of why it's important to do this um now
[1:52:10]as I understand when you work on the appropriations in your subcommittee it's not easy you get you have hearings you have discussions you debate it among
[1:52:22]yourself you bring it administration you bring it you do all of that is that correct representative >> I would agree with yes and I would agree with you no it's not easy >> right it's not So
[1:52:33]>> I think there the ranking member full committee rank member and I are in full agreement. In full agree agreement and so did you have the same kind of debate
[1:52:43]about this recision package? >> No. I met multiple times uh with OMB. But >> you met Did your committee meet? >> But and we actually had a committee
[1:52:53]meeting where we had folks come in. We did. >> Was there was there but but I but obviously it it clearly doesn't have the same level. Uh I would
[1:53:04]I would concede that it's not at the same level that having you know multiple and multiple and multiple hearings which is what we try to do in the appropriations committee. So I I love the appropriations committee. Uh, so I
[1:53:15]believe that the appropriations process is the best process, but I will tell you that we did have folks from the administration come in in two hearings. >> And and you were you were the
[1:53:27]subcommittee chair when this budget. No, you cuz you were the subcommittee chair last year, >> right?
[1:53:34]>> Uh, and and right now by the stroke of a pen from the president, all that work that went into that thing is gone. is that ranking member. This is your point,
[1:53:46]right? >> This is my point. We hammered out we hammered out appropriations bills and appropriations bills are $1.7 trillion every single year.
[1:53:58]And to get there, you have to give a little and you have to get a little. And you go back and forth and back and forth to meet the needs of the people that we
[1:54:09]represent through these 12 subcommittees. and they hammered it out and then we come to an agreement. We get it signed
[1:54:19]by the president of the United States, not a suggestion, a law of the land. And in this circumstances, I will just say that we had an unelected individual,
[1:54:31]a billionaire and Elon Musk decide what was going to be spent, how it was going to be spent, what was going to be
[1:54:40]cut by what authority, none, zero authority to take $425 billion, which we tracked, which we
[1:54:51]tracked in the 12 subcommittees that they either froze, terminated, or paused in some way.
[1:55:00]That's not what we do here. That's not the process. We can hammer out stuff. You know, the the chairman will say, "Look, we can't go here, but you know,
[1:55:11]I'll say, well, maybe we can go there. How do we come to a meeting of the minds?" That is done every day with the appropriations committee, and it has
[1:55:21]been done over the years. And that is what is being abregated. >> And that is all of that. Once again going back to what is public. Your
[1:55:33]hearings are public. >> Public. >> Our debates are public. And what you had here was perhaps a private meeting.
[1:55:42]>> Was that we did have we did have we did have Yes, we did. >> Did you have a ranking member? There seems to be disagreement on that. We had no hearings on the recision package. No hearings otherwise.
[1:55:54]>> None. >> And and that's it. That >> can I want to make sure that I'm accurate. No, we had we had hearings and meetings regarding what the
[1:56:03]administration was doing. Uh not specifically on the recision. >> No hearing hearings on appropriations >> because the law because the law which is
[1:56:15]being followed >> u the 1974 law creates created this process of recisions. Now, I would, by the way, agree with I think both of you,
[1:56:26]>> you have to come to Congress, >> like the congressional process. But I would also argue that there has been so much misspent money that this is why the administration felt obligated to do this
[1:56:37]recision. >> You can't willy-nilly do that. I just have to say this. No, the 45 days, yes, is legal. They're abusing and in violation of the Empowerment Control
[1:56:47]Act, but the 45 days is legal. However, that says you have to come back and say to the Congress, this is what I want to do and you have to have a process that
[1:56:58]follows that. None, zero, nada. >> Oh, this is not the hearing. >> I mean, I I I feel for you because you guys have worked so hard and with a very
[1:57:08]quick, dur, and dirty, it's going to be gone. Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, I yield back. >> Thank you, Miss Ledger Fernandez. Mr.
[1:57:17]Griffith, you're recognized. Madame Chair, I could uh probably go on for hours in disagreement, but I gave a
[1:57:27]>> two long uh as my colleagues pointed a two long saliloquy the last time we had the resistance package up. >> I will just note it was kind of fun to listen. Uh my staff hates it, my wife
[1:57:38]hates it, but I have this thing about music lyrics that just pop in my head. So Billy Hill, who wrote The Glory of Love, and Benny Goodman, who originally recorded it, would have loved your
[1:57:48]reference. uh ranking member when you said you've got to give a little and you've got to get a little. It comes from that song as a as an original uh piece of musical artwork. And with that,
[1:58:00]Madam Chair, I yield back. >> I always enjoy listening to >> I do too. And now you're going to make me have that song in my head, too. >> Got to get Mr. Jack.
[1:58:11]>> Take a >> No, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just um as the freshman I'm always the last member to ask questions but uh if I could chairman Diaz Bolar just give you an opportunity to offer a closing
[1:58:23]statement closing kind of um message as it relates to why it's so important to codify these recision. >> Well I appreciate and I'll be I'll be brief by the way just just for the
[1:58:32]record also if if I may I was just um Mr. Noose asked said that the only you
[1:58:42]know uh outlet that covered the zip code uh it was it was also covered by Florida politics. It was covered by Florida Daily. It was covered public television. >> Uh it was covered from Miami Laker. So
[1:58:54]I'm just saying that there was other avenues and that I just wanted to make sure that that was in the record. None of >> those are television. >> There are multiple multiple multiple multiple multiple outlets. U Thank you
[1:59:04]sir. Look, u we've we've discussed this enough where I totally agree uh with the ranking member is that to me the best
[1:59:16]process is the appropriations process and which is what we're starting to do it. But it is it would be frankly just uh not serious to not understand that in
[1:59:27]particular in the last four years the amount of money that was spent and wasted was just really offensive.
[1:59:37]Um, and and I know that that that there's so much concern about the administration using a legal process established in law to come up with $9
[1:59:49]billion worth of reductions. But I don't remember the outrage, and I repeat this, but I think it's an important note. I do not remember the outrage
[2:00:01]about the abuse of process when the previous president spent money as I recall that was neither authorized nor appropriated and the
[2:00:12]Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional and he continued to do it and there was no outrage then getting back however to this particular
[2:00:23]issue it's a $9 billion recision it went through the I think the Senate refined it, which is part of this process. It's in front of
[2:00:32]us today. Do I think that N, you know, cutting $9 billion to make sure that we are spending money wisely is too severe
[2:00:42]of a cut? Absolutely not. Do I think this is a step in the right direction? Absolutely. Do I agree with some of my colleagues that I think all of us would
[2:00:53]like to get back to again the appropriations process and the good news that under the leadership of Tom Cole and yes the full committee ranking
[2:01:02]member uh we are working through that process as we speak. Um, but for the
[2:01:10]issue at hand, a $9 billion recision to get us back on track to make sure that we are spending wisely, that we are
[2:01:20]spending without wasting money is a good step in the right direction. So, thank you for the opportunity. I I think this is something that merits our support, our vote, and I would ask for your
[2:01:32]support and thank all of you uh who serve on this committee for the work that you do for the American people. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Jack. Mr. Langworthy.
[2:01:42]>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I I appreciate the recognition. Um, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the the chairman and the ranking member for being here. Um, we
[2:01:54]have hardworking Americans across this country and all of our districts that have had to face real difficult financial decisions every day and especially the inflation they've suffered for under the last, you know,
[2:02:04]five years or so. um they've had to cut back in their households on groceries, car expenses, home repairs that they could put off. Families don't have the
[2:02:14]luxury of wasting money. Uh and they expect us here in Washington at the capital to live by that same standard. Yet here we're debating whether or not
[2:02:23]we should be claiming reclaiming for them nine and a half billion dollars of unspent and unnecessary funds that are just sitting in government accounts. Um
[2:02:34]Mr. Diaz Bolard, how do you see this recisions package putting taxpayers first, not only by cutting wasteful spending now, but also by setting the precedent that Congress will once again
[2:02:45]be a responsible steward of hard-earned taxpayer dollars going forward? >> As as I thank you, sir. As I said at the beginning, I think this is a prudent this 9 billion package is a prudent
[2:02:55]realignment uh of priorities and spending and spending less money. And and I hope and I am confident uh because I'm confident particularly in the
[2:03:05]leadership of of Chairman Tom Cole who you all know very well in this committee um that we are going to be able to continue again through the appropriations process
[2:03:16]uh making sure that we spend money wisely that we save money uh as well in areas that where we can save money and I think there are a number of areas and and if if we talk about the area that
[2:03:28]the chairman Cole has put me in in in giving the responsibility and the and the privilege of chairing that subcommittee as I mentioned before you're going to see it the bill that passed out a subcommittee a 22%
[2:03:38]reduction while I believe I strongly believe we are doing more to confront the adversaries of the United States we are fulfilling our obligation to our to
[2:03:49]our allies but we're doing so uh without wasting money and making sure that it is aligned with the national security interest of the United states. Uh, and
[2:04:00]so that process is is ongoing. This and and again, I respect folks who don't want to cut anything. I get that. Or or who don't like the specific cuts in this in this proposal. I I get that as well.
