Various Measures
No chapters available yet
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 Financial Services U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Without objection, the amendment's considered read and will serve as the base decks for the purposes of amendment. I'll recognize myself for five minutes to discuss this bill, H.R. 5396, the Price Stability Act of 2025. It's very straightforward. It simply replaces the Federal Reserve's current dual mandate with a single mandate centered on price stability, and I'd like to explain why. And I love my ranking member, but we don't want to go back to disco music and the economy of the 1970s, and I agree with her on that.
But in the ensuing fifty years, many policymakers have sought to reorient the Fed's focus to a single inflation prevention-focused mandate, since it was first adopted back in those middle years of the nineteen seventies. Why? Well, first, because success is more achievable with fewer mandates, and prices will never fall back after a policy mistake. And I think that focus is so important to the mission of the central bank and to all of our households across the country. Secondly, the Federal Reserve does not influence and has no control over the factors that contribute to the levels of employment or to macroeconomic growth.
They focus essentially on their tool is targeting short term interest rates only. Therefore, focusing solely on prevention of inflation is the long-term best medicine for the Fed and for all of our families and businesses. But let me be clear. The single price stability or the single price stability mandate is in no way, repeat, no way anti employment. Rather, a superfluous employment mandate sets the Fed up for failure.
In the eyes of monetary policy, a maximum employment goal is nothing but a mirage, and we've seen that for four or five decades. But don't take my word for it. How about let's look at the Fed's own statements on longer-run goals and monetary policy strategy? Their statement, the Federal Reserve consensus statement, confesses that maximum employment is, and I quote, not directly measurable and changes over time owing to largely, and I note this for emphasis, nonmonetary factors, close quote, unmeasurable, unstable, and therefore, in my judgment, unachievable. Therefore, let's recognize reality.
It's Congress and the executive branch through their regulatory revenue policy, spending decisions that have a dramatic and significant influence over the growth of the economy and labor market conditions. But let's set economic theory aside, and get down to just plain talk about it. Inflation is a tax on everyone, all of us, yet it does not tax everyone equally. It disproportionately punishes and hurts the poor and minority communities more, which then begs the question, why don't more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle consider supporting the Price Stability Act? The very legislation that marginalized communities would benefit financially from the most if we were successful in targeting inflation and not have it run rampant as it does periodically, most recently in the '20s, late 2020 to 2022 time frame.
My colleagues should take a cue from the American public. Studies have found that Americans would rather cope with facing their own temporary unemployment challenge than higher inflation. And, of course, if you think about that, that's common sense. If I'm hurt by a job layoff, I can take actions to find another position, advance my skills, work two jobs temporarily, team up with family members, draw on unemployment insurance compensation, a safety net provided by the federal government. In other words, my personal actions can change the outcome.
But with inflation, the opposite is true. No action I can take can offset the financial damage caused by a cost of living shock, whether it's due to the oil price shock of 1972 and the terrible policies of the Johnson, Nixon, Ford administration that led to rampant inflation, or what we experienced coming out of the pandemic with a supply disruption, inflation, and too much federal spending, and two lacks of Federal Reserve policy. Don't believe me or my assertion? How about the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis president Neil Keshkari, a real-life example? A few years back, he met one of his district's local labor leaders who represents low income grocery store and hotel workers.
He told you the Labour leader said they preferred not to experience inflation. Inflation is worse than a recession, was his quote. So no one wants unemployment or inflation, but I believe the Fed's tools can only prevent and fight inflation, not structural unemployment, and I yield back. Who seeks recognition? The ranking member.
Speaker 1
Mister chairman, I'm deeply disappointed that in response to an escalating affordability crisis and rising unemployment rates, Republicans respond by telling the Fed to stop caring about workers. This legislation removes a maximum employment mandate from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee. Maximum unemployment or employment, rather, has been part of the Fed's dual mandate since 1977, and requires the Fed to prioritize reducing unemployment while also maintaining stable prices. Coretta Scott King again championed this mandate because she knew that unemployment was a primary factor causing poverty and social problems, and how it disproportionately hurt black and brown communities. She knew that we have learned what we have learned for the past 50 years was that Federal Reserve's powerful monetary policy tools could be deployed to reduce unemployment while also maintaining stable prices.
This was an important part of the civil rights movement. And not surprisingly, we haven't seen the large unemployment rates common earlier in our country's history, even as we have navigated pandemics and financial crises. Decades after establishing the maximum employment mandated under democratic leadership, unemployment remained at historic lows below 4% for the longest stretch in fifty years. However, now after Trump's trade policy, unemployment is again creeping up to 4.3% or 7,400,000 people unemployed. Doing away absolutely away the full employment mandate at this time is just foolish.
Unemployment rates are higher for teenage workers at 14.4%, black workers at 7.3%, and Hispanic workers at 5% in 2025. Now black women face the largest employment losses, especially for college graduates and workers in the public sector. The maximum unemployment rate serves America's workforce in a time of major instability. This bill clearly demonstrates Republican priorities, which do not include people who are struggling to make ends meet with high prices, working multiple jobs, and facing a difficult job market. If my colleagues really want to address inflation, they should go to the root cause.
Trump's failed economic agenda. His terrorist, this war in Iran, and his government dysfunction and rising housing and grocery prices, driving up the cost at the pump, and forcing small businesses and nonprofits to shut their doors. Reversing just one of those actions would help Americans. So I urge everyone to reject this harmful bill. And while I respect my friend Mister Hill, he did not make a good case for why that mandate should be stripped away from the feds.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back who seeks recognition. The gentleman from Indiana, mister Dussman.
Speaker 5
Alright. Thank you. First of all, mister chairman, thank you for the I don't know who put the flowers in the motion.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Yeah. For Mr. Scott. But I just wanna recognize his service, and he was such a gentleman, and he'll be sorely missed here in the committee, and appreciate the flowers that honor him. But, anyway, I wanna talk a little about the history of the mandate and appreciate the chairman carrying this particular bill.
Many forget that the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did not have a dual mandate. No price stability goal, no maximum employment goal, just a goal to maintain an elastic currency. People also forget that the Senate originally had drafted the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to have the Federal Reserve promote a stable price level. In fact, since 1919, Congress has introduced at least 103 bills related to price stability. 71 of those bills were led by Democrats.
Price stability was on Congress' collective mind well before the introduction of the Fed's dual mandate. Not until the seventies did Congress provide the Fed with the dual mandate. Unfortunately, the dual mandate was not born from economic necessity. It was born from the politics of the Great Society era. So I urge those who are watching at home to take a deeper look at the political environment of the time this change was made.
I think it's hard to ignore the persistent influence of LBJ's Great Society reforms and the idea that the federal government should have its hand in every aspect of the economy. For instance, Hubert Humphrey included a Great Society style government jobs program in his draft of what would become the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. If the Fed didn't hit the unemployment targets set by Congress, Humphrey's idea was for the federal government to act as an employer of last resort and create jobs for all who wanted one. That sounds to me like a decision driven by bad politics, not just bad economics. Instead of having the Fed focus on inflation as it should have since day one, the creation of the dual mandate injected big government politics into the Fed's decisions and forced it to balance too often competing goals.
Even worse is that maximum employment itself cannot be directly measured, and fluctuates over time as the economy evolves. Unfortunately, those who hurt the most are the American people because when the Fed gets the balance between the two mandates wrong, the American people pay the price, whether it's in high prices or higher unemployment. Back in 2015, I introduced legislation that would end this confusing dual mandate and return the Fed to its original mission of protecting price stability. I'm very happy to see that this legislation lived on and has been introduced by our chairman of the committee in the years since. It's long past time for the Fed to have a single mandate, and I believe that Chairman Hill's price stability act will accomplish that goal and will help the American people and keep the government focused where it should focus.
Thank you, and I'll yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Mister Lynch, you're recognized.
Speaker 7
I thank the gentleman. Let me support the ranking member's comments on this. First of all, the dual mandate that is contained in Humphrey Hawkins in which governs the Fed today was put in for reasons that are keenly relevant to what we're going through right now. Right now, we have a threat to millions of jobs all across the country because of AI. We're seeing driverless cars.
There's probably over a million truck drivers that are employed right now that do long haul driving. And with the improvements that are being made right now on driverless vehicles, those jobs are under threat. In the financial services industry, a lot of the back office jobs that we see in the business right now are going away as we speak. This is not the time to remove the mandate of full employment from the Federal Reserve. And as far as I have great respect for the chairman.
I really do. He is a good man. But the Federal Reserve is our chief lender. And when we have seen high periods of unemployment in this country, the Federal Reserve pulls out its tool that it is allowed to use because of the dual mandate. It lowers interest rates.
It often drives economic growth, and it lowers the employment levels. It lowers the unemployment levels in this country. So it is perfectly appropriate for them to do that. Now the dual mandate also requires balance, price stability, looking at inflation, but in a corresponding way, looking at the ability of Americans to go to work. There are a lot of people out there in various industries.
There are kids in college right now who are choosing their majors and wondering if it is worthwhile to go to college because they're afraid that the line of employment that they're looking at is going away. Whether so this is a period of extreme uncertainty right now for people in the job market. This is the worst possible time for us to suggest to the Federal Reserve, forget about full employment. Forget about it, it's not your job. The other impact on that this bill will have is, as we know right now, the Fed has very specific mandates because of this the Humphrey Hawkins bill.
While it has many jobs to do, the mandate from Congress to the Fed is to focus on price stability, focus on employment. Those are very specific targets. Those are objectives. Those are goals, and it guides the Fed in its job. Right now, as it stands, the Federal Reserve priority is employment as well as price stability.
What your bill would do is completely delete that. Full employment would no longer be a priority for the Federal Reserve. That is so reckless right now because of the risk on a lot of jobs in this country and around the world. This is the worst possible time for you to be suggesting something like this, to remove the explicit goal of actually putting people to work. The Fed has powerful tools.
And if you did talk to labor leaders and worker advocates around this country, they see that mandate as something that protects every American worker, not just union workers or nonunion workers, every single worker. Because the levers that the fed controls in allowing businesses to get loans that are actually, that allow them to invest and grow their business, that's all controlled by the interest rate that is set by the Federal Reserve Bank. So this is a terrible, terrible idea. This is one of the worst bills I've seen come up in a long time, not only because of its inherent object, but also because of the circumstances that we find ourselves in with so many millions and millions of jobs in this country right now at risk. This is not the time to tell the Fed that full employment does not matter.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman is back. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from California, miss mister Vargas.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with my democratic colleagues, although I would agree with two things that my republican colleagues didn't say. And that is I wanna thank you, mister chairman, of course, mister Stutzman for recognizing mister Scott. The flowers you placed there, he was a beloved member of this committee, and thank you for recognizing it. We appreciate that.
With all that being said, in 1977, Congress amended the Federal Reserve Act to give our central bank a dual mandate: maximum employment and stable prices. But that achievement was decades in the making, as a ranking member said. It began with FDR's 1944 State of the Union, in which he famously called for an economic bill of rights. It continued with President Truman signing the Employment Act of 1946, affirming that the federal government has a responsibility to promote maximum employment. And the civil rights leaders, including Coretta Scott King, as was mentioned once again by the ranking member, helped lead the fight to the full employment goals in the Humphrey Hawkins Act.
Through the work of the civil rights and labor leaders, maximum employment became an equal pillar of the Fed's mandate. That equal footing, it matters. Most Americans don't experience the economy through the markets. They experience through their paycheck, whether they have one or whether they have a job. When working families in San Diego and across the country ask if the economy is working for them, they're asking, can I find work?
Does it pay enough? Will I still have it next year? And, of course, with all that we've heard with AI and all the other fear that people have out there right now because the economy is changing, this is a terrible time to make this change. A strong labor market gives workers bargaining power to ask for a raise, leave a bad job, or demand better conditions. And with labor markets weakened, black and Latino families feel it most acutely.
In April, black unemployment was at 7.3%. 7.3%. And Latino unemployment was at 5%, both above the national average of 4.3%. Any effort to eliminate the Fed's commitment to maximum employment will disproportionately impact working families. Now we do, I think, mister chairman here, hear testimony differently because I heard here the chairman of the Fed, chairman Powell, tell this committee on July 24, 2024.
And I wanna quote, my view has been that the dual mandate has served us well. And I agree. Congress established the dual mandate for a reason, and we should not do away with it now. I would also say that, mister chairman, you asked us to, quote, take a cue from the American public. I think that we are taking a cue from the American public when they see the harm that's happening right now in the economy because of the policies of this administration.
And sadly, and I say this very sadly, I also hear what the president says, and I think that my Republican colleagues are taking a cue from what he said. And he said this, I don't think about the Americans' financial situation. That's what he said. I don't think about it. I don't care about the Americans' financial situation.
And I think that's what's in this bill. American's financial situation for most people depends on the job, having that opportunity to work, working families, being able to pay for the food, for the gas that they need for their families. So, mister chairman, I again have great respect for you. I really do. But, in this case, I think you're wrong.
And I hope that we oppose this bill, and I hope it doesn't pass. And I urge my colleagues to vote against it. And with that, mister chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 9
Thank you. I'm just really concerned by the irresponsibility of this conversation. I get it. Like, getting rid of the dual mandate was in Project 2025. It's been a, you know, it's been a wish list for a long time.
And we could be economically theoretical about this, and I think it's appropriate to remember that theory. Right? There is a tension between do corporate gains flow to labor or to capital? The idea of the dual mandate is to balance that. We could get into the economic theory, or we could all go back to our district where we're all hearing people saying, would you like to make it easier for us to build a data center so that we can automate your job and increase corporate profits that will not be inflationary but will put you out of work.
Make that speech at home, and try to get elected. I think we all understand that tension between where do gains flow between capital and labor. And the whole reason that the Fed has a dual mandate is so that the Fed cannot take a side in that debate. I'm not saying this to be opposed to AI. I'm not saying this to be opposed to labor productivity.
I am happy that I don't have to churn my own butter. Right? But the Fed still has to make a decision around when the economy gets going too hot one way, what do we do when it gets going too hot the other way. And if we take that away, what are we left with? And the reason I say that this is so irresponsible is that there was this New Republic article this week that I would encourage you all to read that described the leadership of the Republican Party right now as the last gasps of occult who are staying to the bitter end.
Y'all can't talk about the fact that the president can't stay awake in a press conference. Y'all can't talk about the fact that he's starting needless wars that are driving up the price of gasoline and all energy sources. Y'all can't talk about the fact that he's a convicted felon. The most critical thing that I think you are allowed to say about him and still be a member of the cult in good standing is that he's a latter-day Cyrus sent by Jesus to bring about the second coming. You gotta work through all that.
But in the meantime, there is a practical reality that whatever you do with interest rates right now, you are still stuck in a situation where inflation is being driven by high energy costs that are the result of dumb foreign policy, and is driven by high tariffs that are the result of dumb economic policy. And the words of that great philosopher Ron White, you can't fix stupid, and you certainly can't fix it with interest rates. You have a practical reality in the labor markets right now. The last Obama's second term, there were 10,000,000 jobs created. Trump's first term, there were almost 3,000,000 jobs destroyed.
Biden, 16,000,000 jobs created. Trump so far, kudos to him. He's created 120,000 jobs through February. If he stays on pace, maybe he'll break $400,000 by the end of his term, but the trend line isn't looking that way. You are sitting here watching employment in the United States collapse.
Hiring is at historic lows. Inflation is at historic highs. You can't fix that with interest rates. You can fix that with oversight. You can fix that by getting out of the cult.
You can fix that by taking your oath to the Constitution and this institution seriously. And someday, when you're out of the cult, you are going to want an independent fed to make sure that bias doesn't sit here. So I'm left saying this is not complicated. There are a number of laws that were passed in the 1920s that you all really seem to like. Don't get rid of this one.
Yield back.
Speaker 2
Are you moving to strike the last word, or do you have an amendment at the desk? Or what?
Speaker 10
Yes. Thank you. Like ranking member Waters and my Democratic colleagues, I vigorously oppose this legislation to strip the mandate for maximum employment from the mission of the Federal Reserve. I mean, I never thought that my Republican colleagues would need a lesson on the importance of gainful employment and having a job. Even Ronald Reagan said that he believed the best social program is a job, and yet here we are.
The best way to support working families is to keep them working. Plain and simple, maximizing employment is good for our economy, it's good for our communities, it's good for our families. And to deny that truth is to deny reality. So I'm confident that the American people will see through these baseless talking points and agree with Democrats that everyone should be able to get a job, to work a job, and to earn a living. Work is pride.
It's dignity. It's essential to survive, to thrive, to provide, even to dream. I've been working. I've been employed since I was 13, 14 years old. Many young people pursue jobs, whether it's being a bagger at a grocery store or working retail.
Not just for enrichment or for exposure, but because it is essential. I was working at the age of 14 to contribute to my household income. Or what of young adults? Recent graduates from college or a trade school who wanna save for a house or maybe even start a business one day? Or, you know, as a mother, I think about what it means to be able to see the light behind my child's eyes when I can provide them with a vacation or some gift that they've been begging for.
And for our elders, increasingly so, under the Trump administration and economy, retirement is farther and farther out of reach. And many of our elders have no choice but to work in order to pay for life-saving medication and to keep a roof over their head. So all this to say that having a job is not a statistic. It is essential. It is dignity.
The dignity of work is transformational. That's what the Fed's mandate for maximum employment is about. This mission was not created in a vacuum. It dates back to the Great Depression, in recognition that people should be able to earn a living, provide for themselves and their family. There was nearly unanimous support by Republicans and Democrats for maximum employment when the mandate passed in Congress.
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is the only independent agency that works on improving employment. Some argue that this is the role of the Department of Labour. But in Trump's America, the Labor Department is a joke. We don't even have a secretary of Labour right now. So the Fed's mandate is essential and always has been.
During the great recession of 2008, massive job loss, the Fed stepped in to maximize employment. During the COVID-19 pandemic and record layoffs, the Fed once again pursued its mandate of maximum employment. And in this moment, we need the Fed to do more and not less. For months, I've been sounding the alarm about the current unemployment crisis. The unemployment rate has increased to 4.3% due to Trump's reckless policies like firing government workers, attacking small businesses.
And when you analyze the data, Black unemployment specifically is at 7.3%. These are the worst rates we've seen since the pandemic. Black workers, the canaries in the coal mine. What happens to our community first? Happens to everyone next.
So folks should take heed. People are looking for jobs. People wanna work, but Trump's economy won't let them. Just last week, Fed chair Jerome Powell announced the jobs numbers and said something my Republicans need to hear. There is little hiring going on.
And for many Americans, it doesn't feel like a good labor market. So the solution to the current unemployment problem is not to tell the Fed to abandon the goal of maximum employment. The solution is to empower the Fed to do even more. Recent graduates deserve more. Having a job and earning a paycheck is a beautiful and essential thing.
So I just wanna say this to folks at home. In the midst of all of this anti worker policies against paid leave, childcare, supporting tariffs, suppressing wages, to those who keep applying to jobs but still aren't hearing back, to those who are wondering how they're going to pay their bills without a paycheck. To those who are doing everything right, but the economy is wrong. To those who know and appreciate the dignity of work, I see you. I'm fighting for you.
And that is why I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Speaker 6
I think the chairman's bill speaks directly to the ability of the Fed to help in not only lowering our interest rates, but the job creation will follow. And as opposed to just talking points in committee, I'm proud to hear that you actually have legislation leading to a fix for this. So with that, I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to the chairman to walk us through the bill.
Speaker 2
I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's help. I've been listening to this debate. I find it truly fascinating that some on the other side of the aisle somehow think that this bill is anti-full employment. Completely wrong. This bill is about stopping inflation from punishing every household.
And I argue that the Fed's ability to influence maximum employment is not a reality. And Neil Kashkari, president of the bank in Minneapolis, agrees. Many former governors agree. And, you know, let's look at the world. This is not the standard of global central banking.
I mean, most central banks focus on fighting inflation. Who had the worst inflation in the twentieth century? The Germans. They have a single mandate. The European Central Bank, single mandate.
