Fiscal Year 2027 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Bill
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 Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Building on the success of Artemis two, which launched flawlessly on April 1, splashed down on April 10, the fiscal twenty seven bill maintains strong funding for NASA to ensure America remains the leader in space exploration. It's a pivotal time for human space exploration and national security. This bill sets NASA on a path to return American astronauts to the moon before China, and ensures America maintains the competitive edge and advantage. The legislation also protects and restores constitutional rights, including by reining in and refocusing the ATF, and fully supporting the Department of Justice's new second amendment section. Overall, the provisions and funding levels in the bill protect everyday Americans and ensure our nation can thrive.
Importantly, as we continue to celebrate National Police Week on Capitol Hill, there's no better bill to advance through the full committee, and that's what we're going to do today. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. I'd now like to recognize the ranking member, Miss Ming of New York, for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to thank the appropriations committee staff for all their hard work on this bill. Bob Bonner, Jamie Wise, Nora Faye, Faye Cobb, and Tom and Rebecca from my individual office. I also want to thank my Democratic colleagues on our subcommittee, congressmembers Ivy, Morelli, Dean Mirvan, and ranking member Deloro. Mr.
Chairman, I know that you and I share many of the same priorities. However, I must strongly oppose this appropriations bill. It turns its back on struggling communities and hardworking Americans, weakens our ability to fight crime, and jeopardizes our nation's competitive edge. I want to be clear, the billions of dollars in cuts in this bill are not just numbers on a page. They are choices, and they are wrong choices.
As written, this bill abandons our fundamental responsibility to keep Americans safe and our economy strong. At a time when Americans are worried about gun violence and hate crimes, this bill delivers a devastating blow to law enforcement agencies and programs that protect them. We cannot claim to protect public safety, prioritize public safety, while simultaneously gutting the agency responsible for policing illegal firearms. Yet the bill before us today decimates funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which would lose more than 1,000 personnel who work with our state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns off our streets, catch dangerous criminals, and prevent gun crimes. The bill also contains numerous policy riders that would make it more difficult to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals, and more difficult for local law enforcement to quickly trace many of the guns that are found at crime scenes.
The legislation before us today leaves our communities more vulnerable to violence by zeroing out community violence intervention and prevention grants, as well as hate crime prevention and prosecution grants. And the Justice Department's Community Relations Service, which for more than 60 years has worked honorably to help mediate and end community conflicts across our country, is eliminated. I believe that all of this is the wrong approach for the CJS appropriations bill. We should also be doing much more to address the cost of living crisis that is hurting American families. But this bill sharply cuts funding for the agencies and programs that create jobs, boost American small businesses, and advance our economy.
Economic development administration grants are cut by 36, abandoning rural and distressed communities desperately in need of economic help and well-paying jobs. The bill slashes funding for the Minority Business Development Agency, taking away opportunities from American entrepreneurs. It cuts funding for the International Trade Administration by nearly 25%, weakening efforts to help American businesses expand exports and fight unfair trade practices by other countries. Moreover, the Legal Services Corporation, which provides basic civil legal assistance to the poorest American families, seniors, and veterans, is cut by more than half. Under this funding level, nearly 3,000,000 fewer people will receive help with their legal problems, including 6,400 in my district alone.
This bill abandons our most vulnerable constituents who can't afford a lawyer when they're facing eviction, seeking safety from domestic violence, or are denied benefits that they've earned. Perhaps most shortsighted of all, this bill disinvests in the scientific research that drives American innovation, technological leadership, and economic competitiveness. For decades, the United States was a destination for the world's top researchers to come and do their best work. Now we are beginning to lose our own scientific talent to opportunities overseas as a result of this administration's attacks on science and universities. This bill would not only compound these problems.
It cuts the National Science Foundation by more than $1,700,000,000, abandoning the next generation of scientists and engineers at exactly the moment our competitors are investing more in theirs. This bill also cuts NASA's science account by nearly $1,300,000,000, including a huge cut to Earth science, and it significantly cuts NOAA's climate research activities as well. This bill also makes huge cuts to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which has helped American industry overcome technical challenges, develop new manufacturing techniques, and advance the cutting edge of new technologies. I disagree with this bill's approach. As I have said repeatedly, I believe we should be doubling down on the investments in science that grow our economy and incentivize advancements that improve life for all Americans.
I'm also very concerned that this bill weakens the transparency measures that were enacted as part of the fiscal year 26 appropriations act and contains numerous extreme and unnecessary policy riders. Finally, I will note that our subcommittee hearing with the acting attorney general is scheduled for next week. The Department of Justice is the largest component of this bill, but members of our committee have not had the opportunity to publicly ask questions of the acting attorney general or the FBI director before we consider the department's budget. This is bad for our work on this committee, and bad for transparency and accountability to American taxpayers. I thank the chairman for his work on this bill, but given its serious shortcomings, I cannot support it.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and come back to the table to produce a bill that actually delivers for the American people. We should be investing in public safety, economic opportunity, and American innovation. Those are not partisan priorities. They are our responsibility, and they should be our shared goals as Americans. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the comments. I now recognize myself for the remarks on the bill. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, and thank you to Ranking Member Ming, Ranking Member Dolora, and certainly to all our members who are here today. Our full committee markups continue today with consideration of the fiscal year 2027 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Bill. The scope of this legislation demonstrates the breadth of American leadership itself.
From law enforcement protecting our communities to the scientists and innovators shaping the next century of discovery. We're investing in the institutions and capabilities that keep the United States safe, competitive, and forward-looking. And while Washington often speaks about these topics in terms of accounts and allocations, the missions funded through this bill are anything but conceptual or distant. That reality is underscored by this markup taking place during National Police Week. Here in DC and across the nation, we're reflecting on the men and women in blue who willingly place themselves in harm's way to help others.
This legislation reinforces their duty with targeted support for federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement. It bolsters funding for Byrne and COPS grants, strengthens efforts to combat fentanyl and violent crime, and provides the resources necessary for law enforcement agencies to continue protecting our citizens. Whether confronting cyber hackers or transnational crime, or supporting a justice system rooted in the rule of law, this measure reinforces the simple reality that safe communities are the foundation of a strong nation. And the front lines of American service do not end in the streets. In fact, they extend into new frontiers of exploration, modernization, and discovery beyond Earth itself.
As Artemis astronauts visited with the CJS subcommittee just yesterday, they reminded us of something important. America is still a nation that builds, explores, invents, and pushes beyond what others think is possible. It's why we continue to support innovation and NASA in this legislation, because making history means leading it. This also means safeguarding the ingenuity that propels us forward. At a time when communist China and adversaries are aggressively targeting US research and emerging technologies, we are reinforcing necessary safeguards.
We defend American innovation from theft, reinforce export controls, and invest in critical capabilities that will define the future, including artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. All of these priorities are upheld without government waste and bloat. We reiterate, President Trump's efforts to right-size government and confront bureaucratic overreach, securing savings for taxpayers and protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. Each investment in this bill is tied to a clear purpose: safer neighborhoods, stronger institutions, and a more secure and competitive nation. Chairman Rogers has spent his career fighting for these objectives.
And as we work to report this measure out today, we're reminded what it will ultimately deliver. A nation that backs law enforcement, a nation that leads in discovery, and a nation that fosters economic growth and community strength. I want to thank Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Ming, and both the majority and minority staff for their hard work. I look forward to advancing this legislation today. With that, I yield back.
I now recognize my very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Laura of Connecticut, for her opening remarks.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And chairman Rogers and ranking member Meng, thanks so much, and thanks for your work. Let me also say a thank you to the committee staff, to Bob Bonner, Nora Faye, Jamie Wise, Fake Hop on the minority side, and their counterparts in the majority: Bob Yeaver, Liz Porter, Chris Eckhart, Nick Mitchell, and Mike Miller. Thank you for your hard work. I oppose the bill we are considering today.
It fails to meet the moment Americans are facing. While American families struggle to afford basic goods and services, this bill weakens our economy, cuts off support for the middle class, the working class, and the vulnerable. While gun violence continues to terrorize our communities, this bill makes it harder to get illegal guns off the streets and hold those criminals accountable. And while other countries increase their investments in scientific innovation and the technology of the future, this bill pares back our commitments to develop, educate, and employ the next generation of American leaders through severe cuts to STEM education and science programs. This bill doubles down on the failed trade policies of the Trump administration.
Since he took office, the president has imposed, withdrawn, reimposed, and then been forced to remove by the Supreme Court a series of haphazard, harmful, and extremely costly tariffs. Throughout 2025, these tariffs cost American families upwards of $1,700 in higher prices. These tariffs were imposed on American businesses for the sake of boosting domestic manufacturing in America. But from February through February, the United States lost over 88,000 manufacturing jobs. That's more than 100 manufacturing jobs per day.
A fact I might add that Secretary Lutnick was unaware of when I asked him about it during his testimony last month. The Trump economy is hurting the working class, and this bill before us today does nothing to change the track of this country, the track that it's on. In fact, it would make our problems worse by cutting $144000000 in funding from the economic development administration programs. This bill reduces investments that create jobs and revitalize distressed local communities, rural communities in particular. From 2018 to 2024, the EDA created or retained more than 727,000 jobs, spurred more than $80,000,000,000 in private investment.
We should be increasing our investment in programs like this, not scaling back support when the American people need it most. This bill cuts $142,000,000 in funding from the International Trade Administration, which fights unfair trade practices in other countries and supports American businesses trying to expand their exports. Unfair trade practices were another reason given for Trump's tariffs. Yet the Republican proposal is to take resources away from a crucial agency that combats these same tactics. There were over 44 thousand gun deaths in 2024.
67 percent of all homicides in this country involve a firearm. This bill impedes efforts by nonpartisan nonprofit groups that work to help keep communities safe from gun violence. Groups like the Ethan Miller Song Foundation and Newtown Action Alliance in Connecticut conduct important work to get guns off the streets. They partner with local law enforcement to organize voluntary buybacks. This includes the work of my constituent, Kristen Song, who organized the Guilford gun buyback program in 2018 after she and her husband Mike lost their son Ethan to an unsecured firearm.
This bill also defunds the ATF, significantly weakening our ability to track illegal armed dealers, run down gun smugglers, and catch dangerous criminals who put American lives at risk. This bill proposes a more than $280,000,000 cut to the ATF's budget, which would force the agency to reduce their workforce by more than 1,000 positions. These officers work around the clock to keep us safe, but the Republican proposal is to put them out of job. This bill undermines public safety by slashing critical Justice Department grant funding, including a $50,000,000 cut to juvenile justice programs. It completely eliminates support for human community violence intervention and prevention, hate crime prevention, law enforcement de-escalation, training, and police community relations grants.
These are proven tools that local law enforcement agencies rely on to prevent violence, build trust, and keep our communities safe. The bill also decimates the Legal Services Corporation, cutting its funding by more than half. The Legal Services Corporation works, their work helps veterans, seniors who are victims of financial exploitation, people with disabilities, renters who are facing eviction or living in unsafe housing conditions, and victims of domestic violence. Earlier this month, my Republican colleagues, alongside Democrats and the American people, celebrated the remarkable success of the Artemis mission. This was a groundbreaking achievement, the furthest manned spaceflight from Earth in human history.
Chairman Rogers called it, and I quote, a testament to remarkable innovation and public-private partnerships, end quote. Chairman Cole correctly noted that this mission, and I quote, starts with vision but is delivered by deliberate, sustained funding, end quote. I could not agree more, but this bill does not do that. It includes significant cuts to NASA's science, aeronautics, and education initiatives, and it cuts $1,800,000,000 from the National Science Foundation, undermining efforts to support basic scientific research, cutting-edge technology development, and STEM education. This is at a time when, for the first time in history, the latest data shows that China has surpassed the United States in total research and development investment.
These car cuts are a failure to invest in our future. We need to ensure that the next generation of world-class engineers, inventors, researchers, and technicians are educated and employed here in the United States. These cuts hurt the effort. We ought to invest in the safety of our communities, the resilience of our economy, and the future of our country. This bill fails on each one of those accounts.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this measure, and let's work on a bipartisan basis to craft a bill that meets this moment. I thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentle lady for her remarks. I would, while the chair will always be generous with the clock, I would ask people. It's gonna be a long day. So if we could stay within the limits, that would be very, very helpful. We still have general comments on the bill. The chair recognized the gentleman from Alabama, mister Strong, for general comments on the bill.
Speaker 6
Thank you, chairman Cole, chairman Rogers, ranking member DeLaura, ranking member Ming for the work that you've done on this bill, and your continued leadership. I thank the staff for all their hard work. As vice chairman of Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee, I'm proud to stand strong in strong support of this fiscal year 2027 bill. This bill rightsizes and reinforces spending and essential defending the American people, keeping our nation competitive and safe, and advancing American superiority in space and science. It takes key investments to secure the future of the space launch system, the human landing system, and nuclear thermal propulsion.
I'm proud of the role that North Alabama and Marshall Space Flight Center play in reinforcing America's leadership in space, and strengthening national security. This bill also provides support for the Department of Justice to confront evolving national security threats, combat violent crime, and stop the flow of deadly fentanyl into the communities. In my district, the FBI, Redstone stands at the forefront of law enforcement innovation and national security. Whether it's counting emerging UAS threats or preventing cyber intrusions, the work being done at Redstone is helping keep communities across the country safe. This bill strengthens the capability that keeps America secure, competitive, and ahead of our adversaries.
North Alabama is proud to help lead that mission. Thank you, Chairman Rogers and Chairman Cole, for your leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen, for his remarks. Gentle lady from Ohio. Miss Capitol is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cole, ranking member Del Oro, Chairman Rogers, ranking member Ming. Thank you for moving this important commerce justice state legislation forward. The CJS bill presents an opportunity to make America safer, more bountiful, and better prepared for the future. Yet the bill before us today cuts $1,200,000,000 from hardworking Americans, makes families less safe, and attacks one of our true advantages, American innovation and enterprise based on science, technology, and especially in the industrial arts.
Let me reference and focus on the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Program. It's nicknamed MEP, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, named after the former senator from South Carolina Fritz Hollings. This lesser known but effective MEP program is a national network of centers, business development centers that provide custom services to small and medium sized manufacturers to improve production processes, upgrade technologies of manufacturers, improve their capabilities by upgrading their technology, and launch and facilitate product innovation. People talk about the defense industrial base and improving manufacturing in America. Well, that's what this program is supposed to do.
In my region alone, products have been launched as new brands and improved brands, and have gone on to national acclaim. Just in the food sector, we're so thrilled because a product called Willy's salsa, I own no stock in it, but has just been approved to go into Winn Dixie. For us in the North, that's a big deal. And, MEP centers across our country have worked with more than 154,000 emerging businesses and manufacturers to help create and retain more than one and a half million jobs and create new jobs. Today, the network consists of over 140 trusted advisors and experts across 460 MEP center service locations nationwide that help manufacturers out.
Today, these centers have helped create, get ready, 148,700,000,000 dollars in new sales. That's a win-win the way I look at it. And $31,600,000,000 in cost savings. In a word, this program works. Imagine if you're a food manufacturer, you gotta label your product, but the labels have to be made in a certain way so they're not toxic.
That may not seem like a big deal to you, but it's a big deal to a company that wants to be successful. Yet despite this effectiveness for our economy and the way this program helps those manufacturers be better, last year, very curiously, the Department of Commerce, and they really need to tell congress why they did this, suspended funding for the manufacturing extension partnership program without any warning, without releasing any audit report or findings to justify such an extreme action. This has left state and local governments scratching their heads because many of these programs are managed through the states. Local firms are totally in the dark, and I might say, very upset, forcing immediate indefinite pauses and technical assistance for manufacturers across states like my own, Ohio, and others. This harmful decision makes no sense.
The return on investment for American taxpayers is indisputable. For every federal dollar invested in these programs, they generate 25 times or more income. As I recall, we spent hours and hours in markups, hearings, and floor time, only to have this administration literally fire people and programs like this get left in the lurch. What a mistake. This choice by the administration has led to, in my own region, the Center for Innovative Food Technology in Toledo, Ohio, to lay off all their employees and completely shut down and reduce their operations.
Eventually, they are looking at being forced to close. They're trying to get their footing for how to help all these companies without being connected to the Department of Commerce, and we're losing budding manufacturers and new product development across our region. Stopping MEP funding was a draconian move. Boy, I could say plenty about who did it over there, Mr. Lutnick. He lost touch with the street.
He lost touch. He was a big shot in New York City.
Speaker 7
Of those investment firms. But the effects on small business and success stories like Willy's salsa and Burdi's barbecue sauce really hurt these companies. These new brands came as a result of the Northwest Ohio's collaborative kitchen operated by SIFT, not only allowing these brands to grow and prosper, but to become shining examples of new businesses in places that desperately, believe me, need new businesses. It stifles creativity. What a mistake.
We cannot permit the executive branch to impound appropriated funds simply because they think it'd be fun, I guess. This sets a dangerous constitutional precedent and undermines the important work being done in community after community, keeping people newly employed and promoting what we call the American dream. I have many other reasons I could complain about this bill, but I urge my colleagues to reconsider this, work instead for a bipartisan package that helps the American people. I cannot, in good faith, vote for this bill as it stands now.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Gentleman from Indiana, mister Shree, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 1
We'll give him another chance later, I guess. A gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 11
Thank you, miss, thank you, mister chairman. Ranking member DeLauro, chairman Rogers, ranking member Ming, I rise in opposition to the FY '27 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Act. In a moment when working families are already facing rising costs, warring, uncertainty, and shrinking support, this bill does not offer relief. It pulls the rug out from under them. The constitution bestows congress with the power of the purse as part of our article one responsibilities.
It's our job to ensure that taxpayer dollars serve the public interests by protecting the vulnerable, advancing opportunity, and upholding justice. Unfortunately, the bill before us today fails those tests. While I'm pleased that the bill does not include the draconian cuts proposed by President Trump in his budget, it nevertheless includes provisions that I feel will make our streets less safe, prevent low-income Americans from having that day in court, and adversely impact local downtown revitalization and business development projects, and make our nation less competitive in science. For example, it makes little sense to slash funding for the ATF and juvenile justice grants when so many Americans across the country are concerned about gun violence and crime in our communities. It makes little sense to underfund the US Census Bureau, which will hinder its efforts to conduct an accurate, cost-efficient count in 2030.
And it makes little sense to cut $55,000,000 funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when Americans are still experiencing discrimination in the workplace and a widening gender wage gap. I'm especially concerned about the $272,000,000 cut to the Legal Services Corporation. Legal aid organizations funded by the Legal Services Corporation serve every congressional district in the country, including mine. Our constituents turn to these offices when they have nowhere else to go, and cannot afford a lawyer. Their value is widely recognized, and support for this work has long been bipartisan.
Legal Services Corporation is the single largest funder of civil legal aid in the United States. If these cuts are enacted, it would take legal services back decades, despite the fact that more and more Americans are now eligible for civil legal aid. This massive reduction means millions fewer people will receive the legal assistance they need. That includes hundreds of thousands of children and seniors, as well as tens of thousands of veterans and survivors of domestic violence, who will be left without representation in life-altering civil cases. Gutting this program means abandoning millions of Americans and undermining one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy, equal justice under the law.
Another provision I'm deeply concerned about is a 73% cut to the Minority Business Development Agency. MBDA is the only federal agency dedicated to supporting minority-owned businesses that have long faced structural barriers to accessing capital, securing contracts, and scaling operations. The MBDA helps to secure billions of dollars in contracts and then capital for minority business enterprises, whether it's a small construction company landing its first federal contract or a local bakery securing the loan it needs to grow, this support makes all the difference in the world. We should be doing more to open doors to minority-owned businesses, not making it harder for them to get in the room. The economic development administration is another casualty of this bill, which with a proposed $144,000,000 cut.
The EDA is a vital partner for communities recovering from economic hardship, especially in rural and underserved areas. It funds projects that improve essential infrastructure, like upgrading water and sewer systems in Georgia, and expanding broadband access to all of our rural communities. It also supports workforce training that helps prepare Americans across the nation for good-paying jobs in growing industries. I've seen firsthand how these investments help strengthen local economies and improve lives. Cutting this funding now would slow down progress and leave many hardworking Americans further behind.
Finally, I strongly oppose the bill's 23% cut to the National Science Foundation, which would greatly weaken the foundation of American scientific leadership in the world. Again, I'll vote against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition and to come together on a bipartisan basis to provide the funding necessary in this bill to provide for the needs of all Americans. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Georgia, Mister Clyde is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to give my very strong support for the fiscal year 2027 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill. The bill before us today is fiscally conservative by rightsizing federal agencies and refocusing programs and operations on their core missions. Additionally, this bill invests in the fight against deadly fentanyl, provides robust funding for state and local law enforcement, and protects Americans' constitutional rights. I'm particularly proud of the work that Chairman Rogers and I have done to include provisions that secure our God-given Second Amendment rights.
The declaration of independence, the birth certificate of our nation, proclaims that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that government exists to secure those rights. And the Second Amendment is the practical guardian of those God-given rights, ensuring that free citizens retain the ultimate means to defend their lives, their families, and their liberty. When the Department of Justice defends unconstitutional gun regulations, and the ATF is weaponized against law-abiding Americans, the government has betrayed its founding purpose. House Republicans understand that restoring the Second Amendment is not merely a policy matter. It is a fulfillment of this nation's oldest and most sacred promise to its people.
In that spirit, this bill rightfully repeals every Biden-era ATF rule that infringed on lawful gun owners, including the ATF's pistol brace rule, the privately made firearms regulations, and the universal background check requirement. Furthermore, this bill includes my amendment offered last year to eliminate the registration requirement for suppressors and short-barrel firearms under the draconian National Firearms Act. Congressional Republicans and President Trump delivered the biggest Second Amendment victory in over 90 years by eliminating the NFA transfer and manufacturing taxes for short-barreled firearms and suppressors in the one big beautiful bill. Now our intent behind this action was to remove both the taxation and the registration requirements for these firearms. After all, those two requirements are inseparably linked.
Without the NFA tax, there is no foundation for the NFA registration. Unfortunately, the DOJ is currently ignoring this congressional intent and defending this NFA registration in court. While litigation is ongoing, American tax dollars should not be used to fund invalidated NFA requirements. Simply put, the National Firearms Act has unjustly subjected American gun owners to unconstitutional infringements on our Second Amendment freedoms for over 9 decades. When I came to Washington, I promised to not only protect my constituents' Second Amendment rights, but to restore what has been lost.
In addition, this bill takes meaningful strides in reforming and reducing the size and scope of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The ATF has long operated as an agency at war with the very industry and citizens it regulates. But now I must commend president Trump for the new leadership at ATF, which gives us hope, and I appreciate the newly senate confirmed director Takeda and the new chief counsel. This bill would impose lasting cultural and operational reform by refocusing the agency's resources on genuine criminal enforcement against violent criminals, rather than regular harassment of law-abiding gun owners and federal firearms licensees. The FY 27 CJS bill cuts the ATS budget by $285,000,000, representing an 18% cut from fiscal year 26.
This bill also includes important policy riders that would shut down the ATS 1,000,000,000 plus record gun registry, prohibit mandatory background or buyback programs, and defend red flag laws. I was a proud champion to a provision in the bill report that codifies President Trump's FY 27 budget request for a $1,400,000 to establish the Second Amendment rights section within the Department of Justice's civil rights division. This new section will be dedicated to protecting Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms by monitoring state and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices for unlawful infringements, and pursuing enforcement actions where necessary. While the Biden Department of Justice wanted to charge service disabled veterans with felonies for attaching a stabilizing brace to their firearm, the Trump DOJ is already delivering meaningful Second Amendment victories through its new Second Amendment rights section. Gun owners across the country are already reaping the benefits.
The civil rights division at DOJ has sued multiple blue state and local jurisdictions for unconstitutional gun laws. I look forward to ensuring this office has the resources and the authority it needs to continue defending the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. I thank Chairman Rogers. I thank Chairman Cole for these important Second Amendment protections that this bill advances, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back twelve seconds.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. I hope others follow your example. With that, the chair recognizes a gentlelady from Minnesota for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to oppose this bill. And our job in this committee is to make investments that meet the needs of the American people. The choice we make reflects our values and our commitments. There is one choice that has been made in this bill that I support, and that is the funding for justice in Indian country.
In the interior appropriations subcommittee, we've been focusing on addressing the missing and murdered Indigenous women in a truly nonpartisan way. I wanna thank Chairman Simpson and ranking member Pengary for the work that they've done on that. The DOJ is an important source of funding to get this work done. The continued strong support in this bill for the travel set aside for crime victims fund on research and violence against women also is vitally important. The manager's amendment also ensures that NASA has the ability to manufacture the next generation of space vehicles using solid-state friction stir welding.
And that's an important new entry into how we can make this equipment work better and smarter for all of us. So I wanna thank the chair and the ranking member for working with me on that. But there are other choices in this bill I cannot support. The bill cuts overall funding for the National Science Foundation by $1,800,000,000. I cannot support a bill that follows the Trump administration lead on dismantling American scientific research and innovation.
Investments today in basic science will guide our nation's future. Advances in quantum computing, clean energy, and other fields that could transform our economy. The development of early disease detection tools and devices that could improve our nation's health dramatically. Research in areas from cybersecurity to space to weather will not only strengthen our national security, but our economic security as well. This bill diminishes all of that by cutting nets in here.
And as we celebrate 250 years of our nations governed by the rule of law, this bill makes a 50% cut to the Legal Services Corporation, which supports justice for all Americans, especially those in the low income area. In my district alone, this cut would mean 6,000 people would lose access to health protection through legal assistance, help with their homes, to protect those and their families. Their ability to have their fair day in court will disappear. So currently, as the bill is written, it certainly does not meet the needs of our nation. I hope we can work together to improve this bill and others for the American people.
I thank you, mister chair, and I'm yielding back 2 minutes and 14 seconds. What.
Speaker 1
Nice try. A gentleman from Indiana, Mister Shreev, is recognized for remarks on the bill. Thank.
Speaker 14
You, Mister Chairman and Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ming, for your important work on this bill. For too long, scammers have stayed ahead of us, and this bill will meaningfully address this fast-growing problem.
Speaker 14
Sized scam centers, most of which are anchored in other parts of the world, including Southeast Asia, have weaponized AI, and the pace is only quickening. They spoof trusted agencies and build sophisticated criminal organizations. While our US responses have remained fragmented. According to our own FTC, fraud costs our citizens an estimated $196,000,000,000 in 2024, and this is a massively underreported problem. 81,000,000,000 of that is estimated to come from our seniors.
From my seat on, now my former seat on the foreign affairs committee, I worked to organize a bipartisan effort, founded the congressional stop scams caucus to take meaningful enforcement steps to turn the tide on this fast growing problem. This bill directs our Department of Justice to establish a victim restitution program so these funds may be returned to the Americans who are robbed. It establishes a coordinated task force among state, federal, and local law enforcement along with the private sector. And it requires our FBI to develop a national strategy to combat scams. It requires long overdue modernization of the IC3 system, so reports do not sit in a backlog while investigations go cold.
