H.R. 2442, the Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act of 2025; H.R. 9298, the Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts Act; H.R. 9503, the Officer Leslie Coffelt U.S. Secret Service Police Act; H.R. 3342, the BOP Direct-Hire Authority Act; H.R. 10335, the Restoring Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 2026; H.R. 9834, the No Racketeers on our Shores Act; and H.R. 8330, the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026
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 Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsJamie Raskin
The bill is also a long-overdue tribute to a hero. It's named for Officer Leslie Coffelt, a member of the Uniformed Division who gave his life defending President Truman during the 1950 assassination attempt at Blair House. Officer Coffelt died while engaging the attackers, becoming the first and only member of the White House Police, as it was then known, to be killed in the line of duty. We honor his sacrifice and the commitment of all the officers who've served in their ranks. This legislation would update the U.S. Code across multiple titles to ensure consistency that's critical for operational clarity and professional recognition.
We urge all our colleagues to support the bill, and let us give the officers the recognition they've earned, and let us honor the memory of Officer Coffelt. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 7
Gentleman yields back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair's recognized to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Clerk report.
Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Jim Jordan
Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of the amendment. This amendment makes a small change to the title of the bill and does not change the substance of the legislation.
Lucy McBath
Thank you so much, Chairman Jordan. I am pleased to support H.R. 9503, the Officer Leslie Coffelt U.S. Secret Service Police Act, which would officially change the name of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division to the United States Secret Service Police in order to better reflect the work of the brave agents and officers in its ranks. As my colleagues have noted, Officer Coffelt was shot and killed in the line of duty while protecting President Truman. To this day, he remains the only U.S. Secret Service officer or agent to die while protecting a president. That is a risk that officers and agents are willing to take when they join the Secret Service, and throughout the course of history, they have repeatedly shown their bravery.
Take for example, Secret Service Uniformed Division Officer Victor Gonzalez. He was stationed at a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton during the 2026 White House Correspondents' Association's annual dinner when an armed suspect attempted to breach the security perimeter. Thanks to the quick action of Officer Gonzalez, the suspect was prevented from advancing toward the event. The women and men of the Secret Service protect, patrol, and secure facilities and venues across the nation and the entire world, and they operate specialized teams from the counter-sniper team to the emergency response team and more. I am very proud to vote for this bipartisan bill to honor Officer Coffelt and to better align the agency's name with its role and duties.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Jim Jordan
I thank the gentlelady and thank her for her support of the legislation. The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Those opposed no. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments, and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Committee will stand at ease as we're waiting for one of our colleagues who's the sponsor of the next legislation.
Pursuant to notice I call up HR 3342, the Bureau of Prisons Direct Hire Authority Act for purpose of markup move the committee report it favorably to the House, the clerk will report the bill. HR 3342. Without objection the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, the sponsor of the legislation is recognized for an opening statement.
Glenn Grothman
I represent Oxford, Wisconsin where we have a wonderful federal prison and I encourage all of my colleagues on the committee to tour their federal prisons. HR 3342, the Bureau of Prisons Direct Hire Authority Act is a straightforward bill designed to help the Bureau of Prisons hire the staff they need to keep our federal prisons open. As soon as you tour one of these, any facility, you'll find out their big problem is they're not staffed enough. I'm proud to represent Bureau of Prisons employees who work at FCI Oxford and live in communities throughout Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District. When I toured the facility, the employees spoke with, the employees I spoke with made clear that staffing is their biggest challenge.
For example, an applicant can spend more than 100 days going through the Office of Personnel Management before the application even reaches BOP facility for consideration. And of course by then the applicants have taken a job at the state corrections, at the local county sheriffs, whatever. This existing bureaucratic approach to hiring exacerbates BOP's chronic staffing challenges and we have seen real world examples recently as a result. The Bureau recently announced the closure of six federal prison facilities citing extreme staffing challenges. President Trump, BOP Director Marshall, and Republicans understand this issue.
To help address the staffing issue, Congress gave the BOP $3 billion in additional funding in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to combat the agency's retention losses and hiring challenges. This is a strong first step and I'd like to thank President Trump for his leadership. I hope other people don't vote against this bill because they just don't like the President. More work needs to be done, Congress stands ready to help, it should not take months to hire a qualified candidate ready to do the job. The Direct Hire Authority Act gives individual facilities the ability to direct hire for vacant positions until BOP staffing reaches sufficient levels, cutting through unnecessary bureaucracy.
This legislation was developed alongside BOP employees and is designed to strengthen the Bureau's workforce for years to come. Let's make sure our men and women of corrections have the tools and manpower they need to do their job effectively. I urge my colleagues to support HR 3342 and remember the guys who work in the prisons want it.
So we want to make our correctional officers happy. And and the management wanted it too. So unless we have just ridiculous partisanship, we want these guys hired and it can't take forever to hire them or they'll get a job somewhere else in the interim, which is what's happening now. Thank you.
Jim Jordan
Gentleman yields back, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland for opening statement.
Jamie Raskin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to work with you to address the chronic understaffing at the Bureau of Prisons. There's clearly a staffing shortage within the agency and both recruiting and retention have been challenging, particularly for facilities in distant and rural locations. But we've not had any opportunity to determine how the broad exclusion of civil and competitive service rules, like the veterans' preference granted by this measure, would even work at the agency or whether it's the appropriate solution to the staffing challenges. The Bureau's been plagued by a multitude of problems that interfere with the agency's ability to carry out its mission of protecting public safety by providing humane and secure incarceration, as well as opportunities for inmates to improve themselves and become productive citizens upon release.
I expressed similar sentiments in my opening statement at a hearing titled Federal Corrections in Focus: Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons a year and a half ago. Although we had a good conversation with individuals across the spectrum about chronic understaffing and underfunding, which have forced employees to work to the point of exhaustion leading to burnout and low morale, the majority has not acted to respond to the problem. We have not had a regular oversight hearing with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons about solutions. We've not had the opportunity to ask the Director how he would implement and use the authority suggested in this bill, or whether he needs additional resources or other authorities to fully staff the Bureau. We don't even know how the Director is using the current direct-hiring authority that BOP was granted by the OPM back in 2024.
We don't know whether the Director believes this bill is the solution for BOP staffing issues. We don't know how he would implement direct-hire authority across BOP, to what facilities he would assert this authority or to what positions he would apply it. Here's what we do know. The most recent official staffing data we have for BOP shows that it employed 12,300 correctional officers in 2024. BOP's website today shows 11,780 correctional officers in pay status as of August of this year.
Just last year, Congress gave the Bureau of Prisons a supplemental appropriation of $3 billion to address its staffing issues. We had to do this because the administration created chaos at BOP, expecting it to fix its urgent staffing crisis on the same shoestring budget, canceling recruitment and retention-based incentives, and refusing to honor the collective bargaining agreement with federal unions representing BOP staff. Trump's actions triggered mass resignations among BOP employees who were already stretched too thin, and yet here we are proposing to award this administration for its egregious mismanagement and bad behavior that have made this situation much worse.
In an effort to understand the director's plans, we asked for written responses to questions in the letter. We learned in a response that BOP had lost 276 officers to DHS in 2025. And during the historic Republican shutdown last year, BOP lost 525 staff for reasons including working conditions and more competitive pay available elsewhere. Nowhere in BOP's response, however, was a request for more direct hire authority applied to all positions or for near total exemption from the rules of civil service hiring, like the veterans' preference. Whether BOP even wants or needs the authority we're proposing to give them today remains perfectly unclear.