Swiss National Bank, single mandate. Bank of New Zealand, single mandate. The polls, single mandate. So this is not some out of the thinking concept to fight inflation as the principal mandate of the central bank. My point is that should be the principal mandate of the bank, and that these issues about influencing the level of employment, the maximum level of employment, all are impacted by decisions we take here in congress in fiscal policy, regulatory policy.
And my friends on the other aisle may talk about, well, what about those who have childcare needs, those who have lower monthly earnings? But many on the other side, they all voted against doubling the child tax credit just last year. They voted against tax cuts for families here. And so this is not about maximum employment versus price stability. It's about the role of government to achieve that.
And I argue that the central bank in our country's main mission should be fighting inflation, which is that punishing tax on all Americans and all business that's so disruptive and so helplessness-creating. And that if you are for faster economic growth, more careers, faster employment growth, higher real wages, then you should have perhaps voted last year with the house republicans to lower income tax burdens on working families, double the child tax credit, lower regulatory burdens on business to create jobs. And in this committee, I must say that the theme has been bipartisan. Just yesterday on the house floor, we had a marvelous debate where Democrats and Republicans came together recognizing that if we want a vigorous economy with more careers, more jobs, more higher real wage growth, we should facilitate our main street community banks to tackle that with a lower compliance burden for well managed banks. 4,000 banks.
Speaker 2
Will not yield. I'm finishing my appointment, but I thank the gentlewoman. And so I just wanna echo the comment that Mister Castan of Illinois made that you can't fix stupid with interest rates, I believe was his quote. I agree. You can't achieve maximum employment by relying, quote, unquote, on a dual mandate of the Fed.
That instead, you need to recognize that if you want maximum economic growth in the country, that our regulatory policy, our tax policy, yes, our trade policy, our budget deficit policy, all those things influence that greater picture about maximum employment. And so I really, I wanna thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding some time, and yield back to it.
Speaker 2
The ranking member has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while it's distributed.
Speaker 2
A gentleman reserves a point of order. Mister Mueller reserves a point of order. What?
Speaker 3
The nature of a substitute to H.R. 5396 offered by Miss Waters of California designated as H.R. 5396-01.
Speaker 2
The, without objection, the amendment is considered read, and I recognize the gentleman from California to describe her amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we're going to be reforming the Federal Reserve, we should adopt reforms to strengthen the independence of the Fed, especially given the constant threats and attacks the president has launched on it. It is absolutely shameful the way the president has tried to take over the Fed, tried hard to get rid of chairman Powell, just brazenly and openly wanted to take over the Fed the way he's taken over the Justice Department and the SEC and other agencies of government. So my amendment has a sense of Congress supporting the independence of maintaining the Fed's independence, and that the Department of Justice is prohibited from opening an investigation into Federal Reserve officials without due process and designed to intimidate the officials into carrying out the president's wishes. I believe everyone in this room supports maintaining the independence of our central bank, the Federal Reserve.
We know the evidence from other countries that when a central bank's independence is compromised, the economy often suffers from hyperinflation and massive price increases that hurt consumers. As I've said before, the Department of Justice's criminal investigation into Fed chair Jay Powell was baseless, politically motivated, and abuse of power from day one. And it was an unlawful, unlawful attempt to fire governor Lisa Cook. These and other actions were clearly designed to intimidate the leaders of the Federal Reserve and being one of the most important economic institutions in the world to Trump's will. And while the Senate confirmed a new chair after Trump's DOJ was paused, this is far from over.
Trump has not dropped his effort to remove Governor Cook or the bogus investigation of her mortgage files. And the threat to reopen the investigation into Chair Powell is still hanging over the Federal Reserve like a cloud, sending a chilling message to any Fed official who refuses to fall in line with this administration's political agenda. Let us be very clear. The Federal Reserve serves the American people, not Donald Trump. The administration must immediately drop all efforts bar targeting any Federal Reserve official, including the continued tax on Governor Lisa Cook.
And I urge members to join me in standing up for a strong, independent Federal Reserve that serves as a cornerstone of the greatest economy in the world and remains unaccountable to Congress and the American people, and support this amendment. Let me just say this. Everybody knows, democrats, republicans, people out there, know that this president has brazenly taken over our agencies and wanted to determine the interest rates singularly by himself. Everybody knows that they have bent to the president, his choices, the heads of these agencies, the justice department, the federal reserve, the SEC, on and on. Stop hiding the truth.
Stop ignoring the truth. It is getting very irritating. And when you come talking about you want to do something, about changing the mandate, is that what the president asked you to do? Are you following his orders? Because that's what he determines, that he wants to run all of these agencies.
I am going to stop being nice about these issues. The fact of the matter is your bringing this up today helps to focus on what this president is doing. I'm sick and tired of it. Americans are sick and tired of it. He does not own this country.
He's the president of the United States of America. He does not own all of the federal agencies. And what he has done to try to eliminate Powell is absolutely unconscionable, and we've gotta let it stop. We've got to stop this president from acting in this manner. And members of his party, I think it's time for you to step up to the plate and deal with this issue in a real way.
And so you go after reform because you're gonna remove the mandate. Give me a break. That's not a real issue. Deal with what the president is trying to do to Lisa Cook and to Powell right now because he thinks he owns the Fed. He wants to determine interest rates.
He doesn't give a darn about the constitution of the United States of America. And so I ask all of the members on both sides of the aisle, step up and do what you were elected to do and defend these agencies, and I yield back. The balance is my time.
Speaker 2
General Woman yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? No, chairman. I do not. Gentleman withdraws his point of order.
He seeks recognition. Mister Vargas?
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, I support this amendment. I think it was very well said by the ranking member that the president has attacked quite blatantly the independence of the Fed by going after the Fed chair. We saw that. Everyone saw that.
Certainly, also Governor Cook. Everybody saw that. In fact, the only thing that I would disagree with the ranking member on is this. You said that the other side should step up to the plate. They do when they're leaving.
They do when they're leaving, not running for another office. I see the senator now on the other side saying what the president's doing, what his Department of Justice is doing, the Powell is wrong. And I'm not gonna support anybody until they drop the criminal investigation. He somehow got courage when he was leaving, because he's not running for anything else. He's not running for re-election.
He's not running for another position. So all of a sudden, he stood up on his hind feet finally, and said what everybody knew, that this was a terrible thing that the president was doing. He was really demanding that the Department of Justice go after him. He took over the Department of Justice. He really is normalizing these processes that we would think are crazy.
That somehow the president can just say, prosecute that person because I don't like him. And finally, you know, again, the only thing I would disagree with you, ranking member, through the chair, is that, oh, no. They step up to the plate when they're leaving. I'd also have to say, it's obvious to me, there's at least one member who is leaving on the other side of the aisle who certainly is starting to speak up too, from more the Northern states. He's leaving now, he's saying some of these things also.
So, again, I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would stand, because some of the stuff the president's doing, you know, that if a democratic president was doing it, you would stand up and say, this is crazy. You can't do these things. And yet, you don't say a darn thing until, again, you're leaving and not running for another office. Then you do step up to the plate. And that's sad.
Now I do have to say that I heard some comments about why didn't we, you know, stand up and cut taxes and the big ugly bill for working families. Well, we wanna cut taxes for working families, but we also know that most of that money, the tax, went to billionaire families. They didn't go to working families. It went to billionaire families. In fact, the $607,100 dollar tax cut that they got was replaced now with higher tax pry. How are prices on the gas prices?
So all of a sudden, they don't have a break at all. That big ugly bill didn't do a damn thing for them. In fact, ask any working family in America, and they say, are you better off this year than you were last year? No. Because the prices are up because of all the policies of this administration, of this president.
No, we didn't vote for that big ugly bill because we knew that all the good stuff went to the billionaire class, and the scraps went to everybody else. That's why we didn't vote for it and wouldn't vote for it. If it had been a true bill where you tried to work, tried to help the working class and those that are poor, we would have all supported that. But we saw what this was. It was a smokescreen.
To give a working class $600, $800 cut on their taxes, and then, again, charge them a thousand dollars more for gas the next damn year. So with that, I yield back. And, again, I thank the ranking member.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. About Chairman Powell, was he respected by both sides of the aisle in this committee? Chairman Powell? Yes. Did he work with both Republicans and Democrats equally?
Speaker 1
Was he respected for his work and the way that he handled himself, and didn't even Mr. Hill speak up for him?
Speaker 1
And so chairman Powell was everything that you would want in a chair of the Fed. Yet, we don't have the members on the opposite side of the aisle strong enough to not only speak up, but to fight against this president and his takeovers on any agency. They've got to stop it. He's running the democracy. He's running this country.
And so we still have a fight on Lisa Cook. Are they gonna change their minds and do the right thing? I don't know whether they will or not, but let's keep on it. Let's not stop. Let's talk about the brazenness of this president and a lack of response from the Republicans who should be saying to the president of the United States, no, mister president.
That's wrong. I yield back to the gentleman.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? I recognize myself for five minutes. So I appreciate the gentlewoman's argument about Fed independence. Nobody's been an outspoken supporter of Fed independence more than I have, I'd say, four decades.
And I'd I would add just on the particular nature of Mr. Powell. I'm not leaving the office. I'm happily running for reelection. Looking forward to serving as chairman of this committee next Congress. And I spoke up on January 12 saying that it was wrong to have a DOJ investigation of Jay Powell, that he had done nothing criminal, and that the whole matter was a distraction to the economic policy of the United States and the oversight conducted by this committee.
And I think, still stand by that comment. I'm grateful for Senator Tillis, who's I wouldn't call it a northern state, but North Carolina, who did speak up. I'm grateful for his support and his role in the advice and consent in the Senate. And I look forward to serving with chairman Kevin Walsh, of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors before this committee, just as we all were engaged with former chairman Powell when the Senate takes their final decision. Let me say, the Fed is not immune from criticism, and Fed governors and Fed chairman are not immune from criticism by the executive branch or the legislative branch.
And we all know that. We all know that's absolutely true. And let me say, when we think about intimidation, how would you like to have a Fed chairman called to your personal residence and then shoved up against the wall and told if you don't cut interest rates, I'm going to fill in the blank? Lyndon Johnson, William McKasney Martin, 1960s. Yeah.
He's dead. Lyndon Johnson's dead, and Martin's dead. You're right, Mr. Madam ranking member. But the point is that there have been attempts by presidents in the past, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, others, to criticize their Fed chairman, even the Fed chairs they appointed, because they disagree, and that's, you know, their right to do that. I don't think they should resort to intimidation.
I don't think they should resort to the kinds of actions that we've seen over the years.
Speaker 2
I would say yes, madam ranking member, but I'm not engaging in this. I'm going to simply respond that there are attacks on the Fed, some quite crass, rude, investigatory, and threatening, by former presidents. I don't support that either in American history. I don't support it now. But the point is that it happens.
And in this committee, we have the right to oversee the Fed, and we have the right to criticize the decisions taken by the Fed, which is why I created a monetary policy and treasury market structure task force, to do exactly that. Let's thoughtfully look.
Speaker 2
Will not, madam, ranking member. That is why we have a monetary policy task force to look at the oversight of both the Fed structure, the Fed monetary policy since the financial crisis. And I'm grateful to the ranking member of that committee, Mister Vargas, for his outstanding participation in that subcommittee and or that task force and its work. But I have to say that while the Fed can be criticized, in my view, this committee stands for Fed independence. That's why it is independent, and why I don't believe we need to have a yes vote on this amendment.
And I urge a no vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, you were right on January 12 when you called out the administration for going after Jay Powell on the construction project that they found that he was mishandling. I think all of us know that the chair of the Federal Reserve does not, you know, run his own construction operation. Coming out of that industry, I certainly thought it was totally over the top in terms of going after him. And it has been, it makes me cringe what I see going on right now with the president and the department of labor, excuse me.
The top Department of Justice going after Chair Powell on that to try to force him out. I'm delighted that he's gonna stay on as a member of the Fed, as a board member. But I believe you, and I believe mister Tillis, and I welcome his comments. I, you know, people can complain about the timing, but, he did step up, and he did try to defend the independence of the Fed. So I give him credit for that.
I don't take off points because he's gonna retire anytime soon. And I just it is really, really important. If we look around the world, there are leaders of countries. I point to Turkey where prime minister Erwan stepped in and started to direct his own economic policy, his monetary policy. It was a disaster.
And I think if this president is allowed to do or any president is allowed to do that, we could suffer the consequences, and that would be bad for all Americans. With that, I do wanna yield the balance of my time to the ranking member to see what she might have on her mind.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch. It's about time that we had this public discussion. To my friend, mister Hill, you talk about it is all right to criticize. Yeah. It's alright to criticize, but it's not alright to attack and try to destroy a very credible president of the Fed.
It is not alright to think that you singularly can determine the interest rates when the chairman and the Fed officers have all of the information before them coming in daily, hourly, every minute. They have everything to look at and analyze to make these decisions. But no, this president doesn't care about this. This wasn't criticized. This was attacked.
And Lisa Cook, the first black woman to be an officer. All of a sudden, he's looking into whether or not she filled out her mortgage papers correctly as being done in New York. If you take a look at every member of Congress and determine whether or not their mortgage papers were filled out correctly and whether or not they didn't indicate that they were gonna use it as their private residence, how long? Ten years? Fifty years?
Thirty years? What do you have? This is bogus. This president is outrageous. He's suing the justice department, his own justice department, for $230,000,000.
He took, oh, he's suing the IRS for, I think, over, let's see, $103,000,000,000. Now this is the president of the United States who can talk with his cabinet any day of the week, can talk with members of Congress. No. He decides he's gonna use his power not only to threaten, but to sue them, suing the Justice Department. Here's a man that pardoned all of those who attacked the United States government.
We were hiding under our desk. The vice president of the United States was threatened to be hanged when they attacked this congress of the United States. So I'm kinda sick and tired of, you know, this not being talked about, this being protected by members of the Republican Party. I thank you for what you did and your individual support of Chairman Powell. But let's look at all of this other stuff that he is doing.
Let's look at what you call criticism that's really attacks. And now, you know, also, I tell you, he attacked Powell because Powell was trying to upgrade the facility, the building in a very legal way. But now the president of the United States who's turned down the White House to build a ballroom and lied about it. A president of the United States, yes, you can call me on that, but he lied about it.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen's gentlemen, Mister Lynch's time has expired. Who seeks recognition? Gentlemen from Indiana.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I just wanna, you know, say a couple of things regarding.
Speaker 5
You know, the presidents that voiced their opinion regarding policy that the Federal Reserve chairs make. And I think it's important that presidents make comments because they're representing the people, and the independence that the Fed has is important to defend. And I would believe that every chair of the Fed that's been appointed probably knows that the president may say something about their policies and that they're big people. They can handle it. So, you know, it's a bipartisan practice.
And as the chairman mentioned, other presidents that have made comments, and the former Fed chairs have even worked together to do a letter to defend the independence of the Fed. So this is about accountability. This is about balance. The process is working. The system is working.
But the president has every right to criticize fed policy because he's representing the people of the United States. And, as far as the inspector general at the Fed, he's taken over the federal building investigation from the DOJ. I met with him a couple of weeks ago, and I have full confidence in him that he is going to be sure that there was accountability, that there weren't misuse of funds. Anytime you look at the price of a building and realize that something seems out of whack, there should be questions asked. And so the process is working.
I appreciate the president being willing to call out the Fed on Will the gentleman yell? No. Not right.
Speaker 5
Well, you know what? This is a good conversation, and I think that it's important that both sides share their opinions. But, you know, as one of my colleagues said on the other side of the aisle, members of the Republican side leave Congress and speak poorly of the president. They probably just disagreed with the president to begin with, because I know that, I mean, I was out of office and ran again because of what happened in 2020 and what COVID did to small businesses in my state and what president Biden's policies did to this country, inflation that happened under president Biden. The cost of living went up dramatically under President Biden.
So this is a cleanup on Aisle 5 that we're having to go through to clean up the mess that has been left to us, whether it's president Obama with Iran, whether it's president Biden in the economy. This is an important piece of policy to focus on one particular item rather than two, that really competes with each other. And so I think it's important to have the accountability and the balance between the branches of government. The Federal Reserve's independence is important, but the president is the one who was elected by the people and should always have the freedom to voice his, and so should we.
Speaker 2
Wanna thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding, and thanking for standing up for Fed independence. I think that's important, and you referenced that. And, also, standing up for, you know, the president has First Amendment rights and the economic policies elected by all the people, to speak his mind. And as I've said from Truman, who threatened, he brought the whole FOMC, the Federal Open Market Committee, to the White House to tell them he disagreed with them in a public meeting, to mister Johnson's treatment of Martin, to mister Nixon's intimidation and investigations using that word on Arthur Burns, to president Reagan's tough conversation at the beginning of the 1984 campaign with mister Greenspan. This is the world we live in.
But you also referenced that the DOJ has closed their criminal investigation into the Federal Reserve building. I applauded that when it happened, long overdue, and turned it over to the Fed IG. I'm glad you, an individual member of Congress conducting your own oversight responsibility, met with the Fed IG on that. They're rightfully looking into it. And this is a place where the committee, the House Financial Services Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, can review what we learned from that inspector general investigation, looking through all the ways and means and causes and effects of this enormous renovation program down on Constitutional Avenue on the part of so we'll see what the inspector general report is.
That's certainly in the oversight capacity of this committee and that of the Senate bank. I yield back to my friend.
Speaker 5
I would just say that the criticism if president Trump built the Federal Reserve bid building, the criticism would be outrageous, if it was him that was there building it instead of the Fed chair oversight. So I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Miss Pressley, you recognized?
Speaker 10
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our ranking member for this thoughtful amendment, and wanna yield at this time to my colleague, mister Vargas.
Speaker 8
Well, thank you very much. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I also want to thank the chair. Mister chair, we all looked to you, frankly, when the attack happened on Mister Powell and the integrity of the independence of the Fed, and you didn't let us down. And we appreciate that.
You stood tall, and you said the right thing. And I, again, want to thank you for that. I think you have a lot of integrity. I disagree with you, obviously, on this point. I think the dual mandate is important, and that's why we fight about this.
However, it seems clear to me that the things that the president is doing are not normal. They're not. It's not disagreeing. It's not a First Amendment right that we're arguing about here. He siccs the Department of Justice on people he disagrees with.
That's not normal. In fact, it should be illegal. It should be illegal. There should be independence there from the Department of Justice. And to tar the Fed chair, who, by the way, is a Republican.
I mean, it's kind of interesting. I mean, we respect him because we think he's an integral person that deserves respect, not because he's a Democratic like that. He certainly isn't. Lot A of his policies, I don't agree with. I don't agree with it all.
But he is again, I think, a very honest person, and that's why I think we all defend him. I actually would like to see the interest rates come down. I disagree with him on that. I'm actually more in line with what the president thinks, that yeah, let's lower the interest rates. I think it's better for the economy.
But I agree that there has to be independence there. That's why, you know, and I criticized the fed over it. But I don't say, get the Justice Department now to go after him to see if that will put pressure on him. And by the way, it's interesting too. If you actually go and see the construction, everybody talks about the building.
There are actually two buildings. And that's, I think, part of the problem that the Fed had one building. They were asked to renovate the second building. That's been a lot of the overrun. Now I think it's appropriate, though, to take a look at that and have the general inspector.
In fact, we should do that with the reflection pool down at the Lincoln Memorial. We should do that right there. I mean, it was supposed to be a 1,300,000,000 dollar, you know, repair. Now it's, what, 10 times more almost, noncompete contracts. And I think we can criticize that and take a look at it.
That's a smaller thing. But, I mean, some of the things that the president's doing, again, with the Department of Justice is outrageous. It is outrageous. So, I, again, I thank the general lady for yielding. I do wanna make one correction, though, mister chair, and that is I believe that Nebraska, not North Carolina, is Nebraska.