[2:04:11]I respect that. But I think it's important to mention once again that this is part this is within the law that was passed by Congress in 1974. And so
[2:04:22]again, I think what we're looking at here is an important step in that realignment to make sure that the money particularly in the area that I'm, you know, directly responsible for, which is
[2:04:33]again foreign policy, that it is aligned with our national security interests, our national interest. Uh and that in my view is again supporting our allies
[2:04:43]without wasting money. Confronting our adversaries but making sure that we do it in a way that is fiscally responsible. It can be done. Sir, I a
[2:04:54]little while ago I I talked about I'm very proud of the bill that we're in right now, the the CR. I wish we weren't under a CR, but we are. But that bill
[2:05:02]actually cut 6% spends 6% less than the previous year. and I heard all these horror things that were going to happen. No, on the contrary, when you spend less
[2:05:13]taxpayer money, you do it efficiently and you fulfill your obligations, everybody wins. This today is a step in that direction. >> Well, thank you very much for your
[2:05:24]commentary and for all your hard work on behalf of the American people and and for everyone on the appropriations committee and for what you do. It's really hard work. Uh the reality is most taxpayers don't even know where their
[2:05:35]hard-earned tax dollars are going. the size and the scope of the federal government is beyond most Americans uh mindset. And I think what we've been through in the last uh six or seven
[2:05:44]months has been quite a experience in accounting and accountability and shining a bright light on some things that people assumed were happening with programs and weren't. I mean, it's it's certainly been educational for even
[2:05:55]members of Congress, some of the things that have been uncovered uh at the front end of the year. So, I I really truly uh believe that this is a step in the right direction. This is important legislation
[2:06:05]and a priority to set going forward. And with that, I yield back. Madam Chair, >> thank you, Mr. Langworthy. I have u just um one or two questions I'd like to ask
[2:06:17]and a couple of comments. Um I want to thank you, Mr. Diaz Bolard, particularly I thank the ranking member for being here too. But I want to thank you for
[2:06:27]saying that go quote government programs are not free. uh those programs are paid for by
[2:06:36]hardworking taxpayers. I make that point all the time. The money that the federal government spends is not mana from heaven. It is
[2:06:47]taken from hardworking taxpayers. And there's a lot of talk going on now about recent elections in New York about
[2:06:58]how there is going to be an increase in government spending. And I think we do have a term for that in terms of taking
[2:07:09]money from some and giving it to others. And I agree with President Trump um that uh that's generally defined as
[2:07:20]communism. And yes, there is a common good, but the American people are the most generous people in the world. And they are
[2:07:31]willing to help others who need their help. And we've seen that over and over and over again. So there's generosity for public good. I've given
[2:07:40]contributions to public radio and public TV, but I don't think it's fair to take money from some to give it to those programs. I just want to get one major
[2:07:52]thing in the record. We're hearing a lot about these horrible what's happening to the government in terms of the horrible
[2:08:02]increase of $4 trillion that was just passed in the big beautiful bill. But I haven't heard anybody talk about or or
[2:08:13]maybe I think Mr. Scott touched on it before. Please tell us how much was spent under President Biden with not one single
[2:08:25]Republican vote and how much was added to the debt as a result of the reconciliation bill passed
[2:08:34]by Democrats and President Biden. And again, I want to make sure that I have an accurate uh response to it. I will get you the exact number, but but I
[2:08:44]think to your point uh that was it was so much money that it actually created
[2:08:52]the largest spike in inflation in decades precisely because of the amount of money uh that was spent. And I and I will get I think I want to make sure I >> think I have it.
[2:09:04]>> I you probably do and I I want to make sure I'm accurate. It was 11 trillion that was spent under President Biden and
[2:09:13]$6 trillion was added to the debt. >> And there is no argument and no debate that inflation skyrocketed for the first
[2:09:24]time since I believe the Jimmy Carter administration. >> That's correct. And uh by the way that is not you want to know I have tried u uh to be very accurate in answering
[2:09:36]questions and I think the questions are important. Uh and I also uh tried to avoid getting into other subject matter. I I just but since it was brought up so many times in the district that I
[2:09:48]represent, if the big beautiful bill had not passed and become law, uh and I don't represent a wealthy district, the
[2:09:56]tax increase to the average family in the district that I represent was going to be 24%. Thank you. >> Thank you. $4.
[2:10:08]>> Is there anyone else seeking to testify on the Senate amendment to HR4? >> Madam Chair, may I say something? >> I'm here.
[2:10:20]>> Thank you, Miss Dora. I don't have any questions for you. >> No, I don't want to. I wasn't asking. I was asking if I can say something. I'm here testifying as well. >> Well, I I think we've gone way over with
[2:10:34]your side. So, thank you very much. Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting >> speaks volumes
[2:10:45]about what we don't Oh, I do want to see if I can put it in the record. >> William will cutting the State Department in the USA will put every American at risk. Russ vote
[2:10:54]appropriations process has to be less bipartisan. I think it speaks volumes of where this administration wants to take us. >> Without objection. >> Thank you.
[2:11:06]Without objection, the committee stands in recess for 10 minutes or so. >> Thank you. How long has it been? Um
[2:21:42]now Okay. The committee will reconvene.
[2:25:49]The chair will be in the receipt of a motion. >> Madam chair, >> gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
[2:25:59]>> Madame Chair, I move the committee grant a rule providing the House resolution 589 is hereby adopted. you um thank you very much. You've heard
[2:26:14]the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? >> Yes, >> Mr. McGovern, you're recognized. >> First of all, let me just ask a question. Um where's the rule on the bill that we just took testimony on? We
[2:26:26]we we've taken no testimony on this. Um we've had no discussion of this. I'm just wondering where's the other rule >> that will be coming shortly.
[2:26:36]>> So, let me let me just say for the record, Madam Chair, um and to all my colleagues here, I I've been, you know, I' I've been here for a while on this committee. Um I was here as a staffer as
[2:26:47]well. Um this is the worst process I have ever seen in my life. Um and um the rule in front of us um and the and and I have to
[2:26:58]say the meaningless resolution uh that came out of thin air was never noticed. I mean I I'm still going through it. There's some language in here that I don't I don't like. But I mean but at
[2:27:09]the end of the day, you know, and I I look at it and while it looks like a bill, um it isn't. Um it's it's a resolution, a non-binding resolution.
[2:27:19]this uh this is a smoke screen. Uh it is a glorified press release. Um and if you want to put this on the floor, fine. Um you know, I I I I think we would all
[2:27:30]welcome an hour of debate on on this topic. uh because the American people want us to be talking about this. They they're quite frankly uh very
[2:27:39]disappointed uh that after all the uh the years of uh of Trump and his attorney general and his uh now head of
[2:27:49]the FBI hyping this conspiracy uh theory up. They they want to have a they want to have a full debate on this. Um but I I um uh but I I I have a couple of
[2:27:59]questions about the resolution and maybe Madam Chair or or maybe Mr. Norman who whoever wants to answer them can. Um but
[2:28:06]uh does does this have the force of law? Um you know, Democrats are so desperate
[2:28:18]to use the serious issue of sex trafficking to score political points. are speaking out of both sides of your mouths almost in real time. And we really don't have any tolerance for
[2:28:29]attacks on the resolution. It's a sound goodfaith resolution that ensures protections for victims and innocent witnesses. If your qual is that this is
[2:28:40]a resolution and not a bill, then why did you all offer Representative VZY's resolution just three nights ago? You weren't attacking resolutions and their
[2:28:50]force or effect just nights ago. Democrats are now attacking the same type of vehicle they supported on Monday night. This resolution sends a clear
[2:29:01]signal and carries considerable weight to the full scope of this debate. >> So for those watching at home, the answer is no. Uh and just let me respond
[2:29:12]with a couple of things. One, we tried to offer you an amendment that would have done something and you rejected it. Then we offered a non-binding option which you also rejected. Uh two, uh a a
[2:29:22]bill didn't exist then. A bipartisan bill currently does exist by Mr. Kana um and Mr. Massie. So a non-binding resolution wasn't good enough for you a
[2:29:33]week ago, but now there's a bill that that there's a bill available. Um you you take it uh you you want to avoid voting on on that legis on that
[2:29:43]legislation. Um, I guess the question, my other question is what happens if the administration doesn't follow any of the suggestions in this non-binding
[2:29:54]resolution? What what what what's the recourse? there's a time limit on the resolution
[2:30:10]and if the administration does not adhere to that time limit then um we will deal with the issue at that time. So, in other words, nothing. Uh, but let
[2:30:20]me let me ask another question. Um, since um this can't be brought up uh for debate tomorrow um or I mean or tonight?
