Madam Chair (00:00):
… vigil in the Capitol. If we're unable to complete our business before then, we'll reconvene after votes. Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider seven measures, H.R.1047, H.R.3015, H.R.3062, H.R.4922, and H.R.5125, H.R.5140 and H.R.5143.
(00:25)
H.R.1047, The Grid Power Act, would provide grid operators across the nation with the authority to expedite the consideration of critical power-generation projects. Heavy-handed regulations imposed under the Obama and Biden-Harris administrations have smothered the electric grid in layer upon layer of bureaucratic lethargy. The extended backlog of power-generation projects that's been created because of these heavy-handed regulations has yielded an electric grid that's less reliable, less secure, and more vulnerable. Power demand in the nation's on the rise and to meet that demand, we must ensure the electric grid is up to snuff and that dispatchable power is abundant and not constrained.
(01:12)
H.R.3015, the National Coal Council Reestablishment Act, would permanently reauthorize the National Coal Council under the Department of Energy. The nation's coal industry makes significant contributions to the energy landscape here in the United States. It has long been the backbone of American energy independence. The Biden-Harris administration terminated the charter for this long-standing counseling. Republicans will be the ones to restore the council, alongside President Trump.
(01:44)
H.R.3062, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, enhances North American energy by streamlining the permitting process for projects that connect US energy resources with international markets. This legislation creates a statutory framework that aids the approval process for facilities managing the import and export of oil, natural gas and electricity transmission. It also provides the nation's energy developers the regulatory clarity they need while insulating critical infrastructure from all manner of politically-oriented policy reversals. In short, this legislation is another example of a good-faith effort to strengthen the security of American energy, while reinforcing existing energy-related partnerships that make our domestic economy strong.
