[0:00]89 is hereby adopted. >> You um Thank you very much. You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion or
[0:12]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
[0:21]we we've taken no testimony on this. Um we've had no discussion on this. I'm just wondering where's the other rule? that will be coming shortly.
[0:32]>> 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've I've been here for a while on this committee. Um I was here as a staffer as
[0:42]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
[0:54]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
[1:05]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.
[1:15]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
[1:25]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
[1:35]disappointed uh that after all the uh the years of uh of Trump and his attorney general and his uh now head of
[1:44]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
[1:55]questions about the resolution and maybe Madam Chair or or maybe Mr. Norman who whoever wants to answer them can. Um but
[2:02]uh does does this have the force of law? >> Um you know, Democrats are so desperate
[2:13]to use the serious issue of sex trafficking to score political points. They're speaking out of both sides of your mouths almost in real time. And we really don't have any tolerance for
[2:24]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
[2:35]a resolution and not a bill, then why did you all offer Representative VZ's resolution just three nights ago? You weren't attacking resolutions and their
[2:46]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
[2:56]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
[3:07]with a couple of things. Uh 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 bill didn't
[3:18]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 week ago,
[3:29]but now there's a bill that that there's a bill available. Um you you take it uh you you you want to avoid voting on on that legis on that legislation. Um I
[3:41]guess the question my other question is what happens if the administration doesn't follow any of the suggestions in this non-binding resolution? What? What?
[3:50]What? What's the recourse? >> There's a time limit on the resolution
[4:06]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
[4:15]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?
[4:24]Tonight. Um um do what day next week will this be on the floor? >> Well, that that will be announced
[4:34]>> when the majority leader will make that announcement. So, can you guar can you guarantee us and to everybody watching
[4:45]that this will absolutely be brought up on the floor next week? >> That's the majority leaders decision to make. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, I mean, millions of people
[4:57]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
[5:08]or even a a guesstimate as to when this might be brought up. And furthermore, um we can debate the rule on this
[5:18]non-binding resolution, but uh but that's it. There's no there's no debate like we have on most bills uh where
[5:28]people can get up and and and discuss the pros and cons and and and what this bill means. I I I got to tell you I I
[5:39]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
[5:50]do something um more significant not only in this committee, but also on the host 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
[6:01]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
[6:12]non-binding resolution on Epstein, and instead provide for immediate cons consideration of HR405, the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act introduced by
[6:23]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
[6:34]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
[6:44]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
[6:55]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
[7:06]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 Con
[7:16]Massie resol kicking the can down the road. It is a bipartisan bill that would direct the attorney general to release the EP Epstein files within 30 days. It
[7:26]details exactly which records to release and ensures nothing is hidden 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
[7:37]they're asking for, not some weak, non-binding resolution to protect yourselves from an awkward vote. So, a vote for my amendment is a vote to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor that
[7:47]would actually release the Epstein files and and not the glorified press release that you were proposing today. A vote against my amendment is a vote to give Republican members a fig leaf so they
[7:59]can move on from this issue like President Trump asked them to do. Now, we may hear arguments from Republicans that this amendment isn't technically gerine. And I can understand why you why
[8:10]you'll try to hide behind geranus because you don't want to take this vote. But the rules committee has a long long long history of allowing votes on non-gerane amendments, including when I
[8:22]was chair, and allowed Republicans to offer amendments on resolutions of inquiry. We took the votes. We took the votes. That's what we do here in the rules committee. Gerineess was never
[8:34]enforced on minority motions. So don't pretend 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
[8:45]my amendment. It's that simple. The fact of the matter is you don't want to vote on actually releasing the Epstein files. Not up here and not on the floor. And
[8:55]what are you afraid of? And for anyone who raises a point of order on Germaine, just know that you're going to be extra famous for going beyond uh for going
[9:06]above and beyond to block this bill from 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
[9:17]the chair to ensure that this bill will 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
[9:27]Epstein files. And look, all of you know 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.
