H.R. 9436 – To amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 to extend the time period for which certain regulation concerning the North Atlantic right whale are effective. [Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026]; H.R. 4795 – Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026; H.R. 1501 – Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025; H. Res. 1490 – Providing for the condemnation and denouncement of socialism in all its forms, and for other purposes.
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Rules U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsJames McGovern
Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and it's great to see you, and I also want to wish a belated happy birthday to my colleague from Pennsylvania. Look, we just spent a month back home, hopefully meeting with and listening to our constituents. I know I did, and I'll tell you, everywhere I went, people told me the same thing: everything costs too damn much. So I was genuinely curious to see what my Republican colleagues would bring to the floor our first week back. And now we know.
Apparently, their big agenda item this week is a non-binding, do-nothing resolution to condemn socialism, again. Didn't we basically already do this measure last November? I mean, you can't make this stuff up. Families are getting clobbered by higher prices, and Republicans come back waving around a meaningless resolution, yelling socialism. It's like you think if you say the word enough times, people will forget how much their grocery bill is.
And I have bad news for you guys, they won't. Families are getting hammered at the grocery store, rent is through the roof, electric bills are up, gas is more expensive because of this illegal, reckless war with Iran. Healthcare premiums have exploded because Republicans refuse to extend ACA tax credits. Did you know that the average family has had to spend nearly four thousand extra dollars on everyday goods and services since Donald Trump took office, a four thousand dollar Trump tax. That's a hell of a lot of money people have to pay because of this president's policies.
People need help, and they need relief. But judging by this agenda, I have to wonder whether some of my Republican colleagues held a single town hall all summer. Certainly, the people who scheduled these bills for the floor didn't. Now, we've got this silly non-binding resolution with no force of law that will lower exactly zero grocery bills, zero rents, zero electric bills, zero healthcare premiums. Then there is a bill hunting for the latest culture war fight on college campuses, even though apparently nobody can point to a single university actually doing what this bill supposedly prohibits.
And there's a bill delaying protections for endangered whales in the North Atlantic. And there's another giveaway to the mining industry that weakens environmental review. I mean, seriously, that's the big comeback agenda? Because I can tell you that regular people want groceries to cost less. They want healthcare they can afford, and they want lower energy bills.
They want us to stop wasting money on a reckless war and stop pursuing trade policies that make everything they buy more expensive.
I mean, these are not complicated requests. People work hard. They pay their taxes and they're trying to take care of their families. And then they look at Washington and wonder why the people running this place seem so obsessed with things that won't make their lives even a little bit easier. Republicans had an entire month to go home and to listen.
Either they didn't hear what people were saying or they heard them loud and clear and just don't give a damn. November can't come soon enough. I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman from the House Natural Resources Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes and address all legislation in your committee's jurisdiction in that time.
Chairman Westerman, I welcome your testimony.
Bruce Westerman
Thank you, Madam Chair, it's good to be here on the first day back from August with this opportunity to testify on two bills from the Natural Resources Committee, H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025, and H.R. 9436, the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026. And Madam Chair, I'll just start off by saying these two bills are classic examples of how we help everyday Americans who are trying to earn a living and who are trying to bring the cost of things down. The lobster bill affects an industry in Maine that's a two billion dollar industry and 17,500 jobs in the state of Maine. It's no secret that we've become extraordinarily dependent upon China for mineral resources, which they can control the price of what the components are that go into most everything we buy anymore. So these two bills are a Republican conservative solution to making people's lives more affordable on the income side and on the expense side.
It's not a government handout. That's the easy way that we often see when things get tough, we just spend some more federal money to try to bail somebody out. But H.R. 1501, sponsored by Representative Stauber, would add mining and mineral processing as covered projects eligible for the FAST-41 permitting process. It would also prohibit any future administration from finalizing a Biden-era proposed rule to narrow FAST-41 coverage for mining projects to only critical mineral mining projects. Minerals are essential to our everyday lives and every sector of our economy is dependent on them.
The question of the 21st century is not whether we should mine, it's whether the United States will do so safely and responsibly at home or whether our adversaries will unduly control the mineral supply chain from abroad using poor labor and poor environmental standards and causing the prices of our goods to go up while keeping Americans from having great jobs. President Trump and House Republicans have prioritized strengthening our domestic mineral supply chain to reduce our reliance on foreign adversaries. Under this administration, the Permitting Council has published 59 mining projects on the FAST-41 dashboard.
21 mining projects have completed the federal permitting process under the dashboard. In contrast, the Biden administration completed zero mining projects under FAST-41. Codifying eligibility for mining and mineral processing projects in the FAST-41 permitting process would create transparency and predictability, grow our domestic mineral supply, create American jobs, spur technological innovation, and bolster industrial and economic competitiveness. If the United States is to maintain its leadership in the mining sector, we must pass this legislation to secure our mineral supply chains for our economic and our national security. Our next bill, H.R. 9436, the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act, is sponsored by Representative Mike Lawler from New York, and it's also a bill that Representative Jared Golden from Maine has worked on extensively.
This legislation will protect the American lobster fishery from regulatory overreach that threatens to shut down one of America's most iconic fisheries. Last year in Maine, lobster accounted for 75% of the value of the state's commercial fisheries, and as I mentioned earlier, it supported $2 billion in economic activity and 17,500 jobs across its fleet and shoreside operations. For nearly 30 years, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team has overseen the Maine lobster and Jonah crab fisheries, implementing take reduction plans to minimize the fishery impacts on right whales. Despite the fishery's success in dramatically reducing its impact on right whales, these American fishermen have faced regulatory whiplash for decades. Frivolous legislation created four different regulatory regimes governing the fishery between 2010 and 2021.
After further litigation from radical environmental organizations, NOAA was poised to impose crippling regulations that could have shut down this iconic fishery. Fortunately, Congress enacted a regulatory pause through 2028, providing ESA and MMPA coverage for the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries under the 2021 biological opinion. This pause was necessary to conduct scientific research to further protect the right whale and support a robust fishery. Since this pause took effect, more than $90 million has been invested in these efforts. However, more time is needed to get this right.
The bill before us today would extend the current pause through 2035, giving the scientific community, the regulated industry, and fishery managers time to craft appropriate regulations to protect right whales and safeguard this iconic fishery. I urge the committee to report an appropriate rule so these bills may be considered in the House. Thank you, and I yield back.
Gentleman yields back, now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his time of comment.
Jared Huffman
Thank you, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee. I urge you to reject H.R. 9436 and H.R. 1501. Fishing communities around our country right now are suffering from President Trump's disastrous fisheries policies and chaotic trade wars. Unfortunately, House Republicans aren't fighting for fishing communities. They prefer scapegoating a critically endangered whale rather than doing their job to rein in this lawless president.
The North Atlantic right whale is a species on the knife's edge of extinction. Just 380 of these magnificent animals are left on Earth, a fragile population that includes a mere 70 breeding females. There's so few of these whales that scientists literally know each one of them by name and track each one of them. They know when one dies, and they can see evidence of entanglements on about 85% of those that die.
Every injury lowers the species' fertility rate, every death pushes the right whale closer to irreversible extinction. Now this is not just a Maine issue. These whales migrate up and down the Atlantic coast from summer feeding habitat in Canada to their calving grounds in Florida and Georgia, where they are beloved as Georgia's state marine mammal. Their survival depends on the efforts of communities up and down this migratory route along the entire Atlantic coast. H.R. 9436 would extend a risky waiver that threatens whales through December of 2035.
It gives lobster and crab fisheries a free pass to use gear with ropes that entangle, injure, and kill too many whales, unfairly burdening other users with this species' recovery. In late 2022, Congress inappropriately declared existing gear rules sufficient to protect whales and they stopped any additional measures to adequately protect whales until 2029, even though too many whales are dying of gear entanglements every year. Under this deal, a collaborative team of scientists, states, fishermen, and conservationists was tasked with using this six-year window to collect data and to build consensus-based management rules for 2029. Now we should be letting that process play out for another two years and then responsibly reviewing the data, but unfortunately this bill arbitrarily adds another seven-year delay on top of that. This is tantamount to legislating extinction.
Since 2022, at least 55 North Atlantic right whales have been killed or severely injured, including 31 from entanglements. We're losing too many whales every year to ensure a sustainable recovery. Fortunately, we have an alternative. Ropeless on-demand fishing gear has already hauled in over a million pounds of sustainably caught seafood for consumers. Nine different companies have pioneered products, positioning the U.S. to become potentially a global leader in this emerging market.
H.R. 3436 would shut all of that down and squander this opportunity. Extending the moratorium to 2035 is not about giving regulators more data or industry an extended transition window. It is an exercise in running out the clock on a species that simply has no time left. Now turning to H.R. 1501, this bill does nothing to address our critical mineral supply chain challenges. It simply codifies current regulations that allow the administration to pick and choose mineral projects to fast-track for permitting, whether or not those projects serve our national interest.
Codifying these regulations as is doubles down on the fundamentally flawed mining law of 1872, rubber-stamping fast-track permitting procedures that undermine tribal sovereignty and make it harder for courts to stop projects that threaten public lands or public health. You just need to follow the money to see who's really benefiting from this administration's mining free-for-all. This administration has pumped billions of dollars into mining projects that just so happen to have ties to administration officials or major donors, sending stock prices skyrocketing, even when there are major questions about the viability of those projects. One project connected to the president's son couldn't make it through the due diligence standard of this administration's Department of Defense and had to withdraw from an $80 million conditional loan after Pentagon officials reportedly raised serious doubts about the company's viability. But that wasn't the end.
Within days, the company was given 25 million in taxpayer dollars through another program with even less scrutiny.
This is corruption, plain and simple. Everyone here knows it, but too many continue to look away. It's a waste of taxpayer resources instead of targeting minerals projects that serve actual national needs. Committee Republicans voted down every Democratic amendment to make this bill work in the public interest, and we tried. Amendments that would limit fast-tracking to critical mining projects, protect tribal sovereignty in permitting, and block projects that are owned by foreign adversaries from accessing this fast-track.
As is, the bill simply codifies another tool for this administration to abuse, and they will. I urge this committee to reject both bills, and I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. Now get to members of the committee, Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Chairman Westerman, maybe we could refocus, and why is it important to give mining projects the same expedited permitting treatment as other major infrastructure projects?
Bruce Westerman
Quite simply because minerals, and especially critical minerals, are so critical to our country's economy and to our national security. And I have here the USGS and Commerce report, the Mineral Commodity Summary for 2026, something I refer to often. They've been doing this publication for years. And if you look at this first chart they've got here, this is something every American needs to understand. This first column shows that we have about 140 billion dollars of mined material.
That's not just critical mineral, that's everything from aggregate to platinum and palladium. 140 billion dollars net of imports and exports. When that material gets processed in American processing facilities, it's worth a trillion dollars, just under a trillion dollars. That's what the second column shows. The last column shows that when that material goes into our economy, it generates 4 trillion dollars of GDP from 140 billion dollars worth of mined material.
Now, this book also has another interesting chart. Everything in the blue, and these are our critical minerals, is something we depend on a foreign country for. And the top's obviously too small, but if you could look down through here, there's one name that appears over and over and over, and that's China. The good news is, is we have these deposits in our country in sufficient quantities to mine, literally spread out all over our country. The problem is over the years we've heard of NIMBY, Not In My Backyard, but we've gone from NIMBY to people being BANANAs.
And BANANA is Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. And our permitting laws have been weaponized to stop us from using our resources, from releasing our wealth, from creating American jobs. You know, 4 trillion dollars of GDP, take 17 and a half percent of that, and that's the impact on the federal treasury, because that's about the percentage of the GDP that goes into federal taxes. Our security literally depends on these minerals. Again, we're blessed with them.
We should be utilizing the deposits that we have. We mine safer, healthier, no human rights violations than anywhere else in the world. But those minerals don't do us any good when they're in the ground. And if there was ever a time that we need to lead the world, not just in getting them out of the ground, column one in that chart, but processing them into refined material. We can't build processing plants in this country anymore in a timely manner, so all of that's moved offshore, where they do it without near the environmental guidelines that we have here.
We can't build processing plants in this country anymore in a timely manner. So all of that's moved offshore, where they do it without near the environmental guidelines that we have here. And as a result, the manufacturing's followed it. So this is a big issue. And just, we're not doing away with the environmental, the environmental permitting process.
And as a result, the manufacturing...
We're putting it under FAST-41 so you can do it in a timely manner. And this administration is using that, but we need to codify it so that moving forward, mining can fall under the FAST-41 process.
Speaker 8
And thank you, that was incredibly informative and educational for many of us. So Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I think you made your case very strongly for that this makes sense to do this in a reasonable, timely manner and that you, there is, there's growth for the GDP and for the economy involved and it's a national security issue. So I think you made the case for this bill and so I appreciate you bringing it forward and I support the bill and I yield back.
Thank you. Gentlelady yields back, now recognize the gentleman, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. Hubeny, did you want to respond to any of that?
Jared Huffman
Yes, thank you. You know, lost in all of that is the reality that mining projects right now are eligible for FAST-41. Already are. Lots of them are being added to the FAST-41 dashboard. All this bill does is codify that existing eligibility, but then it does something else that should be very troubling to all of us.
It prevents this administration or future administrations from prioritizing actual critical minerals. In other words, it's putting sand and gravel on the same plane as all of these other things that we're so concerned about competing with China for. It is a free-for-all for all types of mining. That's what this does under the pretext that somehow mining projects can't be added to project, or to FAST-41, which they actually can.
James McGovern
And so who wants this, but the mining industry? Sure, right. I mean, I mean, that's one of the frustrations that I heard when I was back home, is that people kind of see this Congress and this administration as prioritizing, you know, big money special interests over what regular people want. I mean, everywhere you go, not just in my district but all across the country, people say things are too damn expensive. What are you doing to lower prices?
And then we come and we give a big wet kiss to the mining industry. And on the, on the, on the issue of, you know, protecting the, the whales, I mean, I think I want to make sure I understand this. The delay that you talked about, right, is at least another two years, right?