These are concrete reforms, and they'll better protect my constituents in Indiana and all of yours. This bill fights back. I urge my colleagues to support this. Mister chairman, I yield back two minutes and 49 seconds.
Speaker 1
Love it. Keep at it. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentle lady from Florida, Miss Washington Schultz, is recognized for remarks on the bill. Thank.
Speaker 15
You, Mister Chairman. I wanna start by noting my deep pride in the hardworking men and women of NASA and everyone who contributed to the success of the Artemis mission just last month. I'm proud that Florida is home to the space coast, fast-growing aerospace industry, and the future of NASA missions to the moon, Mars, and beyond. In spite of that pride, I unfortunately must rise in opposition to this funding bill for a range of issues, including the unacceptable cuts to NASA's science, aeronautics, and education initiatives. At a time when life is becoming less and less affordable for families, communities are facing rising threats, and the rule of law is under attack.
And this bill fails to meet the moment. President Trump has destroyed the independence of the Department of Justice and inverted its mission. What was once the last line of defense against organized crime has become Trump's personal criminal defense team and personal vengeance lawyers. He has spent the last year and a half openly converting the DOJ into a political weapon against his opponents, and a shield against accountability for his brazen corruption. He has burdened transnational drug traffickers, cryptoterrorist financiers, and fraudsters who stole billions from seniors and teachers.
He put over a thousand January 6 terrorists back on American streets, dozens of whom have already been rearrested for violent crimes. Trump has seemingly sold many of these pardons, yes, sold them, to the wealthy and well-connected while overseeing the systematic dismantling of anticorruption efforts at DOJ. Meanwhile, Trump, his family members, and his billionaire friends keep getting richer, while everybody else suffers the consequences of Trump's failed economic policies. This bill does nothing to address Trump's tariffs, which are an illegal tax on the things that every American family buys. It does nothing to address the unsustainable cost of living.
To the contrary, parts of this bill will genuinely make things worse for Americans. Small businesses kneecapped by Trump's tariff and gas price hikes now have to swallow cuts in this bill to the agencies that promote their products to global markets. Make it make sense. Manufacturing jobs are in decline, and the programs that keep us growing and competitive are being left in the dust. People with cancer or chronic diseases whose premiums have tripled, denied access, will be denied access to high-tech medical care as we slam the door on imported MRIs and other diagnostic equipment.
And while Americans take items out of their grocery carts and ration prescriptions, the DOJ is committing in broad daylight the largest criminal cover up in history. Congress had to pass a law to compel President Trump to release the Epstein files, and still, the majority of documents have not been released to the public. I've gone twice to view the unredacted files at the DOJ. Both times, I've identified potential coconspirators whose names are still redacted, and victims whose information is unredacted. Hundreds of Epstein affiliates have been revealed despite the Trump administration's best efforts to shield them, and zero have been held accountable.
Here's a stat for you. If somebody abused women and girls with Jeffrey Epstein, they are literally more likely to be hired by Trump's administration than prosecuted by it. And there's been a lot of talk about how this president is tough on crime. I'm sure there will be more. But I, for one, think it is bad to divert thousands of FBI agents from disrupting trafficking rings and drug cartels to deputize them against law abiding immigrants.
I think that before president Trump launched his strategic disaster of a war against the leading state sponsor of terror, he maybe shouldn't have replaced career counterterror specialists with political crony cronies and sycophants. I think we shouldn't condition funding for local law enforcement based on whether they spend their time staffing ICE detention camps. And I think that when antisemitic attacks and political violence are surging, perhaps we should include more than $0 of funding for the preventing hate crimes, which is what this bill does. These are the kinds of things we're supposed to address in this bill. Our fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are under attack.
How is it that my colleagues who used to at least pretend to care about the constitution where President Biden was in office now pretend that article one thus simply doesn't exist? This bill does nothing to fend off Trump's attacks on the separation of powers, free speech, equal protection, voting rights, or privacy. Those are in the constitution too, but this bill and report mentioned guns, firearms, and the Second Amendment more than 90 times. The only other amendments worthy of mention in this report are, quote, soil amendments. I can only conclude that besides guns, the rest of our bill of rights is treated worse than dirt.
I cannot explain why millions of mostly Black and Hispanic Americans are denied representation in voting rights in my state and across the South, and this bill only seems to care about protecting Trump and appeasing the gun lobby. This bill doesn't just misplace our resources and attention. It misses the point entirely. The Trump administration treats our laws and our constitution with venomous contempt, and the Supreme Court is more interested in disenfranchising my constituents than putting a check on these abuses. It's up to us as appropriators.
We must step in and hold the line, and this bill does nowhere near close enough. In its current form, I cannot support this bill, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thanks, General Lady, for her comments. The gentleman from Texas, Mister Cuellar, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank you and the ranking member and the staff. In particular, I wanna thank Chairman Rogers, and the ranking member, Miss Meg also, and their staff for working on this bill. Look. We do understand, this bill needs a little bit more work to do, and at the end of the day, it'll be a bipartisan bill.
We all know the drill here. But I do wanna talk about a couple provisions that I worked with the chairman and the ranking member and other members that I think will be good. The first one has to do with fighting organized crime, cargo, and retail theft. And I appreciate the inclusion of the language where we get the federal law enforcement, DOJ, and other folks to work with state and local law enforcement to address the issue of cargo theft and supply chain fraud. Investigating and prosecuting those cases are important.
The bill also dedicates $2,000,000 to stand up this task force to make sure that we go at the areas where we find the highest cargo theft, and make sure that we go after them. Look. We know that this cargo theft doesn't work in isolated areas. We're looking at organized crime, drug trafficking, illicit financing, and it requires a coordinated effort. So I thank the chairman, the ranking member, for adding this particular language.
I also wanna thank him for including the language to combat organized animal cruelty. And in particular, I wanna say that the language that directs them to go and increase efforts to investigate and dismantle dogfighting and cockfighting operations is important, especially work with USDA and federal and state local law enforcement. Again, it's also documented that illegal animal fighting, drug trafficking, and money laundry is all tied in together. So I wanna thank the committee for adding that. The other area that I wanna add also is the area with AI standards and small business innovation.
This bill directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to advance voluntary, consensus standards for artificial intelligence and agendic AI systems working across the industry, academia, and, of course, government. Clear standards to reduce risk and lower barriers to adapt are important, and I wanna say thank you for that. It also directs the NIST to coordinate with SBA to develop and get practical AI resources for small businesses, and to make sure that they're updated on a regular basis. This, again, is important to make sure that we keep up with AI standards. Finally, the last area that I wanna say thank you to the chairman and ranking member, the inclusion of the $84,000,000 for school safety program under the stop school violence act.
This, again, is important to make sure that we provide training on warning signs, and, you know, the violence that we see that includes also the violence, the suicide, the mental health crisis intervention, and the prevention, which is so important. I think we've seen case after case on school violence, that those preventive steps are important when it comes to mental health crisis intervention. So I wanna say thank you for that. We gotta keep our schools safe. So chairman and ranking member, to all the staff, I wanna say thank you.
We need a little bit more work to do. It'll be a bipartisan bill, but I want to thank you for this, first step. So with that, I yield the back of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Excuse me. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Just quickly, so I think probably everybody knows, but there is lunch available across the hall. Thank you, mister chairman, for the hearty meal you would expect to get through a long march.
Up five guys, hamburgers, and fries. Pretty good stuff. With that, the gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this bill as it's currently configured. This bill kneecaps the Department of Justice from doing what it's supposed to do, protecting the American people from criminals. Yet again, we have Trump priorities, increasing hardship, and decreasing protections for everyday Americans. Thanks to proposed funding cuts, it will be harder for law enforcement to prevent gun and drug trafficking, and transnational crime.
It will also be harder for the underserved to access legal services. Instead, money is being poured into a war that Americans did not ask for, that Congress did not approve. It is incredibly misguided. In the first quarter of this year, all 50 states experienced shooting deaths, and the nation faced 94 mass shootings compared to 69 in quarter one in 2023. Meanwhile, federal drug prosecutions have fallen to their lowest level in decades, but this is not because of more effective enforcement.
No. It is because resources were shifted so that ICE can deport people. The result, thousands of people were wrongfully detained, families were torn apart, and people have died, all while drug trafficking continued, and drug conspiracy charges fell. While I'm on this topic of immigration, this bill also eliminates funding for the legal orientation program, which received 27,500,000 last year, and helps educate noncitizens facing immigration court proceedings regarding legal and courtroom processes. By intentionally not helping to educate noncitizens on the legal process, this only stifles their ability to have proper representation and defense, and it makes it easier for officials to prevent them from building a life here for themselves, their families, and our communities.
Judges have already ruled more than 10,000 times against ICE, a 9 to 1 ratio. It is not a secret that many of these cases were wrong for prosecution. This funding cut is an abomination. Time after time, the GOP has claimed to stand for something while doing the opposite when it comes to stepping up to the plate. And since Trump took power, my Republican colleagues have sought to do the following.
Cut funding for traditional violence prevention programs. Cut hundreds of law enforcement jobs. Endorse or allow immigration officials to conduct violent and discriminatory operations, cut $200,000,000 for legal services, and engage in specious discrimination complaints in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These moves are not emblematic of a so-called law and order administration. Instead, they have caused chaos in our communities.
So once again, I find myself asking, how do these moves make life better for the American people? I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I thank the general lady for her remarks. Gentlemen from New York, Mister Morelli is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Cole, ranking member Del Oro. Thank you, to the subcommittee chair, Mister Rogers, and to ranking member Grace Meng. And thank you to all the staff. I know whether we might agree or disagree on the final product, how much time and effort is put in, and wanna just express my appreciation.
It is, however, with deep concerns that arise today over the measure before us and urge members oppose the legislation before us. The bill does one thing very clearly. It cuts investments that help American communities grow, stay safe, and help local companies to compete. The bill would cut $144,000,000 from the economic development administration, which means less support for small businesses, less support for local manufacturers, fewer jobs, fewer opportunities. And these are not just abstract numbers.
We have lost 89,000 manufacturing jobs since this administration took office last January. 89,000. These cuts would only mean fewer economic opportunities and diminishment of investment in local industries, while allowing global competitors like China to gain ground. The bill reduces funding for the National Science Foundation by $1,800,000,000, jeopardizing critical research into cancer detection, medical devices, and lifesaving drug development, slowing down the innovations that improve and save lives. The bill makes staggering cuts to NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's research accounts.
These agencies help power the scientific breakthroughs and weather forecasting systems Americans rely on literally every day. At a time when communities are facing more floods, more storms, more natural disasters, which are also more intense, the bill cuts the very research that helps keep people safe and prepared. The hypocrisy is truly astonishing, and it doesn't end there. The Trump administration constantly talks about public safety, but the bill cuts the ATF by $285,000,000. Hundreds of positions could be lost, which means fewer agents investigating gun traffickers, fewer resources targeting violent criminals, fewer tools to stop illegal guns from reaching our streets.
On top of these cuts, the bill completely eliminates community violence intervention and prevention grants, hate crime prevention grants, community policing development grants, and more. All programs that have bipartisan support and are proven to reduce violence and crime in the country. You cannot claim to support law enforcement while cutting the very programs law enforcement uses to keep communities safe. And I'd be remiss if I did not mention the administration's dismantling of OCDETF, the organized crime drug enforcement task force. This was the centerpiece of the Department of Justice's strategy to combat transnational organized crime and reduce the availability of illicit narcotics nationwide.
But at the whims of this administration, it was eliminated without cause. The recklessness of this administration is out of control, even dismantling the bipartisan agency task force championed by Ronald Reagan. The anti-crime initiative was one of the most successful tools we had to combat drug trafficking and transnational crime, widely supported by Democrats and Republicans for decades, and President Trump tore it down anyway. He's no longer just attacking Democratic priorities. He's actively getting rid of common-sense public safety programs, and we must do everything we can to stop him.
Once again, I appreciate Chairman Rogers and the majority working with me to include safeguards, ensuring funds continue supporting investigations into drug trafficking and transnational organized crime. But the fact that we even have to fight for this should alarm every single person in this room. Lastly, while the Department of Justice received a $1,500,000,000 increase in funding, I rise with serious concerns about how they're allocating the money. The Department of Justice is now spending its time and money carrying out President Trump's cruel immigration agenda. At the same time, the administration is diverting more than $100,000,000 away from programs that help vulnerable Americans, including trafficking victims and survivors of sexual assault.
So while the administration endlessly touts reducing corruption, fraud, waste, what they're really doing is creating more delays, more confusion, and more dysfunction. It's simply unacceptable, which is why I appreciate the committee's inclusion of oversight language requiring accountability for these delays and funding decisions, because Congress controls the power of the purse, not the administration. Our job is to allocate resources. Our job is oversight. Our job is accountability.
And most importantly, our job is to speak up when policies hurt the people we represent. This bill cuts investments Americans rely on. It weakens public safety. It undermines innovation, and it moves this country in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
And, mister chairman, with that, I yield back, sir.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, his dean is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Chairman Cole, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Deloro, Ranking Member Meng. And thank you to the talented committee staff on both sides. Today, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill harms our economy and small businesses, makes America less safe by cutting programs our local law enforcement agencies rely upon, and further erodes our nation's scientific leadership. Since taking office, President Trump has illegally imposed the highest tariff rates on the American family since the Great Depression.
When the Supreme Court struck down his IEPA tariffs as illegal, unconstitutional in February, President Trump continued imposing his illegal tariffs on Americans through section 122 of the trade act, which just last week was ruled unlawful by the US court of international trade. Every day, my constituents tell me about the affordability crisis these illegal tariffs have created. Americans are struggling to afford groceries, gas, rent, and medicine. This is not the time to illegally impose Depression era tariffs. I also hear from small businesses in my district about their struggles navigating the economic uncertainty these illegal tariffs have caused.
Businesses need certainty and predictability. This chaotic tariff policy is everything but that. Instead of addressing the affordability crisis created by these tariffs, this bill guts programs that so many small businesses rely on to keep prices down. This bill cuts the economic development administration by $144,000,000 below FY '26 level, greatly reducing our investment in programs that create jobs, help small businesses thrive, and revitalize distressed communities at the local level. This bill cuts the International Trade Administration by $142,000,000 below FY 26, reducing our investment in the primary agency tasked with promoting American exports and fighting the unfair trade practices of other countries.
On science, this bill erodes our nation's leadership position in science by cutting programs designed to cultivate the next generation of scientists. For example, this bill cuts inexplicably NASA's STEM engagement program by $59,000,000 below FY26 levels and eliminates two of NASA's four STEM initiatives. Baffling to me. On safety, this bill makes America less safe by eliminating programs that so many of our local law enforcement agencies have relied on. This bill cuts the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the ATF, by $285,000,000 compared with FY '26.
ATF works with local law enforcement agencies to prevent and prosecute violent crime and illegal gun trafficking. As is, this funding level would force ATF to reduce its already limited workforce by hundreds of positions. That makes our communities less safe and takes away our promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Crimes are inherently more violent when guns are involved, and this bill strips resources that local law enforcement agencies rely upon to keep illegal guns off our streets. And at a time when antisemitism is rising, this bill completely eliminates funding for the hate crime prevention grants.
At a time when we know that community violence intervention programs are working, this bill eliminates funding for community violence intervention and prevention grants despite their evidence of efficacy. This bill actually defunds the police. Surprising to me, because that is not something this majority party likes to run on. On cruelty, finally, I'm disheartened to see the cruelty behind the massive cuts to the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal assistance to the poor, to underserved communities without access to counsel. This bill funds LSC at 272,000,000 below FY '26, which was already too low.
In closing, mister chairman, Americans are struggling to afford groceries, gas, and rent, and this bill only exacerbates these problems. But we have only to listen to our president who said yesterday, and I quote, as he was on his way to China. He said, I quote, I don't think about Americans' financial situation at all. I don't think about anybody, end quote. I hope you all will join me in opposing this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for her remarks. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyra, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, let me say the chairman says regularly and correctly that this is the first step. That's the good news. The good news is it's not the last step. And the good news is this bill will change very substantially before it is sent to the president, if in fact it is.
I wanna thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, Miss Meng, for her outstanding work. I thank Mister Rogers for his leadership in so many critical areas, particularly dealing with drug abuse in our country that cost the lives of so many. Like most of the appropriations bills before this committee, this one short changes, though, critical national priorities. Limiting the positive impact the federal government can have and should have on improving the lives of Americans. We'll hear a lot today about the effects of President Trump's illegal tariffs on our working families and how this bill makes dangerous cuts to the agencies that could help alleviate their pain.
But I wanna take a few moments first and make sure the committee fully understands the impact of cuts to science research at NASA in this bill. Very frankly, the extraordinary progress that we have made in the space program has led to extraordinary innovation and inventions and better technical abilities for not only America, but for the entire world. The crew that took Artemis around the moon inspired us just as the first step for mankind did when we first landed on the moon. These people inspired the people of this nation and billions around the world who look each night at the moon and dream of where humanity might go over generations to come. As their capsule slipped behind the waning moon, beyond the reach of Earth's communications, its four occupants were hard at work.
They spent their time on the far side of the moon, observing landscapes never before seen by human eyes, capturing more than 12,000 photographs and high definition videos, and transmitting more than 480 gigabytes of lunar data back to the Earth. Before they even splashed down in the Pacific, NASA scientists, including many at Goddard Space Flight Center in the district of Mr. Ivy, were already sifting through this data and using it to develop a better understanding of the moon. Mister chairman, it was the scientist at NASA Goddard who developed the communication system used on the Artemis Orion spacecraft and the data transfer system that sent its findings back to Earth. Now that was for that mission, but the ramifications of the research and what we learned are for the entire world, and for creating jobs here in America. Goddard also produced the James Webb telescope, which is sending us back jaw-dropping images of the universe back to the very almost beginning of time.
This is part of America's unique contribution to advancing human knowledge and exploration. Cost of cutting this funding will be far greater than $1,300,000,000. It will come with a cost to what our nation represents and to what we as human beings, the latest in a chain of explorers over the generations, are trying to achieve during this time on earth. Just as I hope, well, we will reconsider the dangerous cuts this bill makes to other science and research agencies like NOAA, NIST, and the National Science Foundation, and the number of programs that every member of this committee that has spoken referenced that help Americans at a time of tough economic stress for them. Our science programs do not only send humans to the moon, but they make a difference for our economy here on Earth.
They mean the world to millions in our country who use scientific discoveries and research every day, even without knowing it. For NOAA in particular, whose National Center for Weather and Climate Prediction predicts, excuse me, predicts dangerous storms, other catastrophes that we may be subject to by natural disasters. At the same time, this bill also removes critical tools for law enforcement. It's so interesting that we are cutting crime fighting. We're cutting getting after tax evaders, and we are cutting other regulatory agencies at a time when we talk about making sure people follow the rules.
People follow the rules because the referee is on the field. You take the referee off the field, not so much. This bill slashes economic development assistance, particularly for rural communities, which is sorely needed to make the painful impacts of the Trump tariffs and rising gas prices from the president's war of choice, referred to by the lieutenant lady from New Jersey. So, mister chairman, I believe that we must do better in this bill. The good news, ladies and gentlemen, is I want to congratulate chairman Rogers.
As he did last year, essentially, he and the committee rejected the draconian cuts proposed by the administration. And while this bill is not as good as I would like it, it is better than the administration proposed, by far. And I have great confidence that Mister Rogers, the chairman of this committee, and the ranking member, Miss Ming, will reach, as the gentleman from Texas said, a bill that can and hopefully will receive bipartisan support. But at this point in time, mister chairman, I'm gonna oppose this bill because I think the cuts in it undermine America's competitiveness and America's future. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Are there any other members wishing to make general comments on the bill? Seeing none, I would like to recognize Chairman Rogers to offer a manager's amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Rogers number one. I would ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized to explain the amendment.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, this manager's amendment contains technical and noncontroversial changes to bill and report language agreed to by both sides of the aisle. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Speaker 4
I rise in support of the chairman's amendment. The amendment accommodates changes from both sides of the aisle and makes a number of technical corrections. Ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady. Do any other members seek recognition to speak to the amendment?
Speaker 10
Quickly, I just wanna say, Mister Chairman, thank you so much. Two items. One has to do with immigration judges to make sure that we work on the backlog. So I wanna say thank you so much for putting that amendment. And then the second amendment, it has to do with performance budgeting.
As you know, mister chairman, we've added this on different amendments. I'll return to, hey. Let's look at rules and regulations that are outdated. Let's see how we can get the best bang for the buck. So with that, my chairman, I'm gonna say thank you.
Now you guys are back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Do any other members seek recognition to address the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize Chairman Rogers for one minute.
Speaker 2
Close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask for a favorable consideration of this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlemen. The questions now on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. A general lady from Connecticut, Miss Torres, recognized for purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would provide $30,000,000 for the Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section, which was created in the wake of the Watergate scandal to prevent corruption by public officials and prosecute corruption when it does occur. The Public Integrity section works hand in glove with federal prosecutors to advise them on corporate corruption cases. That includes consulting on how best to pursue charges and build the strongest case, helping to write court filings, and reviewing evidence. While they often assist other offices in their work, the Public Integrity Section has pursued charges independently, bringing cases all the way through to trial and conviction.
They are career, nonpartisan prosecutors who are experts in their field and in law enforcement who have brought public corruption cases. And those who have brought those cases have found their services to be indispensable. Last year, the Trump administration decimated the public integrity section, reassigning the vast majority of their staff and forcing out career nonpartisan attorneys who prosecuted corruption by both Democrats and Republicans over the years. When the Trump administration took office, there were 36 attorneys dedicated full time to investigating and prosecuting political corruption in the public integrity section. By September, there were only two left.
That is a 94% reduction. Is that because there has been a 94% decline in political corruption, or is it because this is not a priority for this administration? Might it be because they see an advantage in having fewer people looking into corruption at the highest levels of government? A key function of the public integrity section was to prevent political appointees from pursuing politically motivated prosecutions. But the Trump administration has torn down those guardrails, and we are seeing the effects of that decision play out in real time.
This administration has launched investigations and filed, in my opinion, meritless charges against several of the president's perceived enemies. They recently filed new charges against former FBI director James Comey after their previous indictment fell flat. They filed damages against New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose charges were also dismissed. They even launched an investigation into Federal Reserve Board chair Jerome Powell, an investigation which they also recently dropped. We learned from news reports over the weekend that President Trump personally ordered the Department of Justice to pursue investigations of his political opponents.
It's a brazen abuse of power. It weakens the rule of law, which countless post-Watergate reforms were designed to prevent. Reforms like the creation of the public integrity section. The American people are sick and tired of a system where the rich and powerful get to play by a different set of rules than the rest of the country. They are right to be.
Reviving the public integrity section, providing the resources and staff necessary to prosecute political corruption, is a small but meaningful step toward earning back the trust that the American people have understandably lost in our political system. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remark. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment, which carves out 30,000,000 for the public integrity section within Justice's criminal division. I'm proud that the house CJS 57 bill maintains strong appropriations for the Department of Justice litigating components. The fiscal 27 CJS bill provides a healthy top line for the general legal activities account, which covers everything from the civil rights division of the criminal division. Already, the fiscal 27 CJS bill and report provide strong levels for child exploitation and the trade, fraud task force.
This amendment would force the criminal division to cut into its share of the general legal activities' top line more than may be necessary to achieve the mission of the public integrity section. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment. The DOJ's public integrity section has been a highly respected organization of career public service servants since its founding 50 years ago. But over the past 16 months, it has dwindled down to almost nothing. This amendment ensures that this office has the resources it needs to help prosecute public corruption wherever it exists.
The public integrity section has operated through its history in a nonpartisan manner, providing valuable advice and assistance to federal prosecutors. It has helped hold public officials of both major parties accountable and prosecute them. This amendment is not a partisan matter. It should be broadly supported by all of us who have the honor of serving in the United States government, and I urge its adoption. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for your remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentlemen from Maryland is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to rise in support of my colleague's amendment to restore the funding for the public integrity section. The public integrity section is one of the most important departments in the Department of Justice because it goes to the heart of making sure that we root out and prosecute elected officials at the federal and the state level who misuse their public office in a way to personally enrich themselves or in other ways that abuse the trust that the public has given them. I think it's important for us to make sure that we're doing everything we can to root it out. Certainly, there's a crisis of confidence among people across the country with respect to the federal government and the state governments as well.
They see people personally enriching themselves in the federal government, but getting away with it. We've gotta make sure we root that out. The Trump administration's reduction of the public integrity section from, I believe, about 30 to two prosecutors now, is a frontal assault on the ability to prosecute bribery across the country. The section had been a warehouse or a storehouse actually of information, institutional knowledge, the like so that when there were offices, US attorneys' offices who were in the 96 across the country, the districts across the country who spotted bribery by elected officials. They were able to seek out guidance and expertise from prosecutors who were in that section.
And in some instances, those prosecutors came out and became part of the teams that led those prosecutions. And that includes governors, senators, and members of Congress. But it's also true for state and local officials as well who crossed the line, because sometimes you have challenges with respect to putting prosecutions together at the state and local level. Local district attorney's offices, for example, might not have the ability to put wiretaps in place. In fact, the vast majority of them do not.
But you might need that to bring one of these cases and root out that kind of corruption. The public integrity section was the lead arm in doing that for the Department of Justice. So I think it's important for us to support this language. I know there's a challenge or questions about the funding issue, but $30,000,000 is not that much for the people who were doing this work, and we need to bring them back so they can continue to do it. And then lastly, apparently, the Department of Justice and the Trump administration need some kind of message from us that says we think it's important to prosecute bribery and corruption at the highest levels of government, and make sure that people are held accountable.
And that includes incarceration where it's appropriate, and sometimes it includes restitution and the like. We've gotta make sure that we're doing everything possible to get that done. We frequently hear arguments about waste, fraud, and abuse, and why we should, you know, prevent, I think, legitimate programs from being put in place or fully funded. If we're really serious about that, let's make sure we don't fire the 18 IGs across the federal government on your first day in office. Let's make sure they stay there, and they're well funded, and can do their work, and they're insulated from political influence.
And let's make sure that if they find corruption and forward that in the referral to the Department of Justice, we actually have the prosecutors with the experience and the ability to prosecute those cases and hold those criminals who just happen to be in public office. Let's hold them accountable. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, Chairman Rogers is recognized for one minute to close. Oh, excuse me. I apologize, my friend.
My good friend, the ranking member, is recognized for one.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Public service is a public trust, my friends. It's not a means for private gain. In order to restore the trust in our system that the American people have lost, and in fact, indeed, they have lost it, we must hold those who are accountable, whoever they are. The party affiliation does not make any difference here.
People who have abused their office to enrich themselves, persecute their enemies. This is, we cannot continue to allow this to happen. And that was what, and what is the public integrity section at DOJ is all about. So restoring that section is an important step to rebuilding this trust and securing accountability in our system. I urge my colleagues, I encourage you to support this amendment.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your comments. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
All those opposed, say no. No. Any of the chair, the noes haven't. Roll call is requested. Deficient number of hands, it's kinda close.