[2:30:28]Tonight. Um um do what day next week will this be on the floor? >> Well, that that will be announced.
[2:30:38]>> When and the majority leader will make that announcement. So, can you guar can you guarantee us and to everybody watching
[2:30:49]that this will absolutely be brought up on the floor next week? >> That's the majority leader's decision to make. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, I mean, millions of people
[2:31:01]are focused on this issue and millions of people are angry that there's been inaction and so we have a non-binding resolution that doesn't have the force of law. Um, and we can't get a guarantee
[2:31:13]or even a a guesstimate as to when this might be brought up. And furthermore, um we can debate the rule on this
[2:31:23]non-binding resolution, but uh but that's it. There's no there's no debate like we have on on most bills uh where
[2:31:32]people can get up and and and discuss the pros and cons and and and what this bill means. I I I gotta tell you, I I
[2:31:43]don't think I I get it. I mean, this is this is a loophole. This is this is cover. And I get it. Uh my my friends on the committee who voted against um trying to
[2:31:54]do something um more significant, not only in this committee, but also on the House floor on the House floor are getting some push back from your from your constituents. I get it. But I I got to tell you, I don't think your
[2:32:06]constituents are a cheap date. I think they they they will see this for what it is. But Madam Chair, in a moment I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule which will strike the brand new
[2:32:16]non-binding resolution on Epstein and instead provide for immediate cons consideration of HR4405, the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act introduced by
[2:32:28]Representatives Kana and Massie. I've been listening to what people have to say about releasing the Epstein Files, and I'm sure you have as well. People don't want more empty promises of future
[2:32:38]action. They've seen this movie before. They know how it ends. They want direct decisive action by Congress and they want it now. But let me explain this to
[2:32:49]people at home. This resolution they are off offering is a cover vote and I'll be surprised if they even bring it to the floor. It's Republicans pretending to do something because they're feeling heat
[2:33:00]at home. The bipartisan bill that we are offering, HR4405, isn't another empty promise like your resolution, which again your leadership may never even bring to the floor. And
[2:33:11]I'm surprised that you're coming to the rules committee without a without a a date certain when this is coming up, but um uh what we're doing uh with the Conor Messi resol is not kicking the can down
[2:33:23]the road. It is a bipartisan bill that would direct the attorney general to release the EP Epstein files within 30 days. It details exactly which records to release and ensures nothing is hidden
[2:33:34]to protect people in power while protecting the privacy of the victims. If you've been listening to your constituents this week, you know that this bill is what they're asking for, not some weak, non-binding resolution to
[2:33:46]protect yourselves from an awkward vote. So, a vote for my amendment is a vote to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor that would actually release the Epstein files and and uh and not the glorified
[2:33:57]press release that you were proposing today. A vote against my amendment is a vote to give Republican members a fig leaf so they can move on from this issue like President Trump asked them to do.
[2:34:07]Now, we may hear arguments from Republicans that this amendment isn't technically germanine. And I can understand why you why you'll try to hide behind germanine because you don't
[2:34:18]want to take this vote. But the rules committee has a long long long history of allowing votes on non-gerermanine amendments, including when I was chair, and allowed Republicans to offer
[2:34:29]amendments on resolutions of inquiry. We took the votes. We took the votes. That's what we do here in the rules committee. Gerainess was never enforced on minority motions. So don't pretend
[2:34:41]that we cannot add this bill to the rule. Of course, we can. Uh you could have done it yourselves or you could do it right now by voting for for my amendment. It's that simple. The fact of
[2:34:52]the matter is you don't want to vote on actually releasing the Epstein files. Not up here and not on the floor. And what are you afraid of? And for anyone
[2:35:02]who raises a point of order on Geranus, just know that you're going to be extra famous for going beyond uh for going above and beyond to block this bill from
[2:35:12]going to the floor. If one of you drew the short straw and makes a point of order and this amendment is ruled out of order, I intend to appeal the ruling of the chair to ensure that this bill will
[2:35:23]come to the floor. So, let me be clear. A vote against appealing the ruling of the chair is a vote to block the bipartisan bill to actually release the Epstein files. And look, all of you know
[2:35:35]what the right thing to do is here. Listen to your constituents. Listen to your conscience. Don't get bullied by your leadership and by this president. Why would anybody want to stop this bill
[2:35:46]from getting a vote? And so I hope my Republican colleagues have been listening to their constituents. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strike all after the resolve clause of the rule which
[2:35:57]deems as adopted a brand new non-binding resolution on Epstein and instead provides for the immediate consideration of HR4405, the bipartisan Epstein Files
[2:36:08]Transparency Act under a closed rule with one hour of debate. U Mr. McGovern,
[2:36:23]uh, again, you're trying to, uh, characterize how we vote and why we vote, but it's very interesting to see
[2:36:32]you suddenly express interest in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, given that President Biden had four years to take meaningful action and did nothing. Unfortunately,
[2:36:43]our colleagues tried to weaponize this discussion earlier this week as an attempt to derail the passage of the most significant crypto legislation in history. The amendments offered earlier
[2:36:55]this week were significantly lacking in protections for victims, whistleblowers, and innocent witnesses. I support this resolution which we've
[2:37:06]introduced tonight which requires the release of credible information protects whistleblowers and victims of sexual abuse and finally allows the whole world
[2:37:16]to review the full details of everyone involved in the heinous acts connected to Jeffrey Epstein. It's clear this resolution is entirely necessary. It's a
[2:37:26]good faith effort that's rooted in accountability in the right ways and for the right reasons. Unlike the prank Democrats pulled earlier this week, I look forward to working with the Trump
[2:37:37]administration to ensure that justice is finally served. >> Madam Chair, I with just all due respect, the uh bill that we're offering does provide protections uh for victims.
[2:37:47]Uh number one, and number two, um it wasn't Democrats that have been weaponizing this for years. It has it has been Republicans, including the president of the United States, including uh the current director of the
[2:37:59]FBI, including every kind of MAGA, you know, uh right-wing uh influencer has been talking about releasing these files.
[2:38:08]>> And so again, I uh with all due respect, I urge that my colleagues support our amendment. Um and um and I'm happy to
[2:38:18]>> Madam Chair, is is is the amendment a a bill? >> It's a bill. >> It is a bill. Okay. And madam chair, unless I'm mistaken, a bill would then
[2:38:28]actually have to go to the Senate and then would be subject to signature of the president of the United States. Is that correct? And therefore, if his amendment is adopted, it would be weeks
[2:38:39]before, months, actually before anything would be done because it would have to go to the Senate and it would be subject to the signature of the president of the United States. Is that correct, Madam Chair? >> That is correct. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[2:38:50]I think we know who's playing the game. >> And it would have the and it would have the power of a law. Your bill has >> only upon the signature of the president. >> Can the gentleman give me the date that he intends to bring up his non-binding
[2:39:00]resolution to the floor? Can can you tell us we're going to be in next week? >> We've we've told you that will be up >> you told me that it's up to the majority leader. Um I I it's hard for me to believe that nobody asked the majority
[2:39:12]leader when you intend to bring this up. I mean that's not a hard question. We're not and I you noticed us what was coming up to the rules coming next week. Much to do about nothing. So I mean and and
[2:39:23]and you've limited debate on this so that we only have an hour on the rule. So clearly it's it's not like it's a timing issue. So I I think uh you know
[2:39:33]it would be helpful to know that question. Maybe maybe while we're having this debate someone can call the majority leader's office and maybe get an answer. Again, Madam Chair, just I just want to make sure I understand his
[2:39:43]his motion, if adopted, would then send the piece of legislation to the Senate and that would be months and it would be the Senate majority leader then that would have to schedule
[2:39:54]for a piece of legislation to go the piece of legislation to go to the floor and then it would be subject to the signature of the president of the United States. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> I just want to make sure I was correct
[2:40:05]about what your motion actually does instead of what you're saying it does. Why don't we put it Why don't we put it on the floor to see whether we get a veto proof uh majority? Your bill does nothing. Has the has the it's all it's
[2:40:17]all it's a resolution. It's a glorified press release. And you may be satisfied with that. Maybe you know some some people who have been reaching out to you and putting pressure on you to do something might be satisfied with that.