Speaker 7
Under current law, it's another two years, right? So it's not, it's not up right now. It's another, another two years, and this would basically make it another 13 years, am I right?
Jared Huffman
This would jump the gun before that process had even had a chance to deliver what it promised, which is all of this data and consensus rulemaking that was supposed to come out. This would interrupt that.
Speaker 7
And we have invested a lot of taxpayer money into trying to find better ways to avoid catching these right whales and right, I mean, there's all this new technology that's being developed and new ways to do this in a way. Yeah, I'm just trying to wonder, I wonder why we're, we're moving this bill right now. I wonder if it has anything to do with Susan Collins in Maine versus, you know, you know, something that is urgent that we need to deal with right now.
James McGovern
Again, I got to tell you, I mean, I said in my opening statement, people want us to address the issue of affordability. People can't afford their rents, they can't, I mean, people can't afford their groceries. These tariffs are out of control. I mean, we're now picking a fight with our neighbor and ally Canada, which is embarrassing. And here's the problem with all these fights, with all this bullying that's going on right now, it's going to be hard to repair the damage because then you have to rebuild the trust.
And I, I got to tell you, I mean, our allies and our friends, people who we've had good relations with for years, you know, are at the end of this administration's, you know, bullying tactics. And they, and you know, you talk about, you worry about China? Those, we're pushing our allies toward China. We, we ought to be trying to strengthen our economic ties with our allies. We're pushing them to China.
Anyway, I, this is disappointing that we're doing nothing to address the concerns that we all hear when we go back home. Again, helping a, a vulnerable Republican senator hold on to her seat and, you know, and rewarding a, you know, a big-moneyed donor, I think is the wrong set of priorities. But in any event, I thank you both for being here. I yield back.
Nicholas Langworthy
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy, for his time.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As we know, critical minerals are the backbone of the modern economy and they're essential from everything from our defense systems and advanced technology to our energy production and American manufacturing. But many of those resources are right behind, under our feet, but we can't get to them because of red tape and delays. We should be developing those here at home. I see it in Western New York and the Southern Tier in my district and we know how important strong manufacturing is to good-paying jobs in our local economy and those manufacturers require and depend on a reliable supply chain.
Chairman Westerman, how do permitting delays affect our ability to compete with China on critical minerals and how would this bill help strengthen domestic mining and processing?
Bruce Westerman
Thank you for that question, Mr. Langworthy. And I think you hit right at the, the core of the problem is that permitting delays do stop projects and then they ultimately drive investors away to go somewhere else. Think if you've, the average NEPA process takes four and a half years, but for mining, you measure that in decades, you know, 20 to 30 years to go through the process to open a new mine. So who can tie their capital up that long without investing it? And then you have so many instances of people trying to go through the process and then just giving up and losing money that they've put into the project.
So it's like, trick me once, my fault, or your fault, trick me twice and it's, it's my fault. So this throws a wet towel on investments to do mining. And again, when we mine in this country, we have a hard time processing the material that we mine because we can't build new smelters and processing plants. So sometimes even what we mine here gets shipped overseas to get processed. And it's such a huge economic driver in the rural communities that I represent.
You talked about Western New York. A lot of these places are where these minerals reside. That means jobs. It means being able to earn a good living, to raise your family, to build your community, and to just go to work every day and be a productive citizen. If you, if somebody far away said, no, you can't touch these resources here, then you're denying people the opportunity to provide for themselves.
You're denying them the opportunity to make a good living so they can, can have the things that other people have. So it's a, it's a huge issue for our economy and for our national defense. And again, I want to point out, the administration can use FAST-41 on mining.
This administration has used it 49 times. The Biden administration used it zero times. So this political ping-pong with permitting is detrimental to the long-term goal of having a reliable and sustainable mining process that works in our country. So it is imperative that Congress act. We shouldn't just step back and say, oh, whatever administration comes in, that's what we'll, we'll live with.
Let's give working people and investors an opportunity regardless of who the administration is to have a fair shot at getting a permit to develop the resources where they live.
Nicholas Langworthy
Yeah, I, I during August I met with several labor unions and, and they identify permitting reform as something that we desperately need in this country to get projects off the ground and, and to create good-paying jobs. You're exactly right. We have the resources. We have the workers. We have the know-how right here in the United States of America.
And if we're serious about strengthening our supply chains and competing, we need to cut the red tape and start producing more of these critical minerals right here at home. And I appreciate the committee's work. I yield to you.
Bruce Westerman
And I, I would like to say this isn't even permitting reform. This is just giving another industry access to a permitting process that works. That could work a lot better if we actually did permitting reform.
Which we need.
Bruce Westerman
Yes. Uh, and also Madam Chair, or Mr. Chair, uh, I ask unanimous consent to submit this to the record.
Uh, 2026, the Mineral Commodity Summaries.
Thank you. So ordered.
Nicholas Langworthy
I, I do appreciate the Natural Resources Committee's work on this legislation and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 11
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her time.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, the two bills before us seem to be doubling down on what we're seeing both from this administration and from this House majority, which is a very one-sided approach to natural resources, to our economy, that it's all about what can the investors get. It's all about the money. And one of our functions, I believe, in, in Congress is to balance competing concerns and that's what this legislation would do away with. It would do away with the ability of the public to say, whoa, hold on a minute, we don't want this mining that's going to foul our water or our air or our neighborhood or whatever.
It's taking away some of the protections that it's government's business to put in place. Um, and that's certainly something we see over and over again, the emphasis on the immediacy of making a buck as opposed to the long-term damage that we're seeing to our environment. Um, Mr. Huffman, can you talk a little bit about this Mining Act because there already are fast-track permitting processes for some of these critical minerals, aren't there?
Jared Huffman
Well, there are. And, and the truth is under the 1872 Mining Act that controls most of this, um, there's, there's just an enormous set of, of privileges that have been granted to the mining industry. I want to, um, correct my friend from Arkansas on one thing. Um, it is true the Trump administration has added 55 mining projects to the FAST-41 dashboard, but there were six, there are six right now left over from the Biden administration.
Now why did the Biden administration only have six and Trump has 55? Because they were prioritizing. They were looking at projects that actually involved critical minerals, that did advance our national security interest, and what this legislation does is tie the hands of this administration or future administrations to not do that anymore, to treat all mining projects as if they are somehow critical minerals that we need for national security interest and should therefore have the benefit of this expedited process.
Mary Gay Scanlon
And that does seem to be one of the essential problems with this type of legislation, this type of approach by this administration, which is prioritizing the desires of those who are going to make money off it and not necessarily prioritizing our communities which have to bear the brunt of some of this activity. Do I have that right?
Jared Huffman
Exactly. Yeah, the 1872 mining law already gives mining interests sort of super rights above all other stakeholders. Tribal sovereignty is something that only happens at the very end. It's been interpreted by agencies to be much less meaningful than in other types of environmental reviews. So it's already a stacked deck.
FAST-41 simply makes the stacked deck move faster.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Okay. Sounds an awful lot like we need to have some conversations with the Lorax about this law because it's really... Who speaks for the trees? Yeah. Um, we've also got this Lobsterman Protection Act.
Now, am I correct that there are, there is technology and equipment out there that would benefit both the lobstering industry and the right whales?
Jared Huffman
There is. And under existing law, we've got two more years to allow this process to run its course, to allow experts and stakeholders to continue proving up this technology, gathering data, making consensus recommendations that could be put into regulations in 2029. This bill jumps the gun and stops all of that and grants another seven-year free pass to use the old rope-based gear that we know is entangling and killing whales. Why do that? Well, Mr. McGovern was just asking about this a moment ago.
It may also be because this gear, the new technology is starting to prove itself pretty well. It's actually being demonstrated. It's produced over a million tons of safe sustainable seafood, including for lobstermen and crab fishermen. So this is the future, and we have an opportunity here in the United States to actually lead the world in perfecting this technology, but we're going to instead go back to the stuff that we know is helping put North Atlantic right whales on a path to extinction.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Okay. Okay. That, it seems like it would be preferable to go with a win-win situation for both the whales and the lobstermen. I guess my last question, Natural Resources Committee deals with our natural resources, it deals with waterways, it deals with our Native American population. Has that committee held any hearings on how our Native American tribes feel about the renaming of Lake Ontario?
Absolutely none.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Okay. I grew up in that region, was actually up there last week, and there are a lot of opinions up there, not very favorable. Okay. Thank you. Maybe in the future.
H. Griffith
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize myself for my time, and I would say to the chairman that I went back to my district as so many of us did during this most recent period, and surprisingly, one of my local television stations did a whole program on the mining engineering degree at Virginia Tech and how they were really thrilled that all was going well and that they had not, as some universities did, abandoned their mining program.
And they interviewed two young ladies who were pursuing careers there. Thought that was very interesting. So sometimes, you know, we hear different things from different parts of the country, but when folks say they went back home and nobody was talking about mining critical minerals, didn't come to my district, because it was on the news. It wasn't just that I held meetings about it, and then I went to a meeting at Virginia Tech and it was on drones, but several of the professors came up and were just giddy with the fact that we are actually starting to look at mining things in this country. And of course, you raised the issue of making sure that we can process them, do some of the smelting and that type of thing in this country as well.
And you held up a chart that showed a trillion dollars of benefit if we do it in this country, and then of course that translated into four trillion in the economy. But that trillion dollars, if we have to ship everything off to Asia, particularly China, that's a trillion dollars goes into their economy, isn't it?
Bruce Westerman
Absolutely. And that's American jobs, that's American wealth that we're exporting with those critical minerals. Those, that could be held right here in this country. And I will also say, Mr. Chairman, that Virginia Tech's an excellent engineering school. I say that as an engineer.
And also in my district, we have a huge deposit of lithium on private land that's in water that can be pumped out of the ground, taken out of the lithium, and the water pumped back in the ground. You can't get much more environmentally friendly for mining on that, but you still have permitting obstacles on building a lithium refinery, and then hopefully we'll be able to build lithium battery plants. But you have to have a permit to do all of that. And also to move that brine water from where it's pulled out of the ground, you need something called a pipeline. And as you know, it's very difficult to build a pipeline in our country.
H. Griffith
Yeah. And I couldn't help but think also that if we're mining these minerals here, doing it in a more robust way, doing it more efficiently, adding those jobs to the economy, while it wasn't on this break, in a previous break I was talking with a manufacturing concern in my district where they specifically talked about how they were having trouble getting one of the critical ingredients for something that they manufactured because they had to buy it from sources overseas, in that case it was Asia but not necessarily China. But the bottom line was, was that if we were doing that in this country, they'd have a whole lot easier to get those supplies, am I not correct? And then I have a follow-up on that.
Bruce Westerman
You're correct. And I also want to point something else out. It was mentioned that FAST-41 would apply to things that aren't on the critical minerals list. But it would, it would. And those things are things that affect the cost of things we use here in our country.
I visited a Portland cement plant in my district. The amount of Portland cement that we make in the United States on a bar chart is down here and China's up here. We import a lot of Portland cement. If you're building a house, it's got a lot of Portland cement in it in the foundations. The aggregate that goes into concrete and asphalt, that all has to get mined somewhere.
And if it's not mined locally, the price goes up exponentially. So these are things that affect the everyday cost of things that are important to Americans all across the country.
H. Griffith
And that was the point I was going to go to next is, is if we're able to mine it here, that means we can make it here, that means the costs are going to go down and that affects affordability for the average American, doesn't it?
Exactly. Absolutely.
H. Griffith
Well, I appreciate it very much and I look forward to seeing that bill on the floor. And with that, I will yield back and now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse, for his time.
Joe Neguse
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to be back. Thank you, Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman, for your testimony and for being here today. Chairman Westerman, do you know what day we left session?
Speaker 24
July 23rd. All right. I'll trust you on this. So it's been 38 days, sound about right?
Joe Neguse
38 days the House had been out of session. I was doing a little Googling before this and I saw you were back in Arkansas for some of the break, right?
I was, yeah.
And visiting with constituents?
Exactly.
Speaker 20
All right. I think I read an article that said you were in El Dorado, rural part of your district.
Joe Neguse
Oh, similar to mine. I imagine you had a chance to talk to a lot of constituents back home.
I did.
Bruce Westerman
They, they talk about a lot of things, but one, one thing they wanted to talk about, especially down in El Dorado...
Speaker 23
Let me, let me get, let me ask you three specific: gas prices... Let me tell you my experience. I was in Colorado, so I was visiting with a lot of constituents. Gas prices came up quite a bit. Healthcare came up quite a bit.
Jobs, economic opportunity came about a lot. I assume that's similar to your experience, right?
Speaker 21
Here's the question. How many of your constituents brought up the North Atlantic right whale?
Speaker 23
But here's the thing. Nobody in my district brought that up either when I was back home. I did a bunch of town halls. No one said, "Congressman Neguse, you ought to go back to Washington, D.C. and make it your priority." The very first bill after a 38-day recess ought to be a bill undermining environmental protections for the 380 North Atlantic right whales that are left in existence on planet Earth.
That's House Republicans' top priority. I'm back in the Rules Committee. I've been here for five minutes and the very first bill that I have to consider is a bill that would eliminate protections for the North Atlantic right whale. And I just, I can't imagine how that's a priority for the people in Arkansas or Colorado.
Bruce Westerman
That's, that's your perspective. This is a bill that would protect a two-billion-dollar part of Maine's economy and 17,500 lobstermen. And by the way, do you know how many, how many right whales have died this year?
Well, you tell me.
Bruce Westerman
Zero because of fishing equipment from Maine. Two total. One, one that was undetermined what caused its death, it wasn't fishing equipment, and another one that was tangled up in Canadian fishing.
Joe Neguse
So my understanding, and I'll give the ranking member an opportunity to correct this if I'm wrong, my understanding is that 55 North Atlantic right whales have been killed, injured, or found in poor health since Republicans last delayed action in protecting the North Atlantic right whale. Is that right?
Jared Huffman
That is, that is correct, Mr. Neguse. And they can't always tell the exact cause of death, but they find signs of entanglement in most of these cases.