Have been raised.
Speaker 1
Actually, it is not enough technically, but I don't wanna, we're gonna have this vote. I don't want to delay it. So, but if you would, please get more of your members here so we can move quickly, because it's gonna delay the roll call. With that, seeing sufficient show of support, I'll call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt, mister Aguilar, mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday, missus Bice, no. Mister Bishop? Yes. Mister Bishop, I.
Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? No.
Mr. Carter? Mister Case? Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No.
Mister Klein? No. Mister Klein, no. Mr. Cloud? Mister Clyburn?
Mister Clyburn, I. Mister Clyde? Mr. Clyde? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar? Mistine? Mister Lauro?
Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart? Mister Diaz Bellart? No.
Mister Edwards? Mr Edwards? No. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy?
No. Miss Escobar? Mister Esbayat? Mister Fleishman? No.
Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel? Yes. Miss Frankel, aye.
Mister Franklin? Mr. Franklin? No. Mr Guest? Mister Guest?
No. Mr. Harder? Aye. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris?
Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson? Mister Hoyer? Mister Ivy?
Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce? Miss Captor. Aye.
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota? No. Lolota? No.
Miss Lee? Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin?
Speaker 18
Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy, no. Miss McCullum? Aye.
Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar?
Speaker 18
Mr. Moore? No. Mr Moore? Mister Morelli? Mister Morelli, aye.
Mister Mervan.
Speaker 18
Mister Mervan, aye. Mr Newhouse. Miss Perez. Aye. Miss Pingree.
Aye. Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Aye. Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley?
Aye. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Russian thaler? Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers?
Rutherford? Mr. Rutherford? No. Mister Shree? Mister Shreev, no.
Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mr. Strong. Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Hi. Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood. Mister Valadayo. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke?
Speaker 1
No. Are there members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Alabama?
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, this clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 25. The notes are 29. The amendment is not adopted.
I now recognize Chairman Rogers to offer a Republican en bloc amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Rogers number 2. I would ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized to explain the amendment.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, this amendment includes important additional provisions and report language associated with the Bureau of Prisons and the second amendment. I would like to thank my Republican colleagues for working on these additional items, and I urge the adoption of this amendment. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from New York is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I rise in opposition to the amendment. Unfortunately, this amendment adds to the list of controversial provisions of this bill. It will move us further away from the bipartisan compromise that we will need to pass a bill that truly serves the American people. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Action, late. Any other members seek recognition to speak on the en bloc amendment? Seeing none, Chairman Rogers is recognized for one minute.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask for favorable consideration of this amendment. Yield back.
Speaker 1
I appreciate that, stirring. Close. Questions now, on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
All opposed, say no. No. Any opinion, the chair of the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. General lady from Connecticut, Mister Laura is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would instruct the International Trade Commission, or the ITC, to produce a report on the economic impacts of President Trump's tariffs. The president's trade wars have been a disaster for American consumers, American businesses, and international relations. In one fell swoop, they have managed to alienate our allies, empower our adversaries, and force American families to foot the bill. A report from the Yale Budget Lab found that President Trump's tariffs cost the average American family more than $1,700 in higher prices.
Americans continue to struggle with the cost of living crisis, which President Trump refuses to even acknowledge, much less address. Gas prices have gone up by more than 40%. We just got new inflation data that shows prices have increased at the highest rate since 2023. The American people need relief, but President Trump's trade policies have offered families nothing but higher costs for the basic necessities of everyday life. A report from the National Association of Homebuilders estimated that the Trump tariffs on materials used to build new housing increased costs by $10,900 per home.
$10,900. The president's trade war was waged under the pretense that it would lead to a resurgence in American manufacturing. That is a goal that I share, and I assure you many of you share as well. Excuse me. Excuse me.
That is not the effect that these tariffs have had. On the campaign trail, President Trump promised that, and this is a quote, what we are putting forward is the most pro-American manufacturing and jobs policy. This plan will bring jobs and growth into our country at levels never seen before, creating millions of new manufacturing jobs, end quote. In reality, between February 2024 and February, American manufacturers shed more than 88,000 jobs. That is more than 100 manufacturing jobs lost per day.
But these are only scattered data points. We still do not know the full picture of the harm these tariffs have caused. The American people deserve transparency. This type of independent investigation, analysis, and report is part of the reason the ITC exists in the first place. It is one of its core statutory responsibilities.
I believe that based on what we know so far, President Trump's tariffs have had a disastrous impact on our economy. But I know that my Republican colleagues disagree, and maybe they are right. If they are confident in their assessment of the value of these tariffs, I do not see why they would oppose this amendment. If they are correct in their analysis, the report will reflect that. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The house bill includes targeted funding increases for trade agencies to ensure the administration has the resources they need to enact a trade agenda that opens new market access for American producers of all sizes and reverses decades-long barriers to US exports in international markets. The trade deficit has fallen 24% since last April, and we're seeing record investment in the US that's spurring job growth in communities across the nation. This amendment is a distraction that seeks to co-opt federal resources to produce a biased report. I can't support an amendment that would waste taxpayer dollars and interfere with the administration's attempts to enforce trade agreements and build on hard-earned trade wins.
I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remark. Gentle lady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment. One of the ITC's important statutory responsibilities is to conduct investigations and provide independent expert analysis of trade policy to Congress and the president. As lawmakers and the branch with the constitutional power to set trade policy, it is our responsibility to know the facts. We need an objective analysis of the impact this administration's tariff policies are having on our American businesses and consumers.
So far, evidence we've seen has been troubling. Small and medium-sized businesses are telling us they can't plan because the rules change week to week. American families are paying more for groceries. US manufacturers are facing increased costs on inputs and retaliatory tariffs on their own exports. In 2025, the trade deficit in goods hit a record high, and more than 80,000 manufacturing jobs were lost.
After getting a boost from historic investments under the Biden administration, spending on US factory construction has been falling since the beginning of last year. This administration is telling a different story. And if the administration and my colleagues believe these policies are delivering for the American people, then an independent analysis would only strengthen that case and make us all better informed. We as legislators should want this information. At the same time, if ITC's independent analysis shows that the tariff policy is hurting American businesses and consumers, we should want to know that too.
It's our responsibility to be informed so that we can exercise our authority and act in the best interests of the American people. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for your remarks. The general lady from Ohio is recognized, Miss Captur, to address the amendment.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in very strong support of the DeLauro fair trade amendment. Why do we wanna keep the American people in the dark about why their prices are rising on almost everything? The tariff policy by the Trump administration is, well, probably one of the most curious historical events ever to face the country. What we do know is tariffs have raised prices by about 7% above what might have been projected.
And when we look at the related costs that families are paying just for gasoline, it's over $1,500 extra a year. It's a lot of money. And believe me, you don't wanna come to my district and talk to all the truck drivers that have to buy diesel. It's skyrocketing. I just heard from a United States steel worker from a Northwestern Ohio refinery that to import Canadian sour crude, they're now paying an extra 10% tariff.
We are connected. The Canadian economy, the US economy, and the Great Lakes nation are connected. And when we sneeze, you know, they have pneumonia and vice versa, we're connected. The president is knowingly passing the 10% tax, though he fails to admit it, along to consumers at a time when our gas and diesel prices are already skyrocketing. The United States has lost at least 89,000 manufacturing jobs.
And we just had a defense hearing yesterday, they're talking about restoring the defense industrial base. You don't do that by eliminating 89,000 manufacturing jobs. And 124,000 in the transportation and warehousing sectors have been lost, according to Groundwork Collaborative. The Del Oro Amendment is a step in the right direction to help us know the truth in an objective way, toward gaining much needed clarity on the impact of the Trump administration's tariff policies. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the remarks. Gentlemen from Wisconsin, mister Pocannon, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope this is something that we could support, and it's not whether you support tariffs or don't support tariffs. It's whether you wanna know what impact tariffs are actually having. I just had a hallway meeting with someone who told me it's a specialized industry. They had a piece of equipment they had to buy that only came from France.
And when it was coming over, if it landed on a Friday, it was one price. If it landed on Saturday because of the tariffs being implemented, a different tariff because they constantly were changing in the last year, it would have been $2,000,000 instead of $1,000,000. They literally paid the pilot $20,000 to make sure he could get it there on Friday instead of Saturday, to avoid the extra million dollars that they would have had. And I had another manufacturer in my district who has a very specialized medical product. Half of their market is in China.
And because of retaliatory tariffs at the time, and this was last year, they went through a very extensive four-month process because we found out a way that at the airport, you could be a free trade zone. And they found a way to take their product and have it sit at the airport waiting for where tariffs would be on any given day, to then send them out when tariffs were reduced because, otherwise, it would affect their sales in China, something that was sourced over 70% in the state of Wisconsin, much less the rest of the country. So there's a lot that we don't know about how tariffs impacted small businesses. That's what I spent my entire life doing. It might be worth our curiosity to find out which tariffs worked and which tariffs didn't, because there were a lot of different tariffs that were thrown out in the last year.
So this isn't saying tariffs are good, tariffs are bad. This is saying our tariff's good, which tariffs are good, which ones are bad. And if we don't have that intellectual curiosity, certainly, under the constitution, we have the power of tariffs. How would we ever know how to use them effectively? So I would hope that this is something that's very common sense, and we could support, and I yield back, mister chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would just say that I wanna say a thank you to my colleagues for speaking up. But I think it's important to know, and I just looked up this information, and I say it to the chair of the subcommittee, the trade deficit in physical goods, which has been president Trump's focus as he has sought to use tariffs to restore the US manufacturing sector, actually grew in 2025. So that's a fact of life. The ITC is an independent agency.
And I will just say, I comments made by mister Po Khan. Why should we be afraid of a study of information? That's all I'm asking for is more information. We need to know in-depth and detail the true impact of the president's tariffs. What has been the effect on American consumers, on businesses, and on the economy as a whole?
We're all hearing from small businesses. We're all hearing from the farmers. We're all hearing, you know, let's get some real serious data from an independent outlet here. If my Republican colleagues believe these tariffs have had a net positive on the country, then I would be I would expect you would eagerly support this amendment. Democrats believe that these tariffs have been harmful to the American people.
Republicans do not. Let's allow an independent analysis to determine who is who, who is accurate, and to what degree. I think the American people deserve to know the full scope of how this policy has impacted our country. And instead of being anecdotal, let's move from factual information and have that discussion. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Connecticut. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
All those opposed, say no. No. Any of the chair of the noes have it? The roll call has been requested.
Speaker 1
Could those of you at this table be so troubled to raise your hand? Thank you very much. Please. Seeing sufficient support for the amendment, the clerk is ordered to call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar? Aye.
Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford? Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday?
Missus Bice? Missus Bice? No. Mr. Bishop? Yes.
Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case, I. Mister Siscamani?
No. Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein? No. Mister Klein, no.
Mr. Cloud? Mister Cloud? No. Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn.
Mister Clyde? Negative. Mister Clyde? No. Mister Cole?
Speaker 18
Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuellar? Mistine? Mistine, aye.
Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? Mister Diaz-Bollart?
No. Mister Edwards? No. Edwards? No.
Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy? No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar?
Escobar? I. Mister Espoyat? Espoyat? No.
No. Mister Fleishman? No. Mr. Frankel? Mister Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest?
No. Mr. Harter? Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No.
Missus Henson? Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Ivy.
Mr. Ivy, aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr.
Joyce, no. Ms. Captor. Mr. Lolota.
Mr. Lolota. No. Ms. Lee.
Miss Lee. Miss Lee, I. Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, I.
Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCollum? Aye.
Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar?
No. Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore? No.
Mister Morelli? Mister Mervann.
Speaker 18
Mister Mervann, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez. Miss Perez, aye.
Miss Pingree?
Speaker 18
Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pokan? Pokan? Mister Pokan, I. Mister Quigley.
Mister Quigley, I. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford?
Speaker 18
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson?
No. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres?
Miss Underwood? Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz?
Aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack?
Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen in California?
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, corporal tally. On this foot, the eyes are 26, the nose is 32. The amendment is not adopted. Gentle lady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized for purposes of amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. I request unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Del Oro, and Chair Rogers. I rise to speak in support of my amendment. In my district in Queens, New York, I have heard from numerous small business owners trying to navigate the EPA tariff refund process. And I know I'm not alone. I believe small businesses in all of our districts across the country don't have lawyers on retainer or dedicated compliance teams like large corporations do, nor should they.
So far, about a third of applicants have been denied their refunds due to technical errors when filing a claim. Many small businesses have reached out to my office to tell me that they don't know if they're eligible or where they would even file a claim. Our American small business owners work long days, nights, and weekends. It's often a struggle from one invoice to the next. They don't have the time or resources to navigate customs or trade law.
To address this casework issue, my amendment very simply directs the Department of Commerce to strengthen engagement with our American small businesses and to conduct outreach and provide technical assistance and answer questions to those that may be entitled to refunds of duties or import surcharges. Some may say that Customs and Borders Patrol, not the Commerce Department, should provide this assistance. But the Commerce Department has existing connections to American businesses through the office of public engagement, the international trade administration, and other bureaus. Small businesses already turn to commerce on trade and tariff issues, and we should ensure that commerce is engaging with them to address any tariff-related questions they may have. I will also share that I hope to work with my colleagues to provide even more direct assistance to small businesses through CBP in the homeland security appropriations markup. I think we should be taking every measure we can to help make our small businesses whole.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, recognized to respond to the amendment. Amendment.
Speaker 2
This amendment would utilize the existing knowledge of the Commerce Department and its bureaus in working with small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our communities, and this bill makes it easier for them to succeed and grow. I urge a yes vote on this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was gonna say I appreciate the thoughtful debate, but I'll just say thank you. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and look forward to working together to get constituents the help that they may need. Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank you, gentlelady. A win is always better than a thoughtful debate. Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from New York. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
All opposed, say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. General lady from New York, Miss Ming is recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I request unanimous consent that an amendment be considered read.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general ladies are recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Del Oro, and Chair Rogers. I rise to speak in support of my amendment. Currently, as written, this bill provides flat funding for the Census Bureau. This is $521,000,000 below the president's budget request and is totally insufficient for the work that the Census Bureau must do in fiscal year 27, especially to prepare for the 2030 decennial census. The Census Bureau is the nation's leading statistical agency.
It collects and publishes demographic and economic data that informs key decisions made by the executive branch and Congress, as well as the private sector and academic researchers. It ensures the equal representation of every person. To do this work in fiscal year 27, the Census Bureau needs more resources, not less. It needs resources to modernize, improve counts, and reach historically hard-to-reach populations, including young children, Native Americans, and people whose first language is not English, amongst others. In the year 2030, our census bureau should be able to achieve this.
My amendment would increase funding for the bureau simply to match the president's budget request and provide the bureau with the resources they told this committee that they need. I will not be calling for a vote on this amendment. As I said in my opening statement, I'm opposed to the deep cuts this bill makes across agencies, and I'm opposed to the cut the majority has made to the Census Bureau to pay for other priorities of theirs. This bill is not only shortsighted and inefficient, but it would also be disastrous for our government and for every person who trusts the government to allocate funding for safe roads and bridges, first responders, health care, veterans' programs, and for schools. The importance of a complete and accurate census cannot be overstated.
This committee must provide the Census Bureau with the resources it needs. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general, lady. Just want to clarify. Is the general lady withdrawing the amendment? Or.
Speaker 1
Okay. I thank the general lady, and we'll move to the next amendment. Gentle lady from Minnesota, Miss Peculum, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general ladies are recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 13
Mister chair, I'm offering this amendment to confront how our relationship between federal law enforcement and our state and local law enforcement in Minnesota has deteriorated during Operation Metro Surge. This amendment would simply prohibit federal agencies from blocking state law enforcement access to the scene of a potential state crime when the crimes involve a federal agent. It would require that our state law enforcement officials be allowed to conduct joint investigations and collect the evidence that they need. It would not prohibit federal agents from collecting all the same evidence and being right there alongside the state investigators. This would restore the best practice of a collaboration that ensures that we can pursue justice for our communities at both the federal and state level.
And this was standard operating procedure. This is from the state of Minnesota lawsuit filed in March against the Department of Justice about withholding evidence. For decades, federal and state authorities have cooperated in significant criminal investigations. Before January 2026, when serious incidents occurred in Minnesota that affected both state and federal interests, state agents and federal investigators worked collaboratively, sharing information, coordinating investigation steps, and ensuring that both sovereign rights had access to the evidence necessary to fulfill their perspective responsibilities. This included in the investigations of the shooting by federal officers, and the cooperation is not merely customary.
It reflects the basic structure of American federalism, under which the states retain primary authority to investigate and enforce violations of their own criminal law. Now the Bureau of Minnesota apprehensions, referred to as the BCA, led investigations recently in 2019 and 2020 with federal officers involved in shootings, with the support, with the total cooperation of the federal authorities. Local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies have worked closely together on investigations ranging from federal legal prosecutions against gang members to the mass shooting that took place this August, where two children were murdered while attending mass at the Church of the Annunciation, their first day of school. The routine practice is there to conduct cooperative investigations, which is important. It's important for the victims, and it's important for all of us.
This practice was totally shattered by Operation Metro Surge. In January 2026, federal immigration agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretty, and shot and wounded Julio Sosa Celsas. In the scenes that took place at Good and Sosa Celsas shootings, federal agents seemed eager. They were agreeing to work together with the BCA. But then later, they were told to stop, and total control of all the evidence was shut off to the BCA.
After the press shooting, the federal agents physically blocked state investigators from even accessing the crime scene. These three shootings are just the most prominent examples of potential violations of state law involving federal agents. Whenever federal officers have acted unlawfully and committed unauthorized acts or acted improperly on their duties, they are not covered by immunity under the supremacy clause, and the state has the authority to investigate. But that authority was undercut when the federal government withholds evidence and bars access to crime scenes. Now, mister chair, I'm gonna withdraw this amendment because I'm working on some legislation, and this affects each and every one of our states.
And so, at this time, I would just like my colleagues to know we need to protect states' rights. And if it happens in my state, it could happen in yours without a yield back.
Speaker 1
Just wanna make you absolutely sure. We were doing some things up here. The general lady did withdraw the amendment. Is that correct? I thank the lady.
We'll move to the next amendment. And I believe there's an effort to negotiate what was scheduled next. Mister BoCount, are you ready? Okay. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister BoCount, is recognized for purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 20
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and let us it could be considered read.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 20
Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. So this is an amendment that I'm guessing most of you don't know much about, and that's a problem because I, and by most of us, I mean all of us, don't know much about it because there's been very little discussion about it. The president issued a directive called NSPM 7, just rolls off the tongue. And that directive essentially sets up a process to go after domestic terrorism, but it has no definition of domestic terrorism.
So the language leaves it completely open to interpretation that's not based on law, but it certainly mentions certain areas that would be considered domestic terrorism that I think you would agree would be direct violations of the First Amendment, as well as several other amendments potentially in its application. It talks about going after groups that would have anything that's anti-American. That's a pretty loose interpretation. Anticapitalism, pretty loose interpretation. Antichristianity.
I don't know. Judaism, is that anti-Christianity? I don't know. Pretty loose interpretation. And this is not in any way defined by Congress or in statute.
So what's happening is, you've essentially set up a process where there are these agencies that are gonna be going after and finding this. So while at first, I think there were 3,700 nonprofits that signed a letter against this directive because it could impact them if someone gives money to a group or if someone is affiliated with a group, and they could be prosecuted if this is under this very loose interpretation of what is anticapitalism or anti-American. The problem is just, I think yesterday, Sebastian Gurke said that Tucker Carlson or Nick Fuentes, not necessarily people I follow, but could also be, applicably, gone after under this directive that almost no one knows what it's about. So the real problem is, you know, we have free speech. If you have any libertarian tendencies whatsoever, this should make the hair on your back or your hair on your arms go up a little bit because you're wondering why the government would have this set up, especially when there's no definition.
Now the intention was when Charlie Kirk was killed, assassinated. This was, why this supposedly came up, but I would argue, someone could argue Charlie Kirk's speech could have fallen under this category, or others could have fallen under this category. And that's a looseness that I don't know if any of us should be comfortable with. Because right now, it's one person in charge. Another time in the future, it could be another person in charge.
But do we really want to have something so loosely interpreted that people could actually be thrown in jail for this? You know, I remember at one time in our history, there's something called the tea party. You know? And that was political speech, and that was a way of fighting back, by the founders of this country. And for us to now, say that that could be anti-American or anticapitalism or whatever else is a real slippery slope that I think we should be very, very careful about.
So, we simply are asking, very simply that no funds be allowed to use this based on First Amendment rights to go after someone on their First Amendment rights. And there are other amendments that would be equally applicable, that could be affected by this, but this is something that I would hope would be a no brainer. There are these joint terrorism task forces, a joint mission center that's to go after this. But, again, we have approved nothing. There is no definition of this, but this certainly is almost rewriting parts of the constitution without having anyone involved other than a simple directive, and now you're asking people to make it apply without a definition.
So I would just encourage folks to say, let's protect the constitutional rights that people have, whether it be Tucker Carlson's or whether it be so called Antifa. I mean, the only Antifa I know is a drag queen named Antifa. But, nonetheless, whatever it is that you're going after, we should do it with actual definitions. I don't think we have actual definitions in the law, and I would encourage us to support this amendment. And I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment, which unnecessarily blocks funds for targeting or investigating organizations or individuals based solely on their lawful and constitutionally protected First Amendment rights. While we all support the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, this provision is simply unnecessary. The Justice Department under this administration simply does not target people on the basis of their constitutionally protected speech alone. I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady from New York. Miss Ming is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, which simply says that the Justice Department must not target people for criminal investigations based on the exercise of the First Amendment they don't like. We may not like what some people say or how they say it. We may not worship the way that they do. We may get mad and even offended when they assemble.
But in the US, they have the right to do all of this, and they have the right to not be prosecuted when they do. This is the First Amendment, a constitutional right. Unfortunately, this administration has not consistently respected this right. I encourage a yes vote on this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Back to the gentlelady for her remarks. Gentlelady from Minnesota, Miss McCollum, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had constituents who were legally taping and documenting, not interfering with some of the arrests that were happening. I had grandmothers and grandfathers who were volunteering outside of schools, because parents and kids were afraid to bring their children to school. The kids were afraid. There'd sometimes be people dressed in full fatigues with rifles on them outside a school, a great school.
And if someone didn't like what they were doing, one of our federal agents would come up, they would take their picture, and they would say, I've got your picture. You're a political terrorist. I know where you live, and we're watching you. So I support the gentleman's amendment because I think we all want law enforcement to be able to do their jobs effectively, but we want them to do it the right way. And when we have constituents out there just making sure that law enforcement, whether it's state, local, federal, county, I don't care, is doing their job the right way and recording something, to be turned around and called a terrorist by someone?
To say, know where you live. We're watching you. I support the gentleman's amendment. My constituents deserve to be treated with respect when expressing their First Amendment rights.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for the remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? General Lady from Maine is recognized.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna rise in support of this amendment by Representative Pokan. You know, this amendment rests on a very basic American principle. The federal government should not use taxpayer dollars to spy on, investigate, or target Americans solely because they are exercising their First Amendment rights. I think for all of us in this committee, on both sides of the aisle, this should not be controversial.
The First Amendment is critically important. It protects our right to speak, to protest, to organize, to worship, to associate with others, to observe government activity, and to criticize those in power. And those rights do not disappear just because the administration finds someone's views inconvenient or politically uncomfortable. If someone breaks the law, law enforcement already has the tools to investigate and respond. But this government should not be building files on Americans, monitoring organizations, or launching criminal investigations based only on lawful speech, political beliefs, donation, advocacy, or association.
This is the kind of government overreach everyone should reject. Do we really wanna hand the federal government a blank check to label lawful dissent as a national security threat? Civil liberties organizations and experts have warned that the administration's national security presidential memorandum number seven uses vague domestic terrorism language that could be used to target nonprofits, activists, donors, and organizations based on speech and beliefs the administration does not like. Just as my colleague and friend from Minnesota said, Maine had an ice surge that was inappropriately called the catch of the day. And during that time, Maine citizens were subject to some of the same kind of treatment.
We heard from people who were lawfully driving their car behind ICE officers to see where they were going, only to find out that the ICE officer followed them to their own driveway, got out of the car when the person got home, and said, now we know where you live, and we know who you are. We had another case that actually went to court where someone was tagged in the same way they were legally taping what was going on through their cell phone. And the person said, I've got your picture too, and you're now on our domestic terrorism watch list. These were just advocates and citizens, people who lived in our community who were disturbed about what was going on, but they were lawfully pursuing their First Amendment rights. Congressman Pokan's amendment advances some basic principle that I put into a bill based on that called the Stop ICE Intimidation Act.
And that just says federal agencies should not be allowed to use public money to punish, monitor, or intimidate people for exercising their constitutional rights. This amendment protects the First Amendment. It protects Americans from unconstitutional investigation, and it makes clear that dissent is not domestic terrorism. Tourism. Boy, we like tourism, mate.
But let me be clear. This amendment makes it clear that dissent is not domestic terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 20
Thank you, mister chairman. NSPM seven is an overly sweeping directive that imposes an Orwellian thought policing. It blurs the line between actual criminal conduct and constitutionally protected speech and protest. This isn't left, right on the spectrum. This is up and down on the spectrum.
Totalitarian versus democratic with a small d. Do we really want to say that someone can override our constitution with a simple directive and decide what anti-American or anticapitalism or whatever other loose terminology that's not defined in law means? And should Tucker Carlson be under the same situation as someone who's a protester at an ICE facility. That's the core of being America is being able to speak out, being able to use your First Amendment rights, and no single directive should override that. And I would encourage people to support this amendment, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. Aguilar. Aye. Mister Aguilar, I.
Mr. Alford? Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday?
No. Mr. Spice? Mr. Spice? No. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop? Bishop? I. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert?
No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No. Mr. Case?
Mr. Case? I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No.
Mister Klein? Mr Cloud? Mr. Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde?
Mister Clyde? No. Mr. Cole? No. Mr. Cole?
No. Mister Cuéar? Aye. Mister Cuéar, aye. Mistine, aye.
Mister Loro, aye. Mister Diaz Bollart, no. Mister Edwards, no. Mister Elze, no. Miss Escobar, aye.
Mister Esbayat. Mister Esbayat, aye. Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel?
Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin? Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest? Mister Guest?
No. Mister Harder? Mr. Harter? I.
Doctor. Harris? Doctor. Harris? No.
Mrs. Henson? Mr. Hoyer? Mr.
Ivy? Mr. Ivy? Mr. Joyce?
Miss Captor? Ay. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota? No.
Lolota? No. Miss Lee? I. Miss Lee, aye.
Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy, no.
Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye.
Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore? Mister Moore?
No. Mister Morelli? Yes. Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervand?
Mr. Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Aye.
Pingree? Aye. Miss Pingree? Aye. Mister Pocan?