[9:38]Why would anybody want to stop this bill 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
[9:50]the resolve clause of the rule which deems as adopted a brand new non-binding resolution on Epstein and instead provides for the immediate consideration of HR4405,
[10:02]the bipartisan Epstein files transparency act under a closed rule with one hour of debate. U Mr. McGovern.
[10:18]Uh again, you're trying to uh characterize how we vote and why we vote, but it's very interesting to see
[10:27]you suddenly express interest in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes given that President Biden had four years to take meaningful action and did nothing.
[10:38]Unfortunately, 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
[10:50]offered earlier this week were significantly lacking in protections for victims, whistleblowers, and innocent witnesses. I support this resolution which we've
[11:02]introduced tonight which requires the release of credible information protects whistleblowers and victims of sexual abuse and finally allows the whole world
[11:11]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
[11:22]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
[11:32]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.
[11:43]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
[11:54]FBI, including every kind of MAGA, you know, uh right-wing uh influencer has been talking about releasing these files.
[12:03]>> 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
[12:13]>> 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
[12:24]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
[12:34]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.
[12:45]I think we know who's playing the game. >> 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
[12:56]resolution to the floor? Can you 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
[13:08]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
[13:18]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
[13:29]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
[13:39]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
[13:50]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
[14:01]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 can get a veto proof uh majority? Your bill does nothing. Has the has the it's all it's
[14:12]all it's a resolution. It's a glorified press release and you may be satisfied with that. Maybe you know some some some people who have been reaching out to you and putting pressure on you to do something might be satisfied with that.
[14:23]I'm willing to bet you the majority of people who are watching this, including Republicans, will not be satisfied. >> Facts are separate 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
[14:35]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
[14:44]document to what you offered on Monday >> and it it is >> 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.
[14:56]>> 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
[15:06]a vote on his motion since he has done that. >> We would like So the question >> the the question is on the amendment
[15:18]>> from Mr. McGovern. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. >> No. >> In the opinion chair, the nose have it.
[15:28]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. Hchen. No. Mr.
[15:39]Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. No. >> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. >> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. >> Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. >> Hi. >> Mr. McGovern. I am. Miss Scandlin. Hi. >> Miss. Scanlin. I am. Mr. Nagus. Mr.
[15:51]Noose. I. Miss. Ledger. Fernandez. Hi. >> Mr. Ledger Fernandez. I am. Madam Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair. No. The clerk will report the total. >> Four yays, nine nays.
[16:02]>> 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
[16:10]immediate consideration of HR 4405, the bipartisan Epstein um trans Epstein files transparency act under a closed
[16:20]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
[16:30]actually release the Epstein files? Again, I ask again, why would anybody be against bringing this bill to the floor? You could bring both >> point inquiry. >> Mr. Griffith,
[16:42]>> uh I'm trying to figure out where we are, Madam Madam 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
[16:52]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
[17:03]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.
[17:15]>> 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.
[17:29]>> 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. >> Discussion and you know, >> the previous was a point of
[17:41]parliamentary inquiry. Now I'm doing a point of order. >> 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
[17:51]something in writing which caused confusion among the members and therefore there were questions being asked. So it is a timely point of
[18:01]ordering that we practice this committee. I'm just telling you >> madam chair I disagree with the the assertions of the ranking member because of the because of the confusion.
[18:12]>> How can I make a point of order when I 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.
[18:22]>> I I agree with Mr. Griffith that you created confusion, Mr. McGovern. Therefore, the committee will suspend.
[18:33]>> The committee will suspend while we try to sort out the confusion you've created. The rule provides for consideration of
[19:12]our resolution, not a bill. Therefore, the amendment is not gerine. >> I appeal the ruling of the chair. >> Mr. McGovern appeals the ruling of the
[19:24]chair. The um the the question is on the appeal of the ruling of the chair. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
[19:36]>> 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.
[19:47]>> Mrs. Fishbach. No. >> Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. No. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hchin. No. >> Mrs. Hchin? No. Mr. Langworthy? No. >> Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Scott? >> No. >> Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Griffith? No.
[19:59]>> Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Jack? >> Mr. Jack? No. Mr. McGovern. >> Hi, >> Mr. McGovern. I Miss Scan. >> Hi, >> Miss Skellan. I Mr. Negus. >> Mr. Nagus. I Miss Leisure Fernandez. >> Point of order.