Joe Neguse
Yeah. And I just, I understand that obviously there's a difference of opinion with respect to the underlying nature of this delay that Republicans want to pursue.
I'm just suggesting to you, Mr. Westerman, that of all of the bills to take up on the very first day after a 38-day recess for House Republicans, this strikes me as, as an odd one. But anyway, I'm not in charge, that wasn't a question. I'm not in charge of the floor calendar, so I will move on. I do want to talk about the mining bill. I presume that part of the basis for this bill is a desire on your part, and I think a desire on others, to reduce the reliance on foreign mining partnerships and arrangements.
Is that a fair statement or?
Are you asking me?
Yes, sir. Yeah.
Bruce Westerman
Yes, it's to be more independent on being able to produce the minerals and resources that we need. And I think this should be a bipartisan issue, just like the lobster fishermen bill is bipartisan with Representative Jared Golden co-sponsoring the bill.
Joe Neguse
There you go. But on the mining piece, what I'm trying to just kind of have you dig a little bit deeper on, explain to me the impetus. The point here is you want the United States to be able to be more self-sufficient with respect to domestic mining, so that from a national security perspective, the United States isn't relying on countries that may or may not be allies, NATO countries.
Bruce Westerman
And so that states like Colorado with large mineral deposits and the Colorado School of Mines, which is a famous mining school. Is my state wrong or am I not, you feel like you don't want to agree to my state?
I already agreed with it. We want to be more reliant on domestic production.
Joe Neguse
Are you worried about folks within the administration or connected to the administration making a whole lot of money off of foreign mining excursions? Is that something that?
Bruce Westerman
I'm, I'm focused on producing minerals, not just mining them, but refining them and manufacturing in the United States.
Speaker 23
I understand. You said that part. But so you're not concerned about a lot of people making a lot of money on foreign mining?
I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 23
Let me, let me explain and give you some background. Do you read the New York Times? I don't know. You probably.
Bruce Westerman
It doesn't come to Arkansas. No. I read, I read the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the Wall Street Journal mostly.
Joe Neguse
Okay, I'll get you a copy of this article. Yeah. This is a, the headline is Trump cut a billion dollar mining deal. His sons stand to profit. The article is about a project in rural Kazakhstan, 1.6 billion dollars in federal financing for an American company.
And I'll just quote this, investors with a firm that is housed, or quote, that is housed at Trump Tower in New York and partly owned by the president's two eldest sons, and then it goes on to say, joined with other partners to take a 20 percent stake in a corporate entity related to the Kazakhstan project. Does that concern you? Like it strikes me that given your statements about foreign mining and the need for the United States to wean off our, you know, foreign entanglements, that this might be part of it, that you don't want to see the Trump family making money hand over fist.
Bruce Westerman
Well, if you, if you, if you think about that, I'm not sure what they were mining. You may know what mineral were they mining?
Sure.
Bruce Westerman
Probably, maybe uranium, because we've banned uranium mining in the United States for all intents and purposes, and we're heavily dependent on Russia and Kazakhstan for uranium coming into our country. It would be nice if mining companies could actually build in the United States and didn't take their investments overseas.
Joe Neguse
Could we convince you, perhaps, I know the ranking member has raised the alarm about this deal. It seems like you're concerned about foreign mining entanglements. Maybe we could convince you to join with us in investigating and getting to the bottom of why Donald Trump's sons are making tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars off a foreign mining deal that the president apparently approved in Kazakhstan.
Jared Huffman
Look, you either care about developing an independent critical supply chain or you don't. You don't give free passes for this kind of grift and corruption because of the President's family and suggest that it's just too hard to invest here in the United States.
Speaker 28
Yeah, I mean, I couldn't agree with you more. I appreciate the Chairman's statements about wanting to create more opportunities perhaps for folks connected to the Trump family to make money here domestically. I would say we ought to get to the bottom of this corruption. This is unconscionable and the United States Congress ought to be digging into it. The American people deserve an answer.
So, in any event, I will yield back the balance of my time. I thank the Chair.
Speaker 30
The gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina.
Ralph Norman
Mr. Westerman, it is interesting you're talking about getting to the bottom of the Trump dollars. Was the same true of Hunter Biden? Did they want to see paperwork from Ukraine? Was the same true of Barack Obama when he gave money to Iran? Did they want to get to the bottom of that?
If they wanted to get the financial statements and see what exactly was invested, they could find that, I would assume. But anyway, on the mining and on the critical minerals, I was in a plant in South Carolina that copper was something that was real critical for their product. And you're right, permitting is time is money. Have you ever heard of a permitting cost being scaled back? They only add to it.
Congress is guilty on both sides, Republican and Democrat. Time's money. And to get a plant built here of any kind, not just minerals, but you mentioned Portland cement, try getting a plant built. You can't do it. China doesn't have that problem.
They're our enemy. So I don't really have a question unless you want to expound on what you were asked.
Bruce Westerman
Well, you brought up some good points there. Copper is something we should be talking about. The World Bank has estimated that by 2045, 2050, we will need twice as much copper as has been mined in the history of the world with all the electrification that's happening. The United States has two copper smelters. China has 60 plus.
As far back as the 1990s, just not that long ago, we produced three times more copper than China. Today they produce 11 times more than we do. You can't electrify things without copper. So absolutely, we need to do more copper here in the United States. When you look at the permitting process, and I came from an engineering background where I actually had to go through these permitting processes.
The government seems to have this idea that the more you regulate something, the better job you're doing. And we get to this point of diminishing returns where they just lower the emission rate a little bit more and they cause the cost to go up exponentially. A classic example is the Biden rule on PM 2.5, particulate matter 2.5 microns or smaller. The current air discharge regulation says that you cannot discharge air with more than 12 micrograms per liter of particulate matter below 2.5 microns. So what does that mean?
I challenge anybody to open up a weather app on your phone and it'll show you the air pollutants and it's extremely difficult to find PM 2.5 at 12 or below right now. It's probably 50 or 60 here in Washington, D.C. and that's just the ambient air.
You go to the most remote places in our country and it's going to be above PM 2.5. So what did EPA do? They said if 12.5 or if 12 is good, let's make it 9. Just lowering it 3 micrograms per liter. Your typical manufacturing plant, that means millions or tens of millions of dollars worth of new equipment to take out or to make the air cleaner on the output than what they pulled into the plant to begin with.
We've lost our compass and we've lost our common sense and we're driving American industry into the ground and we're shifting that industry overseas and becoming more and more dependent on resources from other countries.
Ralph Norman
Copper's used in every piece of wire, every battery, every construction project. You basically stop it. They can't get copper at a reasonable price. And you're talking about, you know, killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. You know, to demagogue profit, I think when you make a profit you pay taxes on it, don't you?
That's the idea.
Ralph Norman
Unless it's illegal, unless it's something you can't trace. So no, I admire you, I thank you for putting this up, I'll be supporting it on the floor and appreciate you doing it. Yield back.
Thank you Representative Norman.
Speaker 26
Gentleman yields back, now recognize the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you very much and thank you Chair and Ranking Member for being here. You know, Chairman, you and I, we're in agreement that we think that we should have faster permitting, right? That things should move faster. I come to that from I want to see more renewable energy, we have a lot of renewable energy projects in my state. And I take it that what you're saying is by adding these mining to FAST-41, we're going to give companies a significant advantage to complete their projects more quickly.
Is that the goal here, Mr. Chairman?
Bruce Westerman
Yes, hopefully it would result in projects happening faster and adhering to the environmental regulations. Not exempting environmental regulations, just going through the process faster.
And this is a benefit, right? This could help make the companies be more profitable, get more minerals out. That's your goal, right, is this is going to help the companies?
Speaker 32
Ah, less dependent on foreign minerals, as and you raised over and over again, Mr. Chairman, in the conversations about how often China is mentioned in that report you provided and how bad it is that the People's Republic of China is doing so much of this. And as you know, one of my issues is why are we going to give China an advantage to something like FAST-41 here in the United States with our minerals? So why won't you accept my suggested amendments that we do not give foreign adversaries like China benefits and access to our minerals? I people don't know that they don't pay a dime for our royalties. But you're going to be opening up, you refuse to restrict access to China.
Like you because you don't accept my amendments, because you don't accept my suggestion, you do not restrict China getting a foothold here in the United States on our minerals.
Bruce Westerman
Yeah, no, that's a that's a cute amendment that would undermine the whole rule because we know that these companies are traded on the stock market. And if we put a rule in here that says that pick your number, if 10% of the company's owned by China, Chinese investors will buy 10.01% and they will that will restrict mining here in our country. So I agree we need to take the ability from Chinese investors to to mine and profit from our minerals, but that amendment is not the way to do it.
Speaker 33
But I don't think the amendment is cute.
I think the amendment actually would go to an issue that we're facing, which is if we think that China should not have a foothold in our mining industry, we should do something about it. And the Republicans refuse to do something about it other than they talk about it a lot. They complain about China a lot, but then when it comes time to actually say let's make sure we protect American interests, you don't do anything. And and that is my problem with what we've done there. And maybe it's because, you know, later on we'll be talking about a anti-socialism, but you know, this president actually loves President Xi.
He loves to call him brilliant. He loves the fact that he's he calls him a brilliant guy who controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. He's a brilliant guy. I mean, those are comments of President Trump about Xi Jinping. He clearly adores the man.
And but I think that there is another aspect to this that was brought up by my colleague Representative Neguse, which is the aspect of corruption that we need to address and the aspect of selling off American lands and public lands. And we see it happening in the context as he raised with regards to the president's family. And we see it in the context of most recently some of our most treasured public lands being offered up for sale. Ranking member, can you speak to the concerns that we think we should be raising and that the American public think we should be raising about protecting our public lands and public resources so they're not given away to the highest bidder or friends of President Trump?
Jared Huffman
Yeah, I I want to thank the gentlelady from New Mexico. And this this comes up all the time in mining legislation before our Natural Resources Committee, not just on this bill to move mining projects into FAST-41, but in all types of mining projects and environmental streamlining proposals that we have seen. You have tried repeatedly to insert common sense amendments that would simply say if you are a foreign adversary, you don't get the benefit of mining for free with all of this streamlining and all of these subsidies and other things on our public lands and extracting our public mineral estate from the United States of America and taking it overseas and doing who knows what with it. You've just tried to put some guardrails on all of that and been rejected at every turn. I find it fanciful at best to say the reason for that is because if you set an ownership threshold that Chinese companies will move billions, maybe trillions of dollars into our economy, buy up stock in all of our mining companies in order to grind them to a halt.
I don't think anyone in the business world really operates that way, but I think we've well, it's just preposterous on its face.
Speaker 34
That's not how it works. And and the reality is there are companies, there are, you know, I I come from a state that has a lot of mining. And we have we have domestic companies doing some of that mining. And so I think that to actually prioritize domestically owned corporations and companies makes sense. And if you you know, Republicans keep refusing to do that.
And that that's my problem with this legislation. And my other problem is like I don't want them selling off Yosemite National Park to Trump's donors.
I mean, this level of, I don't know what to call it, right? Because we have, you know, we have blue-collar crime, white-collar crime. Like, we're starting to see gold-colored crime with regard to the way in which this administration is using its powers to benefit the wealthiest corporations, his own family, and wealthy donors. And I think it's outrageous. I am the last Democrat, if there is anything else you want to add to this discussion.
Jared Huffman
Well, I couldn't agree more with the gentlelady. We're seeing it really in all aspects of our public land management, all aspects of environmental policy. We're just seeing two different rules. A very permissive standard for these moneyed interests that happen to be close to this president and this administration, and then a rule of law that is selectively applied against others who may be less politically or financially favored. So, it is looking us right in the face with this legislation that looks away from all of these grifts and corruption schemes by people in Donald Trump's own family and continues to hand out gifts in public policy and public resources to these folks.
So, it is glaring. It is unlike anything we've seen in this country. I think the corruption makes Teapot Dome look like a quaint affair, and I thank the gentlelady for trying to put some guardrails in place.
Speaker 36
Gentlelady yields back. Did you have anything you want to say as a closing statement, Mr. Chairman?
Bruce Westerman
I just wanted to clarify that this is a process that's already in existence, FAST-41. It's streamlining permitting. It doesn't have anything to do with financial services rules on who can invest. It doesn't have anything to do with judiciary rules on corruption. It's focused on streamlining so that we can produce more materials in the United States and be less dependent on foreign countries and grow our economy instead of other countries' economies.
Mr. Huffman.
Jared Huffman
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mining projects can already be added to the FAST-41 dashboard. It's as simple as that. All this bill does is tie the hands of this administration and future administrations to keep them from using common sense, to keep them from prioritizing, to keep them from making sure that only projects that advance our national security interests benefit from this streamlining. In other words, they are opening Pandora's box for all manner of mining projects, and this is just a giveaway that makes no sense.
I yield back.
H. Griffith
All right, I appreciate the two gentlemen being here, and that ends our first panel. And questions from members of the committee. I will now, as they withdraw, we'll now recognize our second panel when they've cleared out a wee bit. And I thought I saw Joe Wilson here earlier. He's in the back.
So if Mr. Wilson and Mr. Scott will come forward. I now welcome our second panel, Representative Wilson, Ranking Member Scott from the House Education and Workforce Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record, and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Wilson, you're now recognized for your testimony.
Joe Wilson
Thank you, Chairman, acting, going back to the acting Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon. Israel is an appreciated ally, one of our strongest allies, obviously, and being a democracy in the Middle East. Israel is recognized as a major strategic partner of the United States, a designation established in the 2014 United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act. Even better, now you can hear. Okay, I think.
Okay, Israel is recognized as a major strategic partner of the United States, a designation established in the 2014 United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act.
Speaker 38
The bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama and introduced by former Democrat Senator from California, Barbara Boxer. The bill was passed by unanimous consent in the House and by voice vote in the House also. Despite Israel's strong relationship with the United States, it continues to be attacked by its opponents. Unfortunately, this opposition extends to harmful efforts on university campuses to boycott Israel or Israel-related individuals, organizations, and businesses. This sadly has been correlated with an alarming rise of antisemitism on American college and university campuses, a trend that has accelerated in recent years.