Aye. Mr. Pocan? Aye. Mister Quigley? Aye.
Quigley? Aye. Mister Russenthaler? Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no.
Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? Strong? No.
Mrs. Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo?
No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman, aye.
Mister Womack? No. Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Indiana? Aye.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27. The notes are 32. The amendment is not agreed to.
Gentleman from California, Mister Aguilar, is recognized for the purpose of amendment.
Speaker 23
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask that the clerk dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment here, and I do want to read a portion of it. But it will prohibit the Bureau of Prisons from spending $152,000,000 to reopen Alcatraz Island. This is the actual Alcatraz Island, not another one that has been in the news and given that moniker. None of the funds available by the act or any other act may be used to plan, design, modify, demolish, construct, or revitalize for the use of the bureau of prisons as a correctional facility or to transfer to the Department of Justice any facility on Alcatraz Island.
The president has it in his head that we need a show to show that we are tough on crime. Mister chairman, this does nothing to meet that issue. This is turning a popular tourist attraction into a maximum-security prison. The $152,000,000 that the president's requested isn't even the full amount that will be needed to reopen Alcatraz beyond the year, nor will the administration give us the data that's necessary to figure out what the long-term cost will be. Not only would this transform and be an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars, it would take away much needed funding that the Bureau of Prisons needs to run and manage facilities that it has in its portfolio.
The Bureau of Prisons right now, mister chairman, has a $4,000,000,000 backlog of maintenance at its facilities across the nation. California currently has 12 facilities managed by the Bureau of Prisons. We don't need to spend tens of millions of dollars more turning a historical landmark into another prison, which closed in the 60s for real reasons. They had to barge in. In the sixties, they had to barge in 1 million gallons of water every day.
That's one of the reasons why it closed. We already have old prisons that need repairs and upgrades. Let's spend these dollars more appropriately to upgrade what we have and to address the backlog that exists. This is a common sense amendment that would prevent $150,000,000 from turning this tourist attraction into a prison. There are much more efficient ways to spend these dollars.
I'm not concerned with addressing that. We can do this in a meaningful and reasonable way, and I think prohibiting the use of funds for Alcatraz would do just that and allow us to focus on the resources that desperately need attention within the BOP port portfolio. Urge adoption of the amendment. Mister chairman. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentle lady from New York is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I support this amendment, but I'm disappointed that it needs to be offered. The president's budget proposes 152,000,000 just to start the planning and design work that would be needed to bring Alcatraz back into the federal prison system, even though it is not needed and the BOP cannot afford it. This is by no means the full cost of restoring Alcatraz to a maximum-security facility. The actual cost of restoring the prison to a facility capable of feeding, housing, and detaining hundreds of prisoners will be substantially higher. The BOP has a $4,000,000,000 maintenance backlog.
A third of BOP's institutions are over 50 years old. Two thirds are over 30 years old. Even after it spends the 2,000,000,000 provided in the reconciliation, BOP will not fully address this backlog. This maintenance backlog makes BOP facilities worse for the tens of thousands of correctional officers, health workers, educators, and others who earn their living doing difficult work in often dangerous conditions. They deserve our support so that they can get home safely to their families every night.
Instead, we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on reopening Alcatraz. From every angle, reopening Alcatraz makes no sense. I urge a yes vote on this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Saying none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 23
I wanna thank Rick Member Meng for her comments on this. This is pretty simple, colleagues. And I'm not gonna belabor the point, but the fundamental question is, should we turn a tourist attraction into a prison when we have billions of dollars in backlog? This amendment would simply prohibit that, would focus the resources on where it's needed, and ensure that this tourist attraction stays a tourist attraction. And all of you can visit with your families.
It's a little bit of a novelty. It's cute, but it is not meant to be a functional prison. I appreciate the committee and the ranking members' support and would encourage an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen, for his remarks. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Thank you, Chair. The nose have it. Roll call has been requested. Deficient number of hands have been raised in a court call role.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aguilar? I.
Mister Alford? Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amane? No.
Mister Amane? No. Missus Bice? Missus Bice, no. Mister Bishop?
Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter. Mister Carter, no.
Mr Case. Mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein. Mister Klein, no.
Mr. Cloud. Mister Clyburn?
Speaker 18
Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde? Mr. Clyde? No. Mr. Cole?
No. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cuellar? Mistine?
Mistine, aye. Mister Loro. Aye. Mister Loro, aye. Mister Diaz Ballard.
Mister Diaz Ballard, no. Mr Edwards. Mister Edwards, no. Mister Elzey. Miss Escobar.
Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat? Mister Esbayat, aye. Mister Fleishman? No.
Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel? Aye. Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mister Guest, no. Mr. Harter?
Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Mr. Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, I. Mister Ivy? Aye.
Mister Ivy, aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce. No. Miss Captor.
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota. No. Miss Lee.
Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Aye.
Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy. No. Miss McCollum.
Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye.
Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore? Mr. Moore.
No. Mister Morelli.
Speaker 18
One Mister Mervann, aye. Mr Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez? Miss Perez, aye.
Miss Pingry?
Speaker 18
Miss Pingry, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley? Mister Quigley, aye.
Mister Rashenthaler? Okay. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no.
Mr Strong. Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Okay. Missus Torres, aye.
Miss Underwood.
Speaker 18
I'll get you in a second. Okay. Mister Valladeo. Mister Valladeo, no. Now.
Miss Washington and Schultz. Miss Washington and Schultz, aye. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack.
Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from California.
Speaker 1
Are there any other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. Miss, vote the eyes are 27. The notes are 31. The amendment is not adopted.
The gentlelady from Florida, Miss Washington Childs, is recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I wanna thank mister Moore of West Virginia for working with me on revising this amendment so that we could really take a step forward on something that I think is important to us all, and that's ensuring that crime victims' rights are upheld.
Speaker 1
Without objection, they're reading the amendment. They're dispensed with.
Speaker 15
Little wound up today. Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, again, I want to thank Mister Moore of West Virginia for working with me to advance what I know is important to all of us, and that is to really make sure that we can allow victims of crime to have their rights enforced. The Crime Victims Rights Act that passed in 2004 is one that has very express direction on how crime victims' rights should be handled, particularly when a decision is being made about plea deals, about the final outcome of crimes, and sentencing.
And so I'm rising today to offer this amendment that would begin to address those gaps in the current DOJ procedures and the legal ambiguities that denied Jeffrey Epstein's victims justice and let him walk free with a secret sweetheart plea deal, but without any opportunity for the victims to be afforded their day in court as the CVRA requires. Courtney Wild fought for years and continues to fight to make sure that what happened to the Epstein victims never happens to anyone again. She was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein in Florida when she was a 14-year-old girl. And when US attorney Alex Acosta and others gave Epstein a sweetheart plea deal in 2008, instead of throwing him in jail, Courtney was blindsided. That sweetheart deal allowed Epstein to plead to state prostitution charges, and he spent 13 months sleeping overnight in a cell but returning to his penthouse for 12 hours a day.
The original Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 was meant to protect the rights of all victims, to have their voice heard in court, and to receive timely notice of any major development in the defendant's case, including a plea deal. That's what the law was supposed to do. But Epstein's victims like Courtney were never told about this backroom deal until it was already in effect. Instead of providing a tool for victims, the CBRA became another weapon for shielding predators from accountability. And for every day since, for nearly two decades, Courtney has been fighting to restore the CBRA's original purpose.
Just yesterday, Courtney testified before our Democratic colleagues on the House Oversight Committee at their hearing in Palm Beach County. And please listen to what she said. She said I came here to ask for one simple thing, to make sure this never happens again. Think about that. We have the power to prevent this kind of injustice from being repeated.
Any victim of a crime as despicable as Epstein's trafficking of young girls deserves to have their day in court, to speak out against a plea deal or nonprosecution agreement. I have long fought for reforms to the CVRA, not just to secure justice for Epstein survivors, but to prevent other crime victims from being victimized again by the justice system. But in place of a change in the law, which is what my bill, the Courtney Wild Reinforcing Crime Victims Rights Act would do alongside Lois Frankel, we can start by having a clear picture of whether current DOJ policies are upholding the intent of the original CVRA to protect all victims. And this amendment would provide us with important answers so we can expand protections for crime victims through every avenue possible. Because all survivors deserve transparency.
They deserve justice. No survivor should have to tell their story over and over again, like many of the Epstein survivors, under immense scrutiny from the public just to get the justice that they should have been afforded under the law in the first place. As she continues to fight for justice, I'm in awe of Courtney's unwavering determination and the bravery she and other Epstein survivors have shown. Her efforts have put a spotlight on these ambiguities in current law, and we know more survivors, more than just Epstein survivors, also fight for the same rights. Time and time again, victims are provided only vague information that a plea is under consideration, without any awareness of any deals, terms, timing, or the possibility of restitution.
These victims then lose the opportunity to advocate for agreements that reflect their needs and interests, just like Epstein victims. These examples show us that unless the law is clarified to require meaningful and timely consultation on pleas, victims will continue to be marginalized at some of the most consequential stages of criminal cases. My colleague, Miss Frankel, and I have been backing Courtney's fight since 2019, and Courtney Wild has fought it even longer than that. Now we need to take action. Nobody who was abused by a predator like Jeffrey Epstein or anyone should be victimized once again by our laws.
This is a small step, but a first step towards Courtney's plea to make sure this never happens again. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I appreciate again Mister Moore's cooperation, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Gentleman from West Virginia is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 24
Okay. Hey. Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to Miss Washington Schultz for working with me on this amendment. I'll keep it very brief, urge all my colleagues to support, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Oh, man. Chairman's favorite. No question about it. Gentleman from Kentucky. Mister Rogers is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the wisely crafted amendment by the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentlelady from Florida. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. He'll be back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentle lady from New York. Miss Ming is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I, too, rise in support of this amendment. As my colleague from Florida has said, this amendment will close a loophole that has been such a source of pain and frustration for many victims of Epstein who are denied their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act in 08 and then denied restitution by the eleventh circuit in 2020. But while this amendment attempts to respond to the pain and suffering of Epstein's victims, this amendment is not only about the Epstein case. It is also an opportunity to prevent future injustices. This amendment requires the DOJ's inspector general to do a top-to-bottom review of how DOJ is implementing the Crime Victims' Rights Act and give us and the department recommendations for how to better serve crime victims.
There's no cost to this provision. It does not alter the total amount of spending in the bill, but it has the potential to make all the difference for victims of crime. With that in mind, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for her remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? General lady from Florida is recognized.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Thank you, representative Wasserman Schultz, for the amendment and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for support. And I wanna make a comment because, what happened in Florida with this case to me was such a miscarriage of justice and so outrageous that I think it's important to lay it out so that the world knows. As was recited, Congress passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, informed of critical developments in their cases, and given a voice in the justice process. But in one of the most famous cases in modern history, these rights were effectively denied.
In the Epstein case, federal prosecutors negotiated a secret non-prosecution agreement behind closed doors while survivors were kept completely in the dark. They were not notified. They were not consulted, and they were not given the opportunity to object before the deal was finalized. This was not just a failure of communication. This was a failure of justice.
Survivors in this case were failed twice. First, by a serial predator, and then by a system that protected wealth, power, and privilege over vulnerable young women and girls. I was at that field yesterday when we heard from a number of survivors, and Courtney Wild was one of them, who has been fighting so hard with perseverance and courage to make sure we get this law right. They told us how they came forward as children, told the truth, cooperated with law enforcement, and still watch powerful people cut deals behind closed doors. We heard how survivors were treated like they did not matter, and we heard about the pain of learning that the government had secretly negotiated way to justice without informing the young women whose lives had been shattered.
There was one truth echoed throughout the hearing. The survivors were exposed, and the powerful were protected. And that's why this report language is so important, this directive, which has been explained by representative Wasseman Schultz, because it addresses one of the most disturbing loopholes exposed by the Epstein cases, when prosecutors negotiated pretrial agreements or nonprosecution deals before charges are formally filed. So I would just want to say we can altogether make sure that this never happens again. And I thank all my colleagues on both sides for support of this amendment.
I hope everybody here does that too, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. Gentlelady, oh, I'm sorry. I did, a gentleman from Maryland wished to address him.
An important mission, to be sure. Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Amendment is adopted. The gentlelady from Florida, Miss Wasserman Schultz, is recognized with the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 15
Got it straight this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a feeling this one might not go as smoothly, but I'm gonna give it a shot. I rise to speak in strong support of my amendment to prevent people that are convicted of domestic violence being granted access to murder weapons by the Trump administration. In a country where one third of women and one quarter of men are victims of intimate partner violence at least once in their lifetime.
The issue of domestic violence cuts deeply. Every year, 556 women are killed by a partner with a gun, and that's an average of one woman every fifteen hours, and that devastating total is at risk of rising. Instead of standing up for the most vulnerable among us, the Trump administration wants to make it easier, yes, easier for convicted violent criminals to own a firearm. Former attorney general Bondi already restored gun rights to several people with violent criminal histories, including convicted domestic abuser Mel Gibson. Let me be absolutely crystal clear.
Rearming convicted domestic abusers is as dangerous as it is nonsensical. These individuals have proven themselves to be willing to direct physical violence against their families and their partners. Allowing these convicted abusers to legally obtain extremely deadly weapons will turn more domestic violence incidents into murders. The mere presence of a firearm is a key factor that turns abusive partners into cold-blooded killers. When a male abuser has direct access to a gun, the likelihood of the violence he commits against his partner will become fatal increases by over 1000%. 1000%.
It's absolutely absurd to me that we would allow any policy choice that makes it 1000% more likely. It sounds like an exaggeration, but it's not. That an abused wife will be shot dead in her home. Importantly, arming domestic abusers doesn't just endanger their family members or friends. It puts us all at risk.
According to a secret service threat assessment, 41 percent of people who carried out a mass attack had a history of domestic violence, and 60 percent of mass shootings over a six-year period involved an aggressor with a history of domestic violence. The last thing we need is more guns and bullets in the possession of people predisposed to violence. And gun violence is not limited to just fatal interactions. Abusers frequently brandish their firearms to intimidate, silence, harass, or threaten their partner. That's the unfortunate reality for thousands of people across the country.
And failure to take action now will make this a reality for thousands more. Access to firearms for dangerous criminals should not outweigh the safety of domestic violence survivors. The fact that we even need to have this conversation in the first place is utterly insane. My amendment is simple. It simply states that no funding from this bill may be used to restore the gun rights of individuals convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence.
We should not want our tax dollars spent on giving known violent criminals guns. Hopefully, we can agree on that. I urge my colleagues to stand by domestic violence survivors and prevent more women from being victimized by supporting this essential amendment. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Second Amendment provides hallowed protections, and I oppose any infringement upon this constitutional right. I'm proud that the US House the bill maintains strong second amendment protections. I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I rise in strong support of this amendment. All of us should be able to agree unequivocally domestic abusers should absolutely not be allowed to own firearms. I commend my colleague and urge the adoption of her amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Florida is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This simply says that if you have committed and been convicted of domestic violence, either a misdemeanor or a felony, that we aren't gonna spend funds in this bill allowing DOJ to restore your right to hold a firearm. That isn't an infringement on a second amendment. It is already against the law. Already against the law.
But yet you we've had we have had DOJ officials restore the firearms access to the people who have been convicted of domestic violence, who we know have a much higher likelihood of eventually killing a victim. Why would you do that? To suggest that is a violation of the second amendment is so grossly exaggerated and overstated and outrageous, it's breathtaking to me. So I hope that cooler heads will prevail, and we will protect victims of domestic violence from being eventually killed by their abusers, which happens far too often in this country. Thank you.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the remarks. Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
All opposed, say no. Canadian chair of the nose. Abbott, roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar.
I am mister Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amaday. Mister Amaday, no.
Mr. Spice. Mister Spice, no. Mr. Bishop. Mister Bishop, I. Mr Calvert.
Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mister Carter, no. Mr Case. Mister Case, I.
Mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein, Mister Cloud. Mister Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, aye.
Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole.
Speaker 18
Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar. Aye. Mister Cuéar, aye. Mistine.
Aye. Mister Lauro?
Speaker 18
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Mister Edwards?
No. Mister Elze? Mister Elze? No. Miss Escobar, aye.
Mr. Espéyat? Aye. Mr. Espéyat, aye.
Mr. Fleishman? Miss Frankel? Aye. Miss Frankel, aye.
Mr. Franklin? Mr. Franklin? No. Mr.
Guest? No. Mr. Harter? Aye.
Mr. Harter, aye. Doctor. Harris? Doctor.
Harris? No. Mrs. Henson? Mr.
Hoyer? Aye. Mr. Aye. Mr.
Ivy? Aye. Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce?
No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota?
Miss Lee? Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin?
Aye. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? No. Miss Malloy?
No. Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming?
Mister Molinar? No. Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore?
Mr. Moore. No. Mr Morelli.
Speaker 18
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervan. Mr Newhouse. Miss Perez. Miss Perez, aye.
Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pokan? Mister Quigley? Aye.
Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler? Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers? No.
Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Schriever?
No. Mister Shreeve? No. Mr. Simpson? No.
Simpson? Mr Strong? No. Strong? Mister Torres?
Aye. Missus Torres? Aye. Miss Underwood? Aye.
Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo? No. Mister Valladeo? No.
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Aye. Missus Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Aye.
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Tennessee?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 28 and noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. General lady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 21
Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 21
Well, here goes another triple M. You know what that means? My. This amendment strikes section five seven eight of the bill, a provision that blocks enforcement of the EEOC's 2024 rule clarifying that abortion care falls within the pregnant workers' fairness acts for protections for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. The pregnant women's fairness act passed with bipartisan support because no woman should be punished out of her job.
I'm sorry. Pushed out of her job for a medical condition related to pregnancy. And the EEOC rule simply carries out that promise. And make no mistake, this matters to millions of women, this Fairness Act, because every year millions of women work while navigating pregnancy, childbirth, recovery, and reproductive health care decisions. And the law was meant to ensure that they are treated with dignity, with fairness, and basic humanity in the workplace.
But, section 578 here creates a dangerous workplace exception. It singles out one category of medical care, and that is abortion, and says those workers deserve fewer protections. Actually, no protections, fewer rights, and less dignity on the job. And that is just plain wrong because no woman, no person should ever have to choose between their health and a paycheck. And no workers should fear losing their job because she needs time for medical care to recover.
The law was designed for common sense accommodations, a water break, temporary lifting restrictions, time off recovery, or flexibility for medical appointments. Yet this provision and this bill says that if the medical care involves abortion, suddenly, those protections disappear. A woman could be denied leave, denied flexibility, or punished at work simply because someone disapproves of her personal decision, even if it is legal where she is. Oh, and we live in a democracy where we pride ourselves on personal freedom. So I asked my colleagues, do you really want to force women to continue pregnancies against their will or punish them by ending one, by threatening their job and economic security?
Because that's exactly what the provision in this bill does, and that is not workplace fairness. It is simply political punishment. And let's be clear. We've said this over and over again. Abortion is a medical procedure.
Unlike any medical procedure, it can require follow-up care, recovery time, travel, or multiple appointments, especially in states where women are forced to travel long distances or navigate burdens and restrictions, just to obtain legal care. And, listen, this amendment doesn't require anybody in this room to agree with abortion. It doesn't require anyone to support abortion. At its core, it is about whether women can support themselves and their families without sacrificing their health, safety, and economic security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fiscal 27 house bill takes serious steps forward to protect unborn human life. The bill includes the long standing Hyde like amendment for the Department of Justice that prevents taxpayer funds from funding abortions. This amendment, which does not follow congressional intent, would strip a provision from the bill and take a step back from the progress that this bill makes in order to protect her unborn lives. I oppose this amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I support women and their right to make the health care decisions that are best for them. Women must be able to make these decisions with their doctors and loved ones in privacy. Through the Bipartisan Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act, Congress put laws in place to prevent discrimination against pregnant women and ensure that their workplaces make accommodations for them and the various potential medical conditions related to pregnancy. Section 578 of this bill undermines that protection and is an insult to the American women Congress stood up to protect through the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act.
I thank my colleague for offering this amendment to strike this harmful and unnecessary provision, and urge a yes vote. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Georgia. Mister Clyde is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mister Chairman, Chair Rogers. I rise to support Chair Rogers in opposition to this amendment, which seeks to preserve an unlawful abortion mandate imposed through an EEOC rule. Congress passed the bipartisan Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act to provide support and accommodations for pregnant women in the workplace, not to create a federal abortion mandate. The legislation Congress enacted in 2022 did not include abortion. In fact, both Republican and Democrat sponsors made clear during consideration of the bill that abortion was specifically, explicitly not part of the legislation.
Yet the Biden administration's EEOC ignored that clear congressional intent, and issued a final rule requiring employers to accommodate employees seeking elective abortions. While the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act granted the EEOC authority to implement the law, it did not authorize the agency to rewrite it. Abortion was never included in the statute, and elective abortion is not a medical condition related to pregnancy. It is the intentional murder of an innocent unborn child. Mister chairman, Congress wrote this law, and now Congress must clarify what it intended.
We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats to impose this illegal and deadly overreach that Congress never authorized. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 21
Thank you, miss. Here's an idea. I got a good idea. How about keeping women alive? How about allowing women who go to work to be able to support themselves and their families without compromising their health?
That's what this is about. Because when you fail to accommodate a woman for a personal medical decision, you could be leading to her morbidity or her death. This is a very common-sense amendment that I have here. Let's support the women of America. Let's keep them alive, and let's keep them healthy, and let's keep them able to support themselves and their families.
And with that, I urge the support of this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
Recorded vote has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt? Mister Aguilar? Aye.
Mister Aguilar? Aye. Mr. Alford? Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday?
Mister Amaday? No. Mrs. Mrs. Bice, no.
Mister Bishop? Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No.
Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case, I mister Siscamani.
Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein. Mr. Cloud. Mister Clyburn, I mister Clyde. Mister Clyde?
No. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole? No.
Mister Cuéar? Miss Dean? Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro? Aye.
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Ballard? No. Diaz Ballard? Mister Edwards?
Mister Edwards, no. Mister Elzey. Mister Elzey, no. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar, aye.
Mister Escobar, Espeyat? Mister Fleishman? Aye. Mister Fleishman? No.
Mister Frankel, Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mr. Harter?
Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson? Mister Hoyer?
Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy? Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce?
No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota?
You. Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee? Miss Letlow?
Mister Levin? Mister Levin? Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy? No.
Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye.
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? No. Moore? Mister Moore, no.
Mr Morelli.
Speaker 18
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervann. Mr Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez.
Yes. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pokan?
Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley? Aye. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler?
Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford, no.
Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong.
Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Hi. Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood.
Miss Underwood, I. Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasteman Schultz?
Miss Wasteman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack?
No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke?
Speaker 1
No. Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentle lady from Iowa?
Speaker 1
Okay. Are there any others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27, the noes are 33. The amendment is not adopted.
A gentleman from New Jersey, a gentle lady, excuse me, from New Jersey. Miss Watson Coleman is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of it.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was created by this body when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with the goal of ensuring that all workers have access to living wage jobs without fear of discrimination. My amendment would require the EEOC to fully investigate all discrimination complaints it receives. It would also require the agency to report how it is complying with the mandate.
The law requires employers to focus on job-related criteria when deciding who to hire, fire, and promote, instead of focusing on deceptively neutral but harmful criteria that are not actually needed for the job, like requiring a college education or a credit score or passing physical ability tests. Its scope goes well beyond protecting gender- or race-based discrimination, including religion, age, disability, sex, and sexual orientation as well. This manner of discrimination known as disparate impact has been recognized by the Supreme Court since 1971, with Congress codifying it by amending Title Six in 1991. Yet since taking office, Donald Trump and his allies have waged a wrong-headed crusade against any policy that allows marginalized communities to earn a seat at the table. From firing black officials to criminalizing inclusion initiatives, and most recently, pushing states to wipe out minority representation in Congress.
Now the EEOC is ignoring federal employment laws and refusing to help workers facing discrimination. That includes the dismissal of a case challenging unlawful employment practices at sheets that discriminated against black and Latino workers. In fact, chair Andrea Lucas has even explicitly directed the agency to prioritize claims from able-bodied white men. The absurdity of that is just beyond discussion. These decisions are hurting communities across America who are already dealing with the weakened job market and face increasing discrimination on a daily basis in so many aspects of their life.
America is at its best when it places value in a diversity of minds and backgrounds. Instead, the agency is setting America back by abandoning its duty, all in service of a divisive political agenda. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. I thank you for the opportunity to present it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to oppose this amendment. It's well settled Supreme Court precedent, the disparate impact by itself does not establish a claim of intentional discrimination. This amendment tries to require the EEOC to, nevertheless,
Speaker 2
Sorry. This amendment tries to require the EEOC to nevertheless treat disparate impact as if it does establish such a claim. I oppose this amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. General lady from New York, Miss Ming is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Disparate impact is an established legal framework that has been affirmed by courts and was codified in statute in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. This framework allows workers to challenge employment practices that may appear neutral but have a discriminatory effect. These protections are still important today when employers are increasingly using artificial intelligence and algorithm tools to make hiring decisions, monitor performance, assign work, and evaluate productivity. Unfortunately, the administration is walking away from disparate impact enforcement across the government, weakening a wide range of protections from fair housing to equal employment opportunity, and leaving little recourse for Americans facing harmful discriminatory policies.
The EEOC must carry out its mandate and fully investigate all cases of impact-based discrimination in American workplaces. I urge a yes vote on this amendment, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentle lady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady from New Jersey is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The EEOC's actions or lack thereof is another example of Trump's inability to make life better for every American, except for those of his buddies or people who look like him. The damage will reverberate well beyond discrimination. Americans are struggling to find work, struggling even more to earn a living wage. This callousness will hurt us.
It will hurt American pockets, and it does nothing to fix an economy where inflation now outpaces American paychecks for the first time in many years. Just yesterday, he said that he does not consider the financial impact of this war of choice in the Middle East when negotiating a peace deal. And based on his policy since day one, it doesn't appear that he considers the American taxpayer under any circumstances. Many people rely on this. Many people have the right to work in this country free of discrimination.
And I would ask my colleagues if you would please support me and support the people of the United States of America that are something other than just white men. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the comments. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from New Jersey. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. And you chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerical call.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar.
I. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amaday.
Mister Amaday. No. Missus Bice. Mr Bishop? Mister Bishop, I.
Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? No.
Mr. Carter? No. Mr Case? Mister Case, I. Mister Siscamani?
Mister Klein. Mister Klein, no. Mr. Cloud. Mister Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, aye.
Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole, no.
Mister Cuellar, Mistine. Mistine, aye. Mister Lauro. Aye. Mister Lauro, aye.
Mister Diaz Bellart. Mister Diaz Bellart, no. Mister Edwards. Mister Elsy. Mr.
Elzey? No. Ms. Escobar. Ms.
Escobar, aye. Mr. Espeyat? Mr. Espeyat, aye.
Mr. Fleishman? Mr. Fleishman? No.
Ms. Frankel? Hi. Ms. Frankel?