So let's run through a sampling of what 3342 would do. It would eliminate the legal requirement that BOP give hiring preferences to veterans. Think about that. Veterans make up less than 10% of BOP's staff, well behind the average for other federal agencies. Our veterans have made great sacrifices to serve and to keep everybody safe.
Giving them preference in hiring is the right thing to do, and it's the law. This bill would break that promise. Trump and his supporters portray themselves as champions of veterans and the military. Well, we can show it by rejecting this broad-brush approach. The bill would also allow the BOP to turn back the clock on Congress's efforts to modernize federal hiring, exempting BOP from the Chance to Compete Act, which passed with significant bipartisan support two years ago.
The law requires that agencies within the executive branch conform their hiring practices to 21st-century standards, making government more responsive to the needs of the people that we serve and more cost-efficient. Such extraordinary measures as being suggested here are all the more difficult to justify at a time when BOP is giving special deluxe VIP room service special privileged treatment to Ghislaine Maxwell, while employees blowing the whistle on all of this egregious favoritism are being summarily fired by the prison. An efficient, fully staffed BOP is essential. We have borne witness to the outrageous deadly consequences that flow from rushed, standardless hiring under the administration. There are clear lessons to be learned from this history, from people like Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, who even a lot of Republicans want to impeach now.
And we've seen the dangers from mass unregulated hiring in ICE. We saw the ICE officer in Vermont who turns out had engaged in domestic violence against two of his wives and had thrown his daughter through a glass table. But our colleagues appear to have learned nothing from this experience. This bill would bestow even greater hiring flexibility and lawlessness on BOP than ICE has. We should not allow the lawlessness to spread.
We're 24 hours away from the end of this session, and we're left to guess whether BOP even thinks about this bill. This is not how we should be legislating. Until we've heard from the director appearing in a regular oversight hearing, we must let this legislation go. While I must vote no on the measure before us today, we hope to work with you, Mr. Chairman, on finding real solutions to the BOP's persistent staffing challenges. And I urge our colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
Jim Jordan
The objection, all of the opening statement will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
An amendment at the desk.
Clerk report.
Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Jim Jordan
Objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purpose of the amendment. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to explain the amendment.
Glenn Grothman
This amendment simply adds the year to the short title of the bill. It's not intended in any way to alter the ultimate, the important purpose of this bill. I urge support for my amendment and I yield back. After one more time urging my colleagues to tour their prisons where they'll find all of their local unions and local administration demands this bill.
Gentleman yields back.
Jamie Raskin
This is from my union local president, David Dimas, AFGE CPL 33, who writes in to oppose this legislation saying that it needs a lot more oversight and safeguards and study.
Speaker 14
Without objection. Who seeks recognition? The gentlelady from Georgia. The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BOP definitely has critical staffing needs that it urgently needs to address and the problem is pervasive, it is persistent, it is serious. It's been spanning decades in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Understaffing at BOP facilities jeopardizes the health and the safety of the staff and also the inmates. It prevents the BOP from fulfilling its duty to ensure that prisoners are prepared to return to their communities.
And I must say I personally have spent time with the previous director of the Federal Board of Prisons as well as the present director. However, while I am committed to supporting BOP's efforts to increase its ranks and performance crucial mission, I cannot support HR 3342 at this time. This bill would undermine the integrity of civil service hiring, which the Trump administration has often targeted without sufficient justification being presented to this committee. We are being asked to legislate based on nothing more than simply guesswork. Neither my subcommittee nor this committee has held an oversight hearing with the director of the Board of Prisons.
The only information that we have about the status of staffing and hiring at the Board of Prisons is based on internet searches and one letter. BOP's chief of the Office of Legislative Affairs responded to our letter of inquiry that Ranking Member Raskin and I sent to Director Marshall along with Representative Crockett and Neguse and the American people, they expect and they should receive an answer. They deserve that. This measure would allow the Trump administration to hire staff of all kinds, from correctional officers to doctors to nurses and counselors at prisons and other custodial facilities across the country with very, very few guardrails. In 2024, the Office of Personnel Management granted BOP direct-hire authority to fulfill 2,501 correctional officer positions nationwide.
Under this statutory authority, BOP may hire applicants without having to consider some statutory and regulatory requirements related to civil service hiring. The bill before us today would exempt BOP from nearly all statutory civil service requirements. This administration would be constrained by just two civil service requirements across all positions. What would that mean? For starters, it would take away hiring preferences for veterans as has already been expressed and their spouses along with standards for equating military service and work experience.
I do not understand how anybody thinks this is a good idea.
Perhaps a hearing on direct hire authority, civil service hiring requirements under DOJ, or yes, BOP oversight with the director would have enlightened me. Civil service promises that military service accounts, service counts in the federal job market, that promise has stood for generations and our veterans make up more than one quarter of the federal workforce overall, but less than 8% of BOP employees. This insensitive proposal, I say yes, it is insensitive because it would allow BOP to stop hiring veterans altogether. BOP would also not have to comply with the Chance to Compete Act, legislation that I voted for along with every Republican member of this committee, including the sponsor of this bill. It makes no sense to exempt BOP from a law aimed at making our government operate far more efficiently.
Why would we allow this when BOP has suffered under inadequate hiring practices for decades? I have committed myself to supporting BOP's mission. I've spent a lot of time on this kind of legislation. I became a member of Congress because of it, but I simply cannot support this bill. I'm happy to work across the aisle to help BOP with the staffing issue as I've done many times before.
I've helped craft the Federal Prison Oversight Act to ensure health and safety of everyone in our BOP facilities. That bill passed following several investigations in the Senate, discussions with officials from BOP, DOJ, and the Office of the Inspector General, and negotiations across several House and Senate committees. We have not come close to that kind of deliberation in this committee when it comes to this bill. And it's for these reasons that I strongly oppose this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We can do better than this.
We must do better than this. And I yield.
Andy Biggs
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Bureau of Prisons cannot hire fast enough to keep its own officers safe, to keep the inmates safe, and to keep the public safe. Right now, nearly one fourth of all BOP employment positions are vacant. Think about that. Nearly 25% of all BOP employment positions are vacant.
Every one of those vacancies means fewer officers watching more inmates, fewer medical personnel, fewer administrative personnel. And that constitutes a safety problem for the officers and staff who show up to work every day, and for the public that depends on those facilities running safely, and for the inmates as well. One of the reasons they have trouble hiring is that before BOP can bring on a single new corrections officer, it has to route that application through the Office of Personnel Management. And that process alone can add more than 100 days, sometimes a half a year or even more, before a qualified candidate ever reports for duty. Very few people can stand sitting around waiting that length of time because they simply can't afford it economically.
They can't endure and they end up taking a job somewhere else. Whether it's state prisons, local police departments, other federal agencies, they're all competing for these people and they are moving faster than Washington can. HR 3342 fixes this the simple way. Gives the Director of the Bureau of Prisons direct hire authority to the ability to bring on qualified candidates, including veterans, without waiting. Let me repeat that.
The director can bring on qualified candidates, including veterans.