The Combat Antisemitism Movement reported 531 antisemitic incidents in the US on college and university campuses in 2025. A significant amount of unrest on campuses has resulted from efforts by anti-Israel radicals to coerce institutions in divesting from and boycotting Israel. Boycotts of Israel, which are antisemitic in design and discriminatory in their effect, have been weaponized to isolate Jewish students, silence Jewish faculty, and cut American universities off from invaluable intellectual and research partnerships with Israeli academic institutions. These boycotts promote antisemitic atmosphere on campuses and have nothing to help education as they are inspired by foreign influences. I'm grateful for the leadership of Congressman Ralph Norman, who was here a few minutes ago, to address the interference of America with foreign influence by his closing of the Confucius Institutes of the Chinese Communist Party across the United States.
I am pleased to come before the Rules Committee with H.R. 4705, Protect the Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2025, courageously introduced by our chair, Virginia Fox, and also bipartisan with Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey. H.R. 4795 ensures that schools participating in federal student aid programs do not engage in non-expressive commercial boycotts of Israel. This includes refusing to do business with Israel or terminating existing business relationships for reasons unrelated to the ordinary business considerations. The bill also requires that schools receiving funds for international education under Title VI of the Higher Education Act to treat partnerships, exchanges, and collaborations with academic programs in Israel to do the same as academic programs of other nations. Finally, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that limiting cooperation or partnerships with Israel does not serve the security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States.
I will also note that this does not restrict the ability of institutions to express opinions that are protected by the First Amendment. There is substantial court precedent on this, and additionally, nearly 40 states have laws or executive orders relating to commercial activities and boycotts of Israel, so there is precedent that such laws do not violate the First Amendment.
The bill ensures that we protect the strong and unique relationship between Israel and the United States and also sends a message of support to Jewish students and helps ensure that institutions do not surrender to radical demands. Our colleges and universities should remain places of learning and intellectual freedom, not hotbeds of antisemitism or discriminatory boycotts that hurt Jewish students and faculty. Thank you and I welcome any questions you may have. I yield back.
Speaker 39
Chairman yields back, now recognize Ranking Member Scott for his time in front of the Rules Committee.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committees, good to see you. Today we find ourselves here again purportedly to address antisemitism in American higher education and while we should be able to agree that antisemitism in higher education should not be tolerated, the fact is my colleagues on the other side have been curiously quiet or selectively certainly or selectively about addressing antisemitism when it does occur. We can recall that President Trump declared that there were fine people on both sides when a bunch of white supremacists in their Unite the Right rally marched in the University of Virginia's campus chanting Jews will not replace us. My colleagues on the other side were also silent as numerous reports regarding College Republicans were openly promoting their hatred of Jewish people among other groups and we've seen that other instances like that have not been commented on. All the while this has been going on, my colleagues have not told the President to stop firing lawyers at the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, the agency responsible for investigating claims of antisemitism in education.
My colleagues on the other side were certainly mum on how this administration is dismissing Title VI disparate impact analysis. And that's a very tool necessary to address practices and policies that may look facially neutral but do in fact discriminate against protected classes under the law. With that said, let me turn to the the bill before us, H.R. 4795, the so-called Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act would amend the Higher Education Act by placing new conditions on colleges and universities that receive federal higher education funding. One provision would require colleges and universities that receive Title VI funding for international education and language programs to certify each year that their students and faculty can participate in academic programs in Israel just as they can in other countries and that Israeli students and faculty are treated the same as those from other countries. That's certainly not not controversial.
But under the bill, institutions receiving Title IV federal student aid funding would be legally required to certify that they are not engaged in a non-expressive commercial boycott of Israel. Now while the bill does not name a boycott divest sanctions, the BDS movement and its efforts its efforts are clearly directed at that student-led movement. And we can't have a meaningful discussion of the bill without also acknowledging that there has not been a single case of an American college or university administration adopting the BDS movement policies that are described in the bill. Not one. And it appears that the bill's sponsors are conflating student or some faculty support for the BDS movement with the policies of the colleges and universities they attend or work at.
These are very two two very different things. And Congress should be careful not to treat the expressive views or activities of individual students as the official position of the schools they attend.
While we know the bill is intended to target BDS movement, it is not clear whether a school that even joins the BDF movement would even be covered by the text of the bill. The bill implicates "non-expressive boycotts" and that kind of confusing language is there for a reason. If it is an expressive boycott, it would be protected by the First Amendment. BDS by its very nature is designed to express disapproval with the actions of the State of Israel. If a college or university came out and publicly said it was joining BDS, most people would agree that that announcement and any such activity that flowed from it would clearly be expressive and therefore out of the scope of the bill.
And as expressive activity, the school's funding would be protected under the First Amendment. But again, no college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway. So simply put, the bill does not respond to any ongoing or existing higher education policy of boycotting Israel. Nevertheless, it would create new federal requirements intended to prevent institutions from adopting such policies in the future. So I want to be clear, the bill does not solve a problem, it anticipates a problem that does not presently exist.
Moreover, as we examine the bill, members should be careful to consider how these new federal requirements would operate in practice. A potential negative effect on institutions receiving federal funding and whether the bill is misusing power derived from the Constitution's spending clause to illegally sanction First Amendment protected speech, particularly that of students. And so as written, the bill presents serious First Amendment problems along with improperly limiting academic freedom. And hope these problems with the bill would have been addressed after markup, but they weren't, and I therefore will be opposing the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for being here. Ms. Fischbach, do you have any questions?
Speaker 8
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to say as we're talking about this, you know, anti-semitism should not and should never be tolerated. Absolutely never tolerated. And it can't be, particularly on our college campuses. And just to point out, unfortunately, in the 2024 to 2025 academic school year, there was, I believe, 23, over 2300 incidents of attacks reported by students.
And so I think this is incredibly timely and because we just, we should be anticipating issues and problems and trying to stop them, particularly when we are talking about individuals being and an entire religion being attacked. And so I just wanted to ask Mr. Wilson, why is it so important to ensure that universities receiving federal taxpayers do not participate in discriminatory boycotts against Israel?
Speaker 38
And indeed, Congresswoman, thank you for that question. And I want to point out that I appreciate you bringing up too, that you should anticipate. It's called deterrence. And so we want to deter actions that could occur. And then sadly, with what's been referred to as the events in Charlottesville, and as a person who attended Jack's school at Charlottesville, I really like the Charlottesville community.
And so we found out that later, that was financed by the Southern Poverty Law Center to create its falsified reason for existence. And again, how sad that is. But aside from that, indeed, universities should be places where students are there to learn and to not be concerned about their safety. And you've referred to it, there've been hundreds of incidents of anti-semitic conduct towards students.
And then, hey, I'm really grateful, hey, Republican women do good, okay? You, Chairwoman Foxx, Elise Stefanik. It was Elise who actually had the president, Sally Kornbluth, Sally Kornbluth of MIT, and I want to quote her exactly, because it's inconceivable in the free world that this would occur. She said that anti-Semitic depends on the context, which is elimination of the Jewish people. That was her, and hey, now she's no longer president of MIT.
But this needs to be a deterrent, and that's what this bipartisan bill provides. And boycott, divestment, and sanctions, no matter how you look at it, when you actually look at the persons who are promoting this, it is the existence of Israel is what they're talking about. And to be in place of the existence, and even in the New York Times, they had a direct quote, amazingly enough, from a top BDS spokesman, that Israel could exist, but not in Palestine, which means not exist. So with that in mind, and BDS and their background, indeed, it promotes anti-Semitism on college campuses. And over and over again, Title VI, it advances international education and includes equipping students with necessary background.
But Israel is a key ally of America as a democracy, and that it should be providing that the Title VI programs should be not paid for by federal taxpayers if there's anti-Semitism. And so that BDS really is such a code, sadly, and that most people understand a code of anti-Semitism.
Speaker 8
And thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is absolutely critical. It is a timely bill because we do absolutely need to anticipate if any kind of problem there may be, because anti-Semitism cannot be tolerated, period. And we need to be doing these kinds of things to protect those 2,300 students who experienced those incidents, those attacks. So thank you very much for bringing the bill forward. I yield back.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you. It's another through-the-looking-glass kind of a day here. We're talking about a straw man that our Republican colleagues have propped up when there's never been a single case where a college or university has done what this bill would prevent. But it is designed to say, oh my goodness, there's a problem here, maybe just like that communist straw man that we keep hearing about. There's nothing forward-looking happening in this Congress under this Republican majority.
They're just trying to divide people and set up these fear-based straw men so they can knock them down without actually accomplishing anything. You know, we've got this bill that's attacking an issue that has never occurred. Instead of addressing the real challenges that are facing American students and families and colleges and universities. You know, this would chill academic discussions and condition access to critical federal student aid dollars, dollars that should be focused on helping students get an education, not used to leverage the latest bogeyman that our Republican colleagues are putting together. Because there's certainly no shortage of real problems in higher education that Congress should be addressing.
College is unaffordable for far too many families.
Students are graduating under mountains of debt. And and we hear, obviously we should be combating antisemitism, but how do you do that when the Trump administration has dismantled the Department of Education and fired all the folks at the Office of Civil Rights who are in charge of investigating discrimination in our in our universities, colleges, and in our K through 12 schools? So, you know, it's just nonsensical and it doesn't actually accomplish anything. I mean, we should be instead dealing with the fact that the administration is freezing and disrupting critical research funding. I heard about that at both of the town halls I I held last week.
I know our Republican colleagues, there's been reporting that they're not holding town halls, but if they held town halls, they would hear from the folks in their communities who are unable to work on the research that makes Americans safer and healthier and helps our educational institutions be among the best in the world, and instead that's getting cut. These are real problems. And I don't think that the bill we are addressing here today is targeted at a real problem. I think it's targeted at stirring up division and not actually dealing with real issues. Representative Scott, Ranking Member Scott, when students are struggling with the cost of higher education, what would you identify as the most pressing challenges that Congress should be Congress should be dealing with with respect to higher education?
Robert Scott
Well, getting access to higher education is so important and the cost has gotten out of control. The cost and ability for students to pay for their education is now a challenge, so much of a challenge that too many students are calculating that it's just not worth it. They qualify academically qualify for college and don't go because it's just not worth it, it's just too expensive. In 1965, President Johnson's time, the Higher Education Act said essentially that any student in any state could apply to any college or university and not be turned away because their family is poor. And at that point, the Pell Grant covered about 80% of the cost of going to a state college.
You could work a part-time job during the school year, full-time job during the summer, and you work your way through college essentially with no debt. Now the Pell Grant's not 80%, it's around 25 or 30% of the cost. They've got to borrow the rest and take on crushing debt in order to go. That's not fair and it's a new situation. And the Big Ugly Bill from last year limited what they can borrow in certain professions, making it impossible for low-income students to achieve what they could have achieved if they hadn't limited the ability to pay.
So access, I think, is the number one number one issue. The discrimination on campus needs to be dealt with. We have people kibitzing from the side without and at the same time, as you have pointed out, the office in the federal government that deals with discrimination on campus is the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education. And the other side of the aisle has just watched the President decimate that office, take it out of the Department of Education, and essentially not have the personnel there to take on the cases. So you can complain about the discrimination, but you have eliminated the ability to do anything about it.
Mary Gay Scanlon
I couldn't agree more. I mean, if you are genuine, if you are genuinely concerned about antisemitism and other discrimination on college campuses, you should be propping up tools that would deal with that discrimination. And instead, we've seen this House majority just give a free pass to the administration gutting the Office of Civil Rights. They fired every single member of the every single lawyer in the Office of Civil Rights in Philadelphia. There is now no Office of Civil Rights in Philadelphia.
And we have colleges everywhere. And and to your point about the real pressing issues of access and cost of higher education, I've got 16 colleges and universities in my district. And every single one of them has a food pantry because students can't afford to eat and pay their tuition. And with gas prices going up, I'm hearing when I'm out in the community that they have to make a decision about whether to come to class because they can't afford the gas or whether to eat. I mean, just the pressures on our student community are so great, and nothing that this Congress is doing is making them any better.
So thank you.
Robert Scott
Right. In terms in terms of discrimination, there's another thing the administration is doing, which is kind of a technical legal issue, and that is eliminating all the disparate impact cases. That's a case where you can prove that a group has been discriminated against, but the policy that provokes the discrimination looks facially neutral. But in effect, it has a discriminatory impact. They're requiring they're eliminating all of those cases unless you can show intent.
A lot of the cases, there is no intent. You didn't mean to discriminate, you just did. And you ought to deal with those cases of discrimination. The other cases where they did intend to discriminate, you just can't prove it. Well, they're getting rid of those cases too, because if you can't prove it, it looks like unintentional discrimination.
That allows discrimination to go on and be unaddressed because this administration's taken a whole category of discrimination cases and just dismissed them all.
H. Griffith
Mr. Wilson, is there anything you want to say in response at this time to what you've heard thus far?
Speaker 38
Hey, thank you very much. Indeed, I'm glad that we do agree, Congresswoman Scanlon and Chairman Scott, to oppose discrimination. And I'm really pleased that what the president's doing is actually devolving power back to the schools, to the states, that actually education should be a local issue, not a federal. And with that, additionally, I'm confident that states will address this. We've and we must have a deterrence to antisemitism.
And to indicate that this is a issue that doesn't exist, indeed it does. And we can see it by the BDS movement itself and the statements from their colleagues and just over and over again, it's really clear that antisemitism is an issue that many of us have. Hey, I'm so grateful in my home state that there has not been, to my knowledge, any indication of antisemitism. But at the same time, we see, as I indicated, from the MIT president who made that absurd statement that it depended on the context of antisemitism, which is a good reason she's not there now. But with that in mind, we need to be a deterrence to antisemitism, not not ignore that it is occurring and could occur, but we must stop it.
Thank you.
H. Griffith
I appreciate that. And you know, it's kind of interesting, and I'm sitting here thinking it through.