[20:16]>> It's a vote. >> Yes. >> Miss Ledger Fernandez. I >> Madame Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair, no. >> Clerk will report the total.
[20:26]>> 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
[20:39]>> 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
[20:49]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
[21:00]amendment and yet he's speaking on the amendment before it's >> offered discussion or amendment. >> You don't have an amendment. >> We don't have an amendment. >> I Yes, I in a moment I'm going to offer an amendment to convert this non-binding
[21:10]resolution 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
[21:21]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
[21:31]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
[21:41]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
[21:52]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
[22:03]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
[22:14]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
[22:25]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
[22:35]in order, you're supposed to cut to the chase. And this is not germaine and it shouldn't have a siloquy going in front of it. I yield. >> I
[22:46]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
[22:57]>> 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.
[23:09]>> No. >> In the opinion of 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,
[23:20]>> Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, no. >> Mr. Roy, no. Mrs. Hton, >> Mrs. Hchin, no. Mr. Langworthy, >> Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott, >> Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, no. >> Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack.
[23:30]No. Mr. McGovern. I >> Mr. McGovern. I miss Scanland. Hi. M. Scan. I Mr. Mr. Negus. >> Mr. Negus. I Mr. Ledger Fernandez. >> Hi. >> Mr. Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. >> No.
[23:42]>> 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
[23:54]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.
[24:05]I know I know others may have something to say. >> Madam Chair, can I speak to the >> You're recognized, Miss G. >> Thank you. I I mean, I do think it's important that we add a little context
[24:15]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
[24:26]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 but
[24:37]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
[24:46]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
[24:56]birthday album. One was from Donald Trump." And there's a fairly interesting, some might even say titilating article attached. Um, but so I would seek unanimous consent to enter that in the record.
[25:07]>> Without objection. >> 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
[25:17]know it? Thank you, Miss Scandlin. Does any other member wish to speak? >> Mr. Norman.
[25:29]>> Um, you know, as the chair brought up, this is really kind of hypocritical for y'all at this point. You've had four years to bring it up. Where was your inquiry
[25:40]then? Where were the facts? As you know, this is the public's not letting this die. This is coming out. Uh and so as that article now the president is saying
[25:51]it's artificial intelligence that will that will be proven 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
[26:02]Massie and Roana had. Uh I thought Mr. Negus had a good point about some language in here that you thought was uh
[26:12]I think it was deont some of the information could be excluded but bottom line this is going to be debated in the public. It's got a 30-day time limit on it and it's it's got a 30-day time limit
[26:24]for vote. I you know that's not for me to call Mr. and I'm not going to debate you on this. All I'm going to say is this uh I know you y'all's intent uh had
[26:34]it been important during a previous administration, you would be, you know, 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 gonna have
[26:46]other things in and that would be debated in the public. So, I don't know. Um, you know, I just the the I guess
[26:55]it's the what y'all what you want is just you're hammered on this because you think you got some political gain on it. The American people are going to judge the end results of this. And I think
[27:06]when all the facts come out, let them judge it. All of us are want transparency. And so, um, you know, again, I think if had you brought this
[27:16]up, uh, over the up previous years, this president has been in office now for 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
[27:28]to come out. We wouldn't not have even brought this up if it wouldn't. I yel back. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Norman.
[27:39]>> Any further discussion? hearing none. >> No, no, >> sorry, Miss Liser Fernandez. >> Oh, sorry, Mr. was first.
[27:49]>> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> So, I I guess first just a couple of questions that I think our side of the aisle as we're reviewing the resolution that we just received, you know, about
[28:00]15 minutes ago, have I think the first that Mr. McGovern was articulating and there was a bit of an exchange back and forth and so I do think it's helpful to clarify this for the public.