[2:40:28]I'm willing to bet you the majority of people who are watching this, including Republicans, will not be satisfied. >> Facts are sever things, aren't they? Your proposal requires months and and requires a signature of the press. It doesn't require months. It could it can
[2:40:39]move quickly. The Senate could take this up immediately if they want to. Yours requires 30 days. >> Mr. McGovern, >> this is a very similar to document to
[2:40:49]what you offered on Monday >> and it it >> I don't think the point of order is timely anymore, madam. Uh so I insist on a vote on a my res on my >> on your amendment. Okay.
[2:41:01]>> Before we take that vote, may I be heard? >> The question >> Yeah. Well, he's asked for a vote on the on his motion and I'm going to call for
[2:41:11]a vote on his motion since he has done that. >> We would like >> So, the question I will get back >> the the question is on the amendment
[2:41:22]>> from Mr. McGovern. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. >> No. >> In the opinion chair, the nos have it.
[2:41:33]The amendments not agreed to. The clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hchin. Mrs. Hchin. No. Mr.
[2:41:44]Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. No. >> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. No. >> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. >> Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. >> I. >> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scanlin. Hi.
[2:41:54]>> Miss. Scanlin. I. Mr. Noose. Mr. Noose. I. Miss. Ledger. Fernandez. Hi. >> M. Ledger Fernandez. I am. Madam Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair. No. The clerk will report the total.
[2:42:05]>> Four yays, nine nays. >> The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> Madam Chair, I have another amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a new section to the rule providing for
[2:42:15]immediate consideration of HR 4405, the bipartisan Epstein um trans Epstein files transparency act under a closed
[2:42:24]rule with one hour of debate. Um okay. You didn't want to replace your non-binding uh resolution. Fair enough, I guess. How about also providing for consideration of a bill that would
[2:42:34]actually release the Epstein files? Again, I ask again, why would anybody be against bringing this bill to the floor? You could bring both. >> Porn department inquiry.
[2:42:45]>> Mr. Griffith, >> uh, I'm trying to figure out where we are. Madam, Madame Chair, and and we didn't have a written copy of the previous amendment. I don't have a written copy of this one. Is this
[2:42:56]amendment different than the previous amendment? >> Yes. and and which bill if I thought the original amendment was >> this one allows your non-binding meaningless resolution and a real bill
[2:43:08]with the force of law. So you debate two, >> but it's the same bill that you were talking about previously. >> Correct. >> All right. That was my inquiry, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[2:43:20]>> Which has been available for two days on online unlike your resolution >> and unlike your amendment of last week or earlier this week. >> Madam Chair, point of order.
[2:43:34]>> Mr. Griffith, >> is this amendment to the resolution? That's not a timely point of order. >> I'm sorry. >> It's not a timely point of order. >> A discussion and you know, >> the previous was a point of
[2:43:45]parliamentary inquiry. Now I'm doing a point of order. I >> I discussed a parliamentary inquiry so I could figure out what we're doing. >> Nobody reserved a point of order. >> Mr. McGovern, you you did not give us
[2:43:56]something in writing which caused confusion among the members and therefore there were questions being asked. So it is a timely point of order.
[2:44:07]that we practice committing. >> Madam Chair, I disagree with the the assertions of the ranking member because of the because of the confusion. >> How can I make a point of order when I
[2:44:19]don't know what we're doing because I don't have it in writing? I could not make a point or reserve a point on something I don't know what it is. Now I know what it is. I make a point of order.
[2:44:26]>> I I agree with Mr. Griffith that you created confusion, Mr. McGovern. Therefore, the committee will suspend.
[2:44:38]The committee will suspend while we try to sort out the confusion you've created. The rule provides for consideration of
[2:45:17]our resolution, not a bill. Therefore, the amendment is not germanine. >> I appeal the ruling of the chair. >> Mr. McGovern appeals the ruling of the
[2:45:29]chair. The um the question is on the appeal of the ruling of the chair. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
[2:45:40]>> Those opposed say no. >> No. >> In the opinion chair of the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> Ask for a roll call. >> The the gentleman asked for a roll call. The clerk will call the role.
[2:45:52]>> Mrs. Fishbach. No. >> Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. No. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hchin. No. >> Mrs. How? No. Mr. Langworthy? No. >> Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Scott? >> No. >> Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Griffith? No.
[2:46:04]>> Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Jack? >> Mr. Jack? No. Mr. McGovern. >> I >> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scan. >> Hi. >> Miss Scallan. I Mr. Negus. >> Mr. Negus. I Miss Leisure Fernandez. >> Point of order.
[2:46:20]>> It's a vote. >> Miss Ledger Fernandez. I >> Madame Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair, no. >> Clerk will report the total.
[2:46:31]>> Four yays. Nine nays. >> And nos have it. The appeal of the ruling of the chair is not agreed to. >> Yeah. I um I I
[2:46:43]>> Is there any other amendment or discussion? >> And I've never seen any I never I've never seen a majority in this committee so intent on trying to
[2:46:53]deny anything from coming to the floor for a real debate and vote. But in a moment, I'm going to offer >> point of order. >> I'm going to offer an amendment. >> What's the point of order? is I thought the gentleman was recognized for
[2:47:04]amendment and yet he's speaking on the amendment before it's offered. So I don't >> discussion or amendment. >> You don't have an amendment. >> We don't have an amendment. I was in a moment I'm going to offer an amendment to convert this non-binding resolution
[2:47:15]to an actual bill that could have the force of law. This non-binding resolution is completely meaningless. As I've said, if you actually want the Epstein files to become public, pass an
[2:47:25]actual bill that can become law. Make this real. Again, my motion will will be to provide a rule for your own text, as flawed as it is, just as a bill instead
[2:47:36]of a resolution. And a no vote on my motion would just show that you don't actually want the Epstein files to be released. So, Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the
[2:47:46]committee strike all after the resolve clause of the rule which deems as adopted a brand new non-binding resolution on Epstein and instead provide for immediate consideration of
[2:47:56]the same exact text converted to an actual bill an HR instead of an HRES under a closed rule with one hour of debate. Point of order. >> Geranus
[2:48:08]>> and and and if I'm allowed to speak to the geranus, >> you you are allowed to speak. The the reason I made my objection earlier is and and and maybe the rules
[2:48:19]committee does things differently than most legislative bodies, but you put the amendment out there first so that if there's a point of order, the whole point of a point of order and the
[2:48:29]reason that Jefferson gave the rules of in the parliamentary practice and procedure by Jefferson is to make this place efficient. Instead of having speeches given on something that's not
[2:48:39]in order, you're supposed to cut to the chase. And this is not germanine and it shouldn't have a saliloquy going in front of it. I yield. >> I
[2:48:50]I agree with with Mr. Griffith. The rule provides for consideration of one resolution, not a bill. Therefore, the amendment is not Germaine. >> I appeal the ruling of the chair. >> The um
[2:49:02]>> I want everybody on record on these things. So, I appeal the ruling of the chair. >> The question is on the appeal of the ruling of the chair. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed say no.
[2:49:13]>> No. >> In the opinion chair, the nose have it. >> Would like a roll call, please. >> Mr. McGovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach, Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman,
[2:49:24]>> Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, no. >> Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Hton, >> Mrs. Howin, no. Mr. Langworthy, >> Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott, >> Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, no. >> Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack.