I agree with you that there is an issue and that this bill addresses that issue. But let's take my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their argument, and that is the bill does nothing and there's nothing to see here, there is no issue. So would you not agree with me then there's no harm in passing it?
Speaker 38
You know, I've actually thought of that too. I saw that, that if it's not going to bother anything, hey, all the more reason to support Chairwoman Virginia Foxx and Congressman Grotthamer's bill.
Speaker 45
And it puts down, it lays down a marker that says we're against antisemitism.
Speaker 38
We're against antisemitism, but again, I want to go back to, it's a deterrent. We need to stop it in the future and this would have a, I think, a really significant impact. It may be perceived by others not to have an impact, but I think the prescience of Chairwoman Foxx by identifying this is a deterrent.
I agree. Yield back.
Hello, Madam Chair.
How are you?
Speaker 34
I am fine. Good to see you. It is interesting, you know, it is good to see my colleagues. I might have problems with other things that we're doing, but it is good to see my colleagues.
Oh no, we love seeing you.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Representative Wilson, I don't know if I heard correctly, but I think you said something like, fortunately in my universities we haven't seen this antisemitism. But the reality is, you know, if you go and sit with Jewish students as I did at the University of New Mexico after October 7th, you will hear people share their concerns about antisemitism. But what that takes is showing up and listening. Right, it's showing up and listening that we're not teaching about the Holocaust. We're not teaching about what happened in World War II.
We are not making sure that people know the long history of antisemitism that has coursed through so many of our countries over centuries and decades. And I guess the problem I have with this bill is it doesn't appear to provide any resources to prevent or investigate hate crimes. Is that correct? Does this bill provide any resource, actual resources to prevent or investigate hate crimes?
Speaker 38
To me, it's a deterrent. And the way you do that is to identify that there will not be funding if there is conduct that could be determined to be discriminatory.
Deterrent.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Deterrent. So I'm really disappointed that we have legislation before us that really doesn't get to, I think, what a key thing is, which is providing the resources that our Office of Civil Rights is needed over at the Department of Education. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back under two minutes.
Virginia Foxx
Going to give you a gold star. I only want to make one quick remark and that is that to say BDS boycotts haven't been agreed to or haven't been a problem is just not true because during the 23-24 academic year, as I said in my opening statement, at least 86 BDS resolutions were considered across undergraduate and graduate professional student organizations and faculty unions. 77 passed and nine were voted down. Thank you, gentlemen, very much for coming. Seeing no further questions...
Speaker 44
Madam Chair, could I make a quick comment on that? Can I make a quick comment on that?
Robert Scott
The student body organizations and not the administration.
I understand that. And I did want to make sure that we didn't let the idea that the Unite the Right rally was funded by the Southern Poverty Law Center go by uncommented on.
Speaker 48
Okay. Thank you very much. Well, you all are excused. Thank you. I now welcome our third panel, Chairman Steil and Ranking Member Morelle from the Committee on House Administration.
Your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Steil, I welcome your testimony.
Bryan Steil
Thank you very much, Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member, members of the committee. I thank you for inviting me today in support of H. Res. 1490. I also want to thank Representative Crank for bringing forward this critical resolution. Socialism has no place in the United States of America. Hard work and merit are the backbone of the American dream, not socialized outcomes or government control.
Let's be honest, our nation's at a crossroads. We can go down the path of big government and socialist policies, or we can keep fighting to shrink government and help American people keep more of the hard-earned money that they earned. Across the nation, socialist policies are increasingly dominating Democrat politics. Socialist candidates are competing for and winning Democratic nominations for key offices at the local, state, and federal level. The mayor of our nation's largest city, as we know, is a socialist.
A current US Senator and a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president, a socialist. And members of the House openly support the radical policies of the Democratic Socialists of America platform. The resolution before us today condemns the DSA platform. It calls for radical changes to our elections. The DSA platform includes requiring ranked-choice voting for all elections.
It also supports giving the right to vote to incarcerated criminals and more than 12 million non-citizens. These radical policies would undermine the integrity of the American election and destroy our democratic system. Now contrast the DSA platform with the Republicans' supported legislation. We believe American elections are for American citizens only. We're focused on making it easy to vote and hard to cheat.
Our goal is to strengthen election integrity by passing common-sense reforms like the Save America Act to require photo ID to vote and ensure that only US citizens are voting in our elections. Not surprisingly, the DSA opposes these common-sense ideas because they fundamentally oppose securing our elections. It's often said that socialism is easy to elect but nearly impossible to remove. That's because socialist ideology concentrates power in a way that has led to totalitarian rule time and time again. Socialist policies are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people worldwide.
Here at home, DSA leaders have repeatedly described our bicameral federal republic as inherently undemocratic. Make no mistake, given the chance, socialists will abolish our democratic system. These resolutions reject and condemn these radical socialist policies, recommits Congress's commitment to upholding the Constitution, and reaffirms our duty to ensure the American elections are free, fair, and secure. I urge members of this committee to support this important resolution and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you very much. Mr. Morelli, you're recognized.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern and members of the committee, it's always nice to be back in the Rules Committee. I will be honest, I find it puzzling we're here today debating this resolution. After zero floor activity for the last five weeks, House Republicans are now bringing to the floor a non-binding resolution calling for enactment of the Save America Act. And in an ironic twist that would be comical if it weren't so sinister, this legislation stokes fears of a repressive totalitarian dictatorship while in the same breath affirms the Republicans' obsession with destroying Americans' right to vote. The same House Republicans that have ceded the entirety of Congress's constitutional authority to one man.
This is absurd. This resolution asks the House to condemn government ownership of private industry. Yet under Donald Trump, the federal government has spent almost 28 billion dollars acquiring stakes in dozens of private companies. I'm a proud capitalist. If my Republican colleagues want to debate socialism, they should start with the shareholder-in-chief in the Oval Office.
After hearing from constituents about the affordability crisis in America and the corruption of this administration for the past five weeks, my Republican colleagues are bringing a non-binding resolution to the floor. They're wasting time on a vote for a resolution condemning a political philosophy which has already passed this body, that resolution, and calling for the enactment of a bill that has already passed the House. A bill that would make it harder for women and veterans to vote. A bill that would essentially gut mail and online voter registration. And a bill that would force states to hand over voter rolls to President Trump's Department of Homeland Security.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised we're here today. Because one thing is clear, as costs skyrocket, Republicans are afraid to face their constituents at the ballot box. The White House and congressional Republicans have failed the American people and the only remaining option is to try to keep Americans from voting at all. They want bills like the Save America Act to disrupt election administration and keep millions of eligible voters away from the polls. The president has issued illegal executive orders to block ballot access for millions of Americans, including an unlawful attempt to weaponize United States Postal Service and eviscerate vote-by-mail regimes in states across the country.
This administration has defunded and gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, and its support for election administrators. And of course, the president and his allies continue to actively spread mis- and disinformation about the integrity of our elections. House Democrats will continue to fight back. Because despite these continued efforts by the president and his allies, our elections are safe and secure.
House Democrats' objectives are straightforward: every eligible American must have a meaningful opportunity to cast a ballot, and these ballots must be counted fairly and accurately. There is nothing more important in this moment than our collective efforts to ensure Americans are given every opportunity to render their verdict in November. And despite best efforts of House Republicans, we are going to make sure that happens. Madam Chair, in a recent poll, Congress was found to have a 15% approval rating. 15% of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing today.
Some might understandably think that number is low, but after participating in this absurd exercise today, I'm surprised it's that high. Because with due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would the symbolic resolution committee Republicans are seeking to advance today do anything to lower gas prices? Would this pure messaging bill do anything to make your groceries less expensive? Would this resolution do anything to hold the crooks in the White House accountable? The answer is simple: it would not.
Promises have been made to the American people, but they have not been kept. The American people deserve better than this. I have offered an amendment to this bill that would immediately prohibit members, officers, and employees of the House from trading stocks and participating in prediction markets, a measure that would actually stop members of the body from profiting off their position in government. I hope the committee will make this amendment in order. With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you, Mr. Morelle. Mr. McGovern, I recognize you first.
James McGovern
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I'm listening to this and I'm kind of in disbelief. You know, when I was home, everybody was talking about how expensive everything is. And what are you doing to lower prices? I mean, so you're concerned about rising gas or you're concerned about grocery prices?
You know, don't worry, Republicans in Congress are passing another non-binding resolution condemning socialism. Can't afford your rent, can't afford your healthcare? Don't worry about it, Republicans are laser-focused on condemning socialism. And, I mean, you guys have had all of August to come up with some real tangible plans to lower prices, at least to make believe like you care about lowering prices. And instead, here we are wasting everyone's time voting on unrelated nonsense that has no force of law, by the way.
I mean, this is absurd that we're doing this. This is absurd. And, I mean, it is what it is. You guys have made a decision that you stand for nothing that my constituents care about in terms of addressing the affordability crisis. So this is what we get: non-binding resolutions, look over here so you don't look at what's happening in your own life.
I think it's a lousy way to run this place, but again, as I said at the beginning, I can't—November can't come fast enough for me. I thank the chairwoman, I yield back.
Nicholas Langworthy
Thank you, Madam Chair. As a New Yorker, I've seen firsthand the alarming rise of socialism, you know, that's started in New York, but it's spread across this country. For years, families in Western New York have watched one-party rule in Albany pile on more taxes, more mandates, more government control, while hardworking taxpayers are left to foot the bill. And now downstate, we've watched the socialist left move more from the activist fringe into positions of real, serious political power. And anyone who thinks that these ideas are going to stay confined to New York City is sadly mistaken and they're not paying attention.
The Democratic Socialists of America are telling us exactly what they want to do.
They want to fundamentally reshape our institutions and they're openly advocating allowing non-citizens to vote in American elections. Chairman Steil, we've heard a lot of criticism from the other side of the aisle about this resolution and I want to give you a chance to respond and to clear anything up for the committee.
Bryan Steil
Thank you very much, Mr. Langworthy. No, I think this resolution is actually really important. People have referenced it as not being. I think it's actually really important to highlight the distinction here and what happens if Democratic Socialists are elected and are driving the train here in the House of Representatives on a whole host of issues. There was reference about energy prices earlier.
The Green New Deal policies that Democratic Socialists of America are atrocious. This resolution focuses in large part on election law, about making sure, for example, that we have photo ID so that people are who they say they are. Democratic Socialists of America want to abolish the system in which we elect the president, allow Congress to elect, and of course they want to abolish the Senate so it would just be one body. This is at the core of what our democracy is. And I think it's really important to understand the distinction and the contrast between where those on the radical left stand and where common sense is.
Nicholas Langworthy
We've seen socialism fail every place it's ever been tried. Its advocates can dress it up with new slogans and false promises, but history has shown us where the road leads and we should take them at their word when they tell us what they actually want to do. Those ideas are fundamentally un-American and we should never apologize for standing up for our freedoms, for our Constitution, and for the integrity of our elections. And American elections should be decided by American citizens only, period. And I appreciate the committee's work on this resolution and I yield back.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you. So House Republicans have the majority. We've been out of session for weeks and weeks and weeks and we get to come back so that they can put another resolution on the House floor to condemn socialism, a non-binding resolution. I mean, families across our country are struggling with the cost of groceries and housing and healthcare and utilities. And when I met with my constituents at town halls while we were home, and you remember what town halls are because I know it's like against the Republican creed to have them, no one, literally no one was asking us to pass another, another non-binding resolution to condemn socialism.
What they did want to know is what are we going to do about Social Security running out of money? Because they want to know how we're going to make sure that Social Security and Medicare, the earned benefits that they have been contributing to with every paycheck, will still exist when they need them. So instead we're here, we're wasting taxpayer resources, valuable floor time to consider another clickbait resolution that would solve none of these issues. I mean, I think this bill should be Exhibit A for why civic education is so desperately needed in this country when one of our major parties is trying to repeat history and invoke McCarthyism again. I mean, McCarthyism was reckless, unsupported accusations of disloyalty and communist sympathies in order to silence political opponents.
That's about all this is. Let's scare people with yet another bogeyman and not do anything about it, not really solve problems, just try to scare people. And as the ranking member mentioned, no administration in our history has engaged in more socialist behavior than this one. At this count, the Trump administration has forced more than 30 private and publicly traded owned companies to turn over equity and ownership to the government.
Isn't that what socialism is? It's government-owned means of production. And here we've got Westinghouse, US Steel, other sectors including semiconductors, rare earth minerals, Venezuelan oil. The government is all of a sudden in the business of running all these companies. And finally, at the end of the day, this is just being used as another vehicle to promote Republicans' voter suppression bill, the SAVE Act.
It's a massive voter disenfranchisement bill that would prevent hundreds of thousands of American citizens from being able to vote. It's such a bad bill that even though the House has passed it, even though it's going to hurt a lot of their constituents, particularly in rural areas, Senate Republicans have refused to go along with this obviously bad bill. And I would remind my Pennsylvania constituents that if this SAVE Act were to pass, you could no longer register to vote using just your Pennsylvania driver's license because that Pennsylvania driver's license does not have proof of citizenship on it. So you're going to have to go to the trouble and expense of also getting a passport, which less than 50% of Pennsylvanians currently hold, or gathering additional documents just to register to vote. And that includes if you need to change your registration because you move or you change parties.
So if meaningless partisan non-binding resolutions are all that our Republican members of Congress can offer, maybe they should consider another line of work. But please don't waste our time and the people's time and money with another non-binding resolution that doesn't solve real problems. Ranking Member Morelle, I am very, very concerned about the endorsement of the SAVE Act, which as you pointed out has already passed the House, that is contained in this bill. Can you just remind folks how some of the most burdensome provisions in that act would actually prevent people from voting, including veterans, married women, young people who move?
Joseph Morelle
Yeah, frankly, there've been now so many different versions of the SAVE Act, it's hard to remember them all. But we generally categorize them into two basic things. One is to make it more difficult for people to register. Documentary proof of citizenship makes it harder for many groups. We've already identified how for women, particularly who have a different last name at the time of their birth than were they to register with a married name, they'd have to now not only provide proof of citizenship, a birth certificate, a passport, which we've explained in the past half of Americans don't have a passport.