And I said a member of the house is making comments now that I think he would have made if he was not leaving, or maybe he would have. He's actually quite a brave gentleman. I know him well. He said that some of the things the president is doing are foolish and morally not very clear. I think that Nebraska is north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Speaker 2
I thought I beg the gentleman's part. I thought you were referring to Mister Tillis in the Senate in North Carolina. I apologize. He'll be back
Speaker 8
to you. Yep. No. Thank you. No.
North Carolina, I know well, oddly enough. I do have two nephews that live there in that fabulous state. So I'm very familiar with North Carolina. Although perspective is everything, Mr. Chair. I live in San Diego.
Everything's north of me. And with that, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Thank you.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yielding back to you, Miss Presley. Miss Presley, are you yielding back? Are you continuing? Yeah. Miss the gentleman from Massachusetts yields back.
Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from Florida.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just go back. I'm a history teacher by trade, and I think it's very important what the chairman has mentioned about president Truman, president Johnson, president Nixon, meaning both parties have been guilty of this scenario. But that said, I really wanna emphasize one of the questions I actually asked the chairman of the Fed while he was here. And I asked him two basic questions.
I said, did the government overspend during the Biden presidency? And he said yes. That was one of the leading causes of inflation. He said it right before us, and everyone is agreeing how great he is. Well, that was his comment.
Second thing I would add to that is that he admitted right here that they messed up on the interest rates during those years. It's one of the reasons why inflation was also so high. And so I would go to that. And so the president criticizing the Fed board is welcome to politics. We're all playing it right now.
The second part I would mention, beyond this history lesson, is the sense that Mister Vargas talked about, you know, not being normal. Let's just recall what's happened. I, Mister Vargas, brought up the question about gas prices, and some were all struggling with that. No doubt about it. But I would also go back to history in saying we got rid of the Keystone pipeline just a few years ago.
That would have lowered gas prices. We also got rid of 40% of our strategic oil reserve because we were playing politics during the previous administration. So the way that you reduce prices is not by playing politics, it's by increasing the supply of oil. And that's what we are attempting to do. The good news is we've gone from a little less than 9,000,000 barrels a day to a little bit over 13,000,000 barrels a day, and that's a positive sign.
And soon, Venezuela will come on board. We'll see some additional relief there. And when this conflict ends, because every president of the United States since 1979 has said that Iran is a major problem. And, yes, we're all struggling with high gas prices right now. But when this conflict ends, there'll be long-term gas relief.
And just for our, again, a history lesson here. In 2013, adjusted for inflation, oil was $147 a barrel. 2013, you can decide who is the president then. 2022, at $147 a barrel. And so let's put this in, again, historical perspective, where we're at.
We all hate high gas prices. We all hate high interest rates. And guess what? We all play politics. But what we're trying to do here is get to the chairman's point, which is there is dramatic overspending at the Fed.
We look more closely at it. Since then, the investigation has ended, but that's a logical thing to do. And it's the same logical thing to do, to use the oversight committee to look at how dollars are spent on both sides of the administration. So, and finally, I'd just say to Mister Vargas, he brought up a lot of things about taxes. The other party happened to be in power.
I wasn't in office, but I was a history teacher, and I used to teach this in the classroom. They had the opportunity to lower taxes exclusively on tips, over time and Social Security. That didn't happen. So the sense of opportunity for tax relief is always there. And the good news is when you put money back in people's pockets, they do wonderful things with it because they earn it.
And so I'm very confident that we as a committee, which is so impressive, we work on a bipartisan basis. And it's just a shame we have to get in this back and forth today as opposed to working on the policies that the chairman is looking to pursue. And that, with that, mister chairman, I appreciate your thoughtful debate today, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back who seeks recognition. The gentlewoman from Texas, Miss Garcia, you're recognized.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanna speak in support of this resolution, and it just completely baffles me that there seems to be so much discussion against this, and that, mister chair, I totally respect you. But for you to urge your colleagues to vote no makes no sense to me. I think we should do everything humanly possible, especially in this committee, to protect the independence of the Fed. And, yes, I agree.
Everyone has a chance to voice an opinion. We all can do that as members of Congress and senators, and even the felony in the White House can. But what he's doing is not voicing an opinion. He's attacking the chairman of the Fed. He's attacking its very independence, which is at the heart of our keeping our economic policies in place.
You know, there's constructive criticism, and then there's destructive criticism. There's this thing about this president that, frankly, I don't think should be condoned. It is not normal. This is not the world we really should be living in, hearing the attacks on chairman Powell, hearing the attacks on our member Cook. And just getting the department to do an investigation, it's fine now to say, oh, well, the attorney general will decide.
Well, but who urged them to do it? Who ordered them to do it? That's the real question. And, you know, while I'm at it, you know, as a former judge and a lawyer, we need to protect the independence of the justice department because it has been weaponized to the eleventh degree. So, I voiced my strong support for this amendment.
And, with that, I wanna yield the remainder of my time to the maker of the amendment, our ranking member, Mexican Waters.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Miss Garcia. I appreciate your yielding. Let me tell you, when we have the opportunity, we should take it to talk about the issues in a way that we understand and we know what is going on, share information with the public, and raise questions about anybody in government that we want to raise questions about. Today, this bill before us is about one of the mandates. Well, I take the opportunity to say, yeah, let's talk about the Fed.
But in addition to the mandates, I want to talk about the attack on the Fed's independence. The Federal Reserve must be independent. The president or no member of congress should be able to undermine the fed chair and tell them what they must, should, and better do about interest rates. And the president of The United States didn't even talk about public policy as much as he said, I want to run it. I wanna fire you.
We were very fortunate that the president of the Fed said, you're not firing me. I'm not going anywhere. And he threatened the fed, but because there were enough on the senate side, and you, even mister Hill, who stood up for him, then the right thing was done while a new fed chair was being nominated and voted on by the senate. But in talking about the president of the United States and wanting to take over everything, I've pointed out what he's doing with the Justice Department with IRS. But let's talk about him trying to find something wrong with the development and building that the Fed president was doing in order to increase the possibility of the work that has to be done from the Fed.
He is now asking us for $1,000,000,000 for the West wing. Is it the West? East Wing. East Wing. Wing.
That he is tearing down. He lied. He said that it was gonna be donations that were gonna build it. He wants a big, beautiful ballroom. He wants us now, after not coming to us, asking, so even talking about it, he wants us to come up with 1 billion dollars because he thinks he's a king.
He thinks he can dictate to us. I'm sick and tired of it. And for those members who vote a billion dollars for this president to tear up and rebuild the White House, I know that you're going to have to take a lot of criticism for that. And so the Fed must be independent. We must open up what this president is doing to try to run the Fed.
It's not only the interest rates. It's not only the mandates. It's everything. He has no respect for Congress whatsoever. And so I bring up the billion dollars, because you can't refuse.
What I'm saying is you can't say that it's wrong, that I don't know what I'm talking about. I know what I'm talking about. You know what he's talking about. And so, with that, I've utilized all of my time.
Speaker 2
You can want to yell back. Gentlewoman from Texas. And the gentlewoman from Texas yells back.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. The gentleman who seeks recognition, gentleman from Pennsylvania. You're recognized as strike the last word.
Speaker 11
Mister chairman, I feel compelled just to say a couple of things regarding this amendment. First of all, yes, the Fed is independent. They're not independent from criticism as you pointed out many times. They're certainly not independent from remarks made by the president of The United States. And you know who they're not independent from?
They're not independent from me or my constituents. They work the fed works for the taxpayer. They're not independent from the American people. And when things occur, when we have a fed chairman who I have respect for, I'll always state I have respect for our current chairman, who will no longer be chairman as of tomorrow, states will not admit that excessive spending and an assault on domestic energy has anything to do, and he'd never have that conversation with the then president, president Biden, while inflation is running rampant at 9 percent. And meanwhile, extending QE to $9,000,000,000,000 for the purpose of maintaining consumer demand and consumer, and keep our economy going.
Okay? That was clearly based upon the conditions emanating from the policies of the former president's administration. Now and not what he even admit in the in this during hearings that had anything to do with the inflation that was taking place, would not consider a holistic view, never had a conversation. And I asked, wouldn't it be better if we weren't spending at this level? And I'll recall pretty well.
He said, sure. I'd like some help. But on the same note, would not admit to it, stating how inflation was transitory. Come on. And then interest rates changing very well, lowered being lowered right before the presidential election.
Look. Whether it was done intentionally or not was clear, you put it on paper. There was a bias there, and that is not independence. Okay? That is a bias.
And bias and independence are defined, completely different. So on the Fed Building itself, let's face it, please. If that was a project that president Trump had initiated, you all would be criticizing it to absolutely no end. And we're talking about a big overrun. You know, I ran a business.
Okay? My focus was not necessarily building out our facilities, although that was just a necessary part of it. But if I had an overrun of 1.5 billion dollars, I think somebody might say, do you know what you're doing? You know, you you'd be, you'd you're all your actions would be suspect. And that’s where that came in.
A billion and a half dollars in excess on a renovation? So and have no accountability and dismiss a DOJ inquiry. And, by the way, that's all it was. So this is nonsense. The Fed is independent.
And, by the way, if there's a fed chairman that caves to criticism, well, we picked the wrong guy or the wrong woman. So, and regarding the security systems, those security systems will be installed after this current president is even in office. They're being made for the safety of the president of The United States, perhaps this one for a short time, and many to follow. And, we've had three assassination attempts on the president, as well. So I think there's a rational outlook on this and then an irrational or deliberately irrational bias outlook on this subject matter, and particularly on this amendment.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate? Hearing none, the question now occurs on Miss Waters' amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. All those opposed signify by saying no.
No independent chair. The nose have it. The nose have it. The amendment is not adopted.
Speaker 2
The gentleman requests a recorded vote. All those in favor, record vote. Raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three of the committee rules, further proceeding on the amendment are postponed.
Are there further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Speaker 2
The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while it's distributed. Jumma from Indiana.
Speaker 10
At the end. Not after each one? Yes. I'm saying. They're not rolled.
So, okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not gonna need 5 minutes for this. Should I reserve my time?
I'm just not gonna take the time. Yeah. That's fine. I don't need it. I don't wanna use it.
Speaker 2
Clerk will report the gentlewoman from Massachusetts amendment. An amendment to.
Speaker 3
The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5396 offered by Miss Presley of Massachusetts, designated as Presley 076.
Speaker 2
The gentleman from Massachusetts is now recognized to describe the amendment.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment is straightforward. It's just one sentence long. It says something that, you know, it's not controversial. I think we should all be able to agree upon.
Nothing in this act, my amendment reads, may be construed to prevent the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee from taking action to increase employment. Now, again, this should be an uncontroversial amendment. It is necessary to improve the strength of our economy and the financial well-being of our constituents. For decades, the Fed has studied the labor market and used its research to make fiscally sound decisions. There are nearly 10,000 documents on the Federal Reserve's website dealing with unemployment.
The economic analysis coming from the Fed is valuable and relied on by Wall Street, state and local governments, international economists, and, in fact, this very body. But this bill would destroy that infrastructure, stop the research, and weaken our financial system unless we make it clear that the Fed can continue this work, and my amendment would do just that. Now I represent the Massachusetts 7th Congressional District. That's an institution that boasts many institutions of higher learning, elite institutions of higher learning. We have countless economic scholars, and I also have, you know, almost a dozen high schools in my district.
And if you, whether you were to talk to a high school student or an economic scholar at one of those higher ed institutions, if you were to ask any of them, should the government address the unemployment rate? If that's something that we should be doing, the answer would be yeah. So, you know, everyone knows that full employment matters and is essential for the health of our economy. But this bill is an attack on that infrastructure, and is also an attack on our common sense. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment, and ensure the Fed can continue its work to lower unemployment.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? Gentleman withdraws his point of order. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Indiana.
You seek recognition?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nothing in this legislation forbids the Fed from taking action to increase employment. But it signals to the Fed that Congress wants the Fed's primary focus to be price stability. Financial stability and employment benefits follow price stability. This is because monetary policy is unable to influence maximum employment over the long run, and has been confirmed by Fed chairs nominated from presidents of both parties.
So I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I'd like to just mention too that the new unemployment numbers are out, and it's pretty strong. President Trump is doing what it takes to be sure that there is full employment. It's the policies of this Congress, the big beautiful bill, Republicans, President Trump, even the Fed lowering interest rates has helped, maybe a little slow, in doing so to help the economy. But it's the policies of this body are gonna affect employment more than anything else.
Speaker 2
Does the gentleman think that regulatory policy and tax policy and policies at our states affect that level of maximum employment? Absolutely. Do you think every president supports maximum employment? Most of them. So there's no one here that is against maximum employment.
The gentleman from Indiana, I think, has been a private sector CEO and leader. He's been a member of this committee now twice. He knows that on both sides of the aisle, we are for maximum employment. The question here is the principal role of the central bank in that debate versus our states, our regular regulatory agencies, our congress, our fiscal policy, and other public policies of the executive and the legislative branch. So I thank the gentleman for making that point.
And the Fed has a lot of tools in the case of a financial crisis, as we witnessed. Many of us, here on both sides of the aisle, in the global pandemic. And then many on both sides of the aisle who were here even during the global financial crisis. So we're not affecting the Fed's extraordinary powers to help in the case of that kind of a crisis. I think you make a good point, gentleman.
I echo the views. I yield back to you.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Well, thank you. I guess and the reason I say most presidents, because the last president, President Biden's open border policies, was a huge detriment to employment in this country. And then you have an inflation on top of that. Talk about businesses being uncertain and knowing what to do.
And then, of course, trying to figure out who to hire and making sure that we're not hiring illegals in this country because of the open-border policy. It has made it extremely difficult. Now I do think that because the economy is strong and that unemployment rates are at low levels because of the policies of Republicans and President Trump, that this is the right time to do this because we don't have an emergency. And Congress often acts when there's an emergency, and then overreacts. And so I appreciate the chairman's timeliness on this bill because employment is low, we need to focus on price stability, currency, and that's how we're going to help the American people dig out of the hole.
I mean, you know, we talk about credit card debt around here a little bit. Too many Americans had to live on the credit card because the cost of everything went through the roof, thanks to the COVID response during the Biden administration. So, again, thank you for being thoughtful and doing this at the right time, and I'll yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen from Indiana yield back. Who seeks recognition on Miss Presley's amendment? Miss Beatty from Ohio.
Speaker 15
Move to strike the last words. Wow. This is really amazing, but let me first go on the record in saying I certainly support the amendment from Congresswoman Presley. Words matter. I say that every day to people in business.
We have words that one of my colleagues said that, you know, we probably picked the wrong federal reserve chair, we probably definitely picked the wrong president. We just talked about former presidents. My colleague just mentioned in relationship to this amendment, President Biden and his open borders and what that did to employment. Well, let me just say with this president, let's start with tariffs. Okay?
And how that affects business and employment. Let's talk about the number one thing that the American people are talking about, which is affordability. The lack of affordability to purchase a home. Let's talk about gas prices. So if we wanna name one thing that we're gonna try to blame President Biden for, and then we go back to COVID, in financial services committee, we stood united thanks to Chairwoman Maxine Waters for making sure that people didn't lose their homes, making sure that college students were able to go to college.
This same author of this amendment took a lead role in making sure that we could work with the students. We could talk about the war on Iran and what happens with this president and the prices. And did I mention the food, the price of eggs? And I'm just telling you what the American people said. So when we talk about the independence of the Federal Reserve, it was your colleague that said, yes, they're independent, but they report to the people.
Well, the people are telling you they're sick and tired of the prices going up, and what it's doing. So when we talk about what this amendment says, it simply says that we don't want it to be construed to prevent the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee from taking actions to increase employment. If we go back and we look at the responsibility to promote full employment, it means that the feds must make it a priority to ensure that unemployment is low. Okay. Now, do we all agree on that?
Certainly, we agree on that because that's the rules of engagement for what full employment means, which you just said that you and others agree on, including the chairman. But let me just tell you this. Since we wanna talk about Democrats and Republicans, under Democrat leadership, unemployment remained at a historic low, below 4%. Now do my colleagues want to tell me what it is now with this president, with President Trump? Is the highest it's ever been at over 4.7?
There are 7,400,000 people who are unemployed. How dare us come here.
Speaker 15
Talk against Congresswoman Presley's amendment that tells us it should not keep us from taking action to increase employment. The American dream is what? To have a job, to be able to buy a house, to prepare for your children. And as my colleague just reminded me, it is all for life support. So, mister chairman, I understand what you're doing in asking him the questions about what he believes in and what most presidents believe in.
Words matter. If you believe in it, then you would be supporting this amendment. And I yield back unless the sponsor of the bill would need some more time. And I okay. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman from Ohio yields back. Who seeks recognition on Miss Presley's amendment? If there's no.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that I'm allowed to strike the last word.
Speaker 16
Thank you. My apologies for being a bit late today. I have another committee assignment in homeland security, and it was quite pressing today. Miss chairman and friends, I think the dual mandate as it exists is not only necessary, but would create great havoc in the country if we tamper with it and change it such that we remove either of the two aspects because they complement each other. Stable price support is important.
When inflation is stable, businesses can plan ahead and invest, leading to stability with job growth. Maximum employment is important. You have a balanced labor market that prevents wage inflation that can occur from extreme labor shortages. And I think that what Miss Presley is doing is protecting the relationship between price stability and maximum employment. I support what she's doing, but I also wanna thank the ranking member for making it possible for us to have these opportunities to express our concerns because this is something that exceeds what I thought we would have to deal with, to be very honest, at this committee level.
I just can't imagine eliminating or tampering with the notion of stable, you know, employment, maximum employment. I know that there are members who would eliminate the minimum wage if given an opportunity. I would hope that this would not be the genesis of something far reaching, and I support Miss Presley and the ranking member, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition on Miss Presley's amendment? A ranking member.
Speaker 1
I wanna thank Miss Presley for offering this amendment, to ensure that this dangerous bill does not stop the Fed or FOMC from promoting full employment. Despite what you might hear the president claim, our job market is worsening. The latest jobs numbers show that 7,400,000 people are unemployed, and unemployment rates are even higher for Black workers at 7.3% and Hispanic workers at 5%. In 2025, Black women faced the largest employment losses, especially for college graduates and workers in the public sector. Additionally, 5.2% of workers bear the brunt of multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
All of this is what makes HR 5396 so reckless. Thankfully, Miss Presley's amendment would ensure the Fed and FOMC continue to support the workers. So I urge members to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen yields back who seeks recognition on the press leave amendment. There's no further debate. The question now occurs on the press leave amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no. No. The pin chair of the noes have it. The nose have it. The amendment is not adopted.
Speaker 2
Vote has been requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. Sufficient number I've been raised in your hand. Recorded vote is so ordered pursuant to c five of rule three of the committee rules. The proceeding of this amendment are postponed. Are there further amendments to the nature of the amendment and nature of a substitute?
Gentlewoman from Massachusetts. The gentlewoman has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause for it to be distributed. The gentleman from Indiana reserves a point of order on Presley amendment number 2. Clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 3
The nature of a substitute to H.R. 5396 offered by Miss Presley of Massachusetts, designated as Presley 077.
Speaker 2
Without objection, amendments considered read. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, you're recognized for five minutes to describe your amendment.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment would codify the practice of releasing unemployment data by the Department of Labor. And I do think it's essential that this is a practice that is codified, because under the Trump administration, release of this data has been inconsistent if he's just simply unhappy with the numbers. This should be easy for bipartisan approval since data collection and publication is really critical to our understanding of our national economy. Some of my colleagues have argued that the Department of Labor and not the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, again, we don't even have a Labor Secretary right now.
So I could go on and on about the chaos in this administration. This is just one such example. But some of my colleagues have argued that the Department of Labor, and not the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, should focus on employment. It's really critical just to note that the difference in these agencies, the labor department is run by a partisan political appointee in the executive branch. The Federal Reserve is an independent agency that should not be engaging in partisan decision-making.
That's what so much of the debate has been about today: maintaining the independence of the Fed. So they may sound similar, but they are not the same. That is why it is important that the Fed continue its mandate. But from our Republican colleagues who disagree, this amendment is for you. This is the opportunity to have your votes match your rhetoric.