Mr. Franklin? Mr. Franklin? No.
Mr. Guest? Mr. Harter? Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris?
Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson? Mister Hoyer?
Speaker 18
Mister Hoyer, I. Mister Ivy? Mister Joyce. Miss Captor. Aye.
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota. No. Miss Lee.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Molloy. Miss McCollum.
Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye.
Mister Molinar? No. Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore?
No. Morelli? Mister Morelli, I. Mister Mervann? Mister Newhouse?
Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Miss Perez, I. Miss Pingree?
Miss Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye.
Mister Russian Thaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no.
Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong.
Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Aye. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood.
Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo. Mister Valladeo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Missus Watson Coleman. Yes. Missus Watson Coleman, I. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Arizona.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 26. The notes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. A general lady from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to offer and to withdraw, and I'd like to seek unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill seeks to cut $272000000 from Legal Defense Services Corporation. My amendment would ensure that the LSC gets the funding it needs. Cuts to the LSC would have devastating consequences for underserved communities, stripping resources from families that already struggle to defend themselves and reach the justice they deserve. The LSC, which was founded by Congress over fifty years ago, is the single largest provider of grant funding, training, and technical assistance to civil legal aid programs geared specifically towards underserved communities.
It helps millions of people every year. Republicans say that they want to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, but the LSC is one of the most efficient services that we fund. Thanks to its work, we save money in the long run. For every dollar we contribute in funding, taxpayers get $7 back, and increase economic activity as well. Economic activity that is sorely needed right now.
This does not meet the criteria to be on the chopping block. The LLC is headed by a bipartisan board of directors, and the president appoints the board. The work that it does is in the service of all Americans, and all of us have constituents who have benefited from it. While we may disagree on many issues, this should not be one of them. In fact, this should be one we coalesce around.
I'm willing to work with my colleagues to support robust funding for legal services. Let's show the American people that we still unify in service to our constituents. And I, thank you very much, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mister Rogers, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is performative and unnecessary. I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Gentle lady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I know that my colleague will be withdrawing this amendment, but I do want to express my support for restoring funding for the LSC. Legal services are fundamental to our justice system's integrity and the rule of law. They ensure low-income and working-class families can get help with the most basic civil legal problems. This is not performative. These issues are life-changing for so many of our constituents, and we know how important it is for them to have proper legal representation.
The bill we're considering today cuts funding for LLC in half. In my community alone, that would mean 6,400 fewer people would get help, such as children facing instability at home, domestic violence survivors seeking legal protections to escape abuse, veterans struggling to access benefits, and seniors facing eviction. They would all go without assistance. The investment we make in LLC every year helps make sure that our most vulnerable constituents have a fair shot when faced with hardship. It also saves taxpayers' money by resolving legal issues early, and reducing the burden on shelters, health care systems, social services, and law enforcement.
I thank my colleague for offering this important amendment, and I hope we can work together as this process continues to provide strong funding for LCC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the amendment to restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation. As I noted earlier, the Legal Services Corporation plays a vital role in communities across the country, providing legal help to people who otherwise would not have access to it. By funding the program, we ensure that people can stay in their homes, that survivors of domestic violence can get the protection they need, that veterans can access the benefits they've earned, and that seniors are not left to navigate housing or health cases on their own. In Georgia's 2nd Congressional District, I've seen firsthand how deeply this cut would impact my constituents.
Nearly 5,000 people would lose access to crucial legal services in my district alone. Among them, more than 1,300 children, over 400 survivors of domestic violence, and more than 100 veterans in their families. Without this funding, many will be left without the support they need to address critical legal challenges. The legal aid organizations in my state are already doing everything they can with limited resources. A cut like this will only make their job harder and leave more people behind.
We need to make sure that access to justice isn't just available to the wealthy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. At the proper point in this process, I hope that we will, as a congress, restore the funding to fully fund the Legal Services Corporation, to make sure that families, veterans, and seniors can continue to get the legal help they need when it matters the most. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 9
First of all, I want to acknowledge that my colleagues have proposed this legislation, this bill, which has even a smaller cut to legal services than was originally proposed, and that's moving in the right direction. I think this is vitally important for the 6,400,000 people that have used it before, for the issues which are coming before us even today. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to see if we can boost this up just a little bit. And with that, I withdraw my amendment, and thank you for the opportunity to present it.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Gentleman from gentlelady from California. Miss Torres is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chairman. I rise to offer an amendment and ask for the reading to be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chairman. My amendment would prohibit preferential treatment for narcotraffickers or child traffickers by the Federal Bureau of Prisons or any other agency funded by this act. Why is that important? Well, this is why. This member is a picture of Honduran former Honduran president, narco trafficker Juan Orlando Hernández.
Former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who in 2024 was convicted by an American jury for trafficking 400 tons of cocaine between 02/2022 and into our country. Juan Orlando Hernández ran a violent cartel, backed an empire that trafficked hundreds of tons of cocaine into the US. He stole our taxpayers' dollars and terrorized communities across the US and Central America. During his presidency, Hernandez turned the Honduran government into a tool of violence and complete corruption. Hernandez deployed police and military forces trained by US forces to protect cocaine shipments, used death squads to intimidate opponents, and openly branded.
He branded drugs with his initials while profiting from the deaths of Americans right here at home. Juan Orlando Hernández turned Honduras again into an anarcho state. His violent regime is responsible for 1,100,000 Honduran refugees fleeing to our southern border, seeking protection. Donald Trump pardoned this narcotrafficker, signaling to the world that power and money can shield criminals from justice, and that American victims' lives do not matter. Adding insult to this great injury, after Hernandez was pardoned, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Trump administration rolled out the red carpet for him.
On the day Hernandez was supposed to be released, as customary, ICE put a detainer on him. Hernandez was to be turned over for deportation, as he is a convicted drug trafficker. But instead, the Federal Bureau of Prisons scrambled to stop his deportation. And they didn't simply stop there. Despite their budget staffing challenges, Trump's Federal Bureau of Prisons paid not with their own personal money, not with Juan Orlando Hernández's money, but with our hard-earned taxpayers' dollars.
They paid a specialized four-man tactical team overtime. Not regular time, but overtime. They paid them overtime to take Juan Orlando Hernández from his prison cell in West Virginia to a luxury hotel in downtown New York City, funded by our hardworking tax dollars. And what happened to the $8,000,000 fine that the judge ordered Juan Orlando to pay? I have no idea, and neither do you.
These actions can never be allowed to happen again. There should never be preferential treatment for narco leaders, whether they are pardoned or not. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Gentlemen from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is performative and unnecessary. So I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from New York is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I support this amendment, which ensures that the Department of Justice does not play favorites when it comes to prisoners who have committed some of the worst felonies imaginable. The former president of Honduras was moved by BOP officers from his prison in West Virginia to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City after he was pardoned. He had served less than four years of a 45 year sentence. This was a man who allowed drug traffickers to export more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Yet he was pardoned and then driven over 350 miles at the expense of your constituents to a five-star hotel on Park Avenue.
We must put a stop to this egregious waste of taxpayer dollars. This is a great amendment. It is not performative. It is important. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Speaker 3
I thank you, gentlelady, for her amendment. I'm not sure what is meant. Maybe the chairman would wanna educate me on this, that the amendment is performative. I'm not sure what the meaning of that is applied to an amendment unless it's performative in the sense that none of the funds would be spent to coddle criminals. I will tell you this.
The reason I rise, though, is I am confounded by the silence with reference to the pardon of criminals. I don't understand why so many of us remain silent in the face of people who are responsible for the loss of life of policemen and think that pardoning them is okay, or coddling people who have committed crimes against teenagers are coddled. Mister chairman, I don't know why anybody would oppose this amendment. I think it speaks to a very important issue, and that is accountability. And here we have somebody who is a narco trafficker.
I know the chairman of this subcommittee is very concerned, and I share his concern, and I share great admiration for all the work he has done to try to undercut drugs coming into this country and hurting, and killing our children and our families. Pardon should be for those who have a justifiable reason for being, having lessened their penalty because they're sorry, they're wrong, they didn't mean it or whatever, I don't see a reason for this. And, frankly, I don't see a reason for pardoning the perpetrators of crimes on January 6. And that's why I rise, really. When 1,500 or 1,400 of them were pardoned, I saw no outcry from the party who claims to be the party of law enforcement, claims to be the party of law and order, claims to be the party of strong reactions to crimes.
And by the way, my presumption, unfortunately, is after the vote, I'm not gonna understand it either. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chairman. I think that we can agree that the red carpet treatment that the Trump administration rolled out for Juan Orlando Hernández should never be allowed to happen again. The only thing performative here today is that we fail to see the faces of our children, of our parents, of our neighbors, all of those American victims of overdose caused by this former president. He stole American lives. He stole American money.
Today, we have an opportunity to say no more. This is not your neighborhood drug dealer that sells a dime or a nickel of weed. This is a hardcore criminal. I urge you to vote in support of this amendment. Get our heads out of the sand and vote in support of this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Pending, the chair of the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient demonstration of support. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, no.
Mister Amaday. Mister Amaday, no. Missus Bice. Mister Bishop? Aye.
Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? No. Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter?
Mister Case? Aye. Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani? No.
Mister Cline? Mr. Cloud? No. Mr. Cloud? No.
Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde? Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole?
No. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuéar? Mistine?
Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Ballard? Mister Diaz Bellart?
No. Mr Edwards? No. Mister Elze? Mister Elze?
No. Miss Escobar? Aye. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espiat?
Aye. Mister Espiat, aye. Mister Fleishman? Miss Frankel. I.
Miss Frankel, I. Mr. Franklin. No. Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest.
Mr. Harter. I. Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, no.
Mrs. Henson. Mr. Hoyer.
Speaker 18
Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivy. Aye.
Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr.
Joyce, no. Ms. Captor. Aye. Ms.
Captor, aye. Mr. Lolota. Mr. Lolota, no.
Ms. Lee. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Aye.
Mister Levin? Aye. Miss Malloy? No. Malloy?
No. Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming?
Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? No. Mr Moore?
Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervann? Aye.
Mister Mervann, aye. Mr Newhouse? Miss Perez? Miss Pingree? Miss Pingree?
Aye. Mister Pocan? Mr. Pocan? Aye. Mister Quigley?
Aye. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler? Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers?
No. Mister Rutherford? Mr Rutherford? No. Mister Shreev?
Mister Shreev? No. Mr. Simpson? No. Simpson?
Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres? Aye. Missus Torres, aye.
Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo? Miss Wasserman Schultz?
I. Miss Wasserman Schultz, I. Miss Watson Coleman? I. Missus Watson Coleman, I.
Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke?
No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Texas.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Not the clerical tally. Oh, gentlemen from Washington.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to change or record their vote? Again, seeing none, clerks will tally. While we're waiting, it doesn't look like there's a stampede to get to the floor right now. So we're gonna try at least one more. We have to suspend during, we will.
Speaker 1
It's been like, I don't know. It's been like that. Either that or maybe the frame is frozen. Yeah. Thank you.
On this vote, the IJI 27, the nose are 31. The amendment is not agreed to. Gentle lady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 25
Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment and ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chairman. This amendment requires the Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney's website to include the amount of restitution or fines that are still owed by convicted individuals at the time that they are pardoned or have their sentences commuted. President Trump's pardons to wealthy friends, donors, and criminals are not only wrong, but they hurt American victims and leave taxpayers holding the bag. His pardons have forgiven financial crimes that came with hundreds of millions in fines. In total, his pardons over two terms have reportedly wiped out nearly $4,000,000,000 in victim repayment and taxpayer recovery for Medicare, tax fraud, and much more.
This is money that hasn't gone to the victims of crime to compensate for their loss. It is money the federal government was owed that it will never get back. As a result of these pardons, also mean major cuts to the Crime Victims Fund. As criminal penalties pay into this fund to help survivors of crime with counseling, housing assistance, legal aid, and compensation. The money is passed down to state and local programs, including domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and child abuse treatment programs.
Victims of gun violence and their families rely on this funding to reimburse medical expenses, funeral costs, and lost wages. These pardons also give a signal to criminals and fraudsters that if you cozy up to the administration and the president, you will be free to victimize and steal money from hardworking American taxpayers. Trump signed into law massive cuts to health care, raising insurance costs, and forcing hospitals to close, all in the name of tackling waste, fraud, and abuse. Meanwhile, he has pardoned individuals convicted of more than 2,000,000 in health care fraud cases. Let me give you just two examples.
In May 2025, Trump committed the sentence of a Florida health care executive, Lawrence Duran, who was convicted of orchestrating what was the largest therapy-related Medicare fraud scheme in history. Duran stole $205,000,000 from Medicare and was sentenced to 50 years in prison. He's out loose now. In November 2025, Trump pardoned Joseph Schwartz, a former owner of a collapsed nursing home chain who committed Medicaid fraud and stole $38,000,000 in tax. He reportedly paid a Trump-aligned lobbyist $960,000 to advocate for his pardon.
Pardons are up for sale. Those are just two of the over 70 fraudsters that Trump has pardoned over his two terms. If any president pardons an individual, the American public deserves to know how much criminals have or have not paid. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mister Rogers, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is misguided. I oppose it. I oppose it and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from New York is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I support this amendment, and I thank my colleague for offering it. It's an important step in ensuring transparency in the pardon process. Although the pardon attorney is required to maintain a website naming people pardoned by the president and the crimes for which they are being pardoned, there's an important part of the picture missing. We don't see if these individuals owed fines or restitution as part of their sentence. This amendment would fix this.
As my colleague has noted, in 2025, the 23 people pardoned by President Trump owed a total of 298,000,000 to victims and to the government. And, yes, former president Joe Biden pardoned people who owed the government more than 100,000. So the American people deserve to know whether any of these people actually repaid the government before they were pardoned. It's not a partisan issue. It's about transparency so that taxpayers have all of the information when powerful people who owe a massive debt to the government and or to their victims are granted a pardon.
I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Gentlemen from Maryland.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment. Just a couple of quick points. Pardons do wipe away billions of dollars. In this instance, the Trump administration, 2,000,000,000 have been eliminated.
As was mentioned a moment ago, though, the restitution would go to the victims of the frauds in this instance. The fines would go to the American treasury that is used for some of the things that we've just cut or are about to be cut in these bills that we'd like to finance, like supporting victims of crime. With respect to the argument that they can get the money in civil court, and Miss Torres mentioned that, Mister Schwartz, who was pardoned, owed 39,000,000 in fraud. People that try to get the civil, findings and judgments against him had been successful in those, but he was able to evade paying them by securities activities. The beauty of criminal restitution is people can't duck that.
And in order to have gotten out under normal circumstances, he would have had to pay the restitution in advance. Typically, the way this would go is the pardon office of the Department of Justice would have gone through these sorts of matters to make sure that, for example, restitution and fines had been paid. As you know, with the Trump administration, he skips that process entirely and issues the pardons. In some instances, the department of justice finds out about it in the media just like the rest of us do. But the bottom line is these people who are defrauded deserve the chance to get the money that was stolen from them.
The way he's issued these pardons means they don't get it. The American people deserve to get the fines that these people were supposed to pay, so we could use them for programs to protect and help survivors of crime. The way it's been done, they don't get it. At least let's make the information public, so that they know the impact of what these pardons have done. Ira supported this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady's recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chairman. I don't know if there's another way to rectify, to make things a little better for victims of these crimes, of these people who have been pardoned. But it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican. We ought to demand transparency. If we're going to allow for this behavior to continue and for these pardons to continue and for the hard work of our law enforcement officers to be erased with a signature, then at the very least, we should know what was the fine, how much has been paid, and how much they owe to our government, to our victims.
I don't think that is a hard ask. It started for me, it started with Juan Orlando Hernández. I wanted us to take over a mansion that he owns in Florida and to utilize that for his victims that came to our southern border. He should have to pay, at the very least, $8,000,000. Has that been erased?
I have no idea. I don't have an answer for you because there is no place where I can get that answer. And when our government refuses to be transparent, we must demand transparency. I ask for your support for this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. Any share of the noes have it, and the amendment is not adopted. With that, we will, well, I will be more than happy, but I did call for it. So, a roll call vote has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
Clerk will call.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt? Mister Aguilar? I.
Mister Aguilar? I. Mister Alford? Mr Alford? No.
Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No. Missus Bice? Missus Bice?
No. Mister Bishop? Aye. Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert?
No. Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter? No. Mr. Carter?
Mister Case? Aye. Mister Case, aye. Mr. Siscamani? Mister Siscamani, no.
Mister Klein? Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud? Mister Cloud?
No. Mister Clyburn?
Speaker 18
Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde? Mister Clyde? No.
Mr. Cole? No. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cuéar?
Miss Dean? Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye.
Mister Diaz Pollart? No. Diaz-Bollart? No. Mister Edwards?
Mr Edwards? No. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy? No.
Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar? Escobar, aye. Mister Espeyat? Aye.
Espeyat? Mister Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman? No.
Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin? Mister Guest? Mr. Harter?
Aye. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
No. Mrs. Henson? Mr. Hoyer?
Aye. Mr. Hoyer, I. Mr. Ivy?
Aye. Mr. Ivy? Aye. Mr.
Joyce? Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor. Miss Captor, I. Mister Lolota?
No. Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee? Aye.
Miss Lee, I. Miss Lutlow? Mister Levin? Miss Molloy. Miss Molloy, no.
Miss McCollum? I. Miss McCollum, I. Miss Ming? I.
Miss Ming, I. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore?
Mr Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli, I'm Mister Mervane.
Aye. Mister Mervane, I'm Mister Newhouse. Mr Newhouse? No. Miss Perez?
Yes. Miss Perez, I'm Miss Pingry. Miss Pingry, I'm Mr. Pokan. Mister Pokan, I'm Mr. Quigley. Mister Quigley, I'm Mister Rashenthaler.
Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev.
Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo. Mister Valadayo, no.
Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Speaker 18
Missus Watson Coleman. 5. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Mississippi?
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Yeah. I mean seeing none, purple tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27. The notes are 32.
The amendment is not adopted. We will take a recess, and please return as quickly as you can. We're making good progress, but we still have a very long way to go. The committee is now in recess. For the know this is Michael Cloud's birthday.
It actually is today. So he deserves. Committee will come to order, and, obviously, it'll take us a little bit, but, we're gonna go ahead and keep moving. General Lady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chairman. I rise to offer an amendment and ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 25
Thank you. The economic development administration helps local governments in their long-term recovery after disaster strikes. It is not just homes that need to be rebuilt after a storm or wildfire. Businesses and local economies also need our assistance. My amendment would provide 4,300,000,000 in economic assistance through the EDA for states with major disaster declarations in 2025 and 2026, including my home state of California.
In January 2025, wildfires in Los Angeles displaced over 100,000 Californians, including small to medium sized businesses. Independent estimates place total economic damage between 250 and 275,000,000,000, far exceeding what insurance can cover. California's initial request was more than a year ago, and there have been two bipartisan letters signed by every member from the California delegation to the leadership and the White House asking for help with recovery. Yet, we are still waiting. The administration has not brought up a single request for the over $34,000,000,000 that California needs, nor have they sent up a single supplemental request for the over 30 states, tribes, and territories with major disasters declared since January 2024.
The only supplemental that I've been hearing about is for the president's war in Iran and funding for his ballroom. There shouldn't be a mention of any supplemental that does not include disaster aid for the Los Angeles wildfires and any other state that has suffered from a natural disaster. California is a generous donor state. We pay $275,000,000,000 more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding. We never withhold our taxes to the federal government, and every program and agency in this government and in your communities that the federal government subsidizes is subsidized by California taxpayers.
When hurricane Harvey hit in 2017, I voted twice to fund disaster aid for Texas and other states that President Trump signed into law. Not a single Democrat voted against these measures. When hurricane Helene and Milton hit in 2024, President Biden and Congress worked together to pass 100000000000 in aid. And, again, not a single Democrat voted against these measures. Natural disasters don't look at state boundaries or political parties.
And when it comes to helping our fellow Americans, we shouldn't either. And while this amount is from California's request, the language in the amendment allows any community in any state that has had a major disaster declaration in 2025 or 2026 to use these funds. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mister Rogers, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
This amendment would increase the funding level of EDA by a staggering $4,300,000,000. EDA is funded in this bill at around $3.23, 323,000,000. Any increase, no loan of this size, would violate the committee's allocation levels. And for that reason, I oppose this amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. General lady from New York. Mister Means, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Congress last passed comprehensive disaster supplemental funding in 2024. Since then, we have seen devastating disasters across the country, from wildfires in California to severe storms and tornadoes in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Washington, to winter storms in Tennessee and Montana. These communities are still waiting for Congress to do its job and help them. Disaster supplements have long included funding for the EDA disaster assistance.
EDA disaster grants provide flexible funding to support longer-term economic recovery and resiliency efforts. Disasters are not partisan. This funding is needed by communities across the country. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady's Oh, I'm Did somebody did No. Okay. Sorry.
Seeing that gentle lady is recognized for one minute.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chairman. Families lost their homes. Small business owners who worked their entire lives and put their entire savings into their stores lost everything. This amendment would be one step in the right direction to help not just my home state of California, but all states whose local economies have been wrecked by a natural disaster. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those posts say no.
No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Could I have some hands, please?
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar. I. Mr. Alford.
Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaney. Mr. Spice? Mr. Spice? No.
Mister Bishop? Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mr. Case? Mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani, no.
Mister Klein? No. Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud?
Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn? Aye. Mister Clyde? Mister Clyde?
No. Mister Cole?
Speaker 18
Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar, aye. Miss Dean?
Aye. Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro?
Speaker 18
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Ballard? Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards? No.
Mister Elze? Mister Elze? No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye.
Mister Escobar, Mister aye. Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel?
Miss Frankel? Aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin? No.
Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harter?
Aye. Mr. Harter? Aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
No. Missus Henson? Mister Hoyer? Mister Ivy. Mister Ivy, aye.
Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota.
Mister Lolota, no. Miss Lee. Miss Letlow. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy?
Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCollum? Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming?
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore?
Mister Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Mister Mervann? Mr Newhouse?
Mr Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Miss Perez, I. Miss Pingry?
Yes. Miss Pingry, aye. Mister Pocan? Mister Quigley? Mister Quigley?
Aye. Mr Russian? Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rogers?
No. Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Rutherford? No.
Mister Shreev? No. Mister Shreev? No. Mr. Simpson?
Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? Mr Strong?
No. Mrs. Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood, aye.
Mister Valadayo? Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman, aye.
Mister Womack? Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Do any members wish to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Florida? Mister.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27. The notes are 31. The amendment is not adopted.
A gentleman from New York, Mr. Espiano. It's recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 26
I mean, I have an amendment in the desk and then ask to dispense this reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, mister chairman, ranking member. I am proud to offer this amendment, which strikes section 543 from the legislation. As you know, section 543 prohibits funds from being used to implement, administer, apply, or enforce the ATF's 2022 ghost guns rule. This 2022 rule was critical. It provided a definition to these unassembled firearms and framed a policy tracking and reporting structure.
The use of unassembled firearms, untraceable ghost guns, continues to plague many of our communities. Within my district in New York City and across cities from Los Angeles to Miami, law enforcement officials continue to come across hundreds of thousands of ghost guns annually. Compared to regular farm, ghost gun kits are very cheap and often cost only 100 to $200. They are also easy to get online. You know what that means?
That means, generally, the kids and teens can find these. They can afford them. They're getting them, and they're killing each other and other folks with them. You go to a furniture store, you can assemble a dining set. But when you get one of these kits, you assemble a 9 millimeter weapon that kills other people.
I am proud to offer this amendment, and encourage my colleagues to support it. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would undo serious efforts to protect and restore Second Amendment rights by instituting long overdue reforms to reverse Biden era gun control. For that reason, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. A gentlelady from New York, Miss Ming is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I rise in strong support of this amendment. Section 543 is an extreme policy rider that would make Americans less safe. It would prevent the ATF from regulating ghost guns, which are untraceable firearms that any member of the public can build from kits or separate pieces. Ghost guns have been used in school and mass shootings, acts of domestic violence, domestic terrorism, and police shootouts. This policy writer would endanger law enforcement.
It would allow anyone to purchase all the pieces needed to easily assemble a gun. And because these guns can't be traced, they make it harder for the police to solve crimes and catch criminals. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me to make this common-sense change to protect our communities and strengthen our law enforcement. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Georgia, mister Clyde, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our eyes today in strong opposition to this amendment to strike section 543 of the bill, which prohibits funds for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Explosives, rule entitled definition of frame or receiver and identification of firearms. I commend chairman Rogers and chairman Cole for including section five forty three to protect law abiding gun owners from ATF's unlawful overreach and to defend the right of everyday Americans to manufacture their own privately made firearms, a right long recognized under the second amendment, goes back over 250 years, literally to the very founding of our country. During the previous administration's gun-grabbing regulatory campaign, the ATF issued the frame or receiver rule, fundamentally redefining what constitutes a firearm and a frame or receiver under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Most troublingly, the rule's expanded definition of a firearm can now encompass unfinished parts that law-abiding Americans have traditionally used to manufacture, not assemble, but manufacture their own privately made firearms.
Furthermore, ATF unilaterally broadened the definition of a frame or receiver to include almost any part that could become one, a firearm, a sweeping and unprecedented expansion that far exceeds the plain text of the statute. If you can redefine the definition, then you can do almost anything. ATF exceeded its lawful authority in promulgating this rule, unilaterally rewriting statutory definitions without additional congressional authorization. Moreover, this rule's practical effect would be to lay the groundwork for a de facto national gun registry, something the ATF is expressly prohibited from facilitating both in the bill before us and under the existing law, specifically the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. My colleagues across the aisle frequently invoke our article one authority and the importance of congressional oversight over the executive branch.
Section 5.43 in the bill presents a clear and concrete opportunity to do exactly that, using the power of the purse to reject a regulation promulgated without clear statutory authority from Congress. Blocking this provision would be an abdication of that very oversight responsibility. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided amendment and stand up for our constitutional rights and those of their constituents. Vote no, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gently away from Florida. Miss Frankel's recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Horizon's truck supported this amendment, which is one of several amendments the Democrats have offered today, to reduce gun violence. And let me just start by saying, what about the constitutional right for our children to stay alive? Gun is now the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in the United States.
These are missed birthdays. They're missed graduations. Futures are stolen, and families are shattered forever. Behind every headline is a parent who still sets the dinner table for somebody who will never come home again. And this is pain that's not limited to one city or one state.
It's happening all across our country in schools, in movie theaters, parking lots, neighborhoods, homes, and we know the names. Nicole Hockley lost her little boy Dylan, murdered in his elementary school at Sandy Hook in Connecticut. Fred Guttenberg lost his daughter Jamie in the horrific high school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Melissa Wiley lost her daughter, Jennifer, in a mass shooting at school by her daughter's ex-boyfriend. And Sandy Phillips lost her daughter, Jessica, in the mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
And her own colleague, Lucy Macbeth, lost her son Jordan, who was shot and killed over loud music playing in a car. Parents in every corner of America live with this grief. Birthdays become heartbreaks. Holidays become reminders. Bedrooms stay untouched.