BOP should not have to wait to hire the people it already knows it needs and who have and have they've determined to be qualified. I have sat with BOP Director Marshall and with representatives of people who work in these facilities. The local unions indicate to me that they want more people hired. They're overworked, they're overstressed, they're in danger, they're in jeopardy. Many of them love working in the Bureau of Prisons but are considering leaving because the stress is too much.
And part of what the reason that we can't get more people hired is because of the current process. These individuals are not divided on this issue. Management wants it and the officers want it. When the people running the agency and the people doing the hardest job inside it agree on a fix, Congress should listen. It is a rare case where everybody closest to the problem is already pointing to the same solution and all we have to do is get out of the way and let them hire.
Give the Bureau of Prisons the authority to hire its own people, pass H.R. 3342, and let's get our prisons staffed and our officers safe and restore safety to the inmates and the public as well. I yield back.
Sydney Kamlager-Dove
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I appreciate the discussion around this bill because we don't talk about it enough. I have been to the federal prisons. I've been to federal prisons, I've been to the federal detention facilities, I've been to the state prisons, I've been to the county jails. I've been all up in all of these places.
And you're right, every single jurisdiction can do better, including especially the federal government. I've been listening to some of the comments and absolutely it is important that you keep the folks that are in and around these federal prisons safe. The folks who are in there, the incarcerated people, as well as the folks who are working in there. And yes, the vendors that come in and out and the community members that live in proximity. You know, I cannot support this bill, but I do support the intent.
I do think we should have a robust process when it comes to who you're hiring. I was thinking if you have a school and you need teachers, if you have a small business and you need to hire people, you don't just say, okay, get me anybody off the street. You're still looking for folks who are trained, who are going to understand the organizational culture, and who will be able to be successful in those jobs. And so maybe it's not the process, maybe it's how the process is being implemented. And that doesn't always require legislation.
Maybe people don't want to stay in these prisons working there because maybe they don't like the pay or maybe they don't like the leadership. Maybe they have questions about the integrity of the protocols that are coming down that they don't jive with because sometimes those protocols are not keeping them safe. Maybe instead of trying to fire all of these federal workers like we did with DOGE, like you did with DOGE, you should probably have more people at the computers, have more people doing the research, have more people at the phones to alleviate the stress that the folks that are actually walking the yard might feel. You know, there are, there has been an increase in suicides of folks who work in federal prisons.
There has been an uptick in suicides. There has been an uptick in sexual assaults of both men and female employees working in these prisons. Why don't you address that? Because incarcerated people are being sexually assaulted and folks who are working in these prisons. There is a reason why they are stressed out and it is not just because there are a lot of vacancies.
We should be working to address the vacancies, but we should also be looking at the culture within these facilities to find out exactly why people are stressed and depressed and feeling unable to do their job successfully in these environments. So I would just ask that we have further real bipartisan conversations about how the prisons are run, about what kind of protocols are in place, about what kind of training and mental and psychological supports are available for the folks that are working in these facilities, what they are seeing every day, what they are being asked to do every day, if they are being hazed, how they are being supported. We should be having real conversations about that and then also having conversations about the culture within the facilities and the leadership. So I can't support this bill because while I think the intent is good, there are just so many other questions that deserve some time and consideration that don't seem to be in this particular piece of legislation. And with that I yield back.
Glenn Grothman
I got a unanimous request to submit two things. One from the website of the American Federation of Government Employees Council of Prison Locals statement in December of 2023 in favor of this legislation in 2023. And then a quote from again National President of Council of Prison Locals as recently as 2025 in favor of this piece of legislation, which is since they were gung-ho on this and brought it to me and were gung-ho in favor of it 2023 and 2025, the general belief just so you know among all Republicans is the one thing that's changed is we are just going with...
Without objection. Without objection. Thank you. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Maryland.
Speaker 23
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have some UC requests. Newsmax September 15th 2026 ICE fires new hires after vetting red flags emerge.
Without objection.
Jamie Raskin
This is Associated Press February 11th this year several ICE agents were arrested in recent months showing risks of misconduct.
Without objection.
Jamie Raskin
Washingtonpost.com September 15th this year ICE is quietly firing new hires for one recruit it was devastating.
Without objection.
Speaker 22
And July 24th 2026 dozens of ICE and CBP agents have abused women and children Mother Jones.
Without objection.
Jamie Raskin
And finally Mr. Chairman I guess I would submit the legislation itself for the record. There's language that's missing as to which title hiring authority is being waived for and so if I'm just suggest somebody clean that up because it's not clear what title's being referred to in section 2A.
Andy Biggs
Without objection, it's part of the record already. Who else seeks recognition? Seeing none, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a voice vote on reporting the bill. I mean by a vote on reporting the bill.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed no.
Andy Biggs
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed no.
Speaker 26
The ayes have it. The bill's ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views.
I'd like to request a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
A recorded vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs.
Aye.
Aye.
Speaker 32
Mr. Roy votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Cline. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Van Drew.
Mr. Nehls. Mr. Moore. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee of Florida.
Aye.
Aye.
Speaker 32
Mr. Grothman votes aye. Mr. Knott. Mr. Harris. Mr. Onder. Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.
Speaker 32
Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Lieu. Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Neguse.
Ms. McBath. Ms. Dean. Ms. Escobar. Ms. Ross. Ms. Bush.
Mr. Ivey. Ms. Balint.
Speaker 32
Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania. Mr. Jordan.
Yes.
Yes.
Mr. Knott votes yes. Mr. Gill.
Yes.
Gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren.
Yes.
Mr. McClintock.
Aye.
Speaker 19
Mr. Baumgardner votes yes. Mr. Harris, you are not recorded. Mr. Harris votes yes.
Yes.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Clerk will report.
Jim Jordan
The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating all adopted amendments, and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 9834, the No Racketeers on our Shores Act, for purposes of markup and move the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill.
H.R. 9834.
Jim Jordan
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The gentleman from the great state of Washington is recognized, Mr. Baumgardner, for his opening statement.
Rick Baumgardner
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the committee taking up H.R. 9834, the No Racketeers on our Shores Act. Our oversight has uncovered a serious and growing problem. Foreign officials using the machinery of foreign governments, investigations, fines, licensing decisions, tax assessments, and regulatory demands to single out American companies while shielding similarly situated domestic competitors. American companies should compete abroad on the strength of their products and innovation, not against a tilted playing field imposed by foreign bureaucrats.
We want fair competition and fierce competition, but it must be fair. The question is how the United States should respond when our companies are unfairly targeted, and is the existing toolkit of potential measures adequate? A diplomatic demarche or bilateral engagement may be appropriate, and often it is. But those tools do not always impose a direct consequence on the individual officials responsible. At the other end of the spectrum in the toolkit is a formal trade dispute or a Section 301 process that can carry broad economic and diplomatic consequences.
In essence, this bill creates a scalpel to deal with this issue. The bill creates a targeted rung between these two options. It gives our diplomats another tool to address discriminatory treatment before a dispute escalates further. Foreign officials who weaponize government power to discriminate against Americans should not expect the privilege of entering or remaining in the United States. If you're unfairly targeting American companies, you shouldn't expect to be bringing your family to Disneyland.
This bill is carefully drawn. It does not prevent foreign governments from enforcing legitimate laws or regulating American companies on equal terms. It applies only when an American person is subject to treatment more severe, more fraudulent, or less procedurally fair than that imposed on a similarly situated non-American party. Access to the United States is not an entitlement for foreign officials who abuse state power. Our approach is modeled on the same basic approach of the No Censors on our Shores Act, which responds to foreign officials who seek to censor Americans beyond their borders, and reflects the principles already embodied in our immigration laws, denying visas to foreign officials in particularly severe violations of religious freedom.