My amendment would ensure that the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Labor Department publicly shares unemployment data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, and geography. And let me just reiterate because I do think it warrants, bearing repeating that there is a crisis for the black worker. Unless you think that this is a harm that can be contained, it will come for everyone, because black workers and black women have always borne the brunt and been the canaries in the coal mine. 70% of black women are the primary breadwinners in their household. And under this administration, they took a complete sledgehammer to the infrastructure of our federal government, which is a disservice to the people and the communities that our dedicated public servants serve, but also disrupted the livelihoods.
12% of the federal workforce were Black women. Dominating those really essential spaces from HUD to the Department of Education to Health and Human Services to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which you all work actively to dismantle and undermine. Consumer protection. Anyway, I digress. The point is, this amendment would ensure that the Bureau of Labor and the Labor Department publicly share unemployment data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, gender, and geography.
It requires the information to be provided every first Friday of the month. Government officials, business economists, and the public alike all analyze this data to understand the labor market and economic situation in this nation. Again, there's a crisis for black women, black families, and black futures that is coming for everyone. Now if Congress is serious about addressing unemployment, we need unemployment data because that which gets measured gets done. Now I first introduced this bill because last October, Donald Trump did not publish the data.
That's why it needs to be codified. That was the first time in the history of BLS that an administration, Republican or Democrat, skipped a month. Keep making history for all the wrong reasons. Previously, monthly data was published during federal government shutdowns, economic recessions, and a global pandemic. With Trump firing government officials when he doesn't like the data they publish, there is an urgent need for legislation to codify transparency of unemployment data.
I believe in transparency. This bill will ensure no president can hide the true state of the economy from the people. Moreover, this amendment codifies the practice of disaggregating the data. It's not enough to simply know how many people are unemployed. We need to know their background, their gender, their geography, and their industry in order to fully understand the picture here. So let's look at the current unemployment crisis.
While we have a 4.3% unemployment rate, it is not evenly distributed among all communities. It is reportedly hurting black families, black workers. The rate is 7.3%. While for the white, work rate is 3.7%. This is a stark contrast, which is why I've been calling for a plan of action.
It is a five-alarm fire that cannot be ignored. My amendment will codify my BLS act to ensure transparency of unemployment data, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Speaker 2
Gentleman's time has expired. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, after reading the amendment, and as much as I'd like to engage in a conversation about it, I just insist on the point of order pursuant to clause seven of rule 16 of the house rules, that this amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.
Speaker 2
Sheriff Fiennes' amendment is not germane, as it relates to a subject matter different from the subject of our underlying text. Therefore, the point of order is sustained. Is there further debate on the amendment in nature of a substitute or amendment on the amendment in nature of a substitute? Miss Pressley? The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has an additional amendment at the desk.
We'll pause while that's distributed.
Speaker 2
Gentleman. I reserve a point of order. Gentleman from Indiana reserves a point of order on the Presley amendment.
Speaker 4
Clerk will report the amendment, please. An amendment to the amendment in.
Speaker 3
The nature of a substitute to H.R. 5396 offered by Miss Presley of Massachusetts designated as H.R. 5396-03.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the amendment is considered read, and the gentleman from Massachusetts recognized for five minutes to describe her amendment.
Speaker 10
Mister Chair, my amendment is straightforward and uncomplicated. I agree with my good friend and colleague, congresswoman Beatty, that words matter. Certainly, the titling of bills matters. So it would correct the title of this bill so that the people who elected us know exactly what we are voting on. Just like you have that fraudulent big beautiful bill, which was really big and ugly, a big betrayal of a bill.
Let's name these things accurately. Because given the data that I just shared, 4.3% unemployment rate, not evenly distributed for all communities, disproportionately hurting Black women, Black families, Black workers. The rate is 7.3%, while for white workers, it's 3.7%. I don't want anyone's livelihood disrupted. No one.
But we have to acknowledge the disparate impact here. It's a stark contrast. It's a 5 alarm fire. I do wonder if those numbers were reversed. Were white people unemployed at twice the rate of Black people?
Would Republicans care more? But that's a question I know you're not all ready to answer, so let's get to the titling of this bill. This bill is clearly titled to deceive the public. I truly must give it to the Republicans because you all are adept and skilled at branding to make a bad thing sound like something good. We all know about the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, which is nothing more than an ugly attack on working families and government services like SNAP and Medicaid.
It gave large tax breaks to corporations, let the record reflect. While taking money from actual people. It gave billions of dollars to ICE to arrest innocent people, to kill citizens, to terrorize our communities. That law is deeply unpopular, and it is harming every person who calls this country home. But Republicans still call it the one big, beautiful bill.
Well, this legislation follows that pattern. Currently, it is titled the Price Stability Act, but it does nothing to help stabilize prices. Does this bill help?
Speaker 10
Control inflation? No. Does this bill get rid of Trump's tariffs? No. Does this bill confront the affordability crisis?
No. This bill is only one sentence long. Republicans are directing the Federal Reserve to stop working toward maximum employment. It's a sad day for our economy, where Republicans and Congress are against people having jobs. Again, the best way to support working families is to ensure that they keep working.
This bill will force the Federal Reserve to ignore the unemployment rate, which has risen under Trump. The mass firings of government workers, and the tariffs stopping businesses from hiring, and the Iran war raising costs have created this economic slowdown. Since taking office, unemployment has increased. Economists refer to this moment as low hire. The Fed chair even just said last week, there's effectively no new net job creation.
Republicans, you wanna close your eyes, you wanna put your fingers in your ears, you wanna ignore the problem, but we need to be honest with the American people and let them know the truth. This bill is not about price stability. It is about ignoring high unemployment. Therefore, my amendment would make a simple but necessary change to the title, so everyone knows exactly what we're voting on. My amendment would correct the title to, quote, the IGNOR High Unemployment Act, unquote.
Let's be transparent and honest with the people who sent us here. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Speaker 2
Gentlewoman yields back. We're gonna pause, suspend for a moment so we can make sure that the gentlewoman's accurate text is passed out. Miss Presley, they passed out a different amendment than you spoke on. So we're correcting that by making sure everybody has your text, and thank you for your comments. K.
Alright. The proper text that accompanies Miss Presley's remarks has now been distributed. And I asked the gentleman from Indiana, do you insist on your point of order? No, sir. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
Who seeks recognition on Miss Presley's amendment? We'll call on the ranking member from California. You're recognized to strike the last word.
Speaker 1
I wanna thank Miss Peggy for offering this amendment. This amendment renames the title of this legislation to the Ignore High Unemployment Act. By renaming this legislation, we can be transparent and clear about the intent and goal of this bill, which is to ignore the unemployment rate. This legislation does not provide solutions to address the rising unemployment in this country. It does not propose workforce training or establish recruiting efforts for the most vulnerable families today.
It does not offer to members here today a meaningful plan to help people struggling with the affordability crisis the president has created. As a matter of fact, the president has said, and it was recently reported, I think even today, that he does not have time to pay attention to Americans' concerns about the economy. That's not the exact quote, but it is essentially what he said and what he meant. He said he's dealing with the Iran war, so he doesn't have time to deal with this affordability crisis. Instead, HR 5396 directs Fed to ignore unemployment and removes the few tools the Fed has to have struggling America.
I urge members to support this amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wanna speak on this amendment, which I agree with the gentlelady that words do matter. But I wanna point out a couple things because this amendment says that this act may be cited as the Ignore High Unemployment Act. And it's true that congress does put titles on bills that are meant to explain to the general public what the bill pertains to. And one that I would point to that was said one thing but did another was the Affordable Care Act.
Mister chairman, I'll tell you. Health care is not affordable today for the American people. In fact, it's one of the biggest complaints I hear from my constituents back home that most of them have high deductibles, high premiums, and health care is not affordable. In fact, I'll give you an example. I went to get an MRI done a couple of weeks ago, and I go in to pay my bill, and the lady said it's $1750.
How about choked? And then she pointed out another pamphlet and said, but if you use that program, which won't apply to your deductible, it's $750, which is still okay. I can handle that? But the Affordable Care Act, that's what was sold to the American people, and it's not the Affordable Care Act. It's in reality.
So I find it interesting and ironic that we're going to try to rename this bill the Ignore High Unemployment Act. But if you look at unemployment rates, and I know the general lady mentioned 4.3%. Somebody had said earlier that it was 4.7, but it is 4.3. But, you look at the numbers behind it, the economy is outperforming the expectations. On the in this last month's report for April 2026, there were 115,000 nonfarm payroll jobs added, exceeding the expectation of 65,000, almost double what was expected.
And a lot of those were in health care, transportation, and retail. The one that's not growing, thankfully, is government jobs. And so, when government shrinks, private sector grows. So, I just find it ironic that we're trying to rename this bill, something that just doesn't do anything. We've congress failed once under the Affordable Care Act, and I'm sure there's probably others that were named, you know, in one particular way to try to sell the American people on something that just wasn't accurate.
Speaker 2
Appreciate the gentleman's points that he's made about naming bills, both sides certainly have some successes and failures on that front. But one thing that I heard in the ranking member's comments on Miss Presley's amendment, she says, we're not here today talking about things that would be like education benefits or other things that really help lower unemployment. And that's actually the whole point of this debate, that it's not the job of the Federal Reserve to do that. The Federal job should be making sure inflation doesn't decimate our family's net income, their savings, their investment opportunities, and take away their choice. That's the jurisdiction of the Fed.
That's the jurisdiction of this committee. But I encourage my colleagues on both sides to support tax policies that increase real wage growth like President Trump proposed in the big beautiful bill last year, support regulatory reforms that lower the cost to increase faster economic growth like members on both sides of the aisle in this committee have done routinely over the last year. Join me tomorrow at my press conference with Alma Adams, as we talk about introducing the IGNITE Act, which will benefit our HBCUs across the country. There are places to go, and we have committees for it. But it's not the job of the Fed, and therefore, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I would urge a no vote on this amendment and yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.
Speaker 17
I appreciate the gentleman's comment on the richness of this bill on the trying to retitle. The chairman's bill is perfectly named, the price stability act, because it says the Fed should be focused on price stability. And, of course, there's a new name suggestion, but I'm not surprised. The other side of the aisle is quite clever on the doublespeak on naming bills. My colleague from Indiana references the Affordable Care Act, but we could think of Build Back Better, which did not such thing.
We could think of the Inflation Reduction Act, which unleashed inflation. We could think of the For the People Act, which gutted election integrity. The list goes on. Mister chairman, our colleagues on the other side are quite clever on doublespeak, on trying to deceive the American people on what's actually in a bill. I commend your title for this bill because it's actually what it does.
The Price Stability Act of 2025 is about price stability, and making sure that the Fed does that mandate. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this and appreciate my colleague, mister Sutzman, for pointing out the laundry list of double speak that we have in some of our democrat bills. Unfortunately, many of which have become law. Yield back.
Speaker 5
Thank you, and thank you for the addition of those titles. Quite ironic. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. We yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Who is there further debate on Miss Presley's amendment? Seeks time. If there's no further debate, the question now occurs on the Presley amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. No independent chair of the noes has it. The noes have it, and the amendment is not adopted. Gentlewoman, gentleman requests a recorded vote.
Those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a vote is ordered. Pursuant to subsection c five of rule three of the committee rules, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Are there further amendments on your desk? The gentleman from Massachusetts has an amendment at the desk.
We'll pause while it is distributed. Mister chairman, gentlemen from Indiana.
Speaker 2
Gentleman reserves a point of order on this, press Lee amendment. Clerk will report the amendment, please.
Speaker 3
The nature of a substitute to H.R. 5396 offered by Miss Presley of Massachusetts. This is HR 53 96 03.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the amendment is considered read. And, Miss Presley, you're recognized for five minutes to describe your amendment.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope this is something we can agree on in a bipartisan fashion. There actually used to be a bipartisan task force on artificial intelligence that I was appointed to along with Congressman Lynch that has been dissolved. But I hope that we can agree on this. My amendment would require the Federal Reserve to study the impacts that artificial intelligence is having on employment.
Now when I'm in my community, when I'm in my district, and I'm sure this is the case for every member of Congress here, the impacts of AI are brought up. There are some who are excited, but many that are terrified. They're terrified about the way AI is transforming our lives. They're terrified about its impact on the future of work. So at a time when the unemployment rate is rising, this amendment is critical to ensuring that no workers are left behind by the adoption of AI.
Technology advancement should supplement and enhance what workers do, not replace them. People need to be able to make a living and do work that is meaningful to them, but not just that. Real workers play an important role in making sure technology is not discriminatory. Maintaining a human connection to fields like human resources, health care, education, financial services, and much more. We need to be sure that as companies move forward with the adoption of AI, there are no unintended consequences of pushing talented workers out of the workforce and having rippling effects on our economy.
We can't talk about advancing AI in a vacuum. We know that there is a digital divide. This is true for rural communities. It's true for urban communities. There are people across the country still lacking broadband access to complete their homework.
Remember during the pandemic, how many families were going to fast food parking lots in order to access Wi-Fi for their children to be able to complete their homework. We owe the public quality data on the impacts AI has on the workforce and the economy. The public needs quality data. This common sense amendment makes sure that if this committee wants to move forward with AI advancement, the Federal Reserve must be cognizant of any impacts on employment and report these findings to Congress so that we can support, again, the people who sent us here, their families, communities, and economy. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will support this amendment to support our valuable workforce.
We need the data. We need quality data on what the implications and impact could be here. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, straightforward. Massachusetts yields back to who seeks recognition, the gentleman from Indiana.
Speaker 5
Yeah. I, you know, I find this amendment really fascinating, because AI is an incredible tool. And, you know, I understand we're all getting used to how AI is affecting our economy, how what are the tools that it's useful for. But I just don't see any need to require the Fed to do a study on employment impacts of AI. In fact, I'm surprised.
And one of the gentlemen said earlier on the other side of the aisle that, you know, truck driving jobs are being replaced. We've got driverless cars. I rode one, and you know what? I was quite surprised at the technology and the ability that is implemented in those cars. And that's gonna actually increase safety.
It's gonna increase, it's gonna maybe move jobs from one sector to another. But AI is gonna be an incredible tool for us, and the Fed has already been studying AI. So there's already been studies done by the private sector and others, and it's already showing that AI is not disastrous for unemployment. In fact, we're already seeing that unemployment numbers keep going up, and that's with the wall being built, the border being secure. You know, unemployment rates are lower because of President Trump's policies and Republicans' policies.
The research from the international center for law and economics found that there is so far little evidence on economy-wide job loss or wage decline as a direct result of AI. So for a party that generally sees themselves as progressive, they're actually wanting to say no to new technology that is going to increase productivity and help our economy progress going forward. One other thing I found interesting, in fact, they found any labor adjustment was due to a reallocation of tasks and AI-produced productivity within firms. Now I would say this, I would almost support this amendment. If it would include AI analysis of government fraud, waste, and abuse, inefficiencies.
I think that's what we should be using AI for. So if that would be included in the amendment, I could probably support it. But at this time, I would oppose this amendment. I'll yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back, who seeks recognition of the ranking member. He seeks recognition of the press release amendment.
Speaker 1
At a time whenever AI company CEO is warning about massive job displacement from AI, it is absurd to tell the Fed to ignore the plight of workers in this country. So I thank Miss Presley for offering this amendment, which strikes the bill and directs the Fed to study the impact that AI will have on employment in the United States. Recently, many have become alarmed at how the latest AI models would allow bad actors to hack our financial institutions and cause all kinds of unknown harm to consumers. Some companies said that AI has allowed them to lay off thousands of workers. Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, we should be directing our agencies to settle on the impact AI is going to have on the economy and ensure that monetary policy is being set accordingly.
So I thank Miss Presley for this thoughtful amendment and urge members to support the bill amendment. Thank you. You're back.
Speaker 2
Gentlewoman yields back who seeks recognition on the Presley amendment. He's from Wisconsin. Are you seeking recognition? No. He's not.
Alright. Anybody seek recognition on the Presley amendment? If there's no further debate on the amendments, the question now occurs on the press release amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those posts say no. No. The nose have it. Noes have it. Amendment is not adopted.
General woman. General woman requests a record vote. All those in favor, record the vote. Raise your hand. Sufficient number, I can raise my hand.
Record vote is ordered. Pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three, the committee rules for the proceedings of amendment are postponed. Are there further amendments to the amendment and the nature of the substitute? Seeing no further amendments, without objection, the previous question of the substitute is ordered, and recorded votes on the pending amendments have been postponed. Once these votes are taken, the committee will immediately vote on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of substitute, and then we will consider the question to report the measure.
We'll now move to the next bill. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 2978, Guarding Unprotected Aging Retirees from Deception Act, the Guard Act, which was introduced by Representative None. Clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.
Speaker 3
HR 2978 to permit state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies that receive eligible federal grant funds to use such funds for investigating elder financial fraud, pig butchering, and general financial fraud, and to clarify that federal law enforcement agencies may assist state
Speaker 2
Without objection, the first readings dispensed with fifth. Without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any time. Representative None has an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which were distributed, excuse me, distributed in advance. The clerk will report that amendment.
Speaker 3
of a substitute to HR 2978 offered by mister Nunn of Iowa designated as nun 145.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the amendment's considered read. It will serve as the base text for the purposes of amendment. The gentleman from Iowa, Mister Nunn, you're now recognized for five minutes to describe your amendment.
Speaker 6
Well, I wanna thank the chairman for this markup on my bill to fight fraud, as well as my friend across the aisle, Representative Gottheimer, for his partnership in working on this. Stopping scams and fraud is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an American issue, and one that no party can sit on the sidelines for. As many of you know, there is probably someone, in fact, you've spoken to, whether it be a neighbor, a parent, a friend, someone at church who has said they've gotten a call from a company claiming that they owe a bill, or a text from a toll station saying that they owe money, or a scare or a romance scheme that's impacted a loved one. And it pains me that fraud and scams dominate many of my listening sessions just across Iowa, because the problem, candidly, is only getting worse.
When I first introduced this bill a year ago, mister chairman, the average Iowa senior was losing $9,000 per case reported. Jump forward to today, that number is now 44,000. That is a five times increase in just the last 12 months due to scam and fraud related theft. Now in my home state of Iowa, we lost nearly $100,000,000 in 2025. But nationally, that's added up to over $200,000,000,000.
And this flows directly to criminal organizations, foreign governments, and agents hostile to the United States. Roughly, $100,000,000,000 in loss is equivalent to more than $50,000,000,000 that the entire US Army's budget is. That is the amount of loss faced by these types of scams. And behind every dollar is a real person. It's an Iowan.
It's a single mom. It's a farmer. It's a 68-year-old veteran who lost over $100,000 to a pig butchering scam. But when he called his local police office to ask for help, they were powerless in not having the tools to be able to execute and help him solve it. This is not a failure of common sense, Mr. Chair.
It is a sophisticated international criminal and foreign intelligence operation, and we do not have the laws to keep up with and prevent it. Just this last October, the Department of Justice seized a $15,000,000,000 Bitcoin operation from the Chinese Communist Party tied Cambodia-based criminal syndicate. It was the largest forfeiture action in the DOJ's history. The tools do exist. We can't stop this.
So let's take those best practices currently held by our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies and help disseminate them down to our state and local officers, so that local departments, police stations, sheriff's deputies have the ability to take that first call and take real action. That's why I'm leading the guard act. It puts advanced technology and training in the hands of our state and local law enforcement. The guard act came directly from good ideas shared with me by local Iowa law enforcement officers at a roundtable I hosted in Des Moines. And it stated that the tools available to both treasury and our financial institutions in the private sector can also be used by our local officers.
They told us what they needed, and we, working with treasury, told them that it was possible, and so we built this bill from there. The Guard Act authorizes existing federal grants. This is not new spending. But to invest in investigators, train officers, acquire blockchain tracing tools, and it lets federal agents share those tools and expertise with our local law enforcement to standardize definitions for these specialized defenses, so cases can be attached with the full weight of our federal resources as well as married to our local expertise. The coalition of folks who have come on board to help us fight scams is broad and deep.