Voice mails are safe forever to hear the voices of a child. And we owe all these families more than just prayers and thoughts. We owe them an action. This amendment will not erase the grief of these families, but it says that congress is finally willing to confront this crisis with the urgency that it deserves, because no parent in America should endure the agony of burying a child because of gun violence. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, General A, for remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized, or gentle a, excuse me, is recognized for one minute to close. Gentlemen.
Speaker 26
Chairman. Again, ghost guns, unfortunately, are the guns of the future. They don't have a traceable number. You're not able to determine who assembled them or where they came from. They have no registry.
No, we have no ability as a society to track who uses them in an illegal and violent way. And they're readily available for young people to assemble right in their homes. They get them by mail. They're assembled, and they have a deadly weapon, a nine millimeter or semi-automatic weapon that shows up in far too many neighborhoods, far too many street corners in shootings, and the result is the same, death. So I believe that these guns should be regulated like other guns are regulated, and that, in fact, this was put into motion administratively previous years, and it was undone.
The result has been chaos and death in many of our districts. I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and vote in support of it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
And as chair of the noes, have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Aye.
Mister Aguilar. Aye. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford? No.
Mister Amaday? Mister Spice? Mister Bishop? Aye. Mister Bishop?
Aye. Mister Calvert? No. Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Siscamani? Mister Klein, Mister Cloud.
Mister Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, I'm Mister Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole.
No. Mister Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar. Mistine. Mistine, aye.
Mister Lauro. Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart. Mister Diaz Bellart, no.
Mister Edwards. Elze. Mister Elze, no. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar, aye.
Mister Esbayat. Mister Esbayat, aye. Miss Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman?
No. Miss Frankel? Aye. Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin?
Mr. Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mr. Harder? Doctor Harris, no.
Missus Henson, Mr. Hoyer.
Speaker 18
Mister Hoyer, I. Mr. Ivy. I. Ivy. Mr. Joyce.
Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor. Aye. Miss Captor? Aye.
Mister Lolota? Mister Lolota? Miss Lee? Aye. Lee?
Aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Mister Levin? Aye.
Miss Malloy? Aye. Malloy? No. Miss McCollum?
Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar?
Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore? Mr Moore? No.
Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morvan?
Mister Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Yes.
Perez, aye. Miss Pingree? Aye. Miss Pingree, aye, Mr. Pokan. Aye.
Mister Pokan, aye, Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye, mister Russienthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev? No. Mr. Simpson?
Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No.
Missus Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo?
Mister Valadayo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman?
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
Mister Zinke?
Speaker 1
No. Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentle lady from Oklahoma?
Speaker 1
Seeing no others, Corporal Tally. On this foot, the ayes are 27, the noes are 30. The amendment is not adopted. Gentleman from New York, mister Espiots, recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 26
I mean, I have an amendment at the desk getting asked to dispense with his reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mister Chairman, ranking member. I am proud to offer this amendment, which I intend to withdraw. I will open by thanking you, ranking member Meng, and our colleagues on the committee for working together to deliver support for NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at large, including those based in New York. The GISS team in New York has been working on fragmenting settings across the five boroughs. Oftentimes, it is in dilapidated spaces donated by local institutions.
This dynamic further strains the GISS team's ability to conduct their critical climate change research, which includes deeply important research on weather patterns. This also makes little sense as our longtime facility at Armstrong Hall is under lease until 2031, and it's not being used. I look forward to working with you, mister chairman, and with my fellow New York ranking member, Grace Mann, to ensure that the GISS team in New York City are allowed to return to their Armstrong Hall facility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I withdraw my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for withdrawing. A gentleman from New York, mister recognized for purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, mister chairman. Again, thank you, ranking member. I have an amendment at the desk and ask to dispense with his reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 26
Mister chairman, I'm proud to offer this amendment, which will prohibit the law enforcement agencies from using funds to purchase our personal data from shady data brokers. This legislative text stems from the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sales Act. I would like to address the data broker loophole. I will commend Congresswoman Lawrence from the great state of California for leading that legislation to passage in the House in 2023. When it received overwhelming bipartisan support, I also want to thank her and Senator Biden for assisting with this amendment.
Simply put, our law enforcement officials should not be buying our personal information. Yet FBI director Patel proudly testified in front of the US Senate in March that the bureau continues to purchase this data. The FBI, DEA, ATF, and marshals have important work to do ahead of them, which would not be impacted by this legislation. They will retain their ability to obtain personal data information via other lawful means, including pursuant to warrants, subpoenas, or court orders, as described in the last section of my amendment. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, which provides all of us with the basic protection against Big Brother purchases of our private data.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentleman from Kentucky, Mister Rogers, is recognized to address the amendment. You, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
This is an important issue, as the digital age presents novel questions surrounding privacy and the Fourth Amendment. In fact, as the FISA reauthorization continues to be worked for a long-term solution. This issue is currently being debated in other settings, and we need to let the authorizers do their job. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and, yeah, yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. A gentlelady from New York is recognized to address the amendment, Miss May.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. NPR reported earlier this year about a whole industry of data brokers who buy up vast quantities of electronic information from cell phone apps and web browsers, and sell it to advertisers. They then use this data to target ads shown to consumers. The same industry also sells that data, including bulk cell phone location data, to police departments and federal agencies in ways that can reveal personal information and intimate details about individuals, all without a warrant.
This amendment would put an end to this practice and require federal agencies to obtain a warrant before acquiring such information. This is a common-sense, pro-constitution, pro-privacy amendment, and I urge its adoption. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? A gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Speaker 24
Chairman. Thank you, chairman. I support this amendment, and I think it's important that we do as well. You know, even as we in Congress are discussing Pfizer, we've seen the bad abuses in our intelligence agencies over the past several years. We should be working to clean that up.
Never did Congress authorize the purchase of data, and it is important that we not give intelligence agencies a workaround from warrants and protections. Even as we're debating whether or not what kind of protection should be on Pfizer, at least there is a process. This goes outside of a process to collect data. Now some would say, well, shouldn't law enforcement agencies have the same, you know, purchasing capabilities in insurance company? Well, an insurance company can't put you in jail.
And it's so important that our first priority here is to protect the rights and securities, and liberty of the American people and the freedoms that are enshrined in our constitution that we understand to be inalienable and a gift from God. And the idea that intelligence agencies could perhaps, you know, buy up data on who purchased firearms or location data on where what clubs you went to or what houses of worship you went to, or data on, you know, other things that you bought. You know, it's just something that the federal government should have to go through a process, a warrant process to be able to get that kind of information. They shouldn't be able to buy up data and then scan facial recognition technology and throw this all in their database without some sort of process, where there's a burden of proof attached to it. And so our jobs are our first priority.
Our first priority. Our job to keep the American people safe is an important priority. That is why, you know, we do so much to support the Department of War and everything that's happening and our law enforcement. But our first job is to keep the American people free, and we have to continue to do that. And so I support this amendment and encourage the adoption of it.
Thank you, chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 26
Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you to my colleagues. I believe that this amendment has bipartisan support, as was just stated. It doesn't tie up the hands of law enforcement. What it does do is it allows for law enforcement to have to go through a process to get access to this data that will guarantee all of our rights, our forbidden rights.
And I urge all my colleagues to do this. This is a common-sense action, an amendment, and I hope that you can all support it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. Any of the chairs of the nodes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt? I. Mister Aguilar, I.
Mr. Alford? Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Missus Bice?
Mister Bice? No. Mister Bishop? Yes. Mister Bishop, aye.
Mister Calvert? No. Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
No. Carter? Mister Case? Mister Case? I.
Mister Siscamani? No. Cline? Mr. Cloud? Mr. Cloud?
I. Mr. Clyburn? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, I. Mister Clyde?
Mister Clyde? I. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mister Cuellar? Mistine? Ms. Dean, aye.
Mr. Lauro, aye. Mr. Diaz-Bollart? No.
No. Mr. Diaz, Mr. Edwards? Mr.
Edwards? No. Mr. Elzy? Mr.
Elzy? No. Ms. Escobar? Ms.
Escobar, aye. Mr. Espeyat ? Mister Espoyat, aye. Mister Fleishman?
Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel? Mister Franklin? No.
Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest? Mr. Harder? Mister Harder?
I. Doctor Harris? Doctor. Harris, aye. Mrs.
Henson. Mrs. Henson, no. Mr. Hoyer.
Aye. Mr. Ivy. Mr. Ivy.
Aye. Mr. Joyce. Miss Captor. Miss Captor, I.
Mr. Lolota. Miss Lee. I. Miss Lee, I.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin. Miss Malloy. Miss McCollum.
Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, no.
Mr. Moore. Mister Moore, aye. Mister Morelli?
Speaker 18
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervann? Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse? No.
Miss Perez. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree? Aye. Miss Pingree, aye.
Mister Pocan? Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley? Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Raschenthaler?
Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rutherford? No.
Mister Rutherford? Rutherford? Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev, no. Mister Simpson, no.
Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Mrs. Torres? Correct.
Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood? I. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valladeo?
No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman, aye.
Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke?
Speaker 1
No. Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Texas.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Not the cortical tally. Gentlemen from Ohio.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 32, the noes are 25. The amendment is adopted. Gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentle lady is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to offer an amendment to protect the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ability to protect the civil rights of American workers. Every year since 1966, the EEOC has collected basic demographic data from employers. The agency depends on that data to investigate workplace discrimination. This information has been critical to the federal government's ability to enforce civil rights laws for the past 60 years.
And yet, the EEOC has still not announced the opening of the 2026 data collection cycle. In fact, its contract for data collection expired in September 2023, so the agency is far behind schedule to complete this important work. Unfortunately, I don't think that that's an accident. After all, project 2025 dictates that ending this demographic data collection should be a priority for the Trump administration. It's a key step in their plan to keep chipping away at our civil rights until there are none left.
I'll be honest. I never thought it would happen this fast. I'm still reeling from the Supreme Court's decision to rip apart the Voting Rights Act and drag us back to Jim Crow. Not all of the attacks on our civil rights are as dramatic or as obvious as what's happened over these last two weeks. Sometimes it's death by a thousand cuts.
Title seven of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to keep records relevant to the determinations of unlawful employment practices. That's exactly what this demographic information is. My amendment would ensure that the EEOC fulfills its civil rights mission and collects the data it needs to enforce the law and protect American workers. EEOC chair Lucas has made alarming comments about her plans to dismantle worker protections under title seven. Not to mention that she said she intends to remove protections for workers undergoing fertility treatments under the pregnant workers' fairness act.
So it is clear that we cannot leave it up to her to decide whether American workers are protected. Congress needs to make it clear what's required, and that's what this amendment does. In the debate for the last amendment, our colleague, Mister Cloud, just said, quote, our first priority is to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people. That's what this amendment does. And so I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment for the sake of protecting American workers and ending this administration's assault on civil rights.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your comments. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mister Rogers, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would reinstate the ill-advised diversity provisions advocated for during the last administration. The Trump administration is working hard to eliminate DEI policies, and I'm proud the 27th House bill is in lockstep with that priority. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman, gentle lady from New York. Miss Ming's recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I strongly support this amendment. The EEOC's long-standing data collection requirements are not a burden on businesses. They are a highly effective tool for the government to monitor employment practices and identify patterns of discrimination and potential violations of the law. I thank my colleague for this amendment, I support this adoption. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Back to the general lady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 27
Mister Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment before the committee today. And I understand Mister Rogers' comments about the philosophical and ideological differences that we might hold, the different values that we share around diversity, equity, and inclusion. However, we're talking about federal law. And under federal law, as established under the Civil Rights Act of '64, this data collection is required. And so what we are simply trying to do is to prohibit funds from being used to rescind the ability for the EEOC to follow federal law.
I urge my colleagues to really reflect on what we're doing here today, and to stand with us and vote yes on this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Illinois. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
Speaker 1
Any chair of the nose have it. Roll call has been requested. Deficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aguilar?
Mr. Alford? Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amade? Mister Amade?
No. Missus Bice? Mister Bice, no. Mr. Bishop. Mister Bishop, aye.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter. No. Mister Case.
Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein? Mister Klein?
No. Mister Cloud? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn? I.
Mr. Clyde? Mr. Clyde? No. Mister Cole? No.
Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuellar? Mister Cuéar, aye, Mistine. Mistine, aye, Mr. Lauro.
Aye. Mister Lauro, aye, Mister Diaz Bellart. Mister Diaz Bellart, no. Mister Edwards, Mister Elzy. Mister Elzy, no.
Miss Escobar, aye. Mr. Escobar? Espeyat ? Mister Escobar, aye. Fleishman?
Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel? Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mr. Harder? Doctor, oh, mister Harter, I.
Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, no. Mrs. Henson. Mr. Hoyer. I.
Mister Hoyer, I. Mister Ivy. Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor.
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow.
Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Lloyd. Miss Malloy, no. Miss McCollum.
Miss McCollum, I miss Ming. Miss Ming, I, Mr. Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore. Mister Moore, no.
Mister Morelli. Mister Morelli, I, Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, I, Mister Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez.
Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, I'm Mr. Pokan. Mister Pokan, I'm Mr. Quigley. Mister Quigley, I'm Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers, no. Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Schrieff?
Mister Schrieff? No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No.
Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres? Missus Torres, aye.
Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? No.
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Miss Watson Coleman? Mister Womack?
Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Any members, excuse me? Any members wish to report, to vote or change their vote? Fillman from California?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally. On this foot, the ayes are 28, and the noes are 33. The amendment is not adopted. Gentleman from New York, Mister Morelli is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have an amendment at the desk, and move to dispense with its reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from New York is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, sir. Miss Sherman, colleagues, this amendment is about one simple thing: transparency. Right now, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are moving in the wrong direction, and Congress deserves to know how these changes are affecting public safety. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives already struggles to meet the required inspection rate for gun dealers. In fact, most gun dealers are only inspected once every decade.
Think about that. Businesses selling deadly weapons receive less oversight than products like food, water, or consumer goods. Congress deserves to know why accountability is getting weaker instead of stronger, and it's only getting worse. The Trump administration pushed staffing cuts in early retirements that reduced the number of ATF agents and investigators responsible for enforcing gun laws. At the same time, ATF revoked nearly 70% fewer gun dealer licenses for serious violations in the years 2020 to 2025.
And there are reports that agents are being pulled away from gun trafficking investigations and reassigned to immigration enforcement. And ATF recently announced dozens of policy changes at once that could further weaken oversight of the firearms industry and make it harder for law enforcement to combat gun crime. Illegal guns continue to flow into our communities, while the agency responsible for stopping them is being weakened. And the consequences are real. More guns end up in the hands of criminals, communities become less safe, law enforcement has a harder job, and more families lose loved ones.
Oversight matters, facts matter, public safety matters. This amendment does not stop the ATF from doing its job. It simply requires transparency for what they are doing. It directs ATF to provide the United States Congress with detailed information about gun dealer inspections, violations, enforcement actions, and staffing changes that have occurred over the last 2 years. This is our responsibility as members of Congress.
You wouldn't think you'd have to make an amendment to ask them to do this, but here we are. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and urge a yes from with that, mister chair. I yield back, sir.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The fiscal '27 bill already facilitates cooperation between the Department of Justice and federal firearms licensees to rectify violations. This language seems to have the same goal, except with a much heavier hand in regulating licensees. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I strongly support this amendment. The industry operations investigators at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives help the nation's gun dealers comply with regulations and avoid illegal gun sales. They serve as the first line of defense, and help ensure that firearms are not diverted to the criminal market. My colleague's amendment would give more transparency to the work of the ATF and its industry operations investigators. This information is important for this committee to conduct oversight and provide needed support to our federal, state, and local law enforcement officers as they fight the criminal trafficking of firearms.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, oh, excuse me. Gentleman from Georgia, mister Clyde is recognized.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would indeed agree that Federal Farms licensees are in the first line of defense when it comes to ensuring that firearms stay in the hands of law abiding people. And, therefore, I commend the ATF's most recent announcement on rulemaking. But ATF already reports on their actions regarding federal firearms license inspections. I have seen them, and I have read them.
So I find this amendment to be unnecessary and an additional paperwork burden on the industry operations investigators, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would simply remind people. It's sort of interesting that the Trump administration and others have gone to extraordinary lengths to ultimately cost the local and state governments billions of dollars to track down voter fraud and people who are not US citizens from voting. No, there's no evidence any of that happens, but you'd be willing to spend tens of billions of dollars to change the rules to stop something that's not happening from happening.
But we won't even ask the ATF to give us a report back on the reductions in staffing and the missed inspections at places where now you could wait a full decade for a gun dealer to have an inspection, and we simply want information. I would urge people. This is common sense. It makes sense. Those reports are not forthcoming, and that's why this amendment is necessary.
With that, I'd urge a vote in the affirmative on the amendment, and I will yield back, mister chair.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman for his remarks. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. Any of the chair of the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mr. Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. Mister Aguilar. Aye. Mr. Alford.
Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday. Mister Amaday, no. Mr. Spice. Mister Spice, no.
Mr. Bishop. Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter.
No. Mr. Case. Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani. Mr.
Siscamani, no. Mr. Klein? Mr. Klein, no.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Clyburn? No.
Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde? Mr.
Clyde? No. Mr. Cloud? No.
Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar? Miss Dean?
Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro? Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Ballard? Mister Dias Ballard, no. Mister Edwards, Mister Edwards, no. Mister Elzi, Mister Elzi, no. Miss Escobar, Miss Escobar. I, Mister Esbayate, Mister Esbayate. Mister Fleischman, no. Miss Frankel, Miss Frankel?
Mr. Franklin? No. Mr. Guest?
Mr. Harter? Doctor. Harris? Doctor.
Harris? No. Mrs. Henson? Mister Hoyer?
Mister Hoyer, I. Mister Ivy? Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce? No.
Miss Captor? I. Miss Captor, I. Mister Lolota? Miss Lee?
Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Mister Levin? Aye.
Miss Molloy? Miss Molloy? No. Miss McCullum? Miss McCullum, aye.
Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar?
No. Mister Moore? Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli, aye.
Mister Mervan? Aye. Mister Mervan, aye. Mister Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse?
No. Miss Perez? Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, aye, Mr. Pokan.
Mister Pokan, aye, Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye, Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers? Mister No. Mister Rutherford?
Mr. Rutherford? No. Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong, no. Missus Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood?
Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, I. Miss Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from California?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally. Oh, two late arrivals. A gentleman from Mississippi.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to cast or change their vote? Yeah. Clerk's telling. This vote, the ayes are 27, the noes are 33. The amendment is not adopted.
Gentlemen from California, Mister Levin, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 28
Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for unanimous consent that the reading of this amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the alarming use of nearly $2,000,000,000 of American taxpayer funds to pay foreign-owned companies that actually keep our constituents' utility bills artificially high. Across the country right now, as families open their electric bills month after month, they're increasingly facing impossible decisions to pay to keep the lights on or put food on the table. Electricity bills have risen 34% over the past five years, including more than 6% in the past year alone, significantly outpacing inflation. Today, nearly 80,000,000 Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills month after month.
As electricity demand from data centers and manufacturing rises faster, the new power supply can be built. We're increasingly at risk of dual crises of energy affordability and grid reliability. A decline in grid reliability threatens national security, public health, and economic competitiveness.
Speaker 28
During heat waves and cold snaps, human lives. Right now, we need all the energy we can get on the grid. And yet, the administration has decided that instead of deploying more energy, we should provide foreign companies with billions of taxpayer dollars without any sort of consideration from this committee to stop developing projects that would have helped bolster grid reliability and bring down costs. That's right. The administration has circumvented the appropriations process to pay nearly $2,000,000,000 out of the Department of Justice judgment fund.
That's why we're talking about this in CJS and not in interior, because it's out of the DOJ judgment fund to entice companies to walk away from offshore wind projects in New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, California, and more deals like this could be coming. The projects in New York and New Jersey would have powered more than 2,000,000 homes. The one in North Carolina would have powered 300,000 homes, and the project in California would have powered 1,100,000 homes. These cancellations are a massive loss at a moment of unprecedented energy demand growth, and will make our grid less reliable. But don't just take my word for it.
The grid operators themselves in the Northeast, New York, and Mid Atlantic have all said that offshore wind helps them solve the reliability challenges they are facing now. I want to be clear that these cancellations will also hit many of our constituents right in their pocketbook. Since offshore wind has a low operating cost, the wind blows for free, after all, it can bid into the electricity market at the low end of the cost curve. So when you have offshore wind on the grid, it pushes out the higher-cost resources and lowers the system-wide price of electricity. The result of deploying more offshore wind is lower costs for our constituents.
The offshore wind projects that have been canceled won't just hurt those of us from coastal states like New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, and California. When you add offshore wind, for example, to the system in PJM, it lowers the system-wide price, including in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Tennessee. Any future cancellations in PJM will leave these states facing higher costs and a less reliable grid. These project cancellations are a bad deal for our constituents as both taxpayers and as ratepayers, and they're a bad deal for all of us as Americans, since these buyouts were likely unlawful. I'm deeply concerned by this new playbook to kill off energy projects using the judgment fund.
Regardless of what your preferred energy sources are, we all should be able to agree that no administration should have the ability to negotiate backdoor deals to circumvent this committee with companies to abandon projects that are in the pipeline that our country needs at this moment. And if you stand for, quote, all of the above energy, end quote, you should be as upset about this as I am. So my amendment would block these payouts for the next fiscal year, so that we in this committee and the American people can understand the legal authority under which these deals are being struck and the full impact that these cancellations will have on grid reliability and costs for our constituents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I go back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, chairman. This amendment would tie the hands of the administration and limit their discretion, even when it's in the best interest of both parties. I can't support an amendment that hamstrings the administration in ending taxpayer support for projects that were only viable with wasteful and endless government subsidies. For that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Heal back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The idea that while gas prices are approaching $5 and more per gallon, the United States government would pay foreign companies not to invest in energy-producing projects here at home, and instead shift to a scheme to export LNG, would be absurd to most Americans. But that is exactly what's happening. The Trump administration is forcing US taxpayers to pay a billion dollars to TotalEnergies so that Total stops work on two large wind energy production facilities that would have put low-cost electricity into the power grids in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and instead builds an LNG export terminal to move American natural gas and send it overseas. The result is that we will lose 4 gigawatts of planned electricity generation from the East Coast, which is enough to power more than a million homes.
Construction jobs will be lost. Turbine maintenance jobs will be lost. In exchange for this job loss and diminished energy production, we will also spend 1 billion dollars so that this company can sell American natural gas abroad. If the president thinks this is the art of the deal, I have a bridge in a neighboring county that I would like to sell to him. This amendment will correct this fatally flawed policy and protect taxpayer dollars in the process.
I urge its adoption.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for her remarks. General lady from Connecticut. Mister Laurel is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which prohibits funds from being used for settlements designed to cancel offshore wind projects. I never thought that with the cost of living skyrocketing across the country, the president would be pursuing a policy of driving up electric bills. Yet, that is exactly what's happening with a series of politically motivated lawsuits from the Trump administration against renewable energy projects, and wind projects in particular. The Trump administration is paying 1,000,000,000 to Total Energies, a French company which was leasing land for wind projects off the coast of North Carolina and New York, which together would have generated 4 gigawatts of clean energy, to power 1,300,000 homes. And what is effectively a quid pro quo total agreement to invest money into fossil fuel projects instead.
This is nothing more than the pay-to-play scheme designed to shift tax dollars to the pockets of fossil fuel executives, and which will only drive up the cost of energy by chilling investment and disrupting electric grid supplies. President Trump has repeatedly tried to halt offshore wind construction and lost in court. Shortly before Christmas, the Interior Department halted construction on five major offshore wind projects on the East Coast, citing vague national security concerns. Developers in state sued, and the federal judges allowed all five projects to move forward. One of those projects was critical in my state, Revolution Wind, a major renewable energy project in New England.
Connecticut is counting on Revolution Wind to meet nearly 5% of our electric distribution company load starting next year. It will save New England customers as much as $500,000,000 by 2028, and ISO New England, a New England grid operator, is counting on the project to ensure regional reliability. Yet President Trump has twice issued stop work orders on this project, claiming that it presents some unclear national security threat. I have joined the Connecticut congressional delegation in fighting back against these orders, and the president once again lost in court. Revolution win is delivering power with more capacity still to come online.
But the president's meddling still caused expensive delays, jeopardizing future projects and wages for construction workers. Attacking these projects drives up the cost of living, as new reports have shown that renewable energy is now cheaper and more cost effective for electricity generation than fossil fuels. The investment bank, Lazard, found that without any government subsidies, a new wind energy project has an average cost starting at $37 per megawatt-hour compared to $48 for a new natural gas plant. That means lower electric bills. Additionally, these renewable energy sources are abundant.
They're secure and environmentally sustainable compared to fossil fuels. President Trump's war in Iran has shown how fragile the global supply of fossil fuels can be, as nearly 20% of the world's oil has been bottled up in the Strait of Hormuz. We should be investing in our renewable energy supply chain at home, and not weakening it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, the general lady, for her remarks. The general lady from Maine, Miss Pinkery, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 22
Thank my colleague from California for submitting this amendment. You know, I have to believe in any other time, any other administration, we would all be agreeing on this very simply. This administration has convinced us that these kinds of scams are okay to do. And so somehow now we don't speak up and fight back about them anymore. It's pretty simple what we're talking about here.
Energy prices are skyrocketing, and everyone knows that. In the state of Maine, it's up 20% just in the last year. So we need more sources of affordable domestic energy to power the grid, and offshore wind is one part of the equation. We used to always say all of the above, and all of the above is always a good idea. And mister Levin was talking about how critically important it is to have sources like wind where you don't have to pay for the inputs anymore once you've built the facility.
And it can be the lowest priced option on the grid many times, and that will benefit our consumers. But it just so happens that this president hates wind. I don't know why. I don't completely understand it, but we can all go back to the days when he hated having offshore wind in the viewscape of one of his Scotland golf courses, and he just hated it and did everything he could to fight against it. He has some sort of aesthetic disagreement with it.
So with all these offshore projects in the pipeline, this administration filed a lawsuit, tried to fight back, or decided to no longer allow them. And what happened was, in that lawsuit, you had to go down into a skiff to look at this national security data, which they said was the important concerns of why they reject, why they weren't allowed. And it only turned out that the courts could read that, and they said no. And they allowed these windmills to go ahead. So then their next idea was, well, let's just pay everybody off.
So as you've heard so many people say, we're paying off foreign companies now to the tune of nearly $2,000,000,000, and using the judgment fund to do it. At the same time, we're requiring them to invest in LNG exports that will send American-produced natural gas to other countries. So how does any of this make sense? How is it a good use of taxpayer dollars? And why are we as the appropriations committee going along with it?
It just doesn't make any sense. It's just us using a slush fund to bribe them, and this is not how that fund should be used. When the chair opposed this, he said this would tie the hands of the administration. Well, I just wanna remind all of us, we're the appropriations committee. That is our job, to tie the hands of the administration.