If your name is different, though, you'd have to describe why your name is different, either have a marriage license or an affidavit indicating that you're the same person in both documents. It makes it harder to mail-in voting, again, depending on which version we're talking about, it changes pretty frequently. But this is all part of a larger issue, which is the SAVE America Act, the executive orders which the president continues to issue that have been determined to be so far illegal, which have come under heavy criticism by Republicans in states that typically, and I note that Colorado, Mr. Neguse's state, Ms. Leger Fernandez in New Mexico, they rely far more on mail-in voting. And again, the president voted just a couple weeks ago by mail, even as he's criticizing mail as being fraudulent and prone to fraud. So all these are efforts, make it harder for students to vote because they won't have the proper ID, make it harder for women, make it harder for black and brown people.
I think when you fear the verdict of the American people, which is clearly the case, you'll do anything you can to make it harder for certain people to vote and to really look towards people who you consider in your base. Although, again, the meddling, and I, you know, the governor of Wyoming, hardly a bastion of anti-Trump liberalism, described DOJ's officials' meddling in their recent primaries as aggressive, unexpected, and disruptive. A Republican official in Pennsylvania similarly warned that the president's executive order would inject uncertainty and confusion into the legislative process, resulting in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The Republican governor of Utah made it clear federal elections are, quote, "in the purview of the states and not the president." So he's facing some headwinds, but not here in Congress, but certainly by those state leaders who have to conduct state-run elections.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, it is just kind of a disappointing return to Congress this week when we've got bill after bill which is setting up problems that don't exist just as opportunities for political rhetoric to try to win some elections when our colleagues appear to be somewhat on the ropes because people don't like the policies they're pushing. Thank you for your testimony. I yield back.
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
Austin Scott
Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, this seems pretty simple to me. Socialism is bad and only United States citizens should vote in United States elections. Am I missing something, Mr. Steil? I mean...
I think you're hitting it on the head. This is pretty straightforward. If you don't like socialism, it's an easy yes vote. Yeah, I agree. I mean, I'm... the Socialist Democrats of America, I've kind of watched, you know, in disgust with what's happened in the Democratic primaries as I've watched people who I know and I like, who have a different political philosophy than they do, have been torched by the Socialist Democrats of America.
And Michigan is a perfect example of it. The member of the House ran, she's a good person, smart person, extremely liberal, just wasn't belligerent enough for the Socialist Democrats of America. And now you do have a true socialist as their nominee. And look, as a Republican, I'm thankful that you have that true socialist, I guess, in November. Only I'd like to see the best members of both parties pushing forward to the November election.
I think that's what would be best for the country. But I mean, it seems to me pretty easy. Socialism is bad. Only US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections. And so, Mr. Steil, if you have anything else to add, you're welcome to.
Other than that, I'll say it again: socialism is bad, only US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections. I mean, Mr. Elliott, do you disagree with that statement?
Joseph Morelle
I don't. I would say this, that that's already the law. The SAVE America Act, even though my objections to it, has already passed the House, and a resolution condemning socialism's already passed the House. We're back here after a five-week break where Americans are suffering to pass a non-binding resolution which does things we've already done here. I mean, this is... I can't imagine most Americans, with all due respect, would think that this is the thing we ought to be doing, restating what we've already done and ignoring the challenges that they face.
But that's... And so, again, it was very simple.
Austin Scott
Socialism is bad. You can't even say that. And only US citizens should vote in US elections, and you refuse to say that.
Joseph Morelle
No, I didn't, actually, respectfully. I actually voted in favor of the resolution condemning socialism. I said I'm a proud capitalist. Now, members of my party may disagree, but that's fine. But we've already done it here.
We've already passed that resolution. And as it relates to the SAVE Act, it's not simply voter ID and it's not simply having US citizens vote in elections. This is a whole list of things that would make it so much harder to register to vote and to vote. So, I...
Austin Scott
Well, we believe in protecting the integrity of the elections. I heard these same complaints in the state of Georgia over and over and over again. I watched woke 1.0 MLB pull ballgames out of the state of Georgia with the changes that we made to our election cycle. And you know what? A Republican governor and a Democrat US senator were elected on the same ballot.
And that's what happens when you have integrity in your election. And you know, I thought woke 1.0 or whatever you call it was crazy. I guess woke 2.0 is the Socialist Democrats of America's second swing at the ball. But Madam Chair, I'm going to yield the remainder of my time so that we can move on and hopefully defeat woke 2.0.
Joe Neguse
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would say I'm going to resist the temptation to talk about Senate nominees with all respect to my colleague from Georgia, because I suspect we could have a very fulsome conversation about the Republican nominee for the United States Senate in the state of Georgia, somebody who's embroiled in controversy after controversy, including in just the last 24 hours. But I digress. We'll keep the politics out of this august chamber. What I would say is that everyone understands the score.
The ranking member articulated it well. We voted on a non-binding resolution regarding socialism a year ago. We did the same two years before that. There is no doubt that Republicans have decided to put before the House a non-binding resolution condemning socialism as a political tool in advance of the November 3rd election. It is what it is.
I get it. I understand my colleagues' motives. And I suspect the American people will see through it. I guess time will tell. But I imagine six months from now, I hope, that I have the opportunity to serve on the Rules Committee and perhaps I'll be sitting on that side.
And I can remind my colleagues of how they squandered, squandered, totally squandered the waning days of their majority on non-binding resolutions. But in any event, to each their own. So, Mr. Style, this resolution condemns socialism, correct?
I'd say so.
Bryan Steil
In particular, Democratic Socialists of America, they have a handy little printout with their program.
Define socialism.
Bryan Steil
I'd go through their policies, sir. I'm noting the Democratic Socialists of America. I'd go through their policies. They've got a Green New Deal, end mass incarceration, Medicare for All.
I'll get you a copy.
Speaker 64
I'm literally handing you a document, sir, with all of the highlights that the DSA has produced.
Bryan Steil
This is a debate between the Democratic Socialists of America's platform.
What is capitalism?
Speaker 61
What is capitalism? Capitalism is the economic system that we operate in the United States.
Joe Neguse
That's your answer? Define it. What is capitalism? Like, these aren't trick questions. You're a very smart man.
What is capitalism to you? Free market, right?
Yeah, free market, I'll go with you.
Joe Neguse
Okay, glad I could help you with that. Define socialism. What is socialism to you? We can get a dictionary definition of it.
Pull up if you got it, right ahead, sir.
Joe Neguse
I'm offering to you the entire platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. Any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. That's Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of socialism, right?
Speaker 59
I trust that that is it. I don't know, I trust you. Owning the means of production.
I mean, you're here condemning it.
Bryan Steil
You said right, you have the definition. I just said I assume what you read is correct. I can't validate, I assume you're reading it correctly.
Speaker 23
This seems absurd to me. Mr. Steil, if I asked the chairwoman to define socialism, she's not going to give this rigmarole.
Speaker 71
It's not terrible rigmarole, I'm actually giving you the definition of the Democratic Socialists of America.
I did not ask you a question. I didn't ask you a question, Mr. Steil.
Speaker 23
Perhaps I can ask one of my colleagues. Maybe one of my Republican colleagues on this side of the aisle if they'll engage in a colloquy because I think they'll answer the question more honestly than Mr. Steil will. If they'll define, what does socialism mean to them? I'm just trying to understand the definition of socialism so that we're all operating off of the same understanding. That's it.
And I thought that Mr. Steil, given his passion for condemning socialism, would be very eager to give me a very simple definition of it. That's it. Can anyone here just tell me what we're condemning? Can you define socialism?
Virginia Foxx
Mr. Neguse, let's, let's just state, I don't know how the attorneys exactly do it in court, but let's just say we accept the definition you gave from Merriam-Webster.
Speaker 28
Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you. I didn't think it would be this hard to get the people who are wanting to condemn socialism to define socialism. So, okay. So now that we've cut into about five minutes of my question there.
So, going back to you, Mr. Steil. Socialism, owning the means of production, right?
That's a piece of it, yeah.
Joe Neguse
Okay. What would you call the Trump administration acquiring a 10% equity stake in Intel, a 15% stake in rare earth producer MP Materials, and a 10% stake in Lithium Americas and Trilogi Metals, excuse me, metals?
Uh, no.
That would be socialist to you?
Bryan Steil
I think that would be a type of overreach of the federal government, absolutely.
Would that be socialist to you?
That'd be a form of socialism, yeah.
Joe Neguse
Okay. And if Donald Trump announces tomorrow that he's going to take a 20% equity stake in Kroger, would that be socialism to you?
Speaker 69
I'd want to see the details. But understand the difference. For the folks watching at home, watch the sleight of hand, because I think this is really important.
Speaker 73
You said if government owns grocery stores, that would be socialist. Sleight of hand? I'm asking an honest question. But if, of course, Donald Trump were to announce an equity stake in a grocery store, well, I'd have to really see the details because we all know the play, Mr. Steil. If I mentioned anyone else but Donald Trump, you would have answered a different way.
I'd ask you to please not interrupt.
Sure, go ahead.
Bryan Steil
Okay. I think there's a meaningful and substantive role of your federal government as it relates to foreign policy and national defense. I think that's why we look at the National Defense Production Act as a mechanism.
Speaker 74
That's Kroger? I mentioned grocery store company. I didn't ask you about mining.
Bryan Steil
You can either let me respond or you can control the time, it's however you'd like to do it.
Bryan Steil
You were jumping, right, between areas of foreign policy, rare earth materials, oil, right? These are, have national policy and national security interests at stake, which is why we have the Defense Production Act, which gives the federal government certain roles that are non-traditional in a capitalist system. So we understand. And then the question is, where on that dial? And so the question then becomes, some folks on your side of the aisle would like to have government-run grocery stores.
I think that's nuts.
Joe Neguse
And if the President of the United States announced that the United States government was taking a 10%, 20%, 30% equity stake in Kroger?
Speaker 70
I don't think he is. You're playing the hypothetical game. You can play it all day long. If he were to, hypothetical, he's in equity ownership of Kroger.
Virginia Foxx
Mr. Stauber, when you ask Mr. Style a question, would you let him answer? Because he was trying to answer you when you asked a question. He tried to answer you and you were talking over him. So I'm just going to ask the two of you to let's get on with this, ask a question, let Mr. Style answer it, or Mr. Style, if you don't want to answer it, say so. Thank you.
Please.
Joe Neguse
As I said at the outset, I asked you a very simple question. You answered it, that the government owning grocery stores would be socialist in your view. I then posed the question as to whether or not the President announcing that the United States government would take a 10% or 20% equity stake in one of the largest national retailers in our country, whether that would be socialist. You said I'd have to know the details. He's not doing that.
Hold on, I'm not, I didn't pose the question yet. So let's respect the chairwoman's request here. Pose away. So you then answered and took us down the road of the justifications with respect to national security and foreign mining and all the rest. So we are back to square one.
As you said, you said very clearly, there are people in my party who believe the government should own grocery stores, and I'm trying to get a better sense as to whether or not you agree. And I sense that if Donald Trump were to announce that he believes it's the right thing to do, that you would agree. You have an opportunity to tell me no, that if the President announced a 10 or 20% equity stake in a national grocer, that you would not support that. You believe that's socialist.
Bryan Steil
I think there would need to be a national security rationale for the action. I don't see any in your hypothetical. I don't see a national security purpose.
Okay, that's a helpful answer.
It's a hypothetical, so you're, we're entering silly season.
Joe Neguse
Helpful answer. Helpful answer. So the test for you as to whether or not the US government acquiring a stake in any American company or any American industry, as to whether or not that is socialist, is whether or not there's any kind of national security implication. And essentially the United States government can, so long as they can put together this coherent rationale, Donald Trump can take equity stakes in whatever companies he deems necessary, the US government, I should say, taking equity stakes that he's initiated, as long as that national security prerogative is established. Is that a safe...
No, I think you're wildly overstating it.
Speaker 23
Wildly overstating it. Okay. Well, I would just simply suggest to you that if the chairman of the committee that is pursuing this resolution can't define socialism, Madam Chair...
I did.
Speaker 23
I'm not asking, this is, I'm talking to the chair very clearly. And if the chairman of the committee cannot, in my view, distinguish between the socialist way in which this President is currently operating, acquiring on behalf of the United States government massive equity interests in company after company after company in an unprecedented way, a way that no President in the modern era of our country has done, that perhaps this resolution isn't ready for prime time. But in any event, I know that will probably not be convincing to the chairwoman, so I will yield back the balance of my time.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much, Mr. Neguse. Mr., let me see. I believe, Mr. Jack, you are recognized.
Brian Jack
No, I just want to thank the chairman for his testimony and leadership throughout this. And what I'll say too, just to echo your comments at the outset, Madam Chairwoman, we've talked at length and we've seen at length what's happened at Democrat primaries week after week after week. And I can understand why many on the other side of the aisle are concerned as they look ahead to primaries next year. This is a very effective resolution.
I look forward to seeing our colleagues vote on it. I think it'll be very illustrative and I'll just offer the chairman an opportunity to close as it relates to what will happen when this vote happens. How should voters look at that? How should people receive that when they see the scoreboard for the vote on this resolution later this week?
Bryan Steil
I mean, the resolution is incredibly straightforward. It lays out the policy priorities of the Democratic Socialists of America. Lays them out in actual policies, not some abstract concept of what is, like you're an academic professor. It's what is socialism? And it walks right through what the DSA supports.
And either you agree with that, as many on the far left do, or you oppose that. It's very clear. You either oppose socialism and you vote in support of the resolution, or you are one of the DSA members that actually believe all this stuff that is in their materials. We could go through every single one of them. We highlighted in this case the ones relevant to election law, which should scare the heck out of people, that we would end the election of the President of the United States of America as we know it, that we would allow Congress to elect the President.
We hear all rigmarole about democracy from our colleagues on the left. Their platform wants to end how we elect the President of the United States. They want to abolish the Senate. They want one body. They want control.