With the support of everyone from the Iowa State Police Association, the Financial Technology Association, the Digital Chamber, the National Police Association, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the American Securities Association, NAACP, the US Chamber of Commerce, Iowa Bankers Association, Google. I could go on with this all day, mister chair, which is a good news story. But the reality is here, I'd like to submit for the record our letters of support, particularly from groups like the Consumer Banking Association, AARP, and our National Sheriff's Association, as well as Capital One that have all been leaders in this fight. I also wanna thank our champions in the Senate because it's not enough to just do it in the House alone. We have a companion capability here with Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, as well as Jill Abram and Scott on Senate banking.
We can no longer wait to act. This is clearly a national security crisis, and it's one that is hitting homes across our country most directly. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to fight back. I am proud this is not only a bipartisan effort, but this is a real effort to support financial security for Americans and stop national security threats abroad. With that, I would urge a yes on the Guard Act, and thank both the chair and our partners on this.
Speaker 12
Yield yields back as there is further debate on the ANS. Miss Waters, who's the ranking member of the full committee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 1
I move to strike the last word. The guard act would clarify that state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies may use certain federal grants to investigate senior financial fraud, romance scams, and general financial fraud. While I'm supportive of this bill, if my Republicans are serious about addressing fraud and scams, they would start by reversing the Trump administration's numerous actions to weaken the rule of law. Under the Trump administration, bank examiners, financial crime investigators, and DOJ prosecutors have all been fired or laid off. Inspector generals who investigate corruption inside the government have also been fired, allowing illegal and unethical behavior to go unchecked.
Additionally, the primary agency that was protecting seniors, service members, and the public against general financial fraud was a consumer financial protection bureau, the CFPB. Yet the Trump administration entirely gutted the agency. Just last month, committee Republicans voted for a bill that would repeal the reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act, allowing bad actors to better hide their schemes. US registered shell companies are often used to facilitate romance schemes, scams, and other fraud. The repeal of the CTA directly conflicts with the purposes of this bill to protect older Americans and others from fraud and scams.
Last year, during the discussion of the Clarity bill, a cryptocurrency market structure bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle flat out refused to take any democratic-led amendments to protect consumers. I want to emphasize that they specifically rejected amendments related to elder fraud. If Republicans cared so much about the frauds and scams listed in the bill, they would reinstate funding to the CFPB and support the Corporate Transparency Act. This bill clarifies what state and local law enforcement can already do and what they can do under the law. So while Democrats support the bill, let's be clear.
Let's be clear about that, and thank you. And, before I yield back the time, you were not here earlier, I don't think, when the chair of the committee was here, when we had a chance to talk about something with the Fed in terms of trying to reorganize the Fed or get rid of a mandate, etcetera. And I'd just like to point out what I thought was a kind of hypocrisy in that, given some of the things the president had done to the Fed in his attempt to take over the Fed and his attempt to fire chairman Powell and his now attempt to fire Lisa. So let me just say that what I'm trying to point out here is that while you talk about the locals being able to do something about fraud for seniors, etcetera, when the Republicans had the opportunity to do that when we were dealing with cryptocurrency where we think there's gonna be a lot of problems, your side of the aisle did not agree with that. And so if we're gonna talk about fraud, we better understand that not only should we be paying attention to cryptocurrency, but the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which many of us worked very hard, I was on the conference committee on that, to deal with fraud and to deal with schemes and all kinds of things.
We're gonna support the bill, obviously. But maybe there will be another opportunity where Republics can show if they really care about these issues, that they will help us to do something about it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 12
The gentlelady yields. Is there further debate on the ANS? I now recognize myself for five minutes. I wanna thank the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Nunn, for authoring this important legislation. The committee has made investigating fraud a priority, both across subcommittees and across Congress. Mister Nunn's bill recognized the gravity of the problem the scams represent for a growing number of Americans, and his bill takes several important steps.
First, it allows state, local, and tribal law enforcement to utilize existing federal grant programs to combat fraud from unlawful credit card use to romance scams to elder fraud, including through DOJ training and technical assistance programs in the COPS technology and equipment program. The guard also helps understand how effective or how deficient our federal agencies are in stemming the tide. We see that fraud and scams are growing, and a lot of times state and local government are left with few interfaces with our federal government until the scope of it is identified as very large. But collectively, on the back end, there might be one small case in Iowa and another small case in Ohio and another small case in California, and that structures up to a really big transnational criminal organization, as Mister Nunn referenced. This bill will help identify that.
The bill requires treasury secretary to work across departments of justice and homeland security, as well as our banking regulators, to pinpoint what the government is doing, and evaluate the impact its efforts are having to protect Americans from scammers. The guard act will also require the treasury to rigorously assess bank secrecy act reports to better understand the state of fraud in America. Vincent must leverage these reports to gain insight into the mechanisms fraudsters are using to obtain and launder funds for their crimes. It provides flexibility. The general lady from California talked about the importance of countering crypto.
Some of our state and local governments haven't built out the infrastructure to stay current with modern techniques like blockchain. And the traceability there, when you put something on a permanent immutable ledger, is amazing, but they don't necessarily have all the tools. The federal government has the tools. FinCEN's using them, and this gives them the funds and the flexibility to be able to implement them at the state and local levels. Mister Nunn's been a leader on this critical issue.
I'm pleased to see his legislation moving forward today. I urge all of our colleagues to support it, and I yield back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the NHS? Hearing none, we will move to the amendments. Does anyone wish to offer an amendment to the ANS?
For what purpose does the general lady seek recognition?
Speaker 3
The nature of a substitute to HR 2978 offered by Miss Waters of California designated as guard amend to.
Speaker 12
With that objection, the amendment is considered read. The general lady from California is recognized for her amendment.
Speaker 1
I alluded to cryptocurrency and some other things. Let me be more specific in this amendment. My amendment would add meme coin-related scams to the list of scams and frauds that the guard act specifies. This topic also feels appropriate to bring up as our colleagues on the Senate side mark up their version of cryptocurrency market structure. The day before his inauguration, President Trump launched his meme coin.
Since then, President Trump has earned $360,000,000. Insiders behind the meme coin also earned nearly 600,000,000 in trading fees. However, hundreds of thousands of retail investors have lost 4,300,000,000. Let me say that again. Hundreds of thousands of retail investors have lost 4,300,000,000 buying the Trump meme coin.
This is the exact kind of activity, specifically what's called a "rug pull," that my Republican colleagues should try to prevent with this bill. I completely agree with my Republican colleagues. We do need to protect Americans from these types of scams. What's also concerning about meme coins is that Trump's federal regulators have advocated their responsibility to protect investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission under Trump said that meme coins are not securities, meaning that they now fall into a gray zone without a federal regulator.
That is why it is even more important for state, local, and travel law enforcement to monitor and hold memecoins of fosters accountable. And so, I think this is very important. The bill as it is constructed is important, but this, what I'm advocating in this amendment, would make it even more important given that I've laid out the loss that those who have been purchasing mean columns from the president. So I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 12
Gentlemen, lady yields back. Does the gentleman from Iowa insist on his point of order?
Speaker 12
His point of order. Gentlemen, does withdraw his point of order. There's a further debate on the amendment. What purposes does the gentleman seek recognition?
Speaker 6
I wanna thank the ranking member for her engagement and the, you know, bipartisan conversation that we're having on the threat of scams and fraud. But I would oppose the gentlewoman's amendment, and here's why. This amendment already seeks to single out scams related to all types of threats, not meme coins specifically. And if we're going to narrow the scope of what these funds could be used for, I think we put ourselves in a disservice here. Fraud of this nature is already covered by the underlying legislation, and specifying mean coins would simply create, I believe, confusion when implementing this bill, as the executive branch has already highlighted here whether certain forms of general financial fraud were not intended by Congress since we did not specifically call them out as well.
We know this much is true, that as this continues to be an evolving threat, specifying each one limits us from emerging threats that could potentially arise. Here's what I know we agree on. We know, as we just highlighted, that the scale and the threat that local police are up against is becoming overwhelming. According to the FBI's 2024 Internet crime report, Americans aged 60 and older lost $61,000,000,000. This is elder loss.
It's up nearly 40%. Something that you and I both agree with here is how we can get after it. We also recognize, as you noted, that Americans, when they face these threats, are not picking up the phone to call CFPB. They're picking up the phone to call local law enforcement or the fraud watch helpline that AARP puts together. These are real tools that we wanna get resource against a broad array of scam and fraud threats existing today, including things like meme coins, but also what tomorrow might bring.
Therefore, I think we can also agree on what action needs to be taken. Moving forward with this guard act helps our frontline defenders be able to have the resourcing, the training, the capabilities, and the skill sets we know work at a local level. We want broad coverage of fraud under this. We all want clarity so our law enforcement agencies can go after scammers comprehensively. That is what this bill really achieves, and I would ask the ranking member that her concern, valid as it may be, is already included under the existing legislation and is improved upon by this act. For these reasons, I respectfully would ask my members to oppose scoping this narrowly, and ask that they move the bill forward without the amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Speaker 12
Gentlemen, yields back. I recognize myself. Strike the last word. I do strike the last word. I think mister Nunn laid out a good rebuttal to the general lady's amendment.
I would just add that the Clarity Act, the general lady did reference the house incentive past that, and even putting a definition around what is a mean coin, needs to be done at the federal level. So, I've tried to counter pump and dump scams in crypto since 2017. It's been a long road. I'm glad to see the Senate Banking Committee marking up the Clarity Act this week, and I hope it does just that. It provides the clarity we need.
And you'll let the federal regulators have more power to deal with a federal problem. I think Mr. Nunn stated it well. When people are victims of scams, they call law enforcement. And his bill, the Guard Act, that this seeks to amend, is rightly focused on equipping them with the flexibility to deal with that. So, I oppose this amendment, encourage our colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back.
Is there a further debate on the amendment? Hearing no further debate, all those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.
Speaker 12
All those opposed shall signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Speaker 12
The noes have it, amendment is not adopted. Recorded vote has been requested. Are there further amendments? I gotta say votes are rolled to some of this part. There you go. The court votes requested all those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand.
Sufficient number having raised their hands. A recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three. The committee rules further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute? Nothing on which.
Alright. Seeing no further amendments, without objection, the previous question on the substitute is ordered, and the recorded votes on the preceding amendments have been postponed. Once those votes are taken, the committee will immediately vote on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of substitute, and then we'll consider the question to report the measure. We will now move on to the next bill. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 2152, the AI practices, logistics, actions, and necessities AI plan, which was introduced by representative Nutt.
The clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.
Speaker 3
HR twenty one fifty two to require a strategy to defend against the economic and national security risks posed by the use of artificial intelligence in the commission of financial crimes, including fraud and the dissemination of misinformation, and for other purposes.
Speaker 12
Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment. At any point, representative None has an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which have been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 12
Without objection, the amendment is considered read and will serve as a base text for the purposes of the amendment. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Nunn, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 6
Well, thank you, mister chair, and thank you for your work on national security, particularly when it comes to this legislation, artificial intelligence, and how we, at the national level, need to have both a strategy and an approach. I wanna thank my friend, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, Mister Himes, for helping me leave this bill and its great impact on an emerging technology that will quickly impact all of our lives. As we know this, artificial intelligence is already transforming how businesses grow, how markets move, and how information is spread. And analysts project that AI will generate over 15,000,000,000,000, that's T with a capital T, in a new global wealth over the next decade. This is exciting.
At the same time, American companies lead in the field today. But foreign adversaries are racing to write the rules of this new age, and some are turning that very technology against us. Five years ago, an adversary who wanted to drain an American's retirement account needed a phone bank, a convincing script, and hours of deception campaigns. Today, that same adversary clones the voice of a victim's own grandchild and uses it to drain their account by threatening that same artificial avatar. A single overseas operator now spins up to thousands of synthetic identities from names that include social security numbers, employment histories, to open fraudulent accounts at American banks faster than our institutions can flag them.
And these are stories that should keep all of us up at night. But the good news is the same American ingenuity that built this technology is helping us defend against its misuse. The challenge is on the coordination piece. Treasury sees the financial perspective. Department of Homeland Security sees the defense perspective.
Commerce sees the technology perspective. And the federal government, writ large, has a hard time knowing who's in control. The SEC, the Federal Reserve, NIST, the attorney general, and the US trade representative each hold a different piece of the puzzle, and Congress has never asked them to put it together in one page or one comprehensive playbook. What the AI plan act does is it bring regulators to the same table to keep our markets safe and our data protected. It charts a strategic road map for the United States and leads an artificial intelligence development by defending our financial systems and letting our private partners be part of the success story here.
It does five things that I think are key. First and foremost, combating financial crimes and fraud. It directs the Department of Treasury, Homeland Security, and the Department of Commerce to develop a strategy to combat artificial intelligence-driven fraud and the use of AI in financial crimes, such as voice cloning and deepfakes that we just highlighted. Two, it protects national security. It focuses on defending against artificial intelligence-generated misinformation from foreign intelligence threats, and their efforts to manipulate US markets are spread propaganda that hurt all of us.
Three, it develops a new security framework, implementing new and cross-jurisdictional techniques to defend against cyber threats and artificial intelligence-powered attacks. Four, it promotes responsible innovation, encouraging the development of American-led AI innovation while establishing necessary guardrails. And five, it brings a whole of nation approach in a strategic vision for how AI can be both helpful, but that we can counteract those bad actors who would come against our institutions, bringing both our private sector and our public sector to bear in addressing this threat. We are not slowing down in AI here in the United States. We are making sure our local businesses in places like my home state of Iowa and across this country can grow confident in an AI-powered economy that grows both our GDP as well as our workforce.
And that when Americans use AI to build, our adversaries cannot use that same AI to break us. I would urge a yes vote on the AI Plan Act, and I thank the bipartisan leaders who have helped move this forward. With that, mister chair, I yield my time.
Speaker 12
The general lady from California moves to strike the last word, recognized.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. This bill represents a critical first step in addressing the risk posed by AI. These efforts are especially important as we respond to newer and advanced cybersecurity models like Mythos, which in the hands of bad actors and foreign adversaries pose a major threat to the national security of our country and the stability of our financial system. This legislation requires agencies to gather information and submit recommendations on how to defend against risks like misinformation, fraud, and financial crime. The agencies must consider challenges arising from deepfakes, voice cloning, foreign election interference, potential market disruptions, and more.
We're already witnessing the devastating impact these technologies have on families across the country when they're used by bad actors. For example, through voice cloning, fraudsters impersonate, though they do, impersonate a victim's loved one to try to demand money from them. For example, in 2025, Americans lost more than 5,000,000 to AI voice cloning scams. While this legislation is necessary to better allow agencies to build our defenses ahead of the weaponization of advanced AI models. This measured and cautious approach is at odds with the goals of another Republican bill proposed today, the Unleashing AI Act.
The Unleashing AI Act lifts a wide range of regulatory requirements without consideration for many of the risks to Americans that are considered in this bill, the AI Plan Act. And so I would encourage members to take these diverging approaches into account, and support the best course of action for protecting children and families across the country. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 12
Thank you, gentlelady. Is there further debate on the A and S? Mister Himes?
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to the ranking member. And I particularly thank my friend from Iowa, Mr. Nunn, for introducing this bill. As Mister Nunn said, and as a ranking member said, the bill recognizes a simple reality. AI is lowering the barrier to entry for sophisticated fraud operations. What once required an organized criminal network can increasingly be done by a single actor with commercially available tools.
Government coordination must evolve accordingly. AI threats move across sectors faster than government jurisdictions do. Fraud, cybercrime, market manipulation, and foreign influence campaigns no longer fit neatly inside one agency's lane. Right now, federal agencies are often responding to AI-enabled threats independently. The AI plan act creates a shared operating picture, so we can identify patterns earlier and respond faster.
Recent reporting and oversight done by various committees underscores how quickly these risks are accelerating. The Mythos model by Anthropic reportedly identified several 100,000s of software vulnerabilities across major US banking systems, with some institutions forced to patch weaknesses in days rather than weeks because AI-enabled cyber threats are now operating at machine speed. The AI Plan X sends a message that the US intends to lead not only in developing advanced AI systems, but also in building the safeguards that allow those systems to be deployed responsibly and at scale. This is ultimately a preparedness bill. We cannot be caught sleepwalking into the next financial crisis.
The cost of planning and coordination today is far lower than the cost of responding to a major AI-enabled financial calamity tomorrow. The bill reinforces public-private partnership. Many of the most important signals, threat indicators, and defensive innovations come from the private sector, and this framework helps ensure the government can engage constructively with industry experts. Finally, this legislation reflects a bipartisan understanding that technological leadership and national security are no longer separate conversations. In the AI era, they are one and the same.
I'm proud to co-lead in this bipartisan bill, I urge my colleagues to support it. I'd like to again thank the chair and the ranking member for considering the bill today, and I yield back.
Speaker 12
The gentleman yields back. So further debate on the ANS. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. As I've said before, AI technology has enormous potential to make Americans' lives easier, and our financial system safer, stronger, and more efficient. The same technology can also be weaponized, enabling more sophisticated financial crime that threatens consumers, investors, and the stability of our financial system.
From deepfake impersonation schemes to AI-generated financial fraud, bad actors, including those operating abroad, are gaining access to increasingly powerful tools. The United States cannot afford to fall behind. We need a coordinated national strategy to detect, prevent, and respond to AI-enabled financial crime. That's why I'm pleased to support the AI Plan Act. This bipartisan legislation led by representative Zach Nunn and Jim Himes directs the department of treasury, homeland security, and commerce to examine the evolving threat landscape and develop a comprehensive strategy to combat AI-driven financial crimes.
Just as importantly, the bill draws on the expertise of federal agencies to provide Congress with actionable recommendations and establish best practices that industry can implement immediately to better protect consumers and our financial system. This is a common sense, straightforward looking approach to ensuring that we harness the benefits of AI while defending against risks. I urge all of our colleagues to support it, and I yield back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the NHS? Hearing none, we will move to the amendments.
Does anyone wish to offer an amendment to the ANS?
Speaker 12
General Lady has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while the amendment is distributed. When a voter has been reserved, the clerk will report.
Speaker 3
Nature of a substitute to HR 2152 offered by Miss Waters of California designated as HR 2152-02.
Speaker 12
With that objection, the amendment is considered read. The general aid from California, Miss Waters, is recognized for her amendment.
Speaker 1
As written, this legislation directs agencies to assess and recommend a defensive strategy against national and economic security risks posed by AI. My amendment would simply expand this defensive strategy to also consider consumer protection risk and include the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the agencies evaluating these changes. As we all know, the CFPB is the only federal agency solely dedicated to protecting consumers from scams, financial fraud, and unfair, deceptive, and abusive products and practices in the financial services marketplace. Some of the major challenges this bill tries to tackle are deep fakes, boss cloning, number spoofing, and other kinds of digital fraud and scams. Addressing these challenges is at the center of the CFPB's mission.
Without a dedicated consumer financial agency to contribute to the goals of this bill, this legislation may miss out on necessary solutions for the greatest problems facing America today. So I urge members to support this amendment, and I, you're back.
Speaker 12
Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? Point of order is withdrawn. Is there further debate on the amendment? For what purposes? Mister Nunn?
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think as we've all highlighted here, artificial intelligence has been used for decades in several forms from machine learning and algorithms, both in the government and the private sector side. All technology has risks, but the committee's work on encouraging AI innovation and adoption is always focused on ensuring proper guardrails and safeguards are implemented alongside new technology. What we don't want is a federal government mandate in this innovation space. The AI Plan Act that we're discussing here today recognizes that the guardrails are necessary and directs agencies to assess limitations, capabilities, trade offs of AI's use in combating financial crime.