H.R. 9834 is a measured, practical response to a real problem identified through this committee's oversight. I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 39
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland for an opening statement.
Jamie Raskin
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I rise to strongly oppose this legislation. At a time when we should be working on reining in the chaotic and profoundly costly and profligate trade war that President Trump is waging against our good neighbor and major trading partner and close democratic ally Canada, this bill would give the administration yet another weapon to escalate its lawless and incoherent and arbitrary conflicts against Canada and other countries around the world. Instead of working to reduce the economic wreckage from President Trump's drive-by tariff wars, Republicans are pushing strange legislation that would allow an administration official to decide that foreign government officials should not be allowed to set foot in the United States because that foreign official participated in enforcing a law that the administration unilaterally deems to be economically discriminatory. So it's not enough for them that there is a full-blown Canadian trade boycott against America, which is killing people throughout the northern tier of the country and putting small businesses out of business.
Now they want to specifically target foreign government officials with this new tool that will be in President Trump's toolkit just to unilaterally declare someone to be economically discriminatory. This is what the No Racketeers on our Shores Act does. It's a bad idea intrinsically, brought at a conveniently horrible time. We should be under no illusion about how this power will be used and abused and how much worse it will make an already vexed and wretched situation caused by the president's terrible trade policies. For years, President Trump, ever the victim, has attacked Canada for taking advantage of us.
He has called the border between our countries an artificial line and suggested that it should just be erased by him. He has threatened to use, quote, economic force to bring Canada into the United States as our 51st state. The first state that would be entered against its will. And he has demeaned its prime ministers by calling them future governors of the 51st state. And he imposed tariffs that have primarily hurt American citizens.
The tariffs are on us, not on the foreign government. Somebody please explain to Donald Trump that when he imposes a tariff on Canadian products, that's paid for by American businesses and therefore American consumers. It's not paid for by the Canadian government or the Chinese government. Please, will someone educate him as to that fact? So this is the context in which Republicans now want to hand the administration yet another tool to wield with standardless discretion.
Canada is not a hostile foreign power. It is not an autocracy and kleptocracy like Russia, which is lorded over by the former head of the KGB, Vladimir Putin. Canada is not a communist dictatorship like the kind run by Donald Trump's best buddy Kim Jong Un and President Xi, who he has praised in public more than two dozen times, the chair of the Chinese Communist Party. That's not what Canada is. Canada is one of our two or three largest trading partners in the world, a close democratic ally that has stood up with us against authoritarian enemies around the world.
Our economies, our supply chains, and our people are deeply intertwined. In 2024, Canada was the single largest destination for US exports and the third largest source of US imports. And now they're boycotting us, Mr. Chairman. You go to the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, go to the Adirondacks in New York, go to the Boundary Waters, go to Vermont and talk to people. All they're talking about is the fact that the Canadians are boycotting us.
Our closest trading partner are boycotting us because of the completely unstable, unpredictable, impetuous behavior of Donald Trump.
For generations, the American government has understood that disagreements with our allies should be resolved through diplomacy, trade negotiations, and international law, if there is a real disagreement. But certainly we shouldn't be responding to figments of problems in the president's head to wage war against one of our closest allies. Countries do enforce their own laws. Companies can challenge those laws. Governments can negotiate.
That is international commerce. That's not racketeering. Yet here we are. So, the basis for punishment in this legislation, quote, economic discrimination, invites now mass retaliation against America all over the world. After all, the president seems like he's playing bingo or pulling bingo numbers out of a bingo console, which is sometimes called a squirrel cage.
That's what we call it in Maryland. And it's like he's pulling numbers out and then they're applied to countries. So, anybody know what the tariff is on Canada now? But what's the tariff against China? 50%.
Oppressing the Uyghurs, oppressing the Tibetans, oppressing the Chinese people, that's 25%. Well, what's the tariff against France? What'd they do recently? Something that Donald Trump didn't like, because now that's a 200% tariff against them for alcohol. What's Saudi Arabia?
I don't think there's any special tariff against Saudi Arabia, but I haven't checked the ratings this week. So, on the neologistic, irrational terms of this legislation, all of this would be economic discrimination leveled by the president, and now that would set up our government officials from not being able to go to their countries under the terms of this bizarre legislation. And we know this is part of a broader effort to shield some of America's big tech companies from accountability when other democracies enforce their generally applicable universal laws. We all see the consequences of unconstrained and ungoverned big tech. Senior citizens subjected to online scams, consumers victimized by fraud, children subjected to online abuse and exposed to dangerous illegal content, and so on.
The EU has enacted what it believes are common sense online safety, privacy, and consumer protection laws to address these problems, and it's enforced them against all companies, including those that are American. I'm sorry, that's not discrimination. So, the reason that governments are engaged in those kinds of actions is because they are acting in the interests of their people. And our president, meantime, is just handing out random, arbitrary, bizarre tariffs to different countries. So the last thing that we should be doing is now legislating a new concept of economic discrimination that's going to come back to haunt us.
What we need now is not another unchecked unilateral presidential power in the field, but a fair and predictable economic foreign policy that does not malign and antagonize our closest allies in the world. Our Republican colleagues should not confuse differences in public policy approaches with criminal racketeering. Countries like Canada have been our ally, our neighbor, and one of our most important economic partners for generations, for centuries. The last thing we should do is give this president yet another tool to tear apart our fundamental economic and political relationships. I urge all of our colleagues to look at what's going on and to join us in opposing this legislation.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Washington is recognized for amendment, the ANS, amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Jim Jordan
Clerk will report. Amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of amendment. The gentleman is now recognized to explain the amendment.
Rick Baumgardner
This amendment updates the year in the title of the bill. The amendment is not intended in any way to alter the substance or important purpose of the bill. I urge support for my amendment and I yield back. And I also have some to enter into the record, if I may.
The gentleman is recognized for...
Rick Baumgardner
Thank you, Mr. President. I have a proclamation from President Obama dated July 25th, 2011, Presidential Proclamation, Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions. I'd like to enter it for the record. Thank you.
Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from New York is recognized.
Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is yet another example of how Big Tech is using its relationship with the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to get special treatment. As the President directed trade barriers with foreign countries and embraced tariffs on all sorts of consumer goods, raising prices for American consumers in the process, Big Tech and major AI companies leveraged their relationships with the President and poured millions of dollars into his coffers to make sure that their products were carved out, helping them prosper even as small businesses across the country struggled under inconsistent and burdensome tariff rules. We have also seen these companies push broad state preemption of key AI safety rules to ensure that federal agencies could not enforce the laws that Congress entrusted them with and to make sure that foreign policy served their interests before the interests of the American public. And now we have another giveaway to the Big Tech industry.
This bill would give the executive branch broad discretion to block entry of or to deport any past, present, or future foreign government official who works to protect their own consumers, just for doing their jobs. Under this bill's very broad definition of what would constitute economic discrimination, just one person in Trump's executive branch could enact visa sanctions against any foreign government official who dares to attempt to regulate this powerful industry. In doing so, this bill would give the federal government another tool to further isolate the US from our allies and to undermine the enforcement of any foreign laws, even ones that are much like our own. For example, as justification for this bill, the majority pointed to a billion-dollar fine levied by the European Union against Google for Google's anti-competitive practices in search and on their app marketplace as an example of economic discrimination. But Google's clearly anti-competitive actions that the EU sought to curb are exactly the same ones this committee documented in our 2020 Big Tech report and which we worked to address through legislation.