They want a consolidation of the control. And this is the opportunity for people to put up or shut up. They can go down and everybody here can vote and we can condemn socialism, but I watch, watch the board. And I suspect that we will not have that. That we will have many members of the left who either support this or are scared out of their minds of the left wing of their party.
And we've seen that play out in my home state of Wisconsin in a gubernatorial primary that took place over this August recess, where it was a race to the radical left with one position only being one step further for wanting to abolish Thanksgiving. That was the definition of how far left can we go. And what I encourage people to do is actually to read the platform, the program of the Democratic Socialists of America to get a firmer understanding of the direction that they want to take our country. And I think that's actually why this resolution before us is so important and why voting yes on this resolution is so essential. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you very much. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, and I'm looking at the resolution and it has a couple of things in it that I think the American public should know. One is that it resolves that the House of Representatives, open quote, condemns and denounces socialism in all its forms. So the fact that the chair doesn't even know what the definition of socialism is is a little bit concerning, especially because when we saw this resolution come before us last time, the sponsor said things like Medicaid and Social Security and things that we rely on and that Americans expect our government to provide would fall within this definition. So that is concerning because I think Americans want government to do certain things.
They want government to help with healthcare. They want government to make sure Social Security survives and Democrats actually have a plan to do that. And they do want to oppose another part of your resolution that says we, you know, that condemns a concentration of power. And if you don't know that, Mr. Chairman, that's actually in the first line of your resolution. And part of my problem is we should be condemning the concentration of power.
But right now, the concentration of power is in the President. And let's look at what has resulted. Chairman Steil, do you know what the increase in the cost of fuel oil has been over the last year?
Bryan Steil
Wisconsin doesn't use fuel oil. That's mostly the Northeast where they've failed to put in place pipelines, so I actually don't know the price.
Oh, you don't know.
No, it's not about pipelines.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Fuel oil is mostly used in the Northeast.
39.10%, that is year-to-year and it's not pipelines. There has been a 25.3% increase in unleaded regular gasoline all types. Do you know how gasoline has gone up?
Speaker 78
That's about, and from a year ago, it's about close to 25%. And these I'm reading from... A lot less than when Joe Biden was in office, which is really positive. No, this is the last 12 months. This is the last 12 months.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Mr. Chairman Steil, I am reading from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 12-month percentage change. In fact, Madam Chair, I'd like to enter this into the record.
Without objection.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
So this is not about what happened since because of Biden, this has been what's happened from Trump, right? And Chairman Steil, who's supposed to approve of tariffs under our Constitution, the president or the Congress?
Bryan Steil
In certain situations, Congress has given authority to the executive, again, usually related to national security interests, otherwise the power resides with Congress.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Yeah, it's with Congress. Republicans have failed to rein this president in with regards to tariffs. With regards to war, Republicans have failed to do anything to keep this president from marching us into the war with Iran, which is slightly, there are two main reasons over and over again, it's Trump's tariffs and Trump's war. And that is a concentration of power that Republicans have given to Trump. But more important, I think, is that when I go home, people are very upset about corruption.
And so when you're using government, when you're using government not to maybe help people afford their healthcare, but you're using government to make sure your family makes more money, that is a concentration of power I would love for you to bring a resolution on, because that's a concentration of power my folks back home are pissed about. Now, I would like to enter another article into the record, Madam Chair, and the title is "The White House Intervened to Get a $620 Million Deal for Company Tied to Donald Trump Jr." Madam Chair, if I could enter that into the record.
Without objection.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
And the reason why this is important is this is about public lands. We had a discussion earlier today, Chairman Steil, about how Trump has intervened to help members of his family access foreign deals. I have some other articles here that $6.1 billion Jared Kushner has made in his role as advisor to Trump from Saudi Arabia, from the United Arab Emirates. This is a concentration of power that is hurting Americans and I think we should be condemning. But I haven't heard you condemn.
Have you stood up and condemned the war or the tariffs or the fact that Trump's family is making so much money out of his presidency?
Bryan Steil
I've spoken out extensively about the interests of the United States reaching a lasting ceasefire with Iran, but also the importance of Iran not being a state sponsor of terrorism and not having a nuclear weapon. And I contrast that with the DSA platform on Free Palestine and putting the capital of Palestine in Jerusalem on page 15 of the document.
Speaker 33
They don't have a, they didn't have an, there has been no deal, the Strait of Hormuz is still closed and it was open before Trump started that war.
Ranking member, I really appreciated you talking about the multiple iterations of their attempts to suppress the vote. Because that's what the SAVE Act is. I call it the zombie SAVE Act because it keeps coming up in lots of different forms. But in each of its forms, it's not really about citizens voting. It's about making it harder for people to vote.
And why is it important for people to be able to vote? Is it so that they can maybe condemn policies like the gold-collared corruption we're seeing from this president?
Joseph Morelle
Well, look, ultimately our whole democracy is built on the notion of self-government. And the only way you have self-government is if American citizens get access to the ballot. All the efforts made by the president and his administration have been about making it harder to register and to vote. I think it's objectively impossible to ignore that. In fact, I just note just a few weeks ago the president made a nationally televised address about all the concerns about non-citizens.
At that point, he mentioned 16,000 people living in Nevada who were voting who were non-citizens. I saw a recent statement the other day that the Department of Homeland Security is now looking at fewer than 160. He was off by a factor of 10. And by the way, all that means is the universe has now shrunk to 160, not that they've even identified these people. It's patently ridiculous.
Even in the resolution, respectfully, whereas a Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security engaged in a joint investigation with the FBI, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Home Security Investigations have charged four non-citizens with crimes connected to illegal voting. They've charged, they haven't even convicted, four. For all of this that's gone on, this rage around the country by the president about illegal voting and fraudulent voting, they've charged four people. They actually cite, I would have been so embarrassed to put that in my resolution if this was all about saving people and making it harder for illegal people to vote in the United States. The whole thing is built on a house of cards.
It doesn't exist. They want to force billions of dollars of state expenditures, federal expenditures, make it harder to register to vote, make it harder to vote. And there's no evidence that any of what the president has talked about has happened, which by the way is just emblematic of this administration. The president always says the things that he believes as though they were factual, but there's often no fact to support it at all. And yet my colleagues can't say the emperor doesn't have any clothes.
They've got to continue this fantasy where they follow him around as though what he's saying is legitimate when it's not. Everyone knows there's no legitimacy. The Heritage Foundation has done exhaustive studies. It's just foolishness. And so here we are in the middle of an affordability crisis, a crisis where people can't get healthcare, people where we've now spent probably $150 billion on an unauthorized war which has driven gas prices higher, grocery prices higher, anything that gets shipped in America.
Illegal tariffs, now we're in a trade war with my neighbor to the north, Canada, for no reason. In all of this, and here we are passing a non-binding resolution, just like the non-binding executive order to change the name of Lake Ontario which my district borders on. It's all silliness.
It's not serious. We're in the middle of catastrophic challenges and we have an unserious president and sadly we have members of the Congress who are unserious following him around like the Pied Piper. But this emperor has no clothes and this is a foolish waste of time.
Bagner, it is such a waste of time. I think I'll stop my questions there and I'll yield back, Madam Chair.
Erin Houchin
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairwoman. This resolution, I think, gives us an opportunity to have a very important conversation about the rise of radical political movements and policy proposals that seek to fundamentally reshape the institutions and principles that have defined American democracy for generations, particularly those advanced by the Democratic Socialists of America. Madam Chair, I'd like to submit for the record, Workers Deserve More, the Democratic Socialists of America program platform.
Erin Houchin
In it, it says, speaking of bills, you don't really have them anymore. You have no debt. You don't need health insurance. You don't need to pay a mortgage or a landlord. Your retirement is funded.
Food, education, energy, medicine, transportation are common goods and utilities. What do you want to do for your day? Maybe take a walk, take your kids to school, run errands in the afternoon. You might play a sport, practice a new skill, read, plan a trip, go to the movies. These are the promises that are made within the Democratic Socialist platform.
And it's not simply a question of whether your taxes are going to be higher or that the government will be larger. What often happens in socialism is there are promises that are, they cloak the negative outcomes of socialism in the promises of lower costs and free public services. And that results in a few historical examples. For example, in the Soviet Union, free universal healthcare was promised to every citizen and the reality was severe shortages of modern medicine, long wait times, and corruption where patients bribed doctors for better care. In Venezuela, under price controls, the promise was made that they would have cheap, subsidized staple foods and fuel to eliminate poverty.
The reality was widespread shortages, empty grocery shelves, long wait lines, and a thriving black market. Or in East Germany in the Soviet bloc, the promise was heavily subsidized ultra-low rent for everyone, which the reality was extreme housing shortages, decades-long waitlists for apartments, and decaying, poorly maintained buildings. And in this platform, it also includes allowing non-citizens to vote in American elections and eliminating customs and border enforcement, eliminating ICE and Border Patrol. Those positions, Mr. Style, I hope you'll agree, will deserve, should deserve serious scrutiny in a resolution like this. We've seen the consequences of wide-open borders.
They put the citizens of our streets at risk and limit the freedoms that define the nation. American are, Americans are increasingly facing these ideas as not merely theories, but as governing philosophies. And we've seen candidates across the country in Democrat primaries with this viewpoint win these primary elections. It's important that this body recognize there is a meaningful difference between debating public policy within our existing system and advocating for the fundamental restructuring or elimination of our institutions that are central to that very system.
So this resolution makes an important statement that underscores the danger posed by advancing this failed ideology, which has historically resulted in violent dictatorial regimes and widespread human suffering. Chairman Steil, this resolution highlights the DSA support for extending full voting rights and political participation to all permanent non-citizen US residents. Why is it particularly important for Congress to reaffirm that citizenship, not simply residency, is the basis for voting in federal elections?
Bryan Steil
Well, US elections should be for US citizens only, period, full stop. And when I began trying to raise the flag on the issue that Democratic Socialists want non-citizens to vote, in some ways some people didn't believe it. In our nation's capital, where we sit right now, in the United States, in Washington, DC, non-citizens are eligible to vote in municipal elections this November. They can vote for mayor, they can vote for city council, down the line. That's as crazy as to say an individual in Washington, DC, who works at the Russian embassy, holding a Russian passport, can walk out of the embassy, no photo ID required in Washington, DC, so he can keep it in his pocket, walk to a voting booth, walk in and vote for mayor of our nation's capital.
That's ridiculous. Democratic Socialists of America want to take that and they want to expand that broader platform all across the United States of America. They want to allow every permanent resident alien in the United States of America to be able to vote in US elections. It's all part of the broader plan that the Democrats want. They want to consolidate power.
And in the opening statement of this, it was misquoted. The socialist ideology necessitates the concentration of power because it ultimately results in a taking from the American people. And to take that, you need to have power. The Democratic platform driving towards socialism will take us in the wrong direction, which is why calling it out and highlighting and showing the American people exactly what the DSA stands for is so absolutely important and why this resolution's relevant and important.
Erin Houchin
Thank you. And this just socialism will just trade one boss for another. And it does result in fewer resources and more scarce resources. It's a scary time, I think, in the country when we're electing candidates that have this perspective. I appreciate this resolution.
It is non-binding. I hope then all the Democrats would support a condemnation of socialism. I don't know that we'll see that on the House floor, but I appreciate your leadership and that of Representative Crank for bringing this forward. I yield back.
James McGovern
Madam Chair, I just have a technical question, if I guest. Sir. I just want to make sure this is a non-binding resolution because listening to people debate it, you would think that this was going to change something. But it's a non-binding resolution. I would suggest rather than wasting time, you just issue a press release.
I guess you guys don't want to talk about lowering the cost of groceries or rent or healthcare for anybody. This is what you want to do. But a press release would be a lot more effective than this, I think.
Chip Roy
Try to be quick. I don't know if we're going to try to finish and then vote. Chairman Steil, just really quickly, I know part of this resolution is dealing with what we're dealing with with the DSA and the split on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Am I correct that there are a significant number of members of the Democratic Party that are advocating within the realm of the DSA for, for example, getting rid of the US Senate? Is that, have you heard that and read that as well?
It's in the platform.
Speaker 88
That to change the leadership by replacing the president, the Supreme Court with leaders chosen by Congress.
It's in the DSA platform.
In the DSA platform.
Speaker 84
Multi-party rule, replacing the two-party system with multi-party democracy and expand the House.
It's in the platform.
Speaker 90
Corporate ownership, establish public ownership of large corporations in major industries.
Speaker 87
It's in the platform. Social programs, provide universal rent control, free public college and state-run healthcare. It's in the platform. Immigration and justice, abolish borders, prisons, immigration, customs enforcement, detentions, alongside calls for prison and police reform. It's right there in the platform.
Voting rights, allow permanent US residents, i.e. non-citizens and people with past criminal convictions to vote. Also in the platform. And multiple other concerning provisions, correct? Incredibly concerning. And the idea here is to just make clear where we stand on a number of these important issues, correct?
Absolutely. Now, I will say that and appreciate this and certainly support that resolution. I will note that I do have concerns about our current ownership of private corporations and it would not be my preference. And I think that's something that we need to address. And secondly, I would note that I do have strong reservations that I need to establish in the record here in the Rules Committee that we are going to be bringing to the floor a continuing resolution in suspension of the rules that has myriad concerns in it for me and others that will not be able to be amended.
Extension of the surface transportation provision, extension of CISA, an extension of the hemp ban that had been put in place in previous legislation. You know, we continue to fund Planned Parenthood now in light of the expiration of the one-year moratorium in the one big beautiful bill. I could go down a host of other issues that I have major concerns that we're now going to be throwing a CR with massive other things attached to it, not a clean CR. I just want to be very clear people out there watching it, that we're going to be putting a continuing resolution to fund government with a number of significant policies on it. For example, if you like me do not like flock cameras, if you like me have concerns with kill switches, that we should be debating those out in the surface transportation rather than just extending surface transportation and these other matters on the back of a continuing resolution where we suspend the rules.