The amendment before us, therefore, I believe, is redundant. As part of the bill, the report must also evaluate specific threats, including deepfakes, voice cloning, synthetic identities, false flags, general digital fraud, and scams to both public and private entities. Importantly, the bill also requires recommendations for legislative action as well as best practices on both our private sector as well as our public sector side. I believe these entities can work together to mitigate and respond to these emerging threats, not layer another level of bureaucratic requirement on top of them. And for those reasons, while I respect and agree with the ranking member's intent to go after AI threats, let's do it in a clear way that provides the best possible guidance.
And so, therefore, I would urge opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chair. I yield my time.
Speaker 12
Gentlemen, yields. Is there further debate on the amendment? No further debate. The question now occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment?
All in favor. Oh. Aye. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.
Speaker 12
All those opposed, signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The noes have it, and the amendment is.
Speaker 12
Some lady has requested a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand. A recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three.
The committee rules further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute? Mr. Foster.
Speaker 12
Let's see. I will, Gentleman, has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while the amendment is distributed. For what purpose does Mister Nunn seek recognition? Point of order, Mister Style reserves a point of order.
Point of order is reserved.
Speaker 4
Good. No. The clerk will report the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the.
Speaker 3
Nature of a substitute to HR 2152 offered by Mister Foster of Illinois designated objection, the amendment is considered.
Speaker 12
Be agreed. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized for his amendment.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the underlying bill, and I believe this is a friendly amendment. My amendment would add artificial intelligence-driven market response to the risk of risks to be examined by regulators as they develop their strategy to respond to misinformation, fraud, financial crime perpetrated with artificial intelligence. By many accounts, the financial system is about to be transformed by agent AI. Many business transactions will occur at the agent-to-agent level.
Consumer-facing US operations will no longer be facing a customer, but a customer's AI agent. This change will be generally positive. Personal AI agents will be able to evaluate more options, investigate products more deeply, and bargain more effectively than their human principals that they work for could. This should result in a more efficient financial services marketplace. Consumer protections may also be simplified since there will be fewer unsophisticated consumers to take advantage of, and agentic interactions can be logged under well-defined privacy regimes.
However, there are risks, including AI-driven flash crashes and AI-driven bank runs. During the 2023 regional banking crisis, Silicon Valley Bank saw outflows of more than $40,000,000,000 in less than 48 hours, driven mainly by the speed of Internet gossip among a closely knit number of depositors. These rumors, many of which turned out to have merit, spread across financial markets, causing depositors to flee the Silicon Valley Bank, and then the contagion spread to other banks who, on the surface, seemingly presented a similar profile. Artificial intelligence will supercharge this kind of behavior, particularly as more consumers and businesses start using AI agents to help manage their finances. As these technologies develop, regulators must be ready for bank runs that could take place not in hours or days, but in minutes.
Hurting behavior driven by AI models, justified by facts or not, will also be a major concern, as consumers order their agents to flee any uncertainty or simply to pursue higher returns. Regulators have tools to calm market panic that occurs on a human time scale, as they did by guaranteeing the deposits of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Banks. Although they and through the rollout of the bank term funding program. However, it remains to be seen whether AI models and agents respond similarly to similar regulatory signals or whether they will just simply seek a first-mover advantage and rapidly pull out of banks and financial products in times of stress. In the banking system, the only entity with the power to stop or run on a significant-sized bank is the Federal Reserve.
Banks must be ready to provide the collateral and ask access to the discount window at a moment's notice, and regulators will have to have the information they need and the access they need to determine whether a bank should be saved and can be saved. Now financial markets, particularly in light of the push for 24-hour trading, will also be susceptible. AI-driven traders misinformation from bots, which are effectively AI agents already. Potential hurting activity by AI models will increase market movement and risk destabilizing the markets. So as I said, agentic AI tools present many opportunities to improve the financial service system, but these risks are real, and the regulators should be thinking about these risks and necessary safeguards now.
I believe that this is a common-sense and friendly amendment that will be appropriately expanding the scope of the financial regulator's response to the financial risks of artificial intelligence and to better prepare our economy for the turbulent decade to come. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He'll be back.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Foster. He yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
Speaker 17
Thank you very much. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Foster's amendment. Indeed, it is a friendly amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. The current bill, the current list in the bill, addresses deceptive AI-enabled activities, but does not explicitly address risks from coordinated or automated AI reactions to market information, as the gentleman noted. AI systems can operate at a speed and scale that may amplify market volatility or liquidity stress before human intervention is possible.
In particular, adversarial actors could even exploit AI-driven systems or signals in ways that contribute to broader market disruption. The addition is intended to ensure the report considers emerging risk associated with AI-enabled market dynamics and automated decision making. The provision complements existing categories related to false signals and digital fraud, without duplicating them. And so for this reason, I thank the colleague for his work on this, his friendly amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back.
Speaker 12
I thank the gentleman. Is there further debate on the amendment? Ranking member Waters, six. I
Speaker 1
Mister Foster's amendment would fill a critical gap in the bill and one of the greatest unknowns that confront us today, which is the threat of autonomous and agentic AI systems. It was just a few weeks ago that Anthropic, an AI developer, refused to release their latest AI model because it was too dangerous to release to the public. I urge members to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 6
I wanna thank my colleague from Illinois. Mister Foster, not only do you have the best Frank Lloyd Wright tie collection in Congress, you're also a future thinker of where innovation is going in this space. And you've highlighted correctly that this amendment would promote efficiency not only in our financial marketplace, but in how we look forward to where our financial markets are going. It supports privacy, for data protection, and it helps us all act at the speed of where AI is going, while also providing a whole of nation approach to getting after these really hard problems. I thank you for your amendment and for the bipartisan effort that we've really been able to move forward with as part of the overall AI plan act.
I would encourage its adoption. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield my time.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yells back. Is there further debate? If there's no further debate, the question now occurs on the Foster amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.
Speaker 2
All those opposed, shall say no. The insured, the noes have it. I'm sorry. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Is there a further amendment?
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, request a recorded vote. All those in favor of the court vote, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised their hand to record voters ordered pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three, committee rules. Further proceedings of the amendment are postponed. Any further amendments to this nature of an amendment in nature of a substitute?
Seeing no further amendments without objection, the previous question of substitute is ordered, and recorded votes on the pending amendments have been postponed. Once those amendments are taken, the committee will immediately vote on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and then reconsider the question to report the measure. We'll now move to the next bill. Present notes, I call up HR 4101, the unleashing AI innovation in financial services act, which I introduced. Clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.
Speaker 3
HR 4801 to establish AI Innovation Labs that permit certain persons to experiment with artificial intelligence without.
Speaker 2
Objections, first rings dispensed with. Without objection, bills considered read and open to amendment at any point. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which were distributed in advance. I'd like to ask the clerk to report that amendment.
Speaker 3
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 4801 offered by Mister Hill of Arkansas designated as Hill AR 086.
Speaker 2
Without objection, that amendment is considered read and will serve as the base text for the purposes of amendment. I recognize myself for five minutes to describe this amendment. As we've talked about today, artificial intelligence is no longer theoretical. It's reshaping critical sectors across our economy, including financial services. From detecting fraud in real time to helping patch cybersecurity vulnerabilities, to expanding access to capital, AI tools are helping institutions better serve individuals and small businesses.
Through the committee hearings and our recent AI expo, we've seen firsthand how artificial intelligence is poised to help transform our economy. This committee and the house representatives have been engaged on the impact of artificial intelligence and financial services and the housing sector for multiple congresses. Ranking member Waters started a task force. Former chair McHenry formed a working group led by Congressman Lynch and myself. And the house under speaker Johnson and minority leader Jeffries established the bipartisan task force on AI.
This committee has prioritized the examination of AI's applications in financial services and housing, as well as how regulators themselves are utilizing these cutting-edge tools. We've also heard from experts about the regulatory gaps and challenges that must be overcome to ensure that a well governed deployment of AI innovation takes place. While generative and agentic AI present compelling opportunities, they also present new risks. We must be cognizant of these risks to ensure continued investor and consumer protection, and that's why the collaboration between regulators and the private sector is critical. We need a framework that encourages responsible innovation while maintaining strong safeguards and accountability.
For the past two congresses, I've championed regulatory sandboxes as a practical, common-sense solution. Sandboxes allow firms to test AI applications in a controlled environment with clear guardrails and direct regulatory oversight. Under this approach, applicants would undergo a rigorous review process, receive approval from the appropriate regulators, and implement tailored safeguards to address risks related to financial stability, cybersecurity, customer protection, sheltering of private information, and, of course, national security. Firms supervised by multiple regulators would be required to notify and receive approval from each of those supervisors. Importantly, all test projects would remain subject to enforcement against fraud, market manipulation, or unsafe and unsound financial practices.
We've seen this model work at the state level, and we've seen this also work in jurisdictions outside the United States, such as in the United Kingdom. It's a proven common sense tool to help regulators and innovators learn together while adopting to, rapidly evolving technology. I've seen it work in my own district where the FIS Fintech Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, hosted for many years this exact kind of technological review and innovation screening where bank supervisors met with their banking counterparts to look at new forms of technology. And under this kind of sandbox routine, I think this would have really important benefits. The bill is bipartisan.
It's bicameral. It has the support of a shared understanding that regulatory sandboxes are an effective way to build expertise, encourage innovation, and manage risk both in the private sector and among the supervisors. Advancing this bill is critical to keeping the United States at the forefront of AI innovation while maintaining appropriate safeguards. I wanna thank Chairman Style from Wisconsin, Representative Gottheimer, and Representative Torres for working with me on creating this legislation, taking comments about it, and perfecting it. And I urge everybody on both sides of the aisle to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The ranking member.
Speaker 1
HR 4801 would unleash the potentiality, catastrophic risk of newer AI models on the public without oversight or accountability. AI companies, financial regulators all around the world, executives of mega banks, and even the White House are urging Congress to do the exact opposite. As written, this legislation would allow companies to experiment with AI without the need to comply with certain regulations to be subject to enforcement. An entity applying under this sandbox would simply propose an alternative method to comply in their preferred terms for the project, which can be both broad and economically significant. As long as the project, quote, makes substantial use of AI, end quote, entities are allowed to waive or modify regulations on a wide range of activities.
Entities participating in this sandbox would get to set the timeline, size, scope, and growth of their project at a time of unprecedented risk posed by AI. These AI test projects offer no protections for consumers, institutions, small businesses, or financial markets from harm. To make matters worse, especially in light of recent events, this bill fails to grapple with the threats from autonomous or self-directed AI. On April 7, one of those AI companies, Anthropic, announced a new AI model that found, quote, thousands of high severity vulnerabilities, including some in every major operating system and web browser. The fallout for economies, public safety, and national security should be severe, end of quote.
These warnings were followed by urgent meetings with Treasury Secretary, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, and the CEOs of major banks. World leaders, regulators, and central banks have continued to express strong concerns about the scale and speed of Mythos' capabilities. And now even the Trump administration is considering acquiring AI companies to get approval before releasing new models. Americans agree that we need strong oversight of AI. Poland shows that 97% of Americans think that, just that.
Speaker 1
AI safety and security should be subject to rules and regulations. But this bill would take off those bills for AI used in our financial and housing markets. It's no wonder that 90 civil rights, consumer, labor, technology, and other advocacy groups oppose this bill. They, quote, HR 4801 should allow financial firms to profit by capturing most of the benefits of AI, but force their consumers and the economy to bear the burdens from the risks and the harms of AI deployment in the financial sector, quote, unquote. Any benefits from AI for consumers, investors, markets, and the financial system can only materialize if people are protected by a consistent application of federal civil rights, consumer protection, investor protection, market integrity, and oversight laws.
Mister Hill, why are you doing this? This is dangerous. Look at everybody who's taking a look and warning us. I would hope that you would withdraw the bill, rather than continue. I urge a no vote on this reckless bill.
Speaker 2
Does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition? I do. The gentleman is recognized as rightly the last word.
Speaker 17
I thank the chairman for his work on this bipartisan bill. The unleashing AI innovation in financial services act enables responsible experimentation with AI that serves the public interest, improves access to financial services, and promotes consumer and investor protection. For two congresses, this committee convened experts, held hearings, and advanced legislation to ensure America leads the global AI race. For decades, the financial services sector has been at the forefront of applying machine learning and AI breakthroughs to the real world. We now have an opportunity to build on that foundation, a proven way to enable innovation within the regulatory guardrails is through regulatory sandboxes that tailor compliance strategies to the specific risks and opportunities of new AI deployments.
A regular regulatory sandbox is, of course, not a blank check. It requires a rigorous application process in which the relevant regulators will impose appropriate terms, conditions, and limitations on qualifying projects to ensure effective risk management. This is a bicameral, nonpartisan bill with key provisions to protect our markets, protect consumers, and protect our financial system. The bill ensures it requires the following. One, regulators to assess applicants' ability to satisfy core standards.
Two dedicated regulatory personnel for participating projects. Three, full and fair disclosure to consumers regarding their direct interaction with test projects. And four, participants regularly support their progress and report their progress and status to regulators. Time and again, we brought leading information security and AI experts to testify before our members and brief our staff. This bill continues that commitment by requiring Sandbox applicants to explain to regulators' satisfaction how their AI test project would not present a systemic risk to our financial system nor a national security risk to the United States.
Those regulators would set the appropriate terms, conditions, and limitations on those test projects to manage all relevant risks, including cyber threats. And regulators would maintain their enforcement authority with respect to fraud, market manipulation, and unsafe or unsound practices. The stakes are clear. We must maintain American leadership in AI. This committee has already expressed unanimous support for that goal.
To further that very leadership, in March, the White House put forward a national policy framework for AI, calling on Congress to establish regulatory sandboxes. Today, this committee stands ready to do just that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital piece of legislation. Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 18
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I let's tell you I'd have to strike the last word.
Speaker 18
Yeah. I support the idea behind many of the bills being considered today that share the goal of increasing prudential regulator's ability to respond to emerging technology, and I share that opinion. However, although I believe agencies should use techniques, including sandboxes, to be more responsive to innovations, I believe that appropriate safeguards are absolutely crucial when we're considering mechanisms to accelerate AI adoption, to make sure they're not simply used as a mechanism to sidestep long standing consumer and investor protections. First, this bill appears to allow any number of firms to request an alternative compliance regime for nearly any regulation, and that those alternatives would not be subject to public notice and comment. And there, while there may be a place for increased speed and flexibility, especially in light of high-impact and transformative technologies like we've seen reported in recent months, we should fully consider the risk of adopting new tools rapidly across large portions of the marketplace.
If this legislation's meant to allow the testing of new technologies, we should consider limitations on the size of the market share of participants for any specific sandbox project. This sort of approach has been taken, for example, in The UK and didn't seem to damage, in other areas different than AI. Where they do sandboxes, they have limits on market size to make sure it doesn't become just a hole that, you know, semi trucks are driven through. And because if leading players that represent a lion's share of any particular market segment receive regulatory flexibility, it's really no longer a sandbox. It's a new regulatory standard that's come through without notice and comment.
And at that point, the regular with the point that a significant market share is anticipated or achieved by the sandbox, the regulatory change should go through the normal rulemaking process and be subject to notice and comment by industry, consumer advocates, and other interested parties. So I think a limit on market share is a crucial missing component here. Secondly, we should also consider whether we want this flexibility to last indefinitely or to sunset. This legislation does not appear to limit the amount of time any sandbox can operate, potentially allowing for an infinite waiver of regulatory obligations, which I don't believe is the intent. And then finally, this bill depends crucially on appropriate agency oversight.
However, several of the agencies that are affected by this bill, namely the FDIC, SEC, NCUA, are currently operating without a full board of commission as laid out in this statute. Democratic leaders of these agencies has either been forced out by this administration or left them because of policy discussions. And these agencies are leaderships are left lopsided without any democratic representation. And so that's a very dangerous configuration to try to provide safety and direction to a concept that I, you know, I basically support. So this is also not even mentioning the administration's gutting of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has significantly reduced its regulatory and enforcement capacity since President Trump took office.
This is really crucial because it allows regulators limited time to review applications with a default that it gets approved. So if there's no one home to look critically at the application, and the, you know, and the leadership is missing, then it's just not gonna function as intended. These bodies must have adequate leadership even to do their normal jobs and adequate staffing if we are expecting them to carry out a robust analysis of the risks that these regulatory waivers will pose to the American public. So I believe financial regulators need to respond more quickly to emerging technologies, and sandboxes are an important tool there. But we just have to do a lot more to make sure that this doesn't become a loophole in regulation that will, ultimately, damage investors and consumers.
So that's my concerns, and it's
Speaker 2
With the gentleman, yield? Yes. You bring up some good points, and I think the bill does address many of those points. I won't have time to use your time to express it, but I'll certainly be happy to respond to each of the points you made, and how the bill actually addresses that. I yield back to the gentleman.
Speaker 18
Thank you. I do believe more work needs to be done, to get this to the point where I will be supporting it. And, certainly, we will continue to if this doesn't get through this congress, we'll continue to work on our next congress as well because the concept is sound, but the details matter. And I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Seeing no additional comments on the underlying bill, we'll turn to the amendments.
Speaker 7
Yeah. Thank you. And I apologize if I'm intervening here. But no worries.
Speaker 7
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, this bill seems extremely reckless to me. Normally, when we have a so-called sandbox, there is a deliberate and defined effort to protect the innocent, to make sure, and it usually a sandbox is taken on in circumstances like we have today with AI. When there is a new technology that we are allowing to be used or experimented with, most recently, members of this committee were able to go to Singapore where they had a sandbox on fintech and fintech and banking in particular.
But in that case, they actually protected the general public and the markets. Innocent investors, they protected their senior citizens by tightly regulating the parties and the conditions under which they conducted that sandbox. And, they limited its duration, and they had plenty of warnings to people who were gonna engage with companies within that sandbox. They basically said this is a new technology. We're gonna try to we'll exercise discretion here, but we're gonna take extreme measures to make sure that the public, senior citizens especially, but also the financial markets were protected from any damage, any unforeseen damage.
We don't do any of that in this bill. This bill basically says if you're an AI company or a company using AI, you can launch an experiment, an AI project, and you're immediately allowed to waive certain consumer protections, investor protections, market protections, while you're within this so-called sandbox. But it affords none of the protections that normally would come along with an experiment of this type. And if there's any technology that deserves caution and protections. It's AI.
Sometimes we refer to these companies as AI companies. But what we're seeing lately is every company is an AI company. Once they adopt that, that model or that technology. And, we're seeing a number of troubling instances with the use of AI. We're seeing hallucinations in some of these large language models that people are using.
We're also seeing the effect of herding where several of these large language models guide people into the same problems. And we're seeing a lot of the dangers that occurred during the financial crisis of 2008 where people made basic assumptions, that were found to be disastrously wrong, and we ended up spending I didn't vote for it, but we ended up spending $827,000,000,000 bailing out the financial services industry. So, I think if we continue on this road, if we pass this bill, we're putting a lot of people at risk. And I especially worry about our senior citizens who are often the targets of some of these scams that are out there that use AI as a way of exploiting the lack of sophistication or the lack of protections that are available to senior citizens. So I am strongly against this bill, and this technology needs serious and robust regulation.
I believe it offers wonderful potential, but also, as we have seen, it offers the opportunity for severe violations of the right to privacy, and it also offers opportunities for those who would violate the law to use this technology to exploit the innocent as well. With that, mister chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against this, and I yield back the balance.
Speaker 2
Time has expired. Who seeks recognition? Is there any other, are we ready for amendments? Yes. I have.
Speaker 2
The ranking member has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause for it to be distributed.
Speaker 17
Without objection, the amendment is considered read. The gentlewoman is recognized for her amendment.
Speaker 1
My amendment will stop this bill from taking effect until there is a study by the treasury in consultation with all regulators in the bill that confirms that the light touch oversight of projects using AI models like Mythos will not harm our economy. Reporting indicates that on 04/07/2026, treasury secretary Scott Messett and federal reserve chair Jerome Powell, some of the CEOs of big banks, including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, went to an urgent meeting where they warn the banks about mythos, capabilities to detect and exploit potential cybersecurity weaknesses. Anthropic, an AI company that created Mythos, established Project Glass Wing to allow major banks, tech companies, and other firms to use the model to identify and fix vulnerabilities in their systems. Notably, we had to rely on Anthropic to restrain itself, as it appears the treasury, Fed, and White House were completely caught off guard by how powerful this AI tool is. Yet despite these developments, Republicans are pushing forward with a bill that only ignores the important work that needs to be done to ensure AI is properly regulated.