[2:49:35]No. Mr. McGovern. I >> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scanland. Hi. M. Scanland. I Mr. Negus >> I >> Mr. Negus I M Ledger Fernandez >> I >> Mr. Sledger Fernandez. I madam chair. >> No.
[2:49:47]>> Madam chair. No. >> Clerk will report the total. >> Four yays. Nine nays. >> And the nos have it. The appeal of the ruling chair is not agreed to. >> Madam chair, I I just again want to
[2:49:58]reiterate the point I made earlier. I've been on this committee for a long time and I've never seen anything quite like this. And um it is it is really disappointing. Um and uh I yield back. I
[2:50:10]know I know others may have something to say. >> Madam Chair, can I speak to the You're recognized, Miss Gan. >> Thank you. I I mean, I do think it's important that we add a little context
[2:50:20]here. Mr. McGovern has mentioned that our constituents are saying they want to see the release of the Epstein files. I suspect your constituents are saying the same thing. And that's why it is
[2:50:30]important that this be something that actually has the force of law rather than the glorified press release that doesn't even have to go to the Senate as Rep. Scott so kindly pointed out. Um,
[2:50:41]but while we've been here, um, there's a little additional context that's been added. So, I'd seek unanimous consent to enter a Wall Street Journal article
[2:50:50]dated today, July 17th. It was released at 6:45 p.m. after we started here. It's entitled, Jeffrey Epstein's friends sent him body letters for a 50th birthday
[2:51:01]album. One was from Donald Trump. And there's a fairly interesting, some might even say titillating article attached. Um but so I would seek unanimous consent to enter that in the record >> without objection.
[2:51:13]>> Thank you. And I think it really goes to the question that is sort of consuming the country at this point which is what did the president know and when did he know it? >> Thank you Miss Scandlin.
[2:51:27]Does any other member wish to speak? >> Mr. Norman. Um, you know, as the chair brought up, this
[2:51:39]is really kind of hypocritical uh for y'all at this point. You've had four years to bring it up. Where was your inquiry then? Where were the facts? As you know, this is the public's not
[2:51:48]letting this die. This is coming out. Uh and so as that article now the president's saying it's artificial intelligence that will that will be proven
[2:52:00]uh in due time but this has got a date on it that this has got a date and it contains most of the things that uh that Massie and Roana had. Uh I thought Mr.
[2:52:11]Negus had a good point about some language in here that you thought was uh I think it was deont some of the information could be excluded but bottom line this is going to be debated in the
[2:52:22]public. It's got a 30-day time limit on it and it's it's got a 30-day time limit for vote. I you know that's not for me to call Mr. and I'm not going to debate
[2:52:33]you on this. All I'm gonna say is this uh I know you y'all's intent. Uh had it been important during previous administration, you would be, you know,
[2:52:43]on it as you would have so many other things. You didn't care. This is after one man and it's it's going to come out. The Wall Street Journal, you going to have other things in and that would be
[2:52:53]debated in the public. So I don't know. Um, you know, I just the the I guess it's the what y'all what you want is just you're hammered on this because you
[2:53:05]think you got some political gain on it. The American people are going to judge the end results of this. And I think when all the facts come out, let them judge it. All of us are want
[2:53:15]transparency. And so, um, you know, I again, I think if had you brought this up, uh, over the up previous years, this president has been in office now for
[2:53:25]four months, five months, and you've t you've ripped him apart at when you could, but it's not working, and the American people know it. This is going to come out. We wouldn't not have even brought this up if it wouldn't. I yel
[2:53:36]back. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Norman. >> Any further discussion? hearing none.
[2:53:48]>> No, no, >> sorry, Miss Ledger Fernandez. >> Oh, sorry, Mr. N. >> Joe was first. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> So, I I guess first just a couple of
[2:53:58]questions that I think our side of the aisle as we're reviewing the resolution that we just received, you know, about 15 minutes ago, have I think the first that Mr. McGovern was articulating and
[2:54:10]there was a bit of an exchange back and forth and so I do think it's helpful to clarify this for the public the resolution and and maybe this is a question for Mr. Griffith or for Mr.
[2:54:21]Norman the resolution that's been introduced does it have the force of law that is to say it's a resolution right so it's not
[2:54:31]a bill this was the exchange that Mr. Scott, Mr. Mr. McGovern were having, ranking member McGovern were having because it's not a bill. While I understand the resolution includes language like shall sort of directing
[2:54:43]the attorney general, I is it your position that the resolution functions as a bill? I I guess I'm I'm trying to understand how it how this is
[2:54:54]how this would enact any kind of compliance from the department because it's a sense of Congress essentially. And so h how does the administration if
[2:55:03]it passes the house? Is the attorney general legally obligated to then comply with the sense of congress?
[2:55:14]>> And if I might, Madam Chair, >> happy to yield. >> Mr. Griffith, >> I I would submit to the gentleman that part of the concern is the same concern
[2:55:24]I have with CRAAS is that if it's a bill, it has to go to the president who
[2:55:30]is the who over who appoints the U attorney general for signature. It's always going to be an issue. The
[2:55:41]legislative body needs to make decisions for itself. This calls on them to take action 30 days after passage. And then further, we put we put this in there
[2:55:52]specifically to try to answer that question. I'm looking on page five of this draft urges the relevant House committees to investigate to initiate formal investigations into any obstruction, suppression, or delay of
[2:56:04]the file's release. So while it would be accurate that a bill would have the full force and effect of law, what this says on behalf of the
[2:56:15]house is that should we not get the information that we are saying needs to be released demands that it be released
[2:56:26]that we would then urge all relevant house committees. Unfortunately, the rules committee is not in a position to demand. We are urging and if the body
[2:56:37]does it, they've got a little bit more clout, but but we're urging all relevant House committees and we we you know, in my own mind, I at least debated and I think some of the others were in
[2:56:48]agreement on this jurisdiction may be judiciary, it may be oversight. The bottom line is House committees are being urged to to initiate formal investigations to any obstruction,
[2:56:59]suppression or delay of the files release of the Epstein uh >> information related to the uh charges in the investigation into both him and his
[2:57:10]sidekick. >> I want to reclaim Thank you, Mr. Griffith. And I'm not and I I mean it in all sincerity. I just know the chair is will going to get in trouble with the chair too long. So, um I guess what I
[2:57:20]would just suggest is that If we know that a bill has the force of law, that there is no wiggle room, that the attorney general would be required to comply with a bill because it's a
[2:57:32]federal statute if in fact um it makes it its way through the entire process. And we have a bill that Mr. Massie
[2:57:41]Republican has introduced that I think is the vehicle not a resolution that is a sense of Congress
[2:57:51]that ultimately I hear your point uh you know the the the accountability mechanism that you put in the bill which is essentially urging the committees to investigate. I'm sure you could
[2:58:00]recognize the skepticism uh you know we would have on our side of the aisle. I'm sure you feel the same way about, you know, the Republican controlled Congress investigating, you
[2:58:10]know, the the president um and taking that step. But I just that my view is that is the most salient difference here is that Mr. Massie and Mr. Khan's bill has the force of law. It would it would
[2:58:22]there is no escaping it. The president, the attorney general, would have to comply with it. The second thing I would say is there there are two provisions in the resolution that concern me. um that
[2:58:33]there was a reference to this by Mr. Norman. One is that in the permitted withholdings section and and neither of these are in Mr. Massie and Mr. Conor's resolution,
[2:58:44]the language says that the attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that and then you go to subsection G, sub
[2:58:53]paragraph G, are demonstrably false or unauthenticated. So basically what this resolution says is that if Attorney General Bondi
[2:59:04]decides that there's information in the file in those files that she thinks is false or unauthenticated
[2:59:14]that that information would then not be published to Congress or to the American people. The president of the United States right now tonight is posting on
[2:59:24]True Social and elsewhere that the Wall Street Journal article that was just quoted by Miss Scandan that that's fake, that that's false is what he's claiming, which means that that's the exact type
[2:59:35]of information that the attorney general could deem excludable from any kind of provisioning to the public. And so what I have said to Mr. Norman is I don't
[2:59:46]while I understand some of these other uh provisions that quote specifically the federal rules of criminal procedure for example grand jury testimony I think
[2:59:55]that that provision um is just is problematic. The second provision that I think is problematic is
[3:00:04]subsection F. Subsection F say again, this is the attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that contain information specifically authorized
[3:00:15]under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such executive
[3:00:25]order. The issue is there's no standards by which we can evaluate a pres the propriety of the president's executive order. So if the president
[3:00:37]issued an executive order tomorrow and establishes criteria in his own judgment says I I think that the criteria should be AB and C and that if it qualifies for
[3:00:47]AB and C it's in the national interest the national defense of our country that that should be excluded then they can exclude it. And I I just I guess my point would be you and you can if I'm
[3:00:59]inaccurate about this I mean this in good faith if this language is in the Massie resolution excuse me the Massie bill and I'm mistaken on that that I but I don't think yeah it's not um and so I
[3:01:10]just I have I think those provisions are problematic the way that they have been framed and phrased and I think had they been constructed specific to federal
[3:01:18]statute similar to the rule of six E of federal rule of criminal procedure with respect to grand juries, then I think it'd be a different story. Um, but I I am concerned about those provisions and
[3:01:29]so and I'm happy to yield to the ranking member. >> I I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to there's nothing in this resolution that directs any committees to do any investigations and >> if the gentleman would yield.