[28:12]The resolution and and maybe this is a question for Mr. Griffith or for Mr. Norman. The resolution that's been introduced does it have the force of law that is to
[28:23]say it's a resolution right? So it's not a bill. This was the exchange that Mr. Scott and Mr. Mr. McGovern were having. Frankie member McGovern were having because it's not a bill. While I
[28:35]understand the resolution includes language like shall sort of directing the attorney general. I is it your position that the resolution functions as a bill? I I guess I'm I'm trying to
[28:45]understand how it how this is how this would enact any kind of compliance from the department because it's a sense of Congress essentially.
[28:56]And so h how does the administration if it passes the house? Is the attorney general legally obligated to then comply
[29:07]with the sense of congress? >> And if I might, Madam Chair, >> happy to yield. >> Mr. Griffith, >> I I would submit to the gentleman that
[29:18]part of the concern is the same concern I have with CRAAS is that if it's a bill, it has to go to the president. who
[29:25]is that who over who appoints the uh attorney general for signature? It's always going to be an issue. The
[29:37]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
[29:48]specifically to try to answer that question. And 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 the
[29:59]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
[30:10]house is that should we not get the information that we are saying needs to be released demands that it be released
[30:22]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
[30:32]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
[30:44]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,
[30:54]suppression or delay of the files release of the Epstein uh and >> information related to the uh charges in the investigation into both him and his
[31:06]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
[31:16]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
[31:27]federal statute if in fact it makes it its way through the entire process. And we have a bill that Mr. Massie
[31:36]Republican has introduced that I think is the vehicle not a resolution that is a sense of Congress
[31:46]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
[31:55]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
[32:06]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. Connor's bill has the force of law. It would it would
[32:18]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 that
[32:29]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. 's resolution.
[32:40]The language says that the attorney general may withhold or redact these segregable portions of records that and then you go to subsection G, sub
[32:48]paragraph G, are demonstrabably false or unauthenticated. So basically what this resolution says is that if Attorney General Bondi
[32:59]decides that there's information in the file in those files that she thinks is false or unauthenticated
[33:09]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
[33:19]True Social and elsewhere that the Wall Street Journal article that was just quoted by Miss Scandlin that that's fake, that that's false is what he's claiming, which means that that's the
[33:30]exact type of information that the attorney general could deem excludable from any kind of provisioning to the public. And so what I had said to Mr.
[33:40]Norman is I don't 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 that that
[33:51]provision um is it just is problematic. The second provision that I think is problematic is subsection F. Subsection F say again,
[34:03]this is the attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an
[34:13]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 order. The issue is there's no standards
[34:23]by which we can evaluate a presriety of the president's executive order. So if the president issued an
[34:33]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 AB and C
[34:44]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
[34:54]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 so I just
[35:05]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
[35:14]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
[35:24]so obviously 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.
[35:36]>> If the if the gentleman would yield. >> Let me let me finish my thought. >> Let's be careful. >> He yielded to me. >> I'm sorry.
[35:46]>> Yeah. No. And there's nothing here that in in your resolution the drugs 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. Um
[35:58]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
[36:07]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
[36:18]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
[36:27]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.
[36:38]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
[36:50]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
[37:00]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,
[37:12]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
[37:22]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,
[37:33]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.
[37:44]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
[37:54]>> Mr. goose. Um, section F and section G are both in the Massie resolution. >> No, they haven't.
[38:05]>> Uh, could, Madame Chair, I have the Massie. Can you point me to the >> I'm not sure if they're in exactly the
[38:16]same place, but my understanding is that they those two piece those two clauses
[38:25]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.