Just as in the EU, regulators and private plaintiffs in the US have also acted to investigate and to bring claims against Google for its monopolistic practices in searches and apps. But instead of building on this common ground and common goal to bring Big Tech to heel to protect consumers and competition, this bill would enable the Trump administration to tell the world, only we get to enforce the law. Under this bill, no other country could enforce its own laws, levy a fine or tax, or even start an investigation into an American individual or company without fearing visa sanctions and deportation of their government officials from the US.
Speaker 43
This could have a dramatic impact on our relationship with countries around the world. It is dangerous to give any administration this power, but it is especially dangerous with this administration, which has already proven that it will wield this power as a cudgel against friends and enemies alike, with no regard for the consequences. As a result, we are becoming more isolated, and our greatest allies have concluded that they can no longer depend on us. This will only leave us weaker in a more dangerous world. We should not give the Trump administration another tool with which to upset the international order that has kept us safe for decades.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and I yield back.
Will the gentleman yield?
Yes, I will.
Jamie Raskin
Thank you kindly, Mr. Nadler. I want to submit for the record an article from the, from Reuters.com called Looking for Disney Magic Elsewhere, Canadians Lead Decline in Travel to US. So maybe you don't care about Vermont or Upstate New York or Michigan or Minnesota, maybe you care about Florida. Look, look at this. In 2024, last year the data was available, Canada was the top market for visitors to Orlando, home of Walt Disney World, with a record 1.2 million visitors.
Now it's, they're seeing a dramatic drop in Canadians going to Disney World. They quoted one Canadian, Catherine Norris from Toronto, quote, we're huge Disney lovers, but given the current political climate, we're not traveling anywhere in the US. She and her husband have booked a Disney vacation in Europe instead, they're going to Euro Disney instead of to Disney World. Same thing in Disneyland. It's affecting even the hotels and motels around US national parks.
Australia-based Intrepid Travel, which offers over 300 US national park tours, said bookings are down 42% for 2026 in general, with Canadian bookings plunging 93%. They're boycotting America right now. The gentleman jokes about, well, take your family somewhere else, you might think you're just addressing a government official, you're addressing their whole country. That's killing our businesses here, right now, that is taking place. You've got to vote no on this thing.
I yield back.
Chip Roy
Thank the chairman. This legislation is not as frightening as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making it out to be. In general, I am certainly supportive of any legislation that puts up some barriers to the massive flood of, frankly, anyone, anyone at all who's been coming to the United States here for now as long as I can remember. We're watching our nation get absolutely bombarded without restriction, mostly because my colleagues on the left don't seem to mind, but I would have to acknowledge also because many on my side of the aisle are captured by Chamber of Commerce and people who want to give in to the cheap labor crowd and Wall Street Journal editorials. Fact of the matter is our country has been getting decimated for the better part of three to five decades with an absolutely abhorrent immigration policy.
People on my side of the aisle complain about illegal immigration, yet feign some sort of actual strength on the issue while giving in to massive swarms of legal immigration, legal immigration that has been decimating our country for my entire lifetime. I wish we were taking up in addition to this bill, which I will vote for and support, and by the way, I want to thank the chairman for us moving through in July a bill to codify the Trump security measures that reflected a great deal of what we accomplished in HR 2 in the previous Congress that would codify the absolute abomination that is the abuse of our asylum laws, our parole laws, catch and release, Flores, unaccompanied alien children, and yet we have not moved it on the House floor. And that is a mistake.
And we had to force it through to get it through to committee in July. And now we are looking at this legislation again, which I support, but we should take up more aggressive litigation, legislation. For example, the PAUSE Act, which I introduced about a year ago, which would freeze immigration until we end the many ways in which both legal and illegal immigration are absolutely destroying our country. The PAUSE Act, which is HR 6225, would say, look, we're going to freeze it until we address massive issues here in the United States. Issues such as Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court opinion that does not allow states to make decisions about whether or not they have to provide taxpayer-funded education for the children of those who come here illegally to the United States.
Or dealing with, for example, the birthright citizenship issue, which still needs to be dealt with and that Congress should not run away from simply because the court made up out of whole cloth something that does not exist in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and which will itself destroy our country. Ending chain migration and diversity visa programs, limiting entries to spouses and unmarried minor children and ending the practice of admitting extended family members instead of nuclear family members or being picked based on mere luck. That is the state of your immigration system, America, and it continues as we continue to have some 500,000 Chinese students allegedly coming to our country. Prohibiting the entry of Sharia law adherents, Chinese Communist Party members, known or suspected terrorists. We are still importing people who adhere to Sharia law and have values that are distinctly abhorrent to the American values.
Barring non-citizens from accessing means-tested federal programs like SNAP, SSI, TANF, Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, federal student loans, and public housing, all of which still occurs notwithstanding what is currently put out as the law or the policy. Ending adjustment status of the H-1B visas, which have been abused to the detriment of not just Texas, not just Dallas-Fort Worth, but our entire nation. These are all things that have been abhorrently done to the people of the United States and we should address them. So, it is my belief that we should be pulling up more aggressive legislation like the PAUSE Act, that we should be pulling up more aggressive legislation like, for example, designating Hamas affiliates in America Act, which would designate CAIR as a specially designated terrorist group, freezing its financial streams, which we've not pulled up and not considered or not put on the House floor. Why not?
That would be my question. But I appreciate the gentleman's legislation. I think it's one step of many that we need to take to try to limit the flow of people into this country who literally do not adhere to our values, share our values, or support the interest of the United States of America. I yield back.
Speaker 45
Gentleman yields back. I think I have the gentleman from Georgia then I'll come to Vermont. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Henry Johnson
Thank you. I would remind you that immigration built this country, immigrants built this country. When the Europeans came to the country in 1607, they were immigrants. But anyway, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to this bill.
Trump and MAGA Republicans are always trying to put Elon Musk and big tech oligarchs like him in positions to make more money at our expense. That's not common sense, ladies and gentlemen, that's crazy. Trump has solicited, actually he has extorted money from corporate leaders and they happily give it in exchange for access and favors.
Google contributed roughly $25 million towards Trump's ballroom, while Microsoft gave around $10 million. Amazon gave roughly $5 million, but that was after paying Melania Trump $40 million upfront for her blockbuster movie about herself. And, um, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta gave more than $10 million. Big Tech has already used its cozy relationship with Trump and MAGA Republicans to help their industry at our expense. And this bill is just one more example of that.
Other countries have enacted laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers from Big Tech's monopoly power, from mis- and disinformation, and from online hate and harassment. In some places, like the European Union, countries are working together to promote competition, privacy, platform accountability, AI safety, and online safety. Unsurprisingly, the tech bros don't like that. They don't like regulation. They would rather be able to operate unchecked, doing whatever makes them more money, no matter the consequences to everyday people.