[3:01:41]>> If the if the gentleman would yield. >> Let me let me finish my thought. >> Let's be careful. I'll recognize >> he yielded to me. >> I'm sorry.
[3:01:51]>> Yeah. No. And there's nothing here that in your resolution strikes committee should do anything. >> And I don't want you to sell the rules committee short >> because the rules committee has a lot more power than I think you realize.
[3:02:02]>> Um and if you look at the rule book uh rule 10 clause one the jurisdiction of this rules committee is primarily over propositions to make or change the rules
[3:02:12]to create committees and to direct them to make investigations. So we have the power to do that if we wanted to. I just wanted to make because I I I I I'm very
[3:02:22]proud to be a member of this committee and I think it has a lot more power than sometimes people give it credit of having. So >> and madam madam if the gentleman would
[3:02:32]yield to me I would appreciate it. Ranking members correct I misstated the bill. I apologize for that. I recognized it, which is why when he started talking, I said, "Hey, wait a minute.
[3:02:43]Wait a minute. I was trying to get in, but I did misstate the language of the bill, but it certainly is the intent of the bill is that if action is not taken, there will be subsequent action." And whatever appropriate committee it's
[3:02:55]supposed to be in, that's where we will take it. And and so I apologize to those members that I've looked at a lot of different things today and I got my wires crossed and that's my fault and
[3:03:05]nobody else's. So I take responsibility for that and I apologize to the members of the committee that I made a mistake. was not an intentional misleading of this committee. I would hope that you all would know I would never intentionally do it. I might be wrong,
[3:03:17]but at the time I say something, I think it's the accuracy and I did not mean to mislead this committee and I apologize. >> No offense taken and I thank the gentleman as well. And I yeah, so I
[3:03:26]again I would just say I think that I've articulated in my view the many different provisions of this resolution that are problematic. And I guess I would just say that in closing,
[3:03:38]there's a Republican le resolution rep bill Republicanled bill by Mr. Massie has it has the support of multiple Republicans in your caucus. It certainly has the support of Democrats as well.
[3:03:49]It's bipartisan. It has the force of law. Uh and I think it deserves a vote on the floor and I I hope my colleagues will join us in signing the discharge petition for that bill. As I
[3:03:58]>> Mr. goose. Um, section F and section G are both in the Massie resolution. >> No, they're not.
[3:04:09]>> Uh, could, Madame Chair, I have the Massie. Can you point me to the >> I'm not sure if they're in exactly the
[3:04:21]same place, but my understanding is that they those two piece those two clauses
[3:04:29]are are in the Massie resolution. >> We and I think the gentleman I will look I have the resolution here so I'll I will circle back.
[3:04:41]>> Thank you. I I would just add for clarification. I I I don't believe G is in there. I think F I believe F is in there in slightly different wording without the executive word executive
[3:04:52]order first sentence with some national security language behind that which is language that is similar and I get that your point is that the executive order point is not that there are so I guess I if I if the chairman would indulge me
[3:05:03]and I only 30 seconds but yes section subsection G is not in the Massie resolution. that language is not and there's it's not rooted in any statutory basis. So that it's just the idea that the attorney general gets to decide what
[3:05:14]she believes is false and she can exclude it. And then with respect to the national security piece, I certainly concede I'm not suggesting and you're right looking at the Massie resolutions to Roy that it does include uh a
[3:05:25]national security provision, but it does not provide this broad flexibility to uh to issue the executive order. That was my issue. But anyway, I yield back. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Noose.
[3:05:36]Madam Chair, >> Miss Leger Fernandez, you recognize. >> Uh I'd like to begin by uh yielding time to my ranking member. >> Again, I think it's important you could
[3:05:47]have instructed committees or jurisdiction to investigate and you chose not to. But I just also want to make the point that we just gave you the opportunity to take your exact language,
[3:05:57]as flawed as it is, um and give it to force of law, and you all voted against that. I think that speaks volumes and I thank the gentle lady for yielding and I yield back.
[3:06:09]>> Uh thank you uh rank member. I think that that is precisely the issue that we are discussing is there is a bill that has contains much of the same language
[3:06:20]not exactly that would have the force of law and this committee the rules committee has the power to require that
[3:06:30]it be taken up immediately. And this committee is rejecting that. You rejected
[3:06:38]a a motion before and you have rejected an amendment which would require that HR4405
[3:06:46]which has the force of law to force to require
[3:06:54]that the Epstein files be released subject to the redactions. Mr. Scott had pointed out that there was no protection
[3:07:04]for the victims and I will read from HR4405 the law of it says the attorney did not
[3:07:15]offer that Mr. Scott did not offer that madam chair order madam chair order >> yes >> I do not appreciate being yelled at because I was not you are not being
[3:07:27]recognized this is my time Mr. Scott, I am speaking. I am speaking and what I am pointing out
[3:07:34]is that there was a motion to include a enforcable law to be voted on by the
[3:07:44]House of Representatives as to whether the House of Representatives, including every single Democrat and Republican in the House of Representatives, would require the release of the Epstein
[3:07:55]files. And you've rejected that. And in that mo in that law that was the subject of the motion that you all voted no on.
[3:08:06]It did indeed protect the identity of the victims at uh C uh PNS 1A.
[3:08:16]It did protect the identity of the victims. So this law that would have the force of law that could go to the floor
[3:08:24]and be voted on, you have rejected. And with regards to the additional point of with regards to the additional point of
[3:08:33]whether the rules could require that any committee take this up, they already could require that any of the committees that are controlled by Republicans right
[3:08:44]now could take up the issue of whether or not the files are being withheld,
[3:08:54]manipulated. That is some of the oversight that this Congress is not doing of this administration. So you have the power and you have the ability to vote on it. So once again to
[3:09:05]summarize, this committee has the power to require that an enforcable law be taken up and voted on. The language is
[3:09:16]the same, but you are instead choosing to move forward on some indefinite time. We're going to go home. It's going to be six weeks before we come back on some
[3:09:27]indefinite time that there might be a vote. You're not even requiring if you cared enough about this, you would have negotiated because you've been
[3:09:38]negotiating all day today, haven't you? We haven't been in this rules committee because you've been negotiating and I'm not going to say we could. Well, somebody negotiating, if I were in there negotiating, perhaps
[3:09:49]I would have required that there be a date certain by which this was heard, would have required that it be something enforcable. Would have required
[3:10:00]that it not be basically a loophole that you could drive a parade through, let alone a Mac truck. The loopholes in here
[3:10:08]are huge. The whole resolution is huge. And I think that the issue with regards to what was reported in the Wall Street
[3:10:18]Journal, the key thing about that is that report discusses a birthday card that was sent after Epstein had already
[3:10:29]been indicted the first time around. And I would like to now see if any of my colleagues would like any additional time >> and yield to my chair, my dear colleague
[3:10:40]from Colorado. >> I think the gentleoman I certainly agree with u all of her sentiments and I think in real time now I suspect some of my colleagues might talk about this the announcement on social media regarding
[3:10:52]grand jury materials uh that the Department of Justice may seek to unseal. And I think if anything, it just is it's emblematic of the prior conversation we were having because the
[3:11:03]grand jury provision that's in the resolution, which would exclude all grand jury material, was not in the Massie resolution, Massie bill, I should say. And now, obviously, this latest development,
[3:11:15]you know, in some respects, uh, adds to the this conversation. So, I think again, it's a reminder that the provisions in this this resolution um, I think are problematic,
[3:11:26]>> right? And and the other problem about this resolution and and this is the issue is right now it's the attorney general who has refused to release the files to release whatever information it
[3:11:38]is. And so their non-binding resolution gives all the authority to the attorney general and the president who can then continue to obiscate continue reviews.