[38:36]>> 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
[38:48]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 >> the point it's not that there are so I guess I if I if the chairman would
[38:58]indulge me 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
[39:09]decide what she believes is false and she can exclude And then with respect to the national security piece, I certainly concede. I'm not suggesting, and you're right, looking at the Massie resolution,
[39:18]Mr. Roy, that it does include a 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
[39:29]you. >> Thank you, Mr. Noose. >> Madam Chair, >> Miss Leure Fernandez, you recognized. >> Uh I'd like to begin by uh yielding time to my ranking member
[39:40]>> again. And I think it's important you could 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
[39:50]opportunity to take your exact language 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
[40:02]thank the gentle lady for yielding and I yield back. >> Uh thank you uh rank member. I think that that is precisely the issue that we are discussing is there is a bill that
[40:12]has contains much of the same language, not exactly that would have the force of law and this committee, the rules
[40:22]committee has the power to require that it be taken up immediately. And this committee is rejecting that. You
[40:32]rejected a a motion before and you have rejected an amendment which would require the HR4405
[40:41]which has the force of law to force to require
[40:49]that the Epstein files be released subject to the redactions. Mr. Scott had pointed out that there was no protection
[41:00]for the victims and I will read from HR4405 the law the postal it says the M did not
[41:10]offer that Mr. Scott did not offer that madam chair order madam chair order >> yes >> I do not appreciate being yelled at I
[41:19]was not you are not being recognized this is my time Mr. I am speaking. I am speaking. And what I am pointing
[41:29]out is that there was a motion to include a enforcable law to be voted on
[41:39]by the House of Representatives as to whether the House of Representatives, including every single Democrat and Republican on the House of Representatives, would require the
[41:49]release of the Epstein files. And you've rejected that. And in that mo in that law that was the subject of the motion
[41:59]that you all voted no on. It did indeed protect the identity of the victims at
[42:07]uh C uh PNS 1A. It did protect the identity of the victims. So this law that would have the
[42:17]force of law that could go to the floor and be voted on, you have rejected. And with regards to the additional point of with regards to the additional point of
[42:29]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
[42:39]now could take up the issue of whether or not the files are being withheld,
[42:50]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
[43:01]summarize, this committee has the power to require that an enforcable law be taken up and voted on. The language is
[43:12]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
[43:23]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
[43:33]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
[43:45]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
[43:56]that it not be basically a loophole that you could drive a parade through, let alone a Mac truck. The loopholes in here
[44:04]are huge. The whole resolution is huge. And I think that the issue with regards to what was reported in the Wall Street
[44:14]Journal, the key thing about that is that report discusses a birthday card that was sent after Epstein had already
[44:24]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
[44:36]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
[44:46]social media regarding grand jury materials uh that the department of justice may seek to unseal and I think if anything it's just is it's emblematic of the prior conversation we were having
[44:58]because the grand jury provision that's in the resolution which would exclude all grand jury material was not in the Massie resolution Massie I should say and now obviously this latest
[45:09]development you know in some respects adds to the this conversation. So I think again it's a reminder that the provisions in this this resolution um I think are
[45:21]problematic. >> 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
[45:31]files to release whatever information it is. And so their non-binding resolution gives all the authority to the attorney general and the president who can then
[45:42]continue to obiscate continue reviews. And I think that this is one of those issues where the voters are smarter than this. the voters can read through
[45:53]something that is non-binding that doesn't require that is simply somebody called it a a glorified press release right I think the voters are smarter
[46:02]than that and will recognize that what has been presented here it's a bunch of words on paper that are not enforcable
[46:13]uh and there's not even a day when the house will take it up in every other rule that we've passed 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
[46:25]heard tomorrow. It's going to be heard Wednesday. We got a 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
[46:36]what we're going to see is that this um resolution has had much more of an impact than you
[46:47]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
[46:59]I believe um we will get the results that we want which is a uh a clear
[47:09]exposition of any materials that are out there regarding Jeffrey Epstein. So thank you all. Thank you, Madam
[47:19]Chair. My my question was whether there was a date for this resolution. >> I'm saying to you I Yes, there is a
[47:29]date, not a date necessarily when this is going to be heard next week on the floor, but there was a date in the
[47:38]resolution. And as I said, I believe what you're going to learn shortly is that the effect of this resolution is
[47:47]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
[47:57]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
[48:08]pass the resolution. So, we don't 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
[48:17]colloqu with my I've never gotten to have a colloqu with you friend from Colorado and I know you love doing that. I yield to you. >> I am. I'm honored and I guess you perhaps close the hearing uh shortly
[48:28]here in the same fashion in which we 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
[48:39]that the Tom Massie Roana bill and the discharge petition that Mr.