So MAGA Republicans are trying to help them make more money with this bill, which would chill law enforcement by foreign governments, further erode our relationship with other countries, and undermine global efforts to rein in anti-competitive, unlawful, and dangerous conduct by large US companies. Because I care about the American people rather than the tech oligarchs, or I should say broligarchs, I oppose this bill and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition. It's time we work together with our allies to put guardrails on AI and to bring Big Tech bros accountable. And, um, I'd be glad to yield to the ranking member if he's, uh, in need of anything.
Jamie Raskin
Um, thank you very much. Thank you for those thoughtful comments, Congressman Johnson. I wanted to, uh, also introduce for the record, um, another, uh, article that we pulled up about how, uh, the president's lawless and selective trade wars are undermining the American people. Here's one, uh, comes from the Orlando Sentinel. O Canada, Florida's, Florida tourism numbers dip, driven by Canadian backlash over trade policies.
And here's, uh, another one from CNBC. Nations reject Trump's arbitrary tariffs. This is from CNBC, um, from July 24th. Look, the, this legislation, uh, tries to paste the label of economic discrimination on other countries when that, alas, is a perfect description of what's taking place from the Oval Office, where the president wakes up and whimsically, randomly, arbitrarily just decides to slap 50% tariffs on Canada. 15% on this country, 10% on that country.
Of course, the, the ones that are the real human rights violators, the authoritarian governments, never seem to be the target of his ire. It's always the NATO countries, the free countries of the world, who are trying to stop the Chinas and the Russias and the Saudi Arabia, uh, Arabian governments from, uh, imposing human rights violations on their people. So this is a, uh, dangerous, uh, bill which, uh, would add simply another arrow to the quiver that, uh, Donald Trump has, or thinks he has, to attack other countries. And I just don't know why we would, um, you know, feed more fuel to the fire.
Thank you and I yield back to you.
Speaker 47
Yeah, Mr. Ranking Member, it's not common sense, it's crazy what they're trying to do. And with that I yield back.
Jim Jordan
Gentleman yields back. I would just remind my colleagues on the Democrat side that this is, this bill is not about tariffs. This bill's about, it simply says if you're a foreign official engaged in discriminating against an American company in your country, that you want a visa to come to the United States, our State Department may say, no, we don't think we should do that. And I would just point you to the report that the committee released two months ago, Closed for Competition: South Korea's Discriminatory Attacks on American-Owned Business. And the company they went after is Coupang, a great American company, by the way, the second largest employer in the country of South Korea.
And they harassed these guys forever, fined them, investigated them, they even said they're going to arrest the CEO. And the people of South Korea love this company. They got like five billion dollars in American goods and services that happened in last year alone, 100 different fulfillment centers that distributed these five million goods last year. So that's all this bill does. The gentleman from Washington's bill is plain and simple.
You want to discriminate against American companies, we think that's wrong, and then you want to come to our country, we may say, no, sorry, you don't get to come to the greatest country ever if you're sticking it to American companies in your nation. That's all it does. You guys can talk about tariffs and Trump all you want, but that ain't what the bill's about. So I appreciate the gentleman bringing it forward. Well, I'll leave it at that.
I'll yield to the sponsor of the bill if he wants to add to what I think is just good old-fashioned common sense.
Rick Baumgardner
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I would just add that this bill makes tariffs less likely. Again, this is a scalpel in the toolbox so you don't have to take somewhere between a demarche and an action of 302. So I understand the hysterics in political season and the silliness of what's going on here in the committee, but if we could bring a modicum of seriousness to a serious issue, this is not about Canadian tourists going to Disney World or any of this. This is about American companies being unfairly targeted and giving a new scalpel to make sure that our business and our economy is protected.
So would like some seriousness here on the approach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Jim Jordan
Yeah, and I would just add, I appreciate again the gentleman's work on this. With the example of Coupang, the South Korean, the very people who were fining them, going after them, harassing them, everything else, also threatened to arrest the CEO. He's afraid to go back to South Korea even though they're the second largest private sector employer in the country, doing all this stuff. The people of South Korea love this business. They love that they can go online and get these products, they love that.
But South Korea's no, no, we're going to discriminate against the American company. All we're saying is if the guy at the Korean FTC who's going after, or the people who said they're going to arrest the CEO of the company, if they want to get a visa to come to America, Secretary Rubio and his team may say, sorry, we think you can just stay home after what you've done to a great American company. That's what this bill does. With that I would now recognize, I think the next in line is the gentlelady from Vermont.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.
Gentlelady's recognized.
Becca Balint
So my colleague just said that we need to do away with the hysterics and the silliness here. You have to travel all over the state, you got to talk to businesses, the people who are on both sides of the aisle. And I can tell you when you are a member that represents an entire state, you don't have the luxury of being in a bubble of information. And I can tell you there is nothing hysterical or silly about this conversation that we're having on this side of the aisle, which is when you have a president who uses tariffs capriciously, you have businesses headed by Democrats, Republicans, independents that are going down right now because of the way he is weaponizing our economy against our allies, our friends, some of our biggest trading partners.
And when you peel back the curtain, when you talk to people in those quiet rooms, what they say is, this is asinine. Whether it's farmers who I was meeting with last week, whether it was small businesses who I was meeting with the week before, whether it's the tourist industry as my colleague, the ranking member, just laid out for you. We do not need to be giving this administration another tool to continue to alienate us on the world stage. And this is not just short-term damage. This is long-term damage because these people are not going to come back.
They're finding other trading partners, they're finding other places to take their vacations, and it's not silly and it's not hysterical. And when you talk to Republicans back in Vermont who are trying to run their small businesses, they will say to you, we have no idea what this president is doing. Mr. Ranking Member, do you have anything else you'd like to add?
Jamie Raskin
Well, I'd like to say, I appreciate being castigated for raising Disneyland and Disney World by the gentleman, but he was the one who introduced it. He said all this is about is saying to a foreign government official, no, you don't bring your children to Disneyland, you'll have to find somewhere else to go. So that got me thinking about Disneyland and Disney World and I looked it up. I could have looked up almost any business in the country. They are suffering because of all of these random trade attacks and trade battles and trade wars that are unspooling from the president's head.
He imagines there's a foreign enemy like Canada, which is one of our closest democratic allies for centuries and a critical trading partner, certainly for the northern part of the country, but for other parts of the country, for farm country all over America. And he's attacking them, slapping a 50% tariff on them. And now you, instead of us dealing with that problem, you're saying, oh, let's also tell them that he can tell the Prime Minister of Canada or other Canadian officials that they can't come into our country, just deepening the problem. Thank you for yielding for a sec.
Becca Balint
Thank you. And, you know, let's talk about silliness. Let's talk about the damage that this administration has done with their silliness. Do you know what Canadians are still talking about? They're talking about Kristi Noem going to the border and the Haskell Library that sits on the border of the US and Canada.
There's a line right down the middle of the library. And she spent her time when she was still in her position going up to that library and making jokes about Canada being the 51st state, passing over the line, ha ha ha, 51st state, look at me, Canada's part of the US. That is silly. That's doing long-term damage. And we're still paying for that.
Those communities that are communities that sit on the border, they have lost all confidence in this government and it's taking us over an economic cliff. And that is not silly. And that is not hysterical. That is the reality. Many of my small businesses in Vermont are not going to survive this moment because you will not stand up to this president and this asinine Canadian tariff regime.
And I yield back.
Speaker 50
The gentlelady yields back. Seeing no other, the question is, the chair recognizes, for what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition?
Just to strike the last word.