We're Congress. We have the power of the purse. What the hell, people? We gotta fight back. And this is an important way to do it.
So I wholeheartedly support this amendment. I encourage all of you to do the same, tie the hands of the administration, and make sure that we do not support this wasteful government subsidy. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? A gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Speaker 19
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let's set the record straight on offshore wind. It is simply the highest levelized cost of energy of any generation in The United States short of home rooftop solar, which is absolutely the highest cost. We had no problem apparently paying Total Energy billions of dollars in production tax credit subsidies. But now when we attempt to remove the subsidies and therefore make these projects unviable because none of these offshore wind projects are viable without the $93,000,000,000 in tax subsidies that were going to be paid to offshore wind companies, and some will be paid because there is some offshore wind that's already in production.
But to say that there is no cost once they're installed, that's nonsense. There's what's called a production tax credit. They get a tax credit, a subsidy from the federal government for every kilowatt generated by those windmills. That's not no cost. That's cost to the American taxpayer.
Construction jobs. Yeah. We got a problem. Americans apparently don't construct much offshore wind, so we actually pay foreign companies to bring their ships in to construct offshore wind. Yeah.
There's some construction jobs. Most of them are not. Off the shore of Maryland, US Wind holds the leases. It's an Italian billionaire's company. We were more than happy to pay a subsidy to the Italian billionaires to produce and invest in that project.
But now when we may need be negotiating with them to give up their leases because they're not economically viable anymore, now that's a problem. The fact of the matter is it's an incredibly good use of taxpayer dollars. Instead of paying $93,000,000,000 in offshore wind subsidies to pay some to buy those leases back. It was a fool's errand to do offshore wind. I will tell you off the shore of my coast, take a look at a map and look at where the nearest place to Washington DC is off the coast.
It's Delaware and Maryland. You put up those windmills. You will create physical changes, physics changes undersea that the Department of Defense does not understand how that will interact with the detection of submarines off our shore. Now, and by the way, those windmills actually delay the detection of incoming weapons. Now, how do I know that?
Because Sweden canceled 12 of their 13 offshore wind projects on the coast of Sweden facing Russia. Why? Because their detection of offshore missiles was gonna be prolonged from one minute to two minutes, and they canceled 12 of the 13 projects. I want the US Department of Justice to be negotiating with US wind off the coast of Maryland because I want the Mid Atlantic to be safe. I want the energy to be produced.
We talk about, well, we're shipping off our natural gas. Yeah. That's because states like Maryland foolishly limited the amount of natural gas generation, electricity generation that they could have. They did it through renewable energy limits or, I should say, standards. It's time that we ended offshore wind.
It's a bad idea. And if this is what it takes, the administration to go and spend a small percent of what we were willing to spend on offshore wind subsidies to buy these leases back, have at it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? General Lady from Illinois is recognized.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment, and I would be delighted to yield to my colleague, Mr. Levin of California.
Speaker 28
I thank my dear friend from Illinois. Look. I hear the talking point that wind and solar are too expensive and that total energy still is somehow a wise use of taxpayer funds. I want to walk through the actual numbers, because the facts tell a pretty different story. So every year, the financial firm Lazard publishes what is considered the gold standard analysis of what it costs to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity from every source.
You can Google it yourself. This is not an advocacy group. Lazard is a Wall Street firm that advises power companies and investors. Their 2025 report finds that onshore wind costs between $37 and $86 per megawatt hour, and utility scale solar costs between $38 and $78. Combined cycle natural gas comes in between $48 and $109. New nuclear comes in between 141 and 220.
Gas peaking plants between 149 and $251. Lazard's conclusion, this is Lazard, just Google it, honestly. Please Google it unsubsidized. Google it yourself. Disagree with them, not with me.
Their conclusion, in their own words, is that unsubsidized wind and solar have been the lowest cost sources of new electricity in America for the last 10 years running. The EIA, Energy Information Administration, which is part of the federal government, as you know, confirms the same ordering independently, so does the International Energy Agency, globally. It's not my opinion. That's what the financiers who actually write the checks have concluded. Now on to TotalEnergies.
Administration is telling you this deal proves offshore wind doesn't work, and I want you to listen carefully to what actually happened. The Trump administration paid Total Energies roughly a billion dollars of your money, our taxpayer dollars, to walk away from two offshore wind leases off the coast of New York and North Carolina. That money is to be reinvested in a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Texas, which exports gas to Europe and Asia. So think about it. Your tax sellers just paid a French oil company to stop building American electricity, and the gas is being redirected to is being shipped overseas.
That's not energy dominance at all. That's paying a foreign company to take American power off the grid, so they can sell fuel to our competitors. And here's the part that should make you mad, at least it made me mad. The administration tried to halt offshore wind by executive order. Federal judges struck those orders down five times.
So instead of accepting the court rulings, they decided to write a 1 billion dollar check. The Carolina project, as I said, would have provided enough power for 300,000 homes. The New York project, nearly 1 million homes. We just paid to make sure that power never gets built at a time when electricity demand is surging because of data centers and AI. The honest trade-off here, offshore wind, because I heard a little murmuring here, offshore wind is more expensive than onshore wind and solar today.
Lazard put it at 72 to 140 dollars per megawatt hour, with Dominion's Virginia project coming in at $91. It's higher than gas, but it's lower than nuclear. It's the kind of project where costs come down once you build a domestic supply chain, which is exactly what the previous administration was trying to invest in and what prior Republican administrations supported until this one. Killing this now strands billions of dollars in port upgrades, turbine manufacturing that American workers were counting on. So the next time someone tells you wind and solar are expensive, ask them why Wall Street, the federal EIA, the international energy agency all reached the opposite conclusion.
Ask them why if offshore wind is such a bad deal, the administration had to pay a French oil company a billion dollars of your money to make it go away. And with that, I'll yield back to my friend from Illinois.
Speaker 27
Well, I think our colleague just really broke it down so spectacularly. I associate myself with his comments, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I like the gentle lady and the gentlemen. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 28
Incredible respect for my friend, the chairman, and his many decades of service. I do wanna point out a couple things that he said. One was mentioned by my dear friend, Miss Pingri. Tie the hands and limit the discretion of the administration. I agree.
That's what we're supposed to do here. I've only been in Congress eight years. I've only been on this committee for one year. But I think we're not a rubber stamp here. If we see something that we disagree with, we ought to have the right, and it's our responsibility to stand up and say so.
And it shouldn't matter whether you got a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. Number two, I heard the term wasteful and endless government subsidies. As I see it, that's what the administration is doing right now by paying these companies off to kill the wind projects. And I wanna address one more thing about this deal. It's even worse in some ways than I mentioned.
When you dig into the details of the settlement agreements that Total Energies, the French company, has entered into with the administration, it's clear that Total is not actually required to make any new investments in any American infrastructure at all to get their money back. The settlement agreements actually allow them to simply submit receipts for the oil and gas investments that they've already made, including money spent as far back as last November. It's just not a prudent use of taxpayer dollars to use the judgment fund like an ATM to pay for companies' billions of dollars without getting anything in return for the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. And your chair of the nodes have it.
Speaker 1
Call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will follow the role.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt? Mister Aguilar? I.
Mister Aguilar, I. Mister Alford? Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday?
Mister Amaday? No. Mister Amaday? No. Mr. Spice?
Mr. Spice? No. Mister Bishop? Mister Bishop? Mister Calvert?
Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr Case? Mister Case? I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani?
No. Mister Klein? Mister Klein? No. Mr. Cloud?
Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn? I. Mr. Clyde? Mister Clyde?
No. Mister Cole? No. Mr. Cœur?
Mistine? Mistine? Hi. Mistine, aye. Mr.
Lauro? Hi. Mr. Lauro, aye. Mr.
Diaz Bellart? No. Mr. Edwards? Mister Edwards?
No. Mister Elze? Mister Elze? No. Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar? I'm Mr. Espeyat. Mister Espeyat, I'm Mister Fleishman. Mister Fleishman? No.
Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel? Mr. Franklin? No. Mister Guest?
No. Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harter? Aye.
Mr. Harter? Aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No.
Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? Aye.
Mister Hoyer? Mister Aye. Joyce? Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor?
Miss Captor? I'm Mr. Lolota? No. Mister Lolota?
No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, I'm Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin.
Mister Levin, I. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy, no. Miss McCollum. Aye.
Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar.
Mister Molinar, no. Mister Moore? No. Mister Moore? Mister Morelli?
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervann? Aye. Mister Morvan, aye. Mister Newhouse?
Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Miss Pingry? Aye.
Miss Pingry, aye. Mister Pokan? Aye. Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley?
Mister Quigley, I, Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford?
No. Mister Shreev? No. Mister Shreev? No.
Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong? Mr Strong?
No. Mrs. Torres? Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood? Hi.
Miss Underwood, I. Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz?
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I. Mr. Womack.
Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote, cast a vote, or change their vote? Gentlemen from California.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Okay. Seeing no others, clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 26. The nose is 33.
The amendment is not adopted.
Speaker 1
Okay. A gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean is recognized for purposes of an amendment. And would the gentlelady just designate which one?
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk. It was formerly number three, and I ask that the amendment please be read.
Speaker 18
An amendment offered by Miss Dean of Pennsylvania in the report on page 49, following the paragraph titled availability pay. Insert the following. Redacting survivor and victim's personally identifiable information. The committee is concerned that DOJ has not fully removed or redacted survivor and victim personally identifiable information, PII, from the publicly released documents, as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, DOJ shall ensure that survivor and victim PII is removed from its website.
DOJ is further directed to report within 60 days of the enactment of this act on steps taken to meet this directive.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. I rise today in support of my amendment that directs the Department of Justice simply to comply with the law and remove survivors' personally identifiable information from its website, as required by the Epstein files. Mister chairman, it is my understanding that this is agreed to. And if that is so, I will offer no further remarks, but I wanted to get confirmation if that is actually so. So.
Speaker 8
I thank you, chairman. On behalf of the survivors, I'm very thankful. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
The amendment is accepted. Alright. Is there any further debate? Any members wish you to address? If not, the gentleman or lady does have one minute to close.
Speaker 1
Okay. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
All those opposed, say no. In painting the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The general lady from Pennsylvania is recognized on the amendment. And, again, if she would clarify which amendment.
Speaker 8
Okay. Now this one is my second amendment, but it's marked number one for clarification. And thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I move that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
The reading of the amendment is dispensed with without objection, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chairman. I rise today in support of my amendment to provide funds for the Department of Justice's Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative, CVIP, which this bill proposes to eliminate. Community violence intervention strategies are proven and effective. They are a method of reducing violent crime by giving states, localities, and local law enforcement the resources, tools, and freedom they need to address their specific needs at the local level. CVIP programs prevent violent crime before it occurs by identifying high-risk individuals and engaging with them in targeted, community-centered interventions with people they know and local organizations they trust.
The Department of Justice launched the Community-Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative in 2022. For those of you who were here, you know that it was part of the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and this legislation was passed in direct response to a series of mass shootings, including those horrific, mass losses in Uvalde and Buffalo. In my home state of Pennsylvania, CVIP has proven to be an effective method of reducing violent crime. Since 2022, when the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was signed into law, homicide rates across Pennsylvania are down 35%. It is remarkable.
It is working. We did something good, folks, by passing that bill. Let me repeat. 35%. In the city of Philadelphia, it's down even more than that.
This program clearly works. And yet, despite this clear evidence, the bill proposes to eliminate the program. Why would we do that? These statistics are readily available. They're available for your cities and states, but I hope we can change minds and make sure this is refunded.
So instead of arguing with anybody, I'm going to end by making an appeal to everyone in this room who identifies as a federalist or an advocate for states' rights. When I think about a federalist's approach to reducing violent crime and what it looks like, I do not envision sending masked federal agents into our cities to carry out military-style operations on civilians. Rather, I envision programs like the Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Programs that give states, localities, and local law enforcement resources and tools, and the freedom they need to address their specific needs, their specific communities at the local level. The community violence intervention prevention is proven. It is cost effective, and it is reducing and preventing crime in our communities.
I wanna extend by, and by extending an open invitation for any of my colleagues across the aisle to discuss this program with me, either now or in private, about the effectiveness of the program. I look forward to working with all of you to fund this program in the final bill. Thank you, chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentleman, lady, for remarks. Gentlemen from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
I'm proud of that the House bill maintains strong support for state and local law enforcement, including increasing funding for the Byrne JAG and COPS hiring grant programs. This amendment directs funds toward the community violence prevention intervention program, a progressive grant program championed by the Biden administration. Further, as drafted, this amendment does not properly offset the spending in the bill. It is for these reasons I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank Joan for his comments. Gentle lady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I rise in support of this amendment. The Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative's approach to interrupting cycles of violence has proven to be one of the most reliable and cost-effective ways to reduce community violence, and I believe my colleagues like to save money. By disrupting cycles of violence, this program reduces gun violence, homicides, arrests, and incarceration. Importantly, these programs improve community-police relations. This is a common-sense solution to violence and crime that we should all support in our communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for the remarks. Are there others wishing to address the issue? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 8
I thank you. Darn, I thought we might get agreement on this one too, Mr. Chairman. We were just asking for continued funding, not through another program, but continued funding of this program. It is something that actually helps local law enforcement, reduces the burden on local law enforcement. And in terms of the argument there that there is not a proper offset, I would disagree.
The proper offset is the saving of lives. Homicide down 35% in my state, down 50% in my city of Philadelphia. That's a massive offset. I urge consideration and a positive vote.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any of the chair of the noes have it? Answer. Call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Aye.
Mister Aguilar. Aye. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No.
Mister Amaney? Missus Bice? Missus Bice? No. Mr. Bishop?
Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? No. Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter?
No. Mr. Carter? Mister Case? Mister Case? I.
Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Klein? Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. No. Mr. Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde.
Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole. No. Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuellar.
Mister Cuellar, aye. Miss Dean? Aye. Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro?
Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? Mister Diaz-Bollart? No.
Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy?
No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat? Mister Esbayat, aye.
Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel, aye.
Mr. Franklin? Mr. Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mister Guest?
No. Mr. Harter? Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
No. Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mr. Hoyer?
Speaker 18
Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Ivy? Aye.
Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce? No. Miss Captor? Aye.
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee? Aye.
Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Mister Levin, ai. Miss Molloy?
Miss Molloy? No. Miss McCollum? Miss McCollum, ai. Miss Ming?
Aye. Miss Ming, ai. Mister Molinar? No. Mister Molinar?
No. Mr Moore? Mister Moore? No. Mister Morelli?
Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez.
Miss Pingry. Aye. Miss Pingry, aye. Mr. Pocan. Aye.
Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, I. Mister Russian Thaler? Mister Rogers?
Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford?
Speaker 18
Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev? No. Mr. Simpson?
Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres?
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo?
Mister Valadayo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye.
Mister Womack? Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke? No.
Are.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Virginia? No.
Speaker 1
Well, there are lots of gentlemen from California there. Have you all voted? Okay. Very good. Gentle lady from Florida.
Gentle lady from Perez.
Speaker 1
Are there others? It's kinda confusing when people are, I mean, happy to have you stand up. Okay. With that, the corporal court or a Cali. Excuse me.
On this vote, the ayes are 28 and the noes are 33. The amendment is not agreed to. We're going to try for one more.
Speaker 1
If we have to stop, we will. A gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean's recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I move that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of my amendment. This is now number two, just to be very clear, the third of mine, which is take a look at page 130. It will strike section 561 from the bill. I offer this amendment in support of public safety and support of victims of gun violence.
Section 561 would limit ATF's ability to carry out its demand to program. To be clear, ATF confirmed last year that the Demand 2 program was shut down, suspended, I suppose. Nonetheless, this rider is in the bill, so I want to address it. ATF's Demand program was created in the year 2000 to improve law enforcement's ability to trace guns used in crimes by imposing additional reporting requirements on firearms dealers whose guns have been traced to criminal activity. The demand two program works by reestablishing a chain of custody for used firearms sold to licensed.
Speaker 1
Ladies, yes. There's a lot of conversation going on. The gentlelady deserves to be heard. Gentlelady is recognized.
Speaker 8
I thank you, chairman. That's very thoughtful of you. As I said, the program was created in 2000 to improve law enforcement's ability to trace guns used in crimes by imposing additional reporting requirements on dealers whose guns have been traced to criminal activity. The demand two program works by reestablishing a chain of custody for used firearms sold back to licensed dealers to ensure those guns can be traced, so that the state and local law enforcement can track down leads and put criminals behind bars. Without this program, more than 100000 guns annually would not have been traceable.
Crime is inherently more violent, as you all know, when a gun is involved. The demand-to-own program makes America safer by keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. Since the year 2000, ATF has regarded a demand two designation as an important indication that a seller might be a popular destination for criminals to purchase firearms. Let's be clear how this works. Under the current guidelines for demand too, a firearm dealer is subject to this program only if within a single calendar year, at least 25 of that dealer's firearms are recovered in crimes, and those guns were sold within the past three years.
25 in a year, guns sold in the past three years. I wanna emphasize just how difficult it is for any gun dealer to be subject to this program. After all, only 2% of gun dealers in the United States are subject to the program. 2%. In fact, more than 80% of gun dealers in the United States do not have a single firearm traced to their store in any given year.
80% don't even have one, so 25 is quite a lot. I emphasize this point for a reason. If you have a firearms dealer in your district subject to demand too, or you know someone who has been subject to this program, it's important to understand the public safety risk they pose when they discuss this program and just how difficult it is to be in this demand too. The rider would drastically change the perimeters of the demand to program by allowing certain high volume dealers to get around these numbers, especially those with current government contracts. That's a way of diluting the reporting requirements.
So how does this niche program, like demand two, that only 2% of firearm dealers are subject to, make its way into this bill? I don't know. Why is there bill language to change the parameters of a program ATF ended last year? I don't know. To me, this reads as if this were written by a firearms dealer, not someone serious about making communities safer.
I urge my colleagues, please support this amendment. But more importantly, I wanna leave you all with a message. The next time a demand two firearms dealer discusses federal gun policy with you, I hope you now understand the public safety risk that poses, just how hard it is to be among the 2% of gun dealers that are subject to this program because their guns keep showing up in crimes. And this is only a reporting requirement for those dealers. Those dealers, they are not the dealers we should use as models.
Speak to the other 98% of gun dealers. Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
For far too long, the federal government has pushed the boundaries of law-abiding citizens, especially when it comes to the second amendment. I'm proud that the House bill maintains strong Second Amendment protections. Under the Biden administration, America witnessed an ATF that regulated through political impulse. This amendment would once again jeopardize this hallowed protection by striking a Second Amendment protection in the bill. I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentle lady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I strongly support this amendment. The Demand Letter to program is an important tool to help law enforcement fight gun violence. This program has aided ATF's law enforcement efforts by helping identify lax business practices among firearms dealers. It has provided us with invaluable data on who is supplying crime guns. Section 561 of this bill weakens what is a key law enforcement tool.
This rider should be struck from the bill. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Gentlelady from Connecticut, mister Lawrence, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. Before the Trump administration halted it, ATF's demand letter to the program put firearm dealers on notice. If a large quantity of firearms sold in their store are recovered by law enforcement in connection with a crime, and subjects them to additional reporting requirements from ATF. To receive a D.L. two, dealers had to have sold at least 25 guns that were recovered in a crime during the past calendar year and have a low, quote, time to crime.
Time to crime is the amount of time between the retail sale and the recovery by law enforcement. ATF considers a low time-to-crime as a potential indicator of gun trafficking. In other words, if a lot of guns from the same dealer end up at the crime scenes in a short amount of time, that is reasonable grounds to ask a few questions. This is not a blanket required crime. It doesn't apply to all gun dealers.
In 2024, in a study of more than 1,500 gun stores, only 2% of America's gun dealers met this threshold. The last time national trace data was available, it showed that about 5% of dealers transferred 90% of recovered crime guns. Those two to 5% of dealers are connected to the vast majority of recovered criminal weapons. A demand to find was an important indication that a seller might be a popular destination for criminals or the target of so-called straw purchasers who use surrogates to buy guns. This is exactly where our law enforcement resources should be concentrated, tracking the worst offenders, prioritizing cracking down on straw purchasers who evade the law in order to acquire guns.
Demand too helped our law enforcement officers focus on the worst offenders and helps law-abiding gun dealers who work hard to comply with the law. It should be resumed, and its standards should not be lowered. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized. Excuse me. Gentlemen from Georgia, Mister Clyde's recognized.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ariza, in opposition to this amendment, what section 561 actually does is to level the reporting requirements between large federal firearms licensees and the smaller dealers by tying reporting to a percentage of firearms sold as opposed to a flat number that disadvantages the larger dealers versus the smaller ones. I believe this amendment is a win win for both ATF and the FFL dealers, and it would help ATF focus their resources on actually firearm trafficking and make them more efficient and more effective in iYield. I
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. There are others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to admit to you, this amendment does nothing, absolutely nothing to interfere with anyone's second amendment rights. Not one thing. So that is a false argument. Let's not fall for it just because you hear the word gun.
Let's not do that. Any responsible federally licensed firearm dealer wants to be part of tracing crime guns. That's what responsible dealers do. They don't wanna be part of this pipeline of guns that are found at crime scenes. They wanna help law enforcement to reduce gun violence in this country, to save lives, to spare families, to spare children when children are shot and killed every single day in crimes.
Wouldn't you, as a firearm dealer, want to be a part of solving that and tracing them back? That's all this does. And sometimes somebody just wants to be relieved of those reporting requirements. It has no place in this bill. I ask and urge my colleagues to reject it.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, gentle lady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support is demonstrated. The clerk will call the royal.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Aye.
Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford. Mister Alford? No. Mister Amade?
No. Mister Amade? No. Mr. Spice? Mr. Spice?
No. Mister Bishop? Mister Bishop? Mister Calvert? No.
Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case, I'm Mister Siscamani.
Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein. Mister Klein, no. Mr. Cloud. Mister Cloud, no.
Mister Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, I'm Mister Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole? No.
Mister Cole? Cuellar. Mistine. Mistine, I'm Mr. Lauro. Hi.
Mister Lauro, I'm Mister Diaz Ballard. Mister Diaz Ballard, no. Mister Edwards, Mister Elze. Mister Elze, no. Miss Escobar.
Miss Escobar, I'm Mister Esbayat. Doctor Harris, no. Missus Henson. Missus Henson, no. Mr. Hoyer.
I. Mister Hoyer, I. Mr. Ivy. I. Ivy, I.
Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor. I. Miss Captor, I.
Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota. No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Molloy. Miss Molloy, no.
Miss McCollum. Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Aye.
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore. Mister Moore, no.
Mr Morelli. Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no.
Miss Perez. Miss Perez, aye. Mister Pingree. Miss Pingry? I'm Mr. Pokan.
Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Raschenthaler. Mister Rogers?
Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rutherford?
Speaker 18
Rutherford? Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson?
No. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No.
Mister Torres? Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo?
Mister Valadayo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman?
Miss Watson Coleman? Mister Womack? Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
No. Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Those who can't leave, it's just very difficult right now. So give me a signal if you have not been recorded. Gentlemen from New York. Gentlemen, is not recording.
Speaker 1
Okay. Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
Speaker 1
This vote, the ayes are 27, the noes are 33. The amendment is not adopted. Votes have now been called. The committee will now stand and recess. Please return promptly at the conclusion of the last vote, so we can continue consideration of our bill.
Pretty close to getting done. Committee will resume, reconvene. A gentlelady from Texas is recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the pizza is far more compelling than my amendment might be, but I'll give it my best shot. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment strikes section 580 of the bill, which currently prohibits the ATF from recording, digitizing, or maintaining any record of records of a federally licensed firearm dealer that has gone out of business. When a FFL's business is permanently discontinued, federal law requires business records to be delivered to the attorney general or to another FFL within thirty days. This ensures that records from dealers that shut down are delivered to the ATF so they can be digitized and searched if there is a trace from a crime involving a firearm that goes back to a dealer that has closed. Crime gun tracing is incredibly important to law enforcement, allowing them to develop investigative leads and tie firearms to a suspect by identifying the last known sale of a firearm.
Without these types of investigative leads, state and local law enforcement would be greatly hindered in being able to solve firearm-related crimes. And without this transfer and digitization of an FFL's records, there is no way for law enforcement to trace a firearm that is purchased from a dealer who has now closed. Under the current digitized system, it takes the ATF an average of 7 to 10 days to complete routine traces and an average of 12 to 14 days for non-expedited traces. Under a paper record system, this trace timeline would increase exponentially. Section 580 shuts down a major tool in solving crime for no reason, making crime gun tracing even more burdensome and time-consuming.
Instead of utilizing modern technology to search digital photographs of records, ATF would have to sort through hundreds of millions of physical boxes of records from thousands of discontinued and revoked FFLs across the country. When ATF was required to keep paper records, they had to store most of them in shipping containers across their parking lot, because storing them inside led to the floor of their installation collapsing. This amendment would, at best, delay and, at worst, entirely prevent gun tracing for firearms purchases from now out-of-business dealers, undermining law enforcement's efforts to solve gun crime. I want to emphasize, Mister Chairman, this is not an amendment that would impede anyone's Second Amendment rights. This truly is an amendment that is intended to support law enforcement.
If anyone has ever been the victim of a crime in this room, I have been. We depend on law enforcement. We depend on their ability to solve these crimes. And by passing my amendment, this would actually help law enforcement and make their ability to solve these crimes even stronger. I also want to address any concerns that the ATF could potentially use the digitized records from out of business FFLs to create a firearms registry. That there's zero risk of that happening because section 560 of this very same bill already prohibits that.
I ask for support for my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said earlier, I'm proud that the House bill maintains strong constitutional protections for the Second Amendment. The previous administration overregulated law-abiding citizens. This amendment would once again jeopardize this hallowed protection by striking a provision in the bill. I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentle lady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
I rise in strong support of this amendment. Section 580 is yet another extreme policy rider that has nothing to do with appropriations and no place in this bill. I'll remind my colleagues that the ATF is prohibited by law from maintaining a national gun registry. Congress has also mandated that federal firearms licensees must give transaction records to the ATF upon going out of business. When ATF receives out-of-business records, they are scanned into images.
These images have to be manually searched. This is not a gun registry. This rider would not only prevent ATF from using this system for future records, it would also require ATF to purge existing records that are used today to trace criminal guns, and support state and local law enforcement crime investigations. In 2024, ATF received an average of more than 1,700 trace requests per day. Our local police rely on this tracing work.
All this rider would do is make it easier for criminals to commit gun crimes, and harder for law enforcement to catch them. Support this amendment to strike the rider, and urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Speaker 1
There were others wishing to address the amendment. Gentlemen from Georgia, mister Clyde, recognize to address the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment to strike section five eighty of the bill, which prohibits funds to record, digitize, or maintain any recording of out of business records or any out of business records delivered to the attorney general. This important funding prohibition would effectively shut down the ATS illegal searchable gun registry, which maintains firearm transaction records commonly referred to as form 4473. Gun owners should be able to exercise their second amendment rights privately and without infringement from the federal government. And yet, ATS collection of out of business records jeopardizes America's Second Amendment freedoms by allowing the government to access a plethora of records related to who, where, and what types of firearms are owned by Americans.