[48:48]Massie has filed will become ripe and you know I'm hoping that votes are scheduled tomorrow so that that petition
[48:59]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
[49:09]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 certainly supportive
[49:20]of it. >> Y would say I yield back. Well, I will definitely I would also suggest that perhaps everybody who is supportive of this house resolution non-binding and
[49:31]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 petition. Ranking member,
[49:43]>> 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. >> I mean, okay. Nobody. Okay. But there'll
[49:53]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. >> I I'd also, you know, as the old attorney me, I'd like to point out, let
[50:04]the record reflect that not a single one of the Republicans on the committee raised their hands in favor of the discharge position. and a single one of the members in the committee were
[50:14]willing to support uh the binding uh law uh if it were to pass uh of the Massie uh Kana uh HR4405.
[50:24]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.
[50:34]>> 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
[50:46]clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach, >> yes. >> Mrs. Fishbach, yes. Mr. Norman, >> Mr. Norman, I Mr. Roy, >> I >> Mr. Roy, I Mrs. Houchin, >> hi. >> Mrs. Hchen, I Mr. Langworthy, >> hi.
[50:56]>> 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,
[51:06]>> Miss Scallan, no Mr. Negus, >> no. >> Mr. Goose. No, Miss Ledger Fernandez. >> Ledger Fernandez. No, Madam Chair. >> I, >> Madam Chair, I >> The clerk will report the total.
[51:20]>> 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.
[51:30]>> 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.
[51:42]>> We we don't have the rule chair. >> Okay. All right. >> Right there. >> Well, okay. Madame Chair
[52:25]need broadcasting. >> All right. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee grant a rule providing that
[52:37]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
[52:45]concurred in the Senate amendment. >> Um, I I need to make a statement before we
[52:56]move further. >> Okay. Attempts to amend this legislation at this stage in the process is solely to delay implementation of responsible
[53:06]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
[53:18]essential that this legislation be signed into law by this weekend. Further, any amendments to this package regarding Jeffrey Epstein are not
[53:27]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
[53:39]that actually benefit taxpayers. So, um, we have an amend we have a motion from
[53:48]the gentleman from Virginia. discussion. >> Is there any further discussion? >> Yeah. Yeah. Madam Chair, first of all,
[53:57]let me again express my concern about this committee. Um I mean, we we you are we are bringing a bill to the floor
[54:08]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,
[54:20]it involves everything from public broadcasting to international health uh programs that actually save lives. Um,
[54:29]and we're just going to kind of rush it through. And again, I I I I think this is a lousy president. I this is not not
[54:39]the way on something this big. 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
[54:51]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
[55:03]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
[55:14]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
[55:24]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
[55:36]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,
[55:47]international disaster funds help improve our own national security. And I urge a yes vote. >> Any further discussion on the amendment?
[55:58]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.
[56:09]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.
[56:20]>> 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 Gallan. >> Hi.
[56:30]>> Miss Scallan. I Mr. Negus. >> Hi. >> Mr. Nagus. I Sledger Fernandez. >> Hi. >> Merger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair. No. The >> clerk will report the total.
[56:41]>> Four yays. Nine. >> 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
[56:52]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
[57:03]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
[57:14]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
[57:26]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.
[57:37]>> All those opposed say no. >> No. >> In the opinion chair of the nose have it. Amendments not agree. >> I ask for a roll call. Madam >> clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach. >> No. >> Mr. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman.
[57:48]>> Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hton. Mrs. Hton. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. >> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. >> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. Hi. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Hi. Mr.
[58:00]McGovern. I Miss Scallan. >> Hi. >> Miss Scallan. I Mr. Negus. >> Hi. >> Mr. Ngus. I M. Ledger Fernandez. >> M. Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair. No. >> Cler report forth the total.
[58:11]>> Four. Yes. Nine. A. >> The NOS 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 Representative Titus which strikes the
[58:22]paragraph that rescends funding for the assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia account. Madam Chair, this awful bill will decimate uh support uh for Ukraine and partners in the region
[58:33]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. Ukraine and neighboring countries are defending fundamental freedoms and the
[58:45]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. >> Is there further discussion? Hearing none, the question is on the
[58:57]amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed say no. No. >> In the opinion of chair. The nos have it. The amendments. >> Ask for a roll call. Madam chair. >> Clerk will call the role.