They would also allow companies to pick and choose which laws they want to comply with. Committee Republicans should follow the Trump administration's pivot to emphasize AI safety. So my amendment would ensure that this bill does not let advanced models like Mythos increase risk to consumers, investors, small businesses, cybersecurity, national security, and financial stability. So I urge members to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields back. I remove my point of order. Is there further debate on the amendment? I recognize myself to strike the last word. First, I wanna go back to the previous amendment, mister Foster, or the discussion that took place with mister Foster as it relates to the termination date if I can.
Because he brings up a broadly, a good point on the termination date. I think it's worthy of a quick clarification here. The required alternative compliance strategies in the bill already require proposed limitations on the size, scope, and growth of the AI test project as well as a termination date. The regulators can then tailor these limitations to achieve effective risk management. So to achieve risk-based compliance strategies, these timings and scoped questions should be tailored to the specific benefit profile of the relevant projects.
So the tailoring will enable responsible experimentation within appropriate guardrails, and enable our regulators to learn best practices from a diversity of market participants in ideas. So I just wanna let it go that there is no termination date. It's not a set termination date, but it's a termination date as decided in each given instance.
Speaker 18
That answers the first two points. There is a mechanism to terminate the thing. But leaving it up to the discretion of regulators when the regulators have been driven out by this administration is a sticking point right now. If we had, you know, a good faith effort to keep the relevant commissions and so on fully staffed with the bipartisan thing, then it would be much easier for us to support this legislation at this point in time.
Speaker 17
I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We'll agree to disagree on the point. But broadly speaking, there are termination dates. It's just where that termination date would come from. Let me jump back, to the amendment in question here, from Miss Waters.
I'd note the amendment is unnecessary. The bill we're marking up today already requires alternative compliance strategies to effectively manage risks associated with AI test projects. And the regulators decide what the alternative compliance will look like, and how firms will meet their obligations under the strategy. More importantly, this framework is risk-based. So successful applicants are required to effectively manage the specific risks of their own projects.
Not every risk enumerated, even when or even where, that's nonrelevant to their own work. This ANS already delays implementation by one year to give those regulators ample opportunity to develop the implementing regulations. Delaying implementation until an additional study is done, risk being counterproductive in delaying the regulations and assessments, and regulatory oversight. So, ultimately, we wanna incentivize responsible innovation, within fit for purpose sandboxes, and part of that is making sure regulators implement those rules. So I encourage my colleagues to vote no, and I yield back.
Is there further debate or questions on the amendment? Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. No.
The opinion of the chairs, the noes have it. The noes have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
Speaker 17
A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number have raised their hand. Recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three, the committee rules. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Are there any further amendments to the amendment and the nature of a substitute? We will pause briefly. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
Speaker 17
Indeed, you do. We will pause while the amendment is distributed. K. Mister chairman, General, I request a point of order. A point of order is requested.
Reserved. Or is reserved.
Speaker 7
I had a text of an argument. Do I have any remarks? Okay. There you go. Okay.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would strengthen the baseline standards that an AI system must meet before it can be approved for a test project under HR 4801. Now specifically, it adds two new eligibility criteria for what would become a project. The AI system must be readily explainable to human end users and consumers, and it must not be detrimental to the reliability and fairness of data, decision-making, or recommendations. This goes to a couple of the weaknesses in the current AI models that are in use.
These are minimum conditions necessary to ensure that AI is deployed in finance in financial services on real consumers with real consequences. A financial institution should be able to explain to a customer why an AI system denied their loan application, for example, or flagged their account, or recommended a particular product. If it cannot, that system has no business being tested on the public under a federal regulatory waiver. It's as simple as that. The fairness criterion is equally important.
More than 60 civil rights, consumer, labor, and technology and advocacy groups have opposed this bill in part because its regulatory waiver framework includes no restrictions on waiving anti discrimination laws or consumer protection laws. A system that produces biased outputs, and that happens all the time, and it's in its credit decisions, its insurance pricing, or fraud detection, can cause serious harm to communities that have historically borne the brunt of discriminatory financial practices. So my amendment would ensure that any AI system seeking a federal sandbox approval cannot, as a threshold matter, be shown to undermine the reliability and fairness of the decisions it is making. And for those reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the yards to support this amendment. And I just wanna just take for a minute, try to point out the problem, the underlying problem with this legislation and what I'm trying to correct.
AI systems and, in particular, agentic AI actually creates contract content and changes itself as it takes in data from the environment. So a company could have an agentic AI LLM model, large language model, and that system is not static. It's not like you insert technology and it sits there and you can repair it once in a while. No. This is a learning machine.
This is a learning technology. What it does is it takes in data from the outside world, and it constantly changes. It constantly changes. So it's never completely contained nor is it static. It's always learning.
It's changing. And we don't have a good sense or a predictable sense of how it will change. So it is inherently not containable, nor is it nor are we able to anticipate the ways in which it may grow based on the information it brings in. It is transformative, and it is being transformed as it brings in new data. So it makes it extremely difficult for us to protect people who might otherwise be harmed by this technology.
What the bill does is it waives the consumer protections that exist right now in a number of different contexts for the SEC, for the, you know, the Financial Protection Bureau, many the FDIC. Many of our agencies have regulations that protect consumers. What this bill does is if a company that is meaningfully involved in AI sets up a project, so-called project, then they are exempt. They are exempt from the protections. They are outside the compliance requirements that those regulations would normally provide for seniors and to consumers.
So for those reasons, I ask that people support my amendment and reject the underlying bill if my amendment is not adopted. Thank you.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? The gentleman does not insist on his point of order. Is there further debate on the amendment? I recognize myself for five minutes to strike the last word.
I oppose this amendment, as I believe it's redundant. The conditions for approval include that the applicant must explain to the regulator's satisfaction core requirements, including how the project would not present a systemic financial risk or national security risk to The United States. Further, the legislation requires that all data from test projects is stored and maintained in a secure manner, consistent with all applicable data security standards. The regulators at all times retain their enforcement authorities with respect to unsafe or unsound practices. It's also important to note that federal and state law, including applicable data privacy and cybersecurity standards, would still apply.
Because of this, I believe the amendment is offered as duplicative, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote no. I yield back. Is there further debate on the amendment? If there's no further debate, the question now occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no. No. The opinion of the chairs, the noes have it, and the amendment is not adopted. Recording quote.
Speaker 17
A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three of the committee rules. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Are there further amendments or debate?
Are there further amendments to the amendment and the nature of the substitute?
Speaker 17
The clerk will report the amendment. Oh, we're still circulating. The clerk will pause.
Speaker 17
Mister Chairman? Mister Sutzman is recognized. I reserve a point of order. Point of order has been reserved.
Speaker 4
The clerk will report the amendment now. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of.
Speaker 17
With that objection, the amendment is considered read. The gentleman is recognized on his amendment.
Speaker 7
I thank the gentleman. Mister chairman, in the interest of consumer protection and regulatory accountability, this amendment would require that any regulated entity seeking approval for an AI so-called test project under the legislation. They would be required to explain how that project will reduce the cost to consumers and require regulated entities to file regular reports with the appropriate financial regulatory agency containing both a description of the AI test project's usage and outcomes and the data on actual consumer costs. If the project does increase costs, the agency must terminate any AI test project that increases consumer costs. There is currently no established clearinghouse or single responsible entity to observe and maintain reports and data on these projects.
This amendment would require the financial regulatory agencies to jointly establish a clearinghouse to collect and share all such reports across agencies, ensuring coordinated cross-agency oversight of AI activity and financial services. Proponents of this bill have argued that AI-powered innovation and financial services will benefit consumers by lowering costs, improving efficiency, and expanding access to products and services. If that is truly the goal, then companies applying for these AI test project approvals should have no objection to demonstrating that their projects actually deliver on that promise. Americans remain skeptical of AI, with recent surveys showing that over half of American adults are concerned about the increased use of AI in their daily lives. Fine financial services companies have consistently deployed new technologies to reduce their own operational costs without passing those savings on to consumers, and, in fact, are likely harming them.
Across the United States, the energy demands of AI infrastructure are already driving up electricity prices in communities across the country. A Bloomberg report found that areas with the highest concentration of data centers saw electricity prices jump 267% over the past five years. Thank you, AI. Moreover, companies continue to announce mass layoffs, attributing workforce reductions to AI gains, including Coinbase cutting 14% of its workforce and PayPal planning to cut 20% of its staff. The cost savings from automation are accruing to shareholders and not to customers or employees.
This amendment would introduce a basic accountability and transparency mechanism, requiring companies to report on what their AI test projects actually do and what they are costing consumers. Sharing that data across regulators and pulling the plug on any project that raises costs rather than lowers them. If an AI test project cannot demonstrate that it's operating as described and benefiting, not harming, consumers on cost, it should not be allowed to proceed. That is a reasonable condition for a regulatory waiver that the underlying bill would grant to these companies at the public's expense. Regulators should not have to act on a company's word alone.
They should have the data, and they should share it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? Point of order is withdrawn. Is there further debate on the amendment? I recognize myself for five minutes to strike the last word.
I post this amendment, as I did the previous one, as it's also redundant. The ANS before us includes a rule making on disclosure requirements for regulated entities to inform consumers with all reasonably appropriate information regarding their direct interaction with an AI test project. They must describe the project in the sandbox itself, including the applicable terms, limitations, and conditions imposed on the test project. This provision is based on our continuous process to refine this product, including input from our colleagues across the aisle. Again, our focus is on addressing a variety of risks.
This amendment goes further and essentially puts the regulator in charge of deciding what goes to market on the basis of costs. It's not a recipe for good, safe innovation and competition. And because I believe the underlying amendment is offered is duplicative. I encourage my colleagues to vote no. I yield back.
Is there further debate on the amendment? If there's no further debate, the question now occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
No. In the opinion of the chairs, the noes have it. The noes have it, and the amendment is not adopted. Are there any further amendments in the nature of a substitute?
Speaker 17
There's a recorded vote, is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised your hand, a recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three, and the committee rules further proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Speaker 17
You're welcome. Appreciate that. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a?
Speaker 7
substitute? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 17
The gentleman has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while the amendments are distributed. Mister chairman, gentlemen, recognized. I reserve a point of order. A point of order is reserved.
Thank you. The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 17
Objection. The amendment is considered read. The gentleman is recognized on his amendment.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, this amendment addresses one of the most serious gaps, I believe, that exist in 4801 as currently written. It restores full government enforcement and penalty authority, including under any regulation that was waived or modified as part of an AI test project, whenever a person is actually harmed, financially or otherwise, as a result of that project. The bill as introduced provides a regulatory enforcement shield to participating companies. If a regulation is waived, as part of an approved AI test project, the government cannot bring an enforcement action on behalf of a victim against any action or imposed penalties for violating that regulation.
That shield is overly broad. It applies even if the conduct in question causes real harm to a person. This amendment corrects that if someone is hurt by AI, is hurt by one of these AI test projects, the enforcement shield should come down. Regulators get their full toolkit back, including authority under any regulation that was otherwise waived. The regulatory sandbox this bill creates is not a consequence-free environment.
It is open to the public, and folks will have argued that AI powered innovation in financial services will benefit consumers by lowering costs or by improving efficiency and expanding access to products and services. That may be so, but innovation does, on occasion, cause harm. It does not immunize institutions from accountability when things go wrong. A regulatory waiver is not a license to harm. The underlying bill gives participant companies significant latitude, regulatory waivers, protections from enforcement actions, and they allow them, in some cases, to escape liability for harm in giving them their ability to deploy.
These AI systems may harm consumers before these systems face full legal scrutiny. That latitude is already substantial. This amendment simply ensures it has a floor, and that American consumers maintain their right to seek recourse when they are unduly harmed by these AI test projects. A regulatory sandbox should be a space to test and learn, not a space to harm without consequences. And this amendment draws the line.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 17
Gentleman yields back, so the gentleman insists on his point of order. Gentleman withdraws his point of order. Is there further debate on the amendment? I recognize myself for five minutes to strike the last word. I oppose this amendment, as this amendment is unnecessary.
The bill creates a framework for responsibly testing AI innovation in financial services. Let me just take a moment to restate a few key provisions in the bill. It requires sandbox applicants to demonstrate to regulators' satisfaction that a proposed test does not pose systemic risk to the financial system or national security risks to the United States. Regulators retain full authority to establish terms, conditions, and limitations on test projects, including requirements to manage cybersecurity and other operational risks. Regulators maintain their existing enforcement authority with respect to fraud, market manipulation, and unsafe or unsound practices.
This is not a framework that gives companies free rein to experiment without oversight. Quite the contrary. It's a structured regulatory process in which agencies set boundaries, monitor activities, and retain full enforcement authority. Our financial firms are some of the most highly regulated and supervised entities in the world. They're subject to requirements that affect every aspect of their business and operations.
The bill is clear. Fraud and manipulation and unsafe and unsound practices are absolutely never acceptable. The bill provides responsible innovation with firms working under the strict guardrails approved by regulators. Because the amendment as offered is unnecessary, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back.
Is there further debate on the amendment? If there's no further debate, the question now occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendments, they'll signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, they'll signify it by saying no.
No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The noes have it, the amendment is not adopted.
Speaker 17
A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three, the committee rules for the proceedings and the amendment are postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Seeing no further amendments, without objection, the previous question on the substitute is ordered, and recorded votes on the pending amendments have been postponed. Once those votes are taken, the committee will immediately vote on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and then we'll consider the question to report the measure. We will now move on to the next bill. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 8278, the fostering the use of technology to uphold regulatory effectiveness and supervision futures act, which was introduced by representative Stutzman. The clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.
Speaker 17
Require the first reading is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Representative Stutzman has an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which have been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 17
The amendment is considered red and will serve as a base tax for purposes of amendment. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Stutzman, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the chairman of the committee giving this bill a hearing, the futures act, which is fostering the use of technology to uphold regulatory effectiveness in supervision. I have two letters I would like to submit for the record, one from the American Bankers Association and one from.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Whether you're on Main Street or Wall Street, American financial institutions are on the leading edge of technological development and innovation. Every day, I hear more about how institutions are harnessing artificial intelligence and real-time data analytics to manage risk, detect fraud, and serve customers faster than ever before. And yet their regulators often lag behind, still relying on outdated IT infrastructure from a pre-digital era. This gap poses significant risks, not just for our financial markets, but for the entire economy that depends on effective supervision.
As the private sector continues to innovate at a record pace, our regulators must have the tools to keep up. That's where my bipartisan Futures Act comes in. My bill requires federal prudential regulators to assess the technology systems they use for supervision, evaluate their procurement practices, and report to Congress on current deficiencies and areas for improvement. Simply put, we cannot help our regulators modernize their technology for the digital age if we don't know the challenges that they face. Whether it's talent gaps, procurement barriers, or technological blind spots, Congress needs to understand the red tape that is keeping supervision in the past while the financial system races into the future.
In fact, we already require this kind of information from the institutions our regulators supervise. Depository institutions must undergo quarterly technology reviews, internal and external penetration testing, and rigorous due diligence on every vendor that they use. If we require that of them, we ought to hold their regulators to that same standard. The futures act is a straightforward, common-sense, and bipartisan step to address the critical technology challenges facing our regulators. A very similar version of this bill advanced out of this committee unanimously in the 118th Congress, thanks to the hard work of my friend and fellow Hoosier, Missus Houchin.
So I'm proud to carry this bill forward in an even stronger form today, and I hope that this bill will again receive the broad support of my colleagues here on this committee. I wanna thank my distinguished colleague, doctor Bill Foster, not only for his thoughtfulness, but also once again for co-leading this legislation and for his commitment to ensuring that supervision keeps pace with innovation. I also wanna thank Chairman Hill for his continued support of this measure, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common sense bill, and I'll yield back.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the ANS? The gentleman from Illinois, Mister Foster, is recognized to strike the last word.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd first like to thank representative Sussman for his partnership on this bill, and to you for including it in today's markup. The futures act will require federal banking regulators and the consumer financial protection bureau to regularly review their technology systems and procurement practices to ensure that they are well equipped to address emerging threats to the financial system. This review will determine whether agencies' current technology systems are up to the task of monitoring vulnerabilities in the modern financial system. Banking is moving to real time twenty four seven operations as consumer demand for faster payments and the increased use of digital banking tools, you know, takes over big parts of the market.
This bill will require agencies to determine whether they have access to the right information when they need it, and whether they have systems in place to identify risk and to take informed actions on the necessary time scale when the data calls for it. Regulars will submit a report to Congress identifying any obsolete systems or procurement processes that are inhibiting their ability to supervise modern financial institutions. As we saw in the collapse of regional banks back in 2023, 24-hour banking tools and social media fueled panic, and intensified bank runs and increased the risk of contagion. And this will only be amplified when AI apps are dominating the financial landscape. Financial institutions and regulators must be ready to respond to new opportunities and challenges stemming from these emerging technologies.
Artificial intelligence and AI agents have the potential to supercharge cybersecurity risk, contagion, and fraud, which can destabilize our financial system more quickly than in past years. At the same time, these technologies represent tools to regulators and financial institutions that they can use to improve bank supervision, identify suspicious activity, and improve the quality of customer service. The maintenance of a well regulated financial system requires investment in new tools, hiring of a workforce with the necessary technical skills, and streamlining procurement rules that allow regulators to keep up with the rapid developments in private industry. One timely example of this is through the increased use of open-source, collaboratively maintained software packages. Something that I, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan, cannot seem to open his mouth without mentioning these days, and a trend that should allow us to really make the entire banking and financial system industry much more cybersecure, to put all of our eggs in a small number of baskets and guard those baskets carefully.
So this legislation will task regulators with reviewing the current state of their internal systems to ensure they're ready to meet the challenges of the day, shedding light on new tools that can improve their ability to oversee a changing financial system. So I support this common-sense bill, encourage my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the ANS? Gentlemen, the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, is recognized to strike the last word.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. I wanna congratulate both the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Illinois on the improvements on this bill. I do recall in the last 118th congress, we even though we approved it, in committee, there were some concerns that were raised. And I think, the gentleman from Indiana and mister Foster from Illinois have, adeptly, I think, addressed many of those concerns.
So, as they have stated, it'll compel agencies to submit a joint report on internal supervisory technology, including procurement practices, workforce, market developments, and information sharing, which is very important. So I congratulate my colleagues on the improvements made to this bill, and I call upon my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields back as there is further debate on the ANS. I recognize myself, to strike the last word for 5 minutes. Today, we're considering several bills that address how we adjust to changing technologies and their opportunities and risks. We're addressing the rise of AI-powered financial crime, fraud, and scams, and ensuring the federal agencies have the tools they need to protect our national and economic security from these threats. We're considering how federal financial regulatory agencies can work with industry stakeholders to responsibly test new AI applications through a controlled sandbox environment.
And now with the futures act, we're taking a critical step to modernize financial supervision. The bill directs the federal financial regulatory agencies to assess whether they have the technology and infrastructure needed to supervise our markets and institutions in real time, and where they fall short of that goal. With today's pace of innovation, real-time supervision is no longer simply aspirational. It is achievable, and it is necessary to strengthen market integrity and protect participants. Where barriers exist, the Futures Act requires agencies to identify them so we can address them.
The bill also ensures agencies are equipped with the right talent and expertise to oversee increasingly complex technology-driven markets. Taken together, these efforts reflect a clear approach, embrace innovation, manage risk, and modernize oversight. I urge my colleagues to support this critical common-sense legislation, and I yield back. Is there further debate on the ANS? Hearing none, we'll move to amendments.