This is not only wrong and deeply concerning, it is blatantly illegal. The firearm owners protection act explicitly prohibits the establishment of any federal database, registry, or system that tracks firearm or their owners. The out-of-business records collected under current law are in direct violation of this prohibition. If you go read the Firearm Owners Protection Act, it specifically says that they may not record, and that's exactly what is happening here. They are being digitally recorded.
The out-of-business records collected under current law are in direct violation of this prohibition. Recent reports have even shown that the ATF may possess over 1,000,000,000 gun registration records. That would be copies of 44 seventy threes. And the ATF has admitted to digitizing over 50,000,000 records a year. We must shut this illegal registry down once and for all, and we have a provision in the bill to do just that by prohibiting the recording, digitization, and maintenance of any of the records collected.
I applaud chairman Rogers and chairman Cole for the inclusion of this vital second amendment protection. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment before us to strip this protection, and I thank you and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 30
Mister chairman, it is shocking to me that there would be opposition to this amendment. Truly shocking. This amendment does nothing to impede anyone's Second Amendment rights. This the effort to strip the bill of this policy, of this rider, is an effort to help law enforcement. The only thing that this would protect would be criminals.
Law enforcement depends on their ability to trace guns when guns have been used to commit a crime. Why would we want to stand in the way of law enforcement from catching a criminal? I do not get it. I would ask my colleagues to allow us to follow logic and to ensure that we give law enforcement the tools that they need. Thank you.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar? Mr. Alford?
Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Mister Spice? Mr. Bishop?
Mister Bishop, I. Mr Calvert. Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mister Carter, no.
Mister Case. Mister Siskabani. Mister Klein. Mister Klein. Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. Clyburn. I. Mister Clyde. Mr. Clyde. No.
Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Cole. No. Mister Cuellar.
Mistine. Mistine, aye. Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye.
Mister Diaz Bellart. Mister Diaz Bellart, no. Mr Edwards? Mister Elze? Mister Elze, no.
Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat. Mister Esbayat, aye. Mr. Fleishman.
Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin. Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest, Mister Harter.
I. Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris, Missus Henson, Mister Hoyer. I. Mister Hoyer.
Mister Ivy. I. Mister Ivy, I. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce.
No. Miss Captor. Yes. Miss Captor. I.
Mister Lolota. Miss Lee. I. Lee. I.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin. I. Miss Malloy.
Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCullum. Miss Ming? Aye.
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore?
Mr. Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Mister Mervann? Mister Mervann?
I. Mister Newhouse? Mister Newhouse? No. Miss Perez?
Miss Pingry? I. Pocan? Mr. Pocan? I.
Mister Quigley? Mister Quigley, I. Mister Russenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no.
Mr Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mister Simpson, Mister Strong.
Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, I.
Mister Valadao. Mister Valadao. No. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Missus Watson Coleman.
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentle lady from Minnesota.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, clerical tally. Oh.
Speaker 1
Are there others? And if not, the clerical tally. On this vote, the ayes are 25. The notes are 31. The amendment is not adopted.
A gentleman from Indiana, Mister Mavan, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. I move that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading for the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 29
I rise to offer an amendment that would restore full funding for two critically important agencies which impact economic and national security, create and sustain good jobs, and support domestic manufacturing. The International Trade Administration focuses on American competitiveness, enforces our nation's trade laws, and supports businesses and exports. The ITA's critical work in strengthening our resiliency of the U. S. Industries ensure that American workers can compete on a level playing field.
Underfunding this agency with a $142,000,000 reduction from the previously enacted level will cause delays in combating unfair trade practices. For example, this bill will significantly reduce the investment in supporting global market strategies that deter and fight unfair trade market practices. This translates to job loss for workers in Northwest Indiana and across the country. Throughout my career, I've sat across from those that are on the losing end of an unfair trade practice. I can tell you that the ITA's role in enforcing trade laws and prioritizing American businesses is vital to American competitiveness and protecting American workers.
Additionally, this bill proposes a significant reduction in funding for the Economic Development Administration, 144,000,000 below the previous enacted level. The EDA helps economically distressed communities stimulate job growth, provides technical assistance, and facilitates critical investments in each of our communities. In my district, the EDA grants have directly supported improvements in water infrastructure, planning, and environmental management. For example, Northwest Indiana. The Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission was recently awarded the EDA grant to support the implementation of their comprehensive economic development strategy for Lake and Porter and La Porte Counties.
This funding aims to promote this effort to bring together the public and private sector to strengthen the regional economy and create more job opportunities. On a national scale, over 50,000 jobs are created or saved in 2024 because of the work of the EDA. These dollars support projects that drive business growth and expand job opportunities in communities that need them most. Additionally, the agency's response to the industry and local workforce needs to create jobs that strengthen our economy and provide opportunity. I urge the committee to restore this funding.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The chair now recognized Chairman Rogers to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill includes responsible levels of funding for the Economic Development Administration and International Trade Administration. This amendment would increase the funds provided to EDA and ITA without the necessary offsets, exceeding the bill's allocation. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. A gentlelady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I strongly support this amendment. It restores funding for programs that create and preserve good jobs when working Americans need them most. At a time when families are struggling with the high cost of living, we should be doubling down on job creation, not slashing the programs that help American businesses compete and win. Yet this bill, as written, guts EDA grants by over 35%, walking away from investments that have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, and revitalized struggling local economies, primarily in rural areas. EDA grants are not handouts.
They are investments that create opportunity in communities that have been left behind. In 2025, Congress reauthorized EDA for the first time in 20 years with strong bipartisan support. I know many of my colleagues here know how important these investments are for their constituents. Why are we cutting programs we worked together to make better? The ITA cuts are even harder to defend, given the unprecedented chaos in our global economy.
Small- and medium-sized businesses are drowning in rising costs and struggling to navigate trade policies. Tariff rates have changed countless times in a single year. Policies have been announced on social media and then reversed days later. Businesses have faced higher costs and retaliatory tariffs on their exports. Yet this bill fails to invest in the support that ITA provides.
The businesses that ITA helps don't have armies of trade lawyers. They rely on ITA to help them export, understand regulations, address trade barriers, and navigate the global marketplace. ITA's antidumping and trade enforcement work also protects American jobs from countries that do not play fair. I appreciate my colleagues' amendment to restore critical investments in EDA and ITA, and urge your support. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for remarks. A gentlelady from Connecticut. Mister Lawrence, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. Economic development assistance programs help communities across this country, especially in rural areas in need of investment and support. These programs are essential to revitalizing distressed communities, kickstarting local economies, and giving residents the opportunity to thrive. From 2018 to 2024, the EDA created or retained more than 727,000 jobs, led to over $80,000,000,000 in private investment.
This support creates economic opportunities, allowing people to earn more money, to spend more money, creating a virtuous cycle that ultimately benefits the country as a whole. My state of Connecticut, EDA, invested over $52,000,000 in construction, manufacturing, and technology hubs during that same time period, creating hundreds of jobs and generating another $52,000,000 in private investment. Just one example is 320,000 in funds to support the city of Waterbury's plan for the Brass City Regional Food Hub, which focuses on supporting local farmers by bringing fresh food and vegetables to seniors. The International Trade Administration is responsible for standing up for American businesses and fighting back against unfair trade practices. We have heard from this administration over and over again about how we are being, quote, ripped off by other countries.
But instead of taking steps to actually address the problem in a way that works, they have imposed tariffs that drive costs up for everyone. The ITA works to beat back these unfair practices, give American businesses a fair shot at success, without punishing consumers in the process. It also directly helps small and medium-sized businesses expand their exports and navigate the complexity of international markets. Makes no sense that this bill cuts funding for the ITA by $142,000,000 and the EDA by $144,000,000. These are agencies whose programs provide crucial support for the American people.
That support is especially necessary now when the cost of living continues to climb, and more and more Americans are seeing fewer job prospects. Instead of waging trade wars that hurt American families and businesses, and cutting back support for our communities, we should be increasing our investments and providing relief for our constituents. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, Jean Leigh, for her remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we approach September 2026, we are going to redo the USMCA, which is going to be our trade agreement between Canada and Mexico. Our adversary, China, is going to be and has consistently tried to figure out how to fill or have overcapacity of steel in our country, which cuts jobs. The ITA are the ones that enforce that, and any trade policy is only as good as the teeth that we have to enforce it. All that I ask is that we consider these types of arrangements in the funding for the ITA when we look at those types of trade agreements.
And China will not stop trying to figure out how to circumvent our trade policies. Therefore, we have to be able to have enforcement on the ITA side to stop them. With that, I ask for your support.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those imposed, say no.
No. Opinion chair of the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, aye.
Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday, missus Bice, mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert, no.
Mr. Carter? Mister Carter, no. Mr Case? Mister Ciscamani? Mister Klein?
Mister Klein? No. Mr. Cloud? Mr. Cloud? No.
Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn? I. Mr. Clyde? Mr.
Clyde? No. Mr. Cole? Mr.
Cole? No. Mr. Cuellar? Mistine?
Mistine, aye. Mr. Lauro? Aye. Mr.
Lauro, aye. Mr. Diaz Bellart? Mr. Diaz Bellart?
No. Mr. Edwards? Mister Edwards, no. Mister Elze, Miss Escobar.
Hi. Mister Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat? Mister Fleishman. Mister Fleishman, no.
Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest?
Mr. Harter? Aye. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
No. Missus Henson? No. Missus Henson? Mister Hoyer?
Mr. Hoyer? I. Mr. Ivy?
I. Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce?
No. Ms. Captor? I. Mr.
Lolota? Mr. Lolota? No. Ms.
Lee? Ms. Lee? I. Ms.
Letlow? Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye, Miss Molloy. Miss Molloy, no. Miss McCollum.
Miss McCollum, aye, Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye, Mr. Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mister Moore? Mr. Moore?
No. Mister Morelli? Mister Mervann? Mister Mervann? I.
Mr. Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Miss Perez, aye.
Miss Pingree? Miss Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley.
Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Russian dollar. Mister Rogers, no. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev.
Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Missus Torres, I'm Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, I'm Mr. Valadajo. Mister Valadayo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, I'm Mrs. Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I'm Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from New York. Aye.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 26, the noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. Gentlemen from Maryland, Mister Ivy is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, Ivy number one, and I ask for the reading of the amendment to be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment simply restores to the legal assistance for victims grant program, at the FY '26 level, enacted previously, and it restores it by $5,000,000, so it takes it up to $55,000,000 altogether. The legal assistance for victims provided needed practical legal support for survivors, custody of order when a child is sexually abused by a stepparent, helping an employee sexually assaulted or supporting a student assaulted at school or needing accommodations. I saw this frequently when I was a local prosecutor. And, in fact, it had a huge impact when we were able to assist victims of crime, because if they felt that they were out there on an ice float, they wouldn't come back to us.
And the word spread quickly when we were able to provide assistance, especially in domestic violence cases. It gave survivors of domestic violence a different kind of option and a level of confidence that they would not be let down by the court system. A 2025 survey by the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence said that 60% of rape crisis centers reported increased demand for services that year. 53% of rape crisis centers experienced a reduction in the staff at the same time. 50% of the programs report having no full-time therapist counselors on staff.
And on average, programs indicated that they needed two additional full-time staff to meet the current demand. Demand has not gone down. The funding for it should not go down either. Just one other quick point. In one day last year, over 13,000 requests for services went unmet due to a lack of resources, funding, and/or staffing.
Of those unmet needs, 58% were for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and legal services. So, recognizing the lateness of the hour, I'll just say this. If we allow these cuts to happen, it makes it less likely that these cases will actually be prosecuted. It makes it less likely that we'll be getting dangerous sexual offenders and people committing domestic violence off the street. And it makes it less likely that those families can be repaired and brought back to wholeness, with the type of assistance and support that they can get from these kinds of services.
So I ask for the support of all my colleagues on this amendment, and with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The chair recognized distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, mister Rogers, to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 1
We need to respond. Very smart. If there's no further debate, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 1
Hey. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Gentleman from Maryland, mister Ivy, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 17
Have an amendment at the desk, Mister Chairman. I'll be number two, and I will ask for the to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman of Maryland is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 17
Mister chairman, I, in going through the bill, saw that section 588 included TR to amendment language that actually expanded what it covered previously. And I was concerned about that for a variety of reasons. The TR amendment has caused a number of challenges with respect to gathering and collecting information. I recognize that there's concern about second amendment protections, but this is the kind of information that is useful for research. Not so much in particular, identifying individuals in particular cases in some ways, but helping, for example, universities, University of Maryland, my district helps to develop gun violence reduction programs.
This is the type of information that would be tremendously helpful in doing that, because many of the offenses are committed with guns, and they have a high probability of being more lethal in cases where gun violence results. I note that there are cities like Baltimore, for example, Mayor Brandon Scott, who's got a challenge with respect to the flood of illegal guns into his city. Now I'd note at the front end of this that Baltimore's had great success in reducing, certainly, murders in the last few years, but still we have a long ways to go there in my district and everywhere across the country. He said that we've already seen close to 2,700 illegal guns in the city this year. That's a 9% increase over last year.
And we know that over 60% of them come from other places. I can testify to that when I was a local prosecutor. Actually, I apologize. When I was a federal prosecutor here in Washington DC. Obviously, sale of guns was illegal at that time in Washington DC. So what people would do is they would just drive out to Virginia, down about 30 miles from here.
I think it was Fort Belvoir, the Lorton area. They would buy the guns there, and then drive them back into the city. And it was so pervasive that they actually started stationing ATF agents at that store undercover, and they would drive back to follow them into the city. Obviously, that's not the most efficient way to go about dealing with these kinds of matters. And so having the information available so we can pursue these kinds of cases and also develop strategies to address the gun violence that results from the plethora of guns that are hitting the streets and getting into the wrong hands is critical and important and makes a huge difference in our cities.
I'll note here. Three years ago, and it's interesting, this is the National Law Enforcement Memorial Week. About three years ago, it was a murder of a Chicago police officer, Ella French, and the police and prosecutors have revealed much about her case, the grim details of her final moments, the type of gun that was used to shoot her during the traffic stop, and how that 22 caliber Glock made its way into the hands of the man who pulled the trigger. But absent from the public discussion was the name of the retail shop where the gun was used to kill French was purchased. Its disclosure has been hindered by a long-standing push by the gun industry to protect the identities of retailers that sold and used those guns.
I understand there's sensitivity on this issue, but I think it's important for us to be able to trace this information back to the gun stores where they come from, for the reason I just talked about a moment ago. And not having this information makes it harder to do. And one thing that really surprised me when I was going through this bill, if I'm reading this correctly, Congress can't even get this information. Law enforcement can get it. They can be obtained by federal agencies for national security or intelligence purposes, but we can't get them.
And that doesn't make any sense to me. We ought to be able to get any and all the information we need to make legislation. Might wanna go in different directions on what the legislation should be. But at a minimum, we're setting these kinds of policy issue goals for an issue about the level of violence on our streets. We really ought to have full information when we're doing it.
So I ask people to, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
As I said earlier, I'm proud to say again, the house bill maintains robust second amendment protections. This amendment would once again endanger that hallowed protection by striking a provision in the bill. I pause the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. You're back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. A gentlelady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 4
Horizon’s strong support of this amendment. Section 588 is yet another extreme policy writer that has absolutely no place in this bill. It effectively shuts down all firearms data transparency at the ATF. It goes far beyond the existing law. Not only does this amendment block public disclosure of ATF's firearms data, including National Integrated Ballistic Information Network data, it blocks any analysis, investigative leads, or testimony based on this data.
It also makes ATF's firearms data immune from subpoena and inadmissible in civil court. This will only shield negligent gun dealers from accountability, and will make it even more difficult for researchers, policymakers, and members of the public who are trying to better understand and combat illicit gun markets, gun crime, and gun deaths. This amendment strikes this damaging provision and preserves the ability of victims, cities, localities, and the public to seek justice through the courts and to investigate gun violence in their communities. I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chairman. And I thank Mister Ivy for bringing this forward. I would ask my colleagues to take a look. This is just about the final page of this bill, and read the language of it, of the section that the good man's amendment would strike. This is on page 142, section 588.
No funds appropriated under this act or any other act may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, NIBIN database maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The Firearms Trace System database is maintained by the National Trace Center for any system platform or analytical product. It's staggering. Look at this language. They wanna hide the data around guns used in crimes.
I asked like I did on my own amendment. Why would this even be in the bill? Why would we want to be hidden from us information on guns that appear in crimes? Who are we protecting here? Again, this has nothing to do with anybody's Second Amendment right.
And, by the way, I heard in here a couple of times today a God-given right. I don't know what religion any of you are part of, but no god that I know actually declared that we have a right to bear arms. No, God did that as far as I can tell. But just look at this language. It is darkness over the data that would actually help us understand, would help ATF, would help law enforcement, understand where these guns are going.
I really rise in strong support. Thank you, Mr. Ivy, for bringing this to our attention. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there others wishing to make remarks on this amendment? A gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, mister chairman. I rise in very strong support of chairman Rogers, and want folks to vote no on this amendment. You know, the Teaheart amendment has been a part of the appropriations process, I believe, for over twenty years. And it's very, very critical to ensuring that the second amendment is respected and protected. And within our bill itself, it says nothing in this bill shall be construed to prevent the disclosure of aggregate statistical information concerning total production, importation, exportation by federal farms licensees.
It also does not prevent the sharing or exchange of trace data among federal, state, local law enforcement, even foreign law enforcement. And it also does not prevent the publication of annual statistical reports by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. So to say that it shuts off ATF's ability to discuss statistics, and what they find is just not true. So, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I ask everyone to vote against it. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? A gentlelady from Minnesota is recognized.
Speaker 13
I just have a question. Maybe Mister Ivy can answer it for me. Miss Ming said that you can't even subpoena this information. Is that correct? Why would we not be able to subpoena information?
I don't understand that.
Speaker 17
Yeah. The why is a good question, but I'll read it. All such data shall be immune from legal process, shall not be subject to subpoena, discovery, or request pursuant to section 52552 of title five, which is under the federal register. So you can't get it.
Speaker 13
I'm not an attorney. I get to pretend I'm one, I guess, for a few seconds here. But I'm gonna say, I don't understand how we could write a law that would deny the prosecution or the defense the right to ask for this material. That seems very odd to me as well.
Speaker 17
Well, there's an exception for prosecutors and for National Security or intelligence purposes, but not for anybody else, including Congress as far as I can tell. So only the prosecutors can get it. And if they get it, they have to agree to a protective order so they can't disclose it to anybody else. So if the evidence is turned over to prosecutors and they use it and find it useful, they can't give it to us or any other local policymakers in order to use that to make their community safe.
Speaker 13
But if I'm the prosecutor and you're the defense attorney, how do you do discovery?
Speaker 17
Well, that would be part of the court system, but they don't actually provide for that here. It says federal, state, local, tribal law enforcement agency, or a federal, state, or local prosecutor. Okay. They don't actually provide for the defense.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? The gentleman from Texas, Mister Clouds, recognize.
Speaker 24
Sure. Someone mentioned the unalienable rights to bear arms. I will point you to Isaiah 54.
Speaker 24
Verse 17. No weapon formed against you will prosper. Every tongue that rises up against you in judgment will be condemned. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their vindication is from me, declares the Lord. Interestingly, if you look at the verse right before that, this is what it says.
This is God speaking in scripture. Behold, I myself have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and brings the weapon for its work, and I have created the destroyer to ruin. In the context of the time, what happened is the Philistines had taken over the territory that the Israelites had. And the first thing that they did was they banned the blacksmiths. Why did they do this?
This was a form of.
Speaker 24
This was a form of weapon control, or today we would call it gun control. Back then, it was swords and plows, and that's what the scripture right before that is saying. And if you go up a little further, the scripture before that says, in righteousness, you'll be established. You'll be far from oppression. You will not fear terror.
It will not come near you. And so the purpose of the blacksmith was to help create the weapons so that you would not fear oppression, and it would not come near you. The scripture right before that says, all your sons will be taught of the Lord, and great will be their peace. So far. So the peace against oppression was because we have a right to keep and bear arms that our founders understood and enshrined in our constitution.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to debate the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say this, you know, with respect to the quotes from Isaiah, and I have a great deal of respect for that prophecy. There's nothing in there about you can't share information that's about the weapon that may or may not be worried against you. And that's all this is about. That's all this is about.
So, and by the way, I know Scalia isn't quite a god, but among my conservative friends. But even Justice Scalia in the Heller opinion recognized the need for basic regulation with respect to guns. That's why you can't take guns into the Supreme Court, for example, or here. So I appreciate the points about the Second Amendment. But at the end of the day, as I like to say, there are ways for us to protect the Second Amendment, but also protect second graders.
We're talking about trying to make sure that we can make our streets safe, make our schools safe, make our homes safe. And with that, I ask for your support, and I yield back. Thank.
Speaker 1
The gentleman for his remarks. The question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. And you're chair of the noes have it. Amendment has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The court will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, I. Mr. Alford.
Holy total. Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No.
Missus Bice? Mister Bishop? Mister Bishop? I. Mister Calvert?
No. Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter? No. Mr. Carter?
Mister Case? I. Mr. Case? I. Mister Siscamani?
No. Mister Siskemani, no, Mister Klein. Mister Klein, no, Mister Cloud. Mr. Cloud. Mister Cloud, no.
Mr. Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole?
No. Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuellar. Mistine. Mistine, aye.
Mister Lauro. Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart. Mister Diaz Ballard?
No. Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elzy?
Mister Elzy? No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar? Ah, Mister Escobar?
Espeyat? Mister Espeyat? Ah, Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? Miss Frankel?
Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin? Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest? Mr. Harter.
Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, no. Missus Henson? Missus Henson?
No. Mr. Hoyer? Mister Hoyer? Ivy? I.
I. Mister Ivy? I. Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce?
No. Miss Captor? I. Miss Captor? Mister Lolota?
Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee? Miss Lee, I'm Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. I'm Miss Molloy. Miss Molloy. No. Miss McCollum.
Miss McCollum. I'm Miss Ming. Miss Ming. I'm Mr. Molinar. Mister Molinar, no.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Mr Morelli. Mister Morelli, aye.
Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, aye. Mr Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez.
Miss Pingry. Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley.
Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers? No.
Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Shreev?
Mister Shreev? No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No.
Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Mr. Torres? Missus Torres?
I. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo?
Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman?
Miss Watson Coleman? Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerks will, I'm sorry. General ladies from Oklahoma?
Speaker 1
And are there others? Seeing none, the clerks will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 26 and the noes are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Before we move on to the next one, a couple of housekeeping things, and first, just thank all of you.
Frankly, we got done a lot earlier than I expected, and I think you are all on both sides of the aisle to be commended for that. I appreciate it very much, and I appreciate the demeanor. There have been questions about next week because the schedule has changed. We've had this problem before. It creates a problem for us sometimes when days are given back.
We will pursue the schedule as it is written. In other words, we will be in session on Wednesday, in full committee for energy and water and ledge branch, which we will try and get done that day. Then the next day, what are the two we have? The next day, we'll have subcommittee markups for interior and thud. So it will be a pretty busy week to keep us on schedule.
We are not sure yet exactly the time, but it will be either ten or 11:00 that we convene here. We will let you know as soon as we know. What we don't know is if either party is planning a conference that morning, but plan to be here and ready on Wednesday morning. It'll either be midmorning at ten or a little bit later at eleven, and we will move those bills, hopefully, get them out of the full committee. We don't wanna be on the floor the next day.
We wanna get those things out of here. So, anyway, I'm sorry?
Speaker 3
Do we have any knowledge as to when the leadership will be giving us time on the floor to pass these bills that we're passing?
Speaker 1
I don't have anything beyond, obviously, we have one schedule, but I do not know. And as soon as I do know, I'll be more than happy to convey it to people. Thank you. Have that. You bet. As I always remind, our people on our side, our majority in this committee is bigger than it is on the floor.
So my problems are minuscule compared to my WIP and my majority leader. With that, the chair recognizes a gentleman from Alabama, Mister Aderholt, for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Mister chair, I move to favorably report to the house the fiscal year 2027 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill.
Speaker 1
The question is now on the motion to favorably report fiscal year 2027 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills to the House. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No.
The chair of the ayes has it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 18
Mister Aderholt? Aye. Mister Aderholt? Aye. Mister Aguilar?
No. Mister Aguilar? No. Mister Alford? Aye.
Mister Alford, aye. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday, aye. Mr. Spice? Mister Spice, aye.
Mr Bishop? Mr Bishop? No. Mister Calvert? Aye.
Mister Calvert, aye. Mr. Carter? Mister Carter, I'm Mister Case. Mister Case, no. Mister Siscamani.
Mister Siscamani, I'm Mister Klein. Mister Klein, I'm Mister Cloud. Mister Cloud, I'm Mister Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, no. Mr. Clyde?
Aye. Mister Clyde, aye. Mister.
Speaker 18
Mister Cole, aye. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar, no. Miss Dean?
No. Miss Dean? No. Mister Loro? No.
Mister Loro? No. Mister Diaz Pollart? Mister Diaz Pollart? I'm Mr. Edwards.
Mister Edwards? I'm Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy, I miss Escobar. Miss Escobar, no. Mister Espayat, no.
Mr. Fleishman. Mister Fleishman, I miss Frankel. Miss Frankel. Miss Frankel, no. Mr. Franklin.
Mister Franklin, I. Mr. Guest. Mr. Harter. Mr. Harter. No.
Dr. Harris. Miss doctor Harris, I. Missus Henson? Hi. Missus Henson, I.
Mister Hoyer? No. Mister Hoyer? No. Mister Ivy?
No. Ivy? No. Mister Joyce? Mr. Joyce?
I. Miss Captor? Miss Captor? No. Mister Lolota?
Mister Lolota, aye. Miss Lee? Miss Lee? No. Miss Letlow?
No. Mister Levin? No. Mister Levin? No.
Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy? I miss Column? Miss McCollum? Miss McCollum, no.
Miss Ming? Hey, Miss Ming, no. Mister Molinar? Yes. Mister Molinar, aye.
Mr Moore? Yes. Moore, aye. Mister Morelli? No.
Morelli? No. Mister Mervann? Mister Mervan? No.
Mr Newhouse? Aye. Mister Newhouse, aye. Miss Perez? Miss Pingry?
No. Pocan? No. Mr. Pocan. No.
Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley. No. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers.
Ah. Mister Rogers, I. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, I. Mr. Shreve.
Mister Shreve, I. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, aye. Mister Strong? Mister Strong, aye.
Missus Torres? Missus Torres? No. Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood?
No. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo, aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, no.
Miss Watson Coleman? Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman? No. Mr. Womack.
Yes. Do. Mister Womack, I. Mister Zinke.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote, gentlelady from Washington?
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, clerks will tally.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 32. The notes are 28. The motion is agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and report just approved.
Speaker 1
Three days. Seeing no objections, so ordered. Without objections, so ordered. There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.