[59:08]>> Mrs. Fishbach. >> No. >> Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. >> Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hton. >> Mrs. Howchin. No. Mr. Langworthy. No.
[59:18]>> Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. >> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. >> Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. >> Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. >> Hi. >> Mr. McGovern. I. Miss. Gallen. Hi,
[59:27]>> Miss Gallen. I Mr. Nagus >> Mr. Ngus. I M Ledger Fernandez. M. Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. >> No. >> Madam Chair, no. >> Clerk, report the total.
[59:38]>> Four. Yes. Nine A. >> No. Have it. The amendments not agreed to. >> Miss Ledger Fernandez, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make
[59:49]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
[59:59]provisions that resend funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As we discussed earlier today, those funds are incredibly popular. Americans want
[1:00:09]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
[1:00:20]educational programming to making sure that we have public radio stations in places like Alaska and Kansas and Nebraska, Colorado and New Mexico that
[1:00:30]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 made
[1:00:41]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 a
[1:00:52]picture of this committee that he was going to require that there be a uh grand jury testimony released. But I
[1:01:00]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?
[1:01:11]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
[1:01:23]in the uh uh Epstein transparency act, which we should all support. so that the full record is released. >> Yeah. And
[1:01:33]>> 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
[1:01:43]that Miss Ledger Fernandez just said, 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
[1:01:55]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
[1:02:06]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
[1:02:17]disclosed or it's at least it's a permitted area of segregation of records under the resolution. So >> I'd like to yield back. >> Yeah. And again I I want to associate myself with your remarks and I'm not
[1:02:28]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
[1:02:39]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
[1:02:50]of households. 42 million people listen to public radio weekly. 70% of the funding goes directly to over 1500 locallyowned public TV and radio
[1:03:01]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
[1:03:12]tsunami warning in Alaska, Senator Marowski thanked local public broadcasting stations for, and I quote, giving Alaskans realtime updates and
[1:03:22]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.
[1:03:34]>> 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
[1:03:45]public good and we should be supporting those things which make America really a place of kindness and information and
[1:03:56]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
[1:04:07]saying I. 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.
[1:04:17]>> The clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach. >> No. >> Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. >> Mr. Roy. No. Mrs. Hen. Mrs. Hen. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott.
[1:04:29]>> Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith, >> hi. >> Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack, >> Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, >> hi. >> Mr. McGovern, I miss Gallen. >> Hi. >> Miss Gallen, I am. Mr. Noose, >> I.
[1:04:38]>> Mr. Noose, I M. Ledger Fernandez, >> Miss Ledger Fernandez, I Madam Chair, >> no. >> Madam Chair, no. >> Clerk will report the total
[1:04:49]>> fours, nine. >> And the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, the
[1:04:59]question is on the motion from the gentleman from Virginia. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed say no. >> No.
[1:05:10]>> In the opinion chair, the not the eyes have it and the motion is agreed. >> Ask for roll call. >> Mr. McGovern asked for a roll call. The clerk will call the role. >> Mrs. Fishbach. >> I.
[1:05:21]>> Mr. Fishbach. I Mr. Norman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Norman. I Mr. Roy. >> Hi. >> Mr. Roy. I Mr. Hen. >> Hi. >> Mrs. Hchen. I Mr. Mr. Langworthy >> Mr. Langworthy I Mr. Scott >> Mr. Scott I Mr. Griffith
[1:05:32]>> Mr. Griffith I am Mr. Jack >> Mr. Jack I Mr. McGovern >> no >> Mr. McGovern no Miss Gallon >> no >> Miss Gallon no Mr. Noose >> no
[1:05:42]>> Mr. Nagus, no. Miss Ledger Fernandez, >> no. >> Ledger Fernandez, no. Madam Chair, >> I >> Madam Chair, I >> The clerk will report the total >> nes
[1:05:54]>> and the um the amendment is agreed to the the motion to report is agreed to accordingly. I'll be managing the rule for the majority.