Does anyone wish to offer an amendment to the ANS? There being no further discussion or amendments on the bill. The question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, nay. In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on ordering the bill, as amended, to be reported to the house with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no. The opinion chair, the ayes have it. Does the gentleman request a recorded vote? Mister chairman, I requested a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested.
All those in favor of a recorded vote shall raise their hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection c5 of rule 3 of the committee rules. The vote on the question is postponed. We'll now move on to the next bill. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 8671, the Bank Fraud Technology Advancement Act of 2026, which was introduced by representative Flood.
The clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.
Speaker 17
Objection, the first reading is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any time. Representative Flood has an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which have been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 17
is considered red and will serve as the base tax for purposes of amendment. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Flood, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also wanna thank my co-lead in this legislation, Congresswoman Patterson. We have collaborated for years on issues relating to the intersection of advanced technology and fraud, both with this piece of legislation and the Preventing Deepfake Scams Act. So, appreciate her. The Bank Fraud Technology Advancement Act of 2026 directs the federal banking agencies along with FinCEN, Treasury, the FTC, the CFPB, and the FCC to conduct a study on the use of advanced fraud technology by insured depository institutions and credit unions.
Following completion of that study, the regulators would issue a report to Congress with legislative recommendations that promote fraud detection and prevention. Then a year after the report is sent to Congress, the federal banking regulators would be able to jointly establish a pilot program to facilitate community financial institutions and credit unions with access to advanced fraud detection tools. We know that scammers and fraudsters are utilizing technology like AI to target consumers and steal their money. Just today, I met with the special agent in charge of the FBI in Nebraska and Iowa, and we spent the entire meeting talking about financial crimes and financial fraud. Deep fakes can mimic a family member's face or voice, convincing a loved one to transfer money to a fraudster.
Generative AI can be used to supercharge existing scam methods like email phishing, even to dupe more people. In an environment where the scammers and fraudsters are using technology to target customers and consumers, we need to make sure community financial institutions, including community banks, can keep up. While larger institutions are already widely using some of this technology, it's important that institutions of every size have the same tools to track fraud. This legislation lays out a thoughtful approach to providing access to smaller financial institutions with the technology they need to combat fraud. We are going to study the problem.
We're gonna get a report sent to Congress, and then we're going to take action with a pilot specifically tailored to the problem we're trying to solve. I do believe that this act will put our community financial institutions in a better position to fight fraud with the best technology possible. I urge everybody to support it, and I will leave you with this. Imagine you are an 84-year-old widow. Your husband has predeceased you.
You have a grandson who you know and love. You get a call from someone that sounds exactly like your grandson, and he says that he's been kidnapped, or he's in jail, or he's in imminent danger. You love him with all of your being. You run to the bank. You wire $5,000 to wherever you're told to.
And you do it because you love him, and that money is gone forever. This is going to be what happens with generative AI. This is bigger than any of us, and it's going to take people's hard-earned money, and it's gonna get it wasted. And so with that, I wanna thank Congresswoman Patterson for her co-lead on this. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the ANS? The gentleman from Colorado is recognized to strike the last word. Thank.
Speaker 21
you. I'm going to strike the last word. I guess I can just keep going. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank my friend from Nebraska for partnering with me on this important issue and so many others.
I'm so grateful for you. I wanna highlight some sobering statistics about how AI has supercharged the fraud threats facing banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, and why the Bank Fraud Technology Advancement Act is an important step forward. Last year, US companies saw an estimated 114,000,000,000 in fraud losses in 2025, while AI-powered scams surged by over 1200%, including more than 2100% increase in deep fakes over the last few years. Additionally, social media scams in the US resulted in over 2,100,000,000 in losses in 2025, largely driven by AI-powered tactics and an 800% increase since 2020. In April 2025, the Pew Research Center found that 73 percent of US adults have experienced some kind of online scam or attack, and most get scam calls, texts, and emails at least weekly.
And, actually, 73 percent seems low. If there's anyone out there who doesn't get these, we'd all like to know your secrets. The only way to guard against the efficiency and relentless nature of AI-fueled cyberattacks is to help financial institutions harness AI, distributed ledger tools, and other emerging technologies for defense. As my colleagues have described, this bill would task the banking regulators and the FTC with reviewing how these technologies are currently being used by banks and credit unions to detect and prevent financial fraud, with a focus on challenges faced by community banks and credit unions. Additionally, regulators would have the discretion to jointly establish a voluntary pilot program to facilitate community bank and credit union access to advanced fraud detection tools.
By increasing coordination and pooling resources among small financial institutions, we can help ensure that tools driving innovation and the strongest defensive measures are tools that can be utilized by large and small financial institutions alike, which is critical for all of us. Finally, I wanna thank the staff of both ranking member Waters and chairman Hill for working together to improve this bill through the substitute amendment. The changes that were made ensure this legislation stays focused on helping small banks and credit unions, and also requires that the regulators issue a report following the conclusion of the pilot program, which will be helpful to policymakers in understanding what works best in this program for further action. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 17
The gentlewoman yields back. Is there a further debate on the ANS? The ranking member is recognized, to strike the last word.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by thanking the sponsor of this bill, mister Flood and miss Patterson, for their bipartisan work to help our community banks and credit unions prevent fraud. I wanna further commend Miss Patterson who's been a vocal advocate in the fight against fraud and so-called deep fake scams, including through her other bill, the Prevent Deep Fake Scam Act. I wanna thank Chairman Hill and his staff who've worked with our side on a number of improvements that have been made to the bill. This bill would require our federal regulators to study how advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning, predictive analytics, and more are being used by banks and credit unions to detect and prevent financial fraud.
I also support the limited pilot program in this bill to help small community banks and credit unions access the fraud detection tools, and better protect their institutions and their customers. As Miss Patterson pointed out, fraud is on the rise all over this country, particularly against our seniors. And far too many have lost a lot of money, in many cases their life savings, to bad actors who defraud them. So it's not surprising, as the president continues to pardon some of these worst fraudsters, even ones who admitted to ripping off Americans. Committee Democrats have been hard at work on this.
Ranking member Waters introduced the Protecting Consumers from Payment Scams Act, which would modernize our laws to protect consumers who get harmed through these schemes. We need a comprehensive approach to stop this epidemic of fraud, which is being enhanced by AI. I hope my Republican colleagues will join together in supporting this legislation. I'm glad that the bill's sponsor, Mister Flood, was at least willing to acknowledge that the bank regulators should consult the CFPB in working on this issue. But, again, CFPB needs to play a central role in this fight to combat fraud.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back my time.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the ANS? Gentlemen, mister Foster from Illinois recognized and strike the last word.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I support this bill, and I thank Reps Flood and Patterson for highlighting the benefits that artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other analytic tools can bring to the fight against fraud. Software costs are also one of the largest expenses that community banks face, and it's appropriate to consider the specific obstacles and challenges that they face in the adoption of this new anti-fraud technology. As our committee continues to work to help small institutions address fraud risks, I hope that we will look beyond just artificial intelligence and towards other tools that can fight fraud, including digital identity technology. We should also consider ways to make the ecosystem as a whole more responsive to new forms of fraud and cybersecurity risks.
Digital identity tools were examined by the Treasury Department as part of its implementation of the Genius Act, and determined that they hold great promise specifically in curbing identity fraud. In 2024, the FinCEN published a report identifying more than 1,600,000 suspicious activity reports, SARs, implicating more than $212,000,000,000 in transactions linked to concerns with identity verification. Now, because if you look at almost any kind of fraud, at some point, it is identity fraud. And if we can stop the identity fraud, we can stop large classes of fraud in its tracks. Digital identity systems significantly increase the confidence that the person you're dealing with is who they claim to be, especially in online transactions, that are increasingly becoming an attack vector for scammers.
But we do not have to wait to take action. To address this problem, Congressman Sessions and I introduced the Stopping Identity Fraud and Identity Theft Act, which would provide money to states that wish to develop their own mobile driver's license systems, which currently underpin identity technology in the United States and where US technology is being adopted by countries all around the world. When designed properly and used on secure hardware, digital identity tools can preserve privacy by limiting the information shared to only what is necessary to complete a transaction or to fulfill compliance obligations. So Congress should also work to bring down the cost of software for small financial institutions broadly. And one way to do this is to incentivize the development of open-source tools that can be collectively maintained and offered to a large number of financial institutions.
These would have, for example, as a standard feature, the ability to onboard customers using digital drivers licenses to satisfy KYC requirements. And if this was a standard feature available at zero cost to small community banks, then it would really ease their anti-fraud responsibilities as well. Open source software can reduce the cost and complexity of adoption. Collaborative efforts like those from banks, big and small, can really spur this development. So I hope to build on this legislation by encouraging larger players in the financial system to share aspects of their systems with these collaborations, and to develop standardized software stacks to aid in compliance and anti-fraud prevention. Well, with an appropriate degree of federal support, open source software systems can reduce cost and level the playing field for smaller firms that do not have the resources to develop these systems in-house.
I support Congressman Fudd's bill and hope that we can continue to work on these issues. Thank you, mister chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 17
The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the ANS? I'll recognize myself for five minutes to strike the last word. I support HR 8671 and thank our housing insurance subcommittee chairman, Mister Flood, for his leadership on this legislation, as well as Miss Patterson for her work. Financial fraud and scams in the United States are not just growing.
They're rapidly evolving. Criminal networks today are faster, more coordinated, and more technologically sophisticated than ever before. They're leveraging emerging technologies and cross-border schemes to target hardworking American consumers and businesses at an unprecedented scale. While most of these scams begin outside the walls of our banks and credit unions through social media, text messages, or phone calls, our financial institutions find themselves on the front lines of this fight. They've stepped up by investing in advanced technology tools like machine learning, real-time monitoring, and behavior analytics.
In a testimony before this committee, one of the community bankers described how some institutions are utilizing AI-powered check verification tools to help detect fraudulent checks before losses occur. While these tools are not perfect, they're helping banks stay ahead of increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. But for many community banks and credit unions, the cost of deploying these technologies remains a significant challenge. Limited resources can make it difficult to determine which tools are most effective and worth the investment. And yet, in today's financial system, these technologies are no longer optional.
They're essential. We now live in a world where payments move instantly, and fraudsters are using the very latest technologies to stay one step ahead. But policymakers and regulators don't have a full picture of what's working, what challenges remain, and where gaps exist across our financial system. HR 8671 helps close the gap by directing our federal banking regulators along with the NCUA to conduct a comprehensive interagency study on how advanced technologies are being used to detect and prevent fraud. It also requires regulators to examine the specific challenges facing community banks and credit unions in accessing these tools.
High costs, limited access to quality data, and regulatory uncertainty can all stand in the way of widespread adoption. By identifying these barriers and providing recommendations to address them, we can help ensure that community institutions are not left behind in the fight against fraud. Importantly, the Bank Fraud Technology Advancement Act of 2026 also creates a pathway for action by an office by authorizing a pilot program to help community banks and credit unions test and adopt these technologies while fostering better information sharing across the financial system. It's a thoughtful, forward-looking approach, one that equips Congress and our regulators with the insight needed to make smarter decisions to promote innovation that fights fraud and better protects Americans who we serve. Fraudsters and scammers are not standing still, and neither can we.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the ANS? Hearing none, we'll move to the amendments. Does anyone wish to offer an amendment to the ANS? There being no further discussion, and no amendments to the bill.
The question now occurs in the adoption of the amendment and the nature of the substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed shall signify by saying nay. The opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Speaker 17
It is withdrawn. The question now occurs on ordering the bill as an amendment to be reported to the house with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no, nay.
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
Speaker 17
There we go. For what purposes do you seek recognition? It's a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand.
A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to subsection c5 of rule three of the committee rules, the vote on the question is postponed. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess, subject to the call of the chair. We will immediately reconvene following floor votes. The committee stands in recess.
Speaker 2
Wow. The committee will reconvene. Before we turn to the business at hand, which is voting on the measures that we marked up today in committee. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mister Heredopolis, for a point of personal privilege.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just get, please, I would get your attention if you don't mind. Mister chairman and members, before we start today's hearing, I'd like to take a moment to recognize the passing of a former member of Congress, a 16 year member of this very committee, my good friend Bill Posey. We mourn his loss, for a person who dedicated their life, and he served with integrity, humility, and an unwavering conviction in the idea and belief of America. Bill served Florida with distinction for decades at the local, state, and, of course, the federal levels, including eight terms in the United States Congress.
For those of us who knew Bill, his impact reaches well beyond the halls of Congress. He was a tireless champion of Florida's Space Coast for America's space program and for the hardworking families in his community. Beyond the accomplishments and titles, Bill was simply a good guy, grounded, deeply loyal, and devoted to his family. In fact, he was married to his high school sweetheart for over 60 years. For those who know him, they know that he really cared about the community, and Washington never changed him.
My wife, Steph, and I are heartbroken by his loss, and our prayers remain with his wife, Katie, and their two wonderful children, Kathy and Pamela. So I'd ask if it wouldn't be too much for the committee to give a moment of silence for our good friend Bill Posey for his incredible public service and his devotion to this amazing country that we call America.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I'd like to recognize myself for a prompt point of personal privilege as well. I wanna thank two staffers who've done an outstanding job for the House Financial Services Committee who are planning on moving to new opportunities, and we wanna thank them for their service. First, the director of our member services and coalitions team, Dylan Frost. Give him a wave, Dylan.
I've had the pleasure of knowing my fellow Arkansan, Dylan Frost, for over a decade. He started out in my personal office as a senior legislative assistant, and eventually served as deputy chief of staff and my legislative director. Once I was elected chairman of the committee, I asked Dylan to come over and help lead our member services and coalitions team. During his time with the committee, Dylan's been an essential part of ensuring that members and staff have the support, coordination, and resources they need to carry out the important work of the committee. While much of the role of member services work takes place behind the scenes, anyone who's worked closely with this committee understands how critical the work is to keep the committee functioning smoothly each and every day.
While we're certainly sorry to see him leave, we're grateful for the service he provided during his time here on the committee, and most importantly, for the citizens of the 2nd District of Arkansas. Secondly, I'd like to recognize our chief economist and my fellow monetary policy wonk, Joey. Joey is watching on television. O'Neill. Joey's been a tremendous asset to our task force.
Speaker 2
Yeah. He's too shy to be here during a voting session. He's helped lead and drive the work on our task force on monetary policy, treasury market resilience, and economic prosperity that Mr. Lucas and Mr. Vargas have worked on so diligently. He's brought his expertise on these issues and strong commitment to public service in everything that he's done. I wanna thank him for his service over the last year and for the steady counsel that he's provided, and first continue to be dedicated to a stronger US economy and a stable financial system.
We wish him continued success. Help me congratulate and thank Joey and Dylan, please. Pursuant to the chair's previous order, we'll now take the postponed votes on the pending amendments to H.R. 5396. The first question is on the amendment offered by the ranking member, Missus Waters. This is HR 53 96 01.
The clerk will open the vote. Aim lowered towards the clerks.
Speaker 13
It's just like laser. Man. I think it has to bounce off your head. Hit this. Yep.
Speaker 2
Is Emmer down there? No. Okay. I'm Smyx, Mr. Mix. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote?
Clerk, we'll close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment has not been agreed to. The question now is on the amendment offered by Representative Presley. This is press 076. Clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote?
Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment has not been agreed to. Questions now on the third amendment offered by Representative Presley. This is press 75. Clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote?
Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
Majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. Questions now on the Fourth Amendment offered by Representative Presley. This is HR 53 96 03. Clerk will open the vote. Aim it a little lower.
See if it right towards, yeah, towards this clerk.
Speaker 2
here? Yeah. The middle. Mhmm. Miss, there you go.
You got it. Alright. Is there any member who has not voted? Would like to change their vote. Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the appendage here, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The amendment and the nature of a substitute is adopted. Question now occurs on ordering the bill, as amended, reported to the house with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. No. In the opinion, chair of the ayes have it. For what purposes does representative Stutzman seek recognition?
A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor, record the vote. Raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered. We'll now take the vote on ordering the bill as amended, favorably reported.
The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted in favor of HR 5396 as amended, the bill is ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We'll now take the postponed votes on the pending amendment to H.R. 2978. The question is now on the second amendment offered by ranking member Waters. This is guard amend to.
The clerk will open the vote. There you go. Got it? Is there any member who has not voted? Would like to change their vote.
Clerk will close the voted report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. Question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment and the nature of the substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The amendment and the nature of a substitute is adopted. Question now occurs on ordering the bill, as amended, reported to the house with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. In the appendix here, the ayes have it. Mister Nunn? Mister Nunn requests a recorded vote.
All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised your hand, a recorded vote is ordered. We'll now take that vote on ordering the bill as amended, favorably reported. The clerk will open the vote. Damn the water.
Oh, good. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
Majority having voted in favor of HR 2978 as amended. The bill is ordered favorably reported to the house without objection to motion to reconsider late on the table. We'll now take the postponed vote on the pending amendments to HR 2155. The questions on the third amendment are offered by ranking member Waters. Twenty two one fifty two.
Two, I'm sorry. Twenty-one fifty-two. Questions on the third amendment offered by ranking member Waters. This is HR 2152 02. Clerk will open the vote.
Because I say twenty one fifty five too many times.
Speaker 2
Full story. Right? Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote? Stand by for Skipper. Okay.
Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
Majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. Question now is on the amendment offered by Representative Foster. This is Foster 082. Clerk will open the vote. Am I a yes or yes?
Got it. Let me know if it's yes. I'll see you on this one. Yeah. Okay.
Is there any member who hasn't voted? A mister Green? Okay. He's got it. Good.
Is there any member who hasn't voted or who would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted in favor of the amendment, the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it, the amendment and the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on ordering the bill as amended, reported to the house with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. For what purpose does representative Nunn seek recognition? Mister Nunn requests a recorded vote. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hands.
A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered. We'll now take that vote on ordering the bill as amended, favorably reported. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted in favor of HR 2152 as amended, the bill was ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We will now take the postponed votes on the pending amendments to HR 4801. The question is on the fourth amendment offered by ranking member Waters. This is HR 48 0101.
The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. Mister Hymes? Are we still open, clerk?
Still open. Still open. Vote away, Jim Hymes. Vote early, often, and once. Hey.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment has not been agreed to. Question now is on the amendment offered by Representative Lynch. This is Lynch 058. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote?
Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
A majority of you voted against the amendment, the amendment has not been agreed to. Question now is on the second amendment offered by Representative Lynch. This is Lynch 060. Clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote?
Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment has not been agreed to. Question now occurs on the third amendment offered by Representative Lynch. This is Lynch 061. Clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote?
Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. Question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. Question now occurs on ordering the bill, as amended, reported to the house with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no. No. In the opinion chair, the ayes have it.
Speaker 2
Mister Style requests a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. All in favor, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised their hands, a recorded vote is ordered. We'll now take that vote on ordering the bill as amended, favorably reported.
Clerk will open the vote. A majority having voted in favor of H.R. 4801 as amended. The bill is ordered favorably reported to the House. Oh, sorry. Close the voting report.
Sorry. Don't distract.
Speaker 2
Thank you. A majority of them voted in favor of HR 4801 as amended. The bill is ordered favorably reported to the house without objection. Motion reconsiders late on the table. We'll now take the vote pending on ordering HR 8278 as amended.
Favorably reported. Members will vote electronically. Clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or who would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 2
And the nays are zero. A majority having voted in favor of HR 8278 as amended. The bills ordered favorably reported to the house without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We'll now take the vote pending on ordering HR 8671 as amended, favorably reported. Members will vote electronically.
The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the voting report. Y'all be quiet, going out please. Thank you.
Speaker 2
A majority having voted in favor of HR 8671 as amended, the bills ordered favorably reported to the house. Without objection, the motion reconsiders the laid on the table. Without objection, staff are authorized to make necessary and conforming changes to the bills considered today. And pursuant to house rule 11, clause 2 l, I give notice that all members will have the requisite number of days for supplemental minority additional or dissenting views. There being no further business pending.
This committee meeting is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.