[3:11:50]And I think that this is one of those issues where the voters are smarter than this. the voters can read through something that is non-binding that
[3:11:59]doesn't require that is simply somebody called it a a glorified press release right I think the voters are smarter than that and will recognize that what
[3:12:10]has been presented here it's a bunch of words on paper that are not enforcable uh and there's not even a day when the
[3:12:21]house will take it up in every other rule that we've passed asked in this house. It's it's going to it goes we know when it's going to be heard. It's going to be heard tomorrow. It's going to be heard Wednesday. We got a
[3:12:31]schedule. We know it's on. And once again, Madam Chair, we have no schedule for this. Is that correct? >> Well, Miss Leisure Fernandez, I think what we're
[3:12:43]going to see is that this um resolution has had much more of an impact than you
[3:12:52]are giving it credit for. And so I I would suggest that we fairly soon have a vote on this and then we move on because
[3:13:03]I believe um we will get the results that we want, which is a uh a clear
[3:13:14]exposition of any materials that are out there regarding Jeffrey Epstein. So thank you all. Thank you, Madam
[3:13:24]Chair. My my question was whether there was a date for this resolution. >> I'm saying to you I Yes, there is a
[3:13:33]date, not a date necessarily when this is going to be heard next week on the floor, but there was a date in the
[3:13:42]resolution. And as I said, I believe what you're going to learn shortly is that the effect of this resolution is
[3:13:51]much stronger than any of you had expected it to have. >> So there is no date for this to be heard. There is a date that is on the
[3:14:02]paper here, but that date goes from that date doesn't begin to to you know, we don't count the dates until we actually pass the resolution. So, if we don't
[3:14:14]have a date for the passing of resolution, it could it could be never. I I guess that's the problem is there is no date. And I'll I'll yield I'll yield to a colloqu with my I've never gotten
[3:14:24]to have a colloqu with you friend from Colorado and I know you love doing that. I >> I am. I'm honored and I guess you perhaps close the hearing uh shortly here in the same fashion in which we
[3:14:34]started it which was Mr. Norman you know I think he said this isn't going away and I completely agree with him and what I would say as we're talking about operative dates the operative date is
[3:14:44]that the Tom Massie Roana bill and the discharge petition that Mr.
[3:14:53]Massie has filed will become ripe. And you know, I'm hoping that votes are scheduled tomorrow so that that petition
[3:15:03]becomes ripe next week so that we can vote on it. Uh but irrespective of the Republican calendar and how votes are calendared, it will become ripe
[3:15:14]soon and every member of the House will have an opportunity to weigh in one way or the other as to whether or not to sign onto that bipartisan resolution, bipartisan bill that Mr. Massie, >> the gentleman introduced and I'm
[3:15:24]certainly supportive of it. would you would say I yield back? >> Well, I will definitely I would also suggest that perhaps everybody who is supportive of this house resolution
[3:15:34]non-binding and believes that it is important to have that information released could go sign that discharge position. You have power here, but you also have power by signing the discharge
[3:15:46]position. Ranking member, >> I I was just going to ask the same question. Can with a show of hands, how many of you are going to sign the discharge petition? >> We've all signed it.
[3:15:55]I mean, okay. Nobody. Okay. But there'll be a bipartisan discharge petition that will be ripe and you'll be able to sign it when you come back uh from your break and I hope that you will all sign it. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
[3:16:05]>> I I'd also, you know, as the old attorney me, I'd like to point out, let the record reflect that not a single one of the Republicans on the committee raised their hands in favor of the discharge position. a single one of the
[3:16:17]members in the committee were willing to support uh the binding uh law uh if it were to pass uh of the Massie uh Kana uh
[3:16:27]HR4405. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. >> Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the motion from the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor signify by saying I.
[3:16:39]>> I. Those opposed say no. >> No. >> In the opinion chair, the eyes have it. The motion is agreed to. >> Madam Chair, I ask for roll call. >> A recorded vote has been requested. The
[3:16:50]clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach, >> yes. >> Mrs. Fishbach, yes. Mr. Norman, I >> Mr. Norman, I Mr. Roy. >> Hi. >> Mr. Roy, I Mrs. Houchin. >> Hi. >> Mrs. Henchin. I Mr. Langworthy. >> Hi.
[3:17:00]>> Mr. Langworthy. I Mr. Scott. >> Hi. >> Mr. Scott. I Mr. Griffith. Hi. >> Mr. Griffith. I Mr. Jack. >> I. >> Mr. Jack. I Mr. McGovern. >> No. >> Mr. McGovern. No. Miss Scallan.
[3:17:10]>> Miss Scallan. No. Mr. Negus. >> No. >> Mr. Negus. No. Miss Ledger Fernandez. M >> Ledger Fernandez. No. Madam Chair, >> I. >> Madam Chair, I >> The clerk will report the total
[3:17:24]>> nine yays, four nays. >> And the um motion is agreed to accordingly. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, will be managing this rule for the majority.
[3:17:35]>> And I'll manager for the minority if we ever get to it. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman uh from Virginia.
[3:17:47]>> We we don't have the rule then chair. >> Okay. All right. >> Right there. >> Well, okay. Madame Chair
[3:18:30]is she broadcasting. All right. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee grant a rule providing that
[3:18:41]the House shall be considered to have taken from the speaker's table HR4, the Recisions Act of 2025 with the Senate amendment there too, and to have
[3:18:50]concurred in the Senate amendment. >> Um, I I need to make a statement before we
[3:19:01]move further. >> Okay. Attempts to amend this legislation at this stage in the process is solely to delay implementation of responsible
[3:19:11]governance and fiscal sanity. And my colleagues are aware any amendment will compromise the privilege of this legislation in the Senate. Additionally, this is not an arbitrary deadline. It's
[3:19:22]essential that this legislation be signed into law by this weekend. Further, any amendments to this package regarding Jeffrey Epstein are not
[3:19:31]gerine. This Congress, we've enacted historic savings for the American people, and we must act swiftly to hold Washington accountable and prioritize bloated government spending on programs
[3:19:43]that actually benefit taxpayers. So, um, we have an amend we have a motion from
[3:19:53]the gentleman from Virginia. discussion. >> Is there any further discussion? >> Yeah. Yeah. Madam Chair, first of all,
[3:20:02]let me again express my concern about this committee. Um I mean, we we you are we are bringing a bill to the floor
[3:20:12]under martial law. Um and we're not even allowing for there to be an hour of debate. Um and this is a bill that is going to adversely impact millions of people. Um,
[3:20:24]it involves everything from public broadcasting to international health uh programs that actually save lives. Um,
[3:20:34]and we're just going to kind of rush it through. And again, I I I I think this is a lousy president. I think this is not not the way on something this big.
[3:20:45]Um, I mean, you heard the appropriations uh uh chair, ranking member, and the chair of the of the subcommittee. They have strong views on this. So do a whole
[3:20:55]bunch of other members in this in this chamber. And so I again I I'm I'm expressing my frustration not just at the process but at the integrity of this committee. And I have an amendment to
[3:21:07]the rule. I move that the committee make an order amendment number six offered by Representative Cisneros uh which would strike the recision of the international disaster assistance funding and provide
[3:21:18]uh for the funding level passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 2025. Worldwide 300 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance due to natural or man-made
[3:21:29]causes. A third of these are in dis are are in or displaced from Sudan. Hundreds of millions of children, one in five kids globally are living in or fleeing
[3:21:40]from war zones. This amendment would protect funds for health and shelter for vulnerable people and their children fleeing dangerous conditions. And if basic humanity doesn't sway you,
[3:21:52]international disaster funds help improve our own national security. And I urge a yes vote. >> Any further discussion on the amendment?
[3:22:02]Hearing none the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed say no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair of the nose have it. The amendments not roll call.
[3:22:13]Madam chair. >> The clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach. >> No. >> Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. No. >> Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hton.