I think that is a mistake. I would also note that we are having another closed rule and we are now up to, I don't know, 80-something percent of our rules having been closed in this Congress. And I think that's not where we wanted to be when we were trying to sort of shift directions on some things. So I've got concerns on a number different fronts, but I appreciate my good friend from Wisconsin and agree with him on these important issues that he was addressing in response to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Roy. I know it's time for us to go vote and I appreciate Representative Steil entering into the record the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America because I was going to recommend doing that. I believe Mr. Roy went over most of the positions. However, I believe a couple that could be added to that is, and you've mentioned it somewhat in your comments, that the Democratic Socialists of America want illegal aliens, they want open borders, is that correct? They want to abolish ICE, yeah.
Yeah. And they also want all the illegal aliens who are here to be allowed to vote along with people in prison. They definitely want to start with the permanent residents and I would expect them to expand it from there. They definitely want individuals that are incarcerated for felony convictions as well as others to be able to vote as well. Right.
And I think an extension of remarks for the committee, it would be nice to list some of the other issues that might not have gotten listed here. And when we debate this on the floor, I think we can do that also. Chairman Steil, our friends across the aisle have maintained consistently that the claim that non-citizen voting is rare. So how many non-citizen votes do you think are too many? One is too many, Chairman Foxx.
Bryan Steil
So are you aware that the New Jersey governor admitted that approximately 400 non-citizens voted in her state in the last election?
Not only am I aware, but the ranking member referenced a citation in this. If he would have read one in front of that, it notes that whereas New Jersey registered nearly 6,600 non-citizens to vote with reported 100 successfully voting in elections, semicolon. That, this is a real and substantive problem.
Virginia Foxx
Okay. Well, as we know, we serve with a colleague who four years ago, I believe it was four years ago, was elected by six votes. Her election was certified as a result of six votes. And at the time, there was a question about whether to seat her or not. And Speaker Pelosi held that question up for a long time.
Now, six votes can make a difference. 400 votes, 400 non-citizens voted in New Jersey. We know that as a result of an inventory, I believe, that has been done in the state. We don't know about the other states, correct, where inventories have been done yet. But it's possible that there are people who could have been elected in this country by non-citizens.
Bryan Steil
There, it's clear that we have non-citizens who voted in US elections and House races are often very close.
Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Steil.
James McGovern
Madam, I just wanted for the set the record straight, there are countless Republican officials who have been charged with voter fraud all throughout this country. I just want the record to reflect that because that is a bigger problem, quite frankly.
Virginia Foxx
Mr. McGovern, I'll say that you've had your time. I appreciate your adding that. Thank you, Mr. Steil. Thank you, Mr. Morelle. We are voting.
The first vote has been open for quite some time. I haven't had a chance to vote. I'm going to take a minute to go vote. You've already done that tonight. I've been very nice.
So we'll take a five minute, no. Oh, Mr. Moylan. Mr. Griffith will assume the chair. Mr. Moylan has some comments to make.
Speaker 95
Welcome, Mr. Moylan. I understand you have some comments on an amendment that you're offering.
James Moylan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak on a bill before us today, that's HR 1501, which I have an amendment. As we consider changes to the FAST Act and the definition of a covered project, I want to make sure those changes do not inadvertently open it to seabed mining.
This is not theoretical concern. The Permitting Council has already identified seabed mining as an area of focus and developed timelines for projects under federal jurisdiction. Potential impacts from seabed mining have already been identified. Ones that extend from the ocean floor and up through the water column. The destruction of seafloor habitats, sediment plumes, impacts from noise and artificial light, changes to food webs, and even potential damaging exposure to mobilized metals.
We still don't know the full possible extent of these, those impacts. And research on past experimental disturbances has found that some ecosystems still haven't recovered. Even decades later.
For Guam, this issue is not theoretical. It is real. BOEM is currently evaluating potential outer continental shelf mineral leasing off the Mariana Islands. That includes that's where Guam is, that's where CNMI is. That's where the Mariana Trench and surrounding waters contain some of the most unique ecosystems on Earth.
These waters are part of our culture, a source of food, and an important part of our economy. Guam has made our position clear. In January, the 38th Guam Legislature unanimously passed a resolution 132-38 demanding a halt to deep sea mining in the region and strongly objected to leasing areas near our island. In June, Governor Leon Guerrero signed an act banning the mining, extraction, and removal of minerals from Guam's territorial waters. It also prohibited any such operation from making use of the Port Authority of Guam.
I personally cosponsored bills that pushed for a moratorium on deep sea mining permits and barred federal licenses for deep sea mining exploration. Our Guam Legislature, our Governor, our citizens of Guam, and myself, our actions prioritize the protection of Guam's environment, culture, resources, and economic interests. Currents, ecosystems, and fisheries don't recognize jurisdictional boundaries. Activities outside of territorial waters are governed by the federal mandate. This is why Congress needs to be precise.
Seabed mining raises environmental, cultural, and jurisdictional questions, ones that deserve deliberate consideration, not implicated inclusions in an expedited permitting structure meant for infrastructure development. The limitation also needs to apply to commercial projects that enable and support seabed mining. FAST-41 was designed to improve coordination and predictability in federal permitting. It isn't meant to waive our environmental laws. Accelerating the review of conventional mine on land is fundamentally different from doing the same for emerging industries whose environmental consequences we are still working to understand.
So Guam deeply objects to the seabed mining in the region, especially in our deep seas. And we also don't know the full extent of the impacts from it. And until we figure that out, we need to put a hold on it until then. Now FAST-41 doesn't mention deep sea mining, so I want to make sure that it isn't applied. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 94
Thank you so much for your comments. And now recognize Ms. Fischbach for questions.
Mr. McGovern.
James McGovern
No, I want to thank the gentleman for his testimony. I think it's a good amendment. I hope it's made in order. And if we were in control, it would be. So I don't know.
It's up to them. But I would support making the amendment in order. I yield back.
Mr. Jack.
No comments. Thank you.
No comment. Ms. Scanlon.
Speaker 93
Thank you for coming. We appreciate your coming and representing the people of Guam.
Ms. Houchin.
No questions.
Oh, sorry. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you very much. You always do bring the issues of Guam before this committee. And I am, I only wish some of your amendments would go through because they are of utmost importance to the people. And that's why you're sent here is so that we can listen to those concerns. So thank you very much.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Roy.
No questions.
H. Griffith
All right. Thank you so much. And I agree. You bring the voice of Guam here and we appreciate that. Without any further questions, that concludes the witness testimony.
I don't see any other people here with an amendment. And okay, is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. I get to bang the gavel. All right.
Thank you. And then I think we'll stand in recess. The committee will come back to order. The chair is now in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended.
The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 9436, the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
The rule provides that in lieu of amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee print 119-40 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1490, providing for condemnation and denouncement of socialism in all its forms and for other purposes under a closed rule.
The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider H. Res. 1490. The rule provides that H. Res. 1490 shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026 under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 119-39 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that debate on motions that the House suspend the rules under clause 1 of rule 15 relating to House joint resolution shall be extended to one hour.
Virginia Foxx
You have heard the motion from the gentleman from Virginia. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?
James McGovern
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of H.R. 7206, the Farm and Family Relief Act, introduced by ranking member Craig under a closed rule, debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. This bill provides support for our farmers and the hardworking American families who Republicans have left behind. This gives money to farmers hurt by Trump's tariffs and trade wars and ends the disastrous tariffs moving forward. I urge a yes vote on my motion.
I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
Virginia Foxx
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach, no.
Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy, no.
Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin, no.
Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy, no.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott, no.
Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith, no.
Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon.
Madam Chair, no.
The clerk will report the total.
Three ayes, eight nays.
James McGovern
And the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion or amendment?
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of H.R. 4849, the Protecting Healthcare and Lowering Costs Act, introduced by Representative Gray under a closed rule, debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. This bill would undo the disastrous healthcare cuts that Republicans imposed as part of their big ugly bill last July and permanently extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax premium tax credits that the Republicans let expire. Americans are struggling and this would be a way to help them during this difficult time. I urge a yes vote.
Virginia Foxx
Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Virginia Foxx
Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
James McGovern
Madam Chair, I have another amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of H.R. 6088, the Restoring Food Security for American Families and Farmers Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Hayes, under a closed rule, debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. Madam Chair, Republicans are completely ignoring the food security crisis this country is facing. Corn and wheat prices just hit their highest level in three years. Beef and coffee prices are at record highs.
People can't afford food. It's that simple. I urge a yes vote on this and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it.
I ask for a recorded vote.
Speaker 100
Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy no.
Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Houchin no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack no. Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon.
Madam Chair no.
Clerk will report the total.
Three ayes, eight nays.
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
James McGovern
Madam Chair, I just have two other amendments. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of H.R. 8707, the No Funds for Iran War Act, introduced by Representative Ryan, under a closed rule, debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Madam Chair, despite the constant gaslighting coming from Republicans, the Iran war is still happening and hit a six-month mark on Friday. Gas prices are still over four dollars on average nationwide and the president's illegal war in Iran is to blame.
I urge a yes vote and I yield back.
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Madam Chair.
Mr. Scott.
Austin Scott
I want to bring up to the American citizens, and the Democrats know this, that in June of 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency, who did all of the inspections for the JCPOA, that is a UN agency, not a US agency, that's in charge of all of the inspections, publicly stated that Iran had 400 kilograms, that's enough for 10 nuclear weapons if further enriched, 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Now, before you go blaming what happened, what is happening on Donald Trump, you ought to actually read the reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Really.
Speaker 106
Yeah, yeah. And if you... well good. And so will you acknowledge what they said? Will you acknowledge that in... no, I'm not acknowledging anything. I'm simply saying if you believe what you just said and if you think it's justified, then vote...
Speaker 105
This is my time. You said... this is my time, Mr. McGovern. You said you read the reports. You said you read the reports, correct?
Yep, I've reviewed the reports.
I'm not acknowledging anything.
Austin Scott
Okay. So I'm not... all right. Well, Madam Chair, this is a very relevant point. Everybody who has ever been a serious contender for president of the United States has said that they would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Prior to the original strikes, the Midnight Hammer strikes, the International Atomic Energy Agency publicly disclosed that Iran had over 400 kilograms of highly enriched, highly enriched uranium.
They were well on their way not to one nuclear weapon, but they had enough for 10. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield.
James McGovern
And Madam Chair, and they had it after Trump pulled out of the agreement that President Obama had negotiated. But here, regardless of what you think Iran has in terms of uranium, whatever they had, they still have. And all I'm simply saying is that if you want to go to war, you ought to live up to the Constitution and vote to authorize that war. And I urge a yes vote on my amendment.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Madam Chair, this is a classic example of if Mr. Scott wants to make these points, we should be able to make them in a debate about whether or not we go to war, because we are in war and the American people have paid the price. We talked earlier about how gas prices, fuel prices, I entered into the record the increased costs. That's what this amendment is about and we should have the debate and Congress, Congress should exercise its power and not let it be concentrated in one man.
Speaker 110
There will be a vote later on this week in a debate on a resolution brought by the Democrats related to the war.
Austin Scott
Madam Chair, I'd like to submit for the record an article from July 26th of 2026 from Moneywise. Since the price of fuel has come up repeatedly, this article is titled Democrats Kill Trump's $3 Billion Plan to Buy Oil at $20 a Barrel. Now the reserve has dropped to 311 million barrels, a 1983 low. It goes on in here to say it is in the not too distant past, there was a moment when Congress could have bought millions of barrels at bargain prices and President Trump wanted to do just that. And it outlines how the Democrats, in particular Chuck Schumer, but other Democrats as well, stopped President Trump from buying the oil at $20 a barrel.
Of course, if President Trump is for it, the Democrats are against it, no matter how much good it would have done the American citizens.
Without objection.
I ask for a yeas and nays.
Virginia Foxx
The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
I ask for a roll call.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach no, Mr. Norman, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy no, Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin no, Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy no, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott no, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith no, Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack no, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern aye, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon aye, Mr. Neguse, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez aye, Madam Chair.
The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
James McGovern
Madam Chair, I have one final amendment. I move that the committee add a section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of H.R. 7977, the Energy Bills Relief Act, introduced by Representative Casten under a closed rule debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Madam Chair, electricity rates are soaring across the country and millions of Americans are struggling to pay their rising energy bills. Democrats are trying to bring down those energy bills while Republicans waste time on non-binding resolutions like the ones we some of the ones we debated here in this committee tonight. I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Mary Gay Scanlon
I would urge our colleagues to review this bill. It's a very good bill. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor.
I'm sorry, Ms. Scanlon, say again what you just said.
I said I would urge my colleagues to review the bill because it's a very good bill and I'm proud to be a co-sponsor and with that I yield back.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
Thank you.
Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 100
Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy no.
Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Houchin no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack no.
Mr. McGovern. Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon aye. Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Ms. Leger Fernandez aye. Madam Chair.
Virginia Foxx
No. And I will note that if we look at it it's the blue states where the rates are very high. Further amendment to the rule. Did you report the total?
No ma'am.
Sorry. Report the total.
Three ayes, eight nays.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you. The amendment is not agreed to. Further amendment. Hearing none the vote is on the question is on the motion from the gentleman from Virginia. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed no.
No way.
Virginia Foxx
In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Ask for a recorded vote.
Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 100
Mrs. Fischbach. Yes. Mrs. Fischbach aye. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy no. Mrs. Houchin. Aye. Mrs. Houchin aye. Mr. Langworthy.
Aye. Mr. Langworthy aye. Mr. Scott. Aye. Mr. Scott aye.
Mr. Griffith. Aye. Mr. Griffith aye. Mr. Jack. Aye.
Mr. Jack aye. Mr. McGovern. No. Mr. McGovern no. Ms. Scanlon.
No. Ms. Scanlon no. Mr. Neguse. Ms. Leger Fernandez. No.
Ms. Leger Fernandez no. Madam Chair.
Seven ayes, four nays.
Virginia Foxx
The ayes have it. The rule is passed. The ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. I will be managing this rule for the majority.
And I will for the minority.
Absolutely.