Scott Fitzgerald
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Yeah, I just want to come back to the bill itself, I guess. It's unbelievable to me the escalation in the discussion here this morning. But, I mean, I think as chairman of the Antitrust Committee, Subcommittee, you know, we've, I just had a meeting a half an hour ago in my office where Amazon came in and said they're being subject to all of these attacks, pick your country in the EU, because not only are they trying to carve out their own space for similar platforms in Europe, duh, this is happening right before our face and we're not smart enough to grasp exactly what's going on apparently.
And on the secondary tier, we heard again and again and again arbitrary fines, concocting all of these new types of structures to go after American platforms. And that has spilled over into retail. So the idea that we're just operating as kind of this independent entity and that, you know, everything that President Trump says and everything that comes out of the White House is absolutely the cause of this, I think you're being naive. This has been going on for decades now and has continued to escalate as we start to see specific types of industries, guess what, do very well. American corporations are leading the way.
The debate we're having about AI right now, I mean, the reason we're having this discussion is because once again, it's American corporations that are innovating. It's American corporations that are at the forefront of this technology that quite honestly, we're in a full-blown competition with China on. And yet we have, you've taken the bait. This discussion about Canada, it's just amazing to me the level and the amount of print it's garnered right now on front pages. It's just, it's just amazing to me.
So once again, I, listen, the No Racketeers on our Shores Act, it's not, it's not the center of any of this discussion that's happened here this morning. This is something that I think it's going to take us a while to kind of work through some of these things, but let's not get too overheated on the topic because guess what, I think at the end of the day, Canada's going to be okay and the US is going to be okay when it comes to the amount of trade that's going back and forth. I yield back.
Would the gentleman yield?
I would.
Darrell Issa
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I won't take a full separate five minutes on this because I think we've talked it out pretty well and I'd like to go to the next bill, which is mine. However, I think it's important to understand that everyone in this room on both sides of the aisle understands that there have been non-tariff trade barriers that have gotten in the way of many of our constituent companies. And that even if there's a lot of rhetoric about tariffs and who they're hurting, let's bear in mind that America has not used non-tariff trade barriers. We have not used unfair regulations.
We have been much more of a fair player. And the comments on Europe that the gentleman from Wisconsin made are exactly right. When you try to sell into Europe, they will come out with new rules and regulations that their own companies produced that you've never seen and then they take immediate effect. So, I know that we're not going to settle the dispute about whether tariffs are an effective way or even immigration control are effective way to retaliate for things like the unfair and just despicable targeting of Coupon by the South Korean government and otherwise ally that we have had a free trade agreement with that in fact we ship to them the very energy they need for their economy. So, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and I yield back, Chairman.
Speaker 54
And the gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentlelady, Ms. Ross, for, I assume, to strike the last word. The gentlelady is recognized.
Deborah Ross
Yes, Mr. Chairman, to strike the last word. Before I'm going to yield some time to the ranking member, I also want to just talk about the bill. I know you've been criticizing us for talking about trade, which by the way is on the mind of all of our constituents, whether they're paying higher costs for goods and services or whether their businesses might be going under because they can't get what they need or the prices have gone through the roof. I too had a roundtable on this issue with everybody from people who make bread to the plumbing, heating, and cooling people. But I also want to point out that this bill, I think, is overly broad, inartfully drafted, and only one person is taking credit for it.
So, if you guys love it so much, how come nobody signed on to it in your entire conference? It hasn't been vetted. It's not serious. And yet again, the Judiciary Committee is here doing unserious things while our constituents are suffering from real economic uncertainty and our businesses are, and this bill would only contribute to it. And with that, I will yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member, Mr. Raskin.
Jamie Raskin
Thank you very much, Ms. Ross, I appreciate that. Okay, first of all, the gentleman from Wisconsin says it's amazing to him that the President's trade war on Canada is causing so much discussion and so much print being spilled across the country. And well, maybe you're not listening to your constituents because the rest of us are hearing from our constituents who are farmers and small businesses who are being socked first with the increased prices that Donald Trump is imposing through tariffs because tariffs are of course a tax on us. They're a tax on our businesses. Somebody's got to explain that to the President.
It's not a tax on a foreign government or a foreign business, it's a tax on our people who are importing it. But then, when our people then have to go to Canada, as I've heard from one of my constituents, to buy certain kinds of agricultural equipment, now they're hitting us. They're slapping us back with a tariff on us. Right? So, we're having to pay a higher price to bring that into the country.
So, this is like a serious problem that people are talking about if you go to Michigan, if you go to Minnesota. I thought if you go to Wisconsin. I mean, Maryland does two billion dollars of trade every year with Canada, but I think in Michigan and Minnesota we're talking about six, seven, eight billion dollars a year. So this goes right to the economy of the heartland. So if you're amazed people are talking about it now, you're going to be astonished at the results on November 3rd from the states that have been hit by all of these problems.
Now, as to the South Korea thing, I want to introduce for the record a headline: South Korea finds Coupang 408 million dollars over the biggest data leak in the country's history.
Jamie Raskin
I know nothing about this. Maybe that's an act that constitutes an unfair trade practice. Okay, there's a way of dealing with that in the law. This is not the first time people have claimed that this or that country is discriminating.
Will the gentleman yield?
Jamie Raskin
I will in just one second. But what I want to say is that's what Section 338 is about. That exists today in the law. It empowers the President to impose duties on imports from a foreign country to offset any burden or disadvantage arising from that country's discrimination against or unequal imposition on the commerce of the United States. So if there is economic trade discrimination taking place, we can deal with that today.
But what our colleagues are proposing to do, and I invite any answer to this, but is to create yet another opportunity for the President to say, yeah, and not only is it that we're going to impose trade tariffs on all of Canada 50% so nobody wants to go to Disneyland or Disney World anymore, now we also want to be able to name the government officials who we don't want coming to Disneyland or Disney World if they ever would think about doing that again. And that just seems ridiculous. What we should be doing in this committee if we want to get involved in trade is we should be trying to de-escalate what the President has unleashed against our allies. Again, this is not targeted against China or Saudi Arabia or authoritarian governments. It's targeted against countries like Canada.
And I'm happy to yield my remaining 20 seconds.
Well, thank you. The committee, you said you didn't know anything about the situation with Coupang. This committee did a very good report on it. Did the ranking member read the report?
Speaker 56
The report on Coupang? No, I've not read that report. So I've got to check that out.
Darrell Issa
Okay. But in any event, you should read the trade laws which allow for us to retaliate in a situation like that. And why is that not happening?
Speaker 55
The gentleman's time has expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from Jersey seek recognition?
This is going to be quick because we've got to move on.
The gentleman is recognized to strike the last word.
Jefferson Van Drew
I strike the last word. Let me just say this. There is a reason, and I get what the other side is saying a little bit. There are some issues with the tariffs. There are some concerns.
Totally understand it. But there's a reason all this has come about because for decades, the United States of America was at the short end of the stick. For decades, we were not being treated fairly. For decades, we weren't in the lead. We've been taken advantage of.
And it's been shown over and over and over again. Not yet. I really do believe in America first. Now, one of the reasons that we have the problems that we have with the tariffs, because we want to really encourage to buy American goods, American-made goods, etc., is because we don't make a lot of things anymore. And we don't make a lot of things because of all the bad deals that were struck over the decades.