[3:22:24]>> Mrs. Hton? No. Mr. Langworthy. >> Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott? >> No. >> Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Griffith? No. >> Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Jack? >> Mr. Jack? No. Mr. McGovern. >> Hi. >> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Gallant. >> Hi.
[3:22:35]>> Miss Gallon. I Mr. Noose. >> Hi. >> Mr. Noose. I M Ledger Fernandez. >> Hi. >> Mr. Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair. No. >> The clerk will report the total.
[3:22:46]>> Four yays. Nine nays. >> No. Have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> Madam Chair, I have another amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number 10 10 to the Senate amendment to HR4 offered by
[3:22:56]Representative Johnson which strikes the recision of funds from the bilateral economic assistance funds appropriated to the president to the uh uh to the president global health programs. Um, I
[3:23:08]wish I could be specific about the devastating impact that these cuts will have. And let me be clear, cuts of this amount to these programs will be devastating, but as we heard in this
[3:23:18]hearing, the White House hasn't told us exactly um what they intend to cut. U this is a guessing game. This is an abdication of our duty here in Congress. Um and and lives will be lost because of
[3:23:30]it. I urge a yes vote on my amendment. I yield back. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I.
[3:23:42]>> All those opposed say no. >> No. >> In the opinion chair of the nose have it. Amendments not agree. I >> ask for roll call. Madam >> clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach. >> No. >> Mr. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman.
[3:23:53]>> Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hton. Mrs. Hton. No. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. >> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. >> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack.
[3:24:03]No. Mr. McGover. Hi. Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scallan. >> Hi. >> Miss Scallan. I Mr. Nagus. >> Hi. >> Mr. Noose. I M. Ledger. Fernandez. >> M. Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair. No. The
[3:24:14]>> clerk will report the total. >> Four. Yes. Nice. >> The nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number three to the Senate amendment to HR4 offered by
[3:24:25]Representative Titus, which strikes the paragraph that rescends funding for the assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia account. Madam Chair, this awful bill will decimate uh support uh
[3:24:36]for Ukraine and partners in the region facing Russian aggression. I find it disgusting that Republicans in Congress have decided to cozy up with Putin and totally abandon the people of Ukraine.
[3:24:46]Ukraine and neighboring countries are defending fundamental freedoms and the United States of America under Republican control is turning its back on them. I urge a yes vote on my amendment and I yield back.
[3:24:57]>> Is there further discussion? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed say no. >> No.
[3:25:08]>> In the opinion of chair. The nos have it. The amendments. >> Ask for a roll call. Madam chair. >> Clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach. >> No. >> Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. >> Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hton. Mrs. Hchen. No.
[3:25:22]Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. Mr. McGovern >> I >> Mr. McGovern I miss >> I
[3:25:32]>> miss I Mr. Noose >> I >> Mr. Nus I misled Fernandez Mger Fernandez I Madam Chair >> no >> Madam Chair no >> clerk report the total
[3:25:43]>> four yes nine a >> no have it the amendments not agreed to >> Miss Ledger Fernandez you are recognized >> thank you madam chair I'd like to make
[3:25:54]an or order amendment number two to HR4 uh I move the committee make an order amendment number two to the Senate amendment to HR4 offered by representative Goldman which strikes the
[3:26:04]provisions that resend funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As we discussed earlier today, those funds are incredibly popular. Americans want
[3:26:14]us to continue funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for everything that it does that is in the good of the public from making sure we have great
[3:26:25]educational programming to making sure that we have public radio stations in places like Alaska and Kansas and Nebraska, Colorado and New Mexico that
[3:26:35]aren't normally served by other radio stations, especially to get local news, to get emergency services. I would also uh point out, Madame Chair, that you
[3:26:46]made reference earlier to the fact that there was going to be something coming of the discussion we were have and I noticed that President Trump is actually walk watching this and tweeted out with
[3:26:57]a picture of this committee that he was going to require that there be a uh grand jury testimony released. But I
[3:27:05]would note that in the uh Massie Kana bill, it's not just grand jury testimony. There's so much more that is required. What about the travel logs?
[3:27:16]What about what happened around the uh suicide? What happens around everything? And so this limited disclosure of material is not what would be included
[3:27:27]in the uh uh Epstein transparency act, which we should all support. so that the full record is released. >> Yeah. And
[3:27:38]>> I would yield to my good friend from Colorado. >> Yeah. And just thank you for the uh thank you to the gentleman for yielding the time. The point that I was trying to articulate earlier is this precise point that Miss Ledger Fernandez just said,
[3:27:50]which is that the announcement from the president and from the attorney general. This information is the very same information that would not have been
[3:27:59]allowed to be released under paragraph D of the resolution that was just deemed uh included in the rule. So that that's the grand jury information that the
[3:28:11]attorney general says online. We'll see if she does this that indicates she will seek a court order to release right protected grand jury information. that information is not allowed to be
[3:28:21]disclosed or it's at least it's a permitted area of u segregation of records under the resolution. So >> I'd like to yield to >> I yield back. >> Yeah. And again I I want to associate myself with your remarks and I'm not
[3:28:33]going to hold my breath that this administration on its own is going to do anything uh to shine light on uh the Epstein uh files. But in any event, I to the amendment at hand. Uh I want to
[3:28:44]point out to my colleagues that this bill fully eliminates federal funding for public TV and radio for the next two years. These are trusted sources of news and educational programming for millions
[3:28:55]of households. 42 million people listen to public radio weekly. 70% of the funding goes directly to over 1500 locallyowned public TV and radio
[3:29:06]stations across this country. This funding is particularly critical in rural areas where public stations are often the only source of local news. Just yesterday, after an earthquake and
[3:29:17]tsunami warning in Alaska, Senator Marowski thanked local public broadcasting stations for, and I quote, giving Alaskans realtime updates and
[3:29:27]keeping us safe, end quote, and called for the Senate to vote down these misguided cuts. And I urge a yes vote on the Ledger Fernandez amendment. and I yield back my time.
[3:29:38]>> Thank you. Thank you uh ranking member for supporting this because indeed uh we know that these uh radio stations are both beloved and essential. They are the
[3:29:50]public good and we should be supporting those things which make America really a place of kindness and information and
[3:30:00]support for our public. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I.
[3:30:12]I. >> I. >> Those opposed say no. >> In the opinion the chair of the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> Ask for roll call. >> Roll call. >> The clerk will call the role.
[3:30:24]>> Mrs. Fishbach. >> No. >> Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Hochen. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. >> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. Hi.
[3:30:35]>> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. >> Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. >> Hi. >> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scallan. >> Hi. >> Miss Gallen. I am. Mr. Noose. >> I. >> Mr. Nus. I. M. Ledger Fernandez.
[3:30:46]>> Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair. No. >> Clerk will report the total. >> Four. Yes. Nine. >> And the nos have it. The amendment is
[3:30:57]not agreed to. Is there further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the motion from the
[3:31:07]gentleman from Virginia. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed say no. >> No. >> In the opinion chair, the no the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to.
[3:31:18]>> Ask for roll call. >> Mr. McGovern asked for a roll call. The clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach. >> I. >> Mr. Fishbach. I Mr. Norman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Norman. I. Mr. Roy. >> Hi. >> Mr. Roy. I Mrs. Hchen.
[3:31:30]>> Hi. >> Mrs. Hchen. I Mr. Mr. Langworthy. >> Mr. Langworthy. I Mr. Scott. >> Mr. Scott. I Mr. Griffith. >> Mr. Griffith. I Mr. Jack. >> Mr. Jack. I Mr. McGovern. >> No.
[3:31:41]>> Mr. McGover. No. Miss Scallan. >> No. >> Miss Scallan. No. Mr. Nagus. >> No. >> Mr. Noose. No. M. Ledger Fernandez. >> No. M. >> Ledger Fernandez. No. Madam Chair. >> I.
[3:31:52]>> Madam Chair. I >> The clerk will report the total >> nes. And the um the amendment is agreed to
[3:32:03]the the motion to report is agreed to accordingly. I'll be managing the rule for the majority. >> I will for the minority >> and Mr. McGovern for the minority. >> Do we know when we're going to the floor?
[3:32:14]>> Right now. >> Without objection. The committee is >> Who said we're going to the floor now? The majority leader. >> Maybe you can ask him when we're bringing up the other vote. Okay. Thank you.
[3:32:26]>> Andreas meeting is adjourned. record.