It wasn't conducive to producing American products in America, so we bought everything from everywhere else and we're taken advantage of. That's the point of all this. And I really want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Fitzgerald from Wisconsin. This is going to be okay. We're going to work this out.
It's some tough negotiation. And I get it. And I understand the tourism industry. That's the majority of my district, or at least a significant part of my district is tourism, and actually had their best year ever, by the way. But with that being said, I will in a second, with that being said, there is a reason we are where we are and we shouldn't let this happen again.
America first, American strong, America produces. That's what all of this is about. We're tired of being at the weak end of every deal. Now, I don't know who was asking me to yield.
I was.
I will yield.
Darrell Issa
Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. That enclosure by the ranking member on Coupang, I just want to point out one thing. The facts of the investigation, which this committee took on itself and when you read it, you'll realize it, start off with that headline being deceptive. And I want to make the record clear.
Coupang was hacked by an internal employee, a Chinese citizen, who took it for some reason that we're not sure of and fled the country to mainland China.
Coupang, in cooperation with the South Korean government, did everything including recover the the notebook from a lake where the individual admitted he had thrown it. They got it. They then diagnosed it, pulled out the drive, and determined that there were thousands, not millions, of names on it. To the extent possible, both sides agree that that was all that was taken, was a list that this individual thought would be valuable. There is no evidence that any of those have been used in any way whatsoever.
And yet, the South Korean government, even with the facts in their own possession, continues to promote these kinds of headline articles implying that every single customer of this great company operating in South Korea, delivering to almost every home in South Korea, millions and millions, that that represents the hack. Yes, the database was one of the largest there was, but the laptop that took a small portion of the database and fled to China and was recovered does not represent anything close to what they want. And I will tell you, they are threatening criminal sanctions. I have had the foreign minister from South Korea and others there, and they've made it clear that they simply think that he's gotten too arrogant, a Korean-American who in fact started and built this great company that the Koreans love. So the facts on that particular one do not fit within the 338 standard.
They do not fit within the normal response. This is the persecution of an American company, not in a normal economic way, but using lawfare, using their ability and their ability to send false facts to do so. So I would hope that as we're looking at the legitimate discussion on the other parts of the issues, that we look at this company and realize that it's not quite the same as applying European standards that I object to in South Korea to create a non-tariff trade barrier. It is in fact going after an individual for the arrogance of being a former Korean citizen, if you will, who made made a success by creating what we would effectively call Amazon of South Korea, and he is the market leader, and they object to it, and they're trying to destroy the company and destroy the man. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman yields back.
And what would you like to use it for?
To move to strike the last word.
Jamie Raskin
I'd like to repair some of the damage being done by the last blistering comments of your colleagues. Let's see. The distinguished gentleman from New Jersey makes the argument we often hear from from the president, from the Oval Office, which is all this is about is rectifying the damage done by all these horrible bad deals done by the immediately prior presidents. For example, one of them is Donald Trump. And I'm going to introduce for the record an article titled "Trump blasts his own trade deal with Canada, who made these decisions?" he said.
That's from yahoo.com, March 11, 2025. Politico.com, "Trump now hates his own trade deal, but will have a hard time killing it." That's from Politico, June 30, 2026. If we could submit those. In other words, there's this sweet and broadside attack on US trade law, most of which was negotiated by Donald Trump himself over the last decade.
Speaker 62
He declared it at the time, of course, the greatest trade deal ever signed, and now it's the worst trade deal ever signed.
Will the gentleman yield?
Jamie Raskin
Not just yet. I'll come back to you because I'm still in a fit of pique about the fact that I asked Mr. Van Drew to yield, but I got squeezed out there. But if I've got some time, I promise to come back to you. I got you. So, all right, so let's start with that.
Canada is now the target and the victim of Donald Trump's inscrutable, impenetrable fury. We don't know where it comes from. I'm not sure he's told anybody where it comes from. Maybe he doesn't like the Prime Minister for whatever reason. He thinks the Prime Minister is getting too smart or too good-looking or something.
But in any event, he's slapped 50% tariffs on the people of Canada. Okay, here, let me tell you about Canada. All right, it's been one of our top two trading partners in the United States for decades. The two countries share a long history of supply chain integration, including especially in the automotive and textile industries and the energy sector. In 2024, Canada, check this out, was the top destination of US exports.
The gentleman professes his concern for manufacturing in America. Well, how are we going to have manufacturing in America if Canada starts boycotting us, which they have? I don't know, I haven't heard that word used by anybody on that side of the aisle. Are you aware that Canadians are involved in a full-blown boycott against American businesses because of what the President is doing? All right, so that was the top destination for US exports two years ago, Canada was, and the third largest source of US imports.
We need their stuff. Canada exported over three-quarters of its goods to the US and imported almost half of its goods from the US. We're talking about automobiles, machinery, energy products, over $30 billion in agricultural products that we've exported to them, including cereals, pasta, bakery goods, fresh vegetables and fruit, and ethanol. Canada's leading exports to us are energy products, automobiles, together with over $40 billion in farm goods, including baked goods, cereals, pastas, vegetable oils, beef and beef products, processed fruit and vegetables, and fresh vegetables. Now, maybe you guys don't care about that.
But if you have any real interest in Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations, the whole theory is you have a comparative advantage and there's certain things that we make that they don't make, and they make that we don't make, and then we trade with each other as liberal democracies do. We have free trade with each other. And Donald Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing, upsetting the apple cart that he built with Canada in his first term, just wrecking the whole thing because for some reason something's going on in his head that has gotten him upset about it. And now, instead of investigating that and saying, do we have a rational trade policy taking place, or are we hurting our own people, our workers, our consumers, our small businesses and big businesses? Maybe your ears perk up at that, right?
Maybe big businesses are being hurt. No, we don't do any of that. Instead, what we say is let's not just drive off the whole Canadian population from going to Disney World or Disneyland or other American destinations, to the Jersey Shore or Ocean City in Maryland. Not only are we going to drive off the whole population, we're going to say we're going to let the President personalize this and to just denominate particular public officials whose families can't go to Disney World or Disneyland, assuming they wanted to. But so, I mean, there is something meaningless about the legislation.
I concede that point. But it's also an insult and an affront, both to the intelligence of the American people, as if we don't understand what's going on, but also to foreign countries. And I yield back to you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry I didn't have time to turn it over to you.
Darrell Issa
Gentleman yields back. The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye.
Any opposed?
Darrell Issa
Perhaps one. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye.
Any opposed?
Darrell Issa
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably.
Speaker 69
And I'm seeking a recorded vote in the interests of showing the public who's for free trade.
Darrell Issa
To the house members, we'll have two days to submit. Without, oops, and then the clerk, a recorded vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa votes yes. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. McClintock.
Speaker 75
Mr. Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Nehls. Mr. Moore. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee of Florida.
Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Kiley. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Knott.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Onder. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgardner.
Mr. Baumgardner votes aye. Mr. Raskin.
Speaker 32
Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Lieu. Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Ms. Scanlon.
Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. Ross.
Ms. Ross votes no. Ms. Balint.
Speaker 74
Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania. Ms. Jayapal.
Mr. Grothman votes yes.
Gentlelady from Pennsylvania?
Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania, you are not recorded. Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania votes no.
Jim Jordan
The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments. Staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. This concludes the committee business for the meeting.
The meeting is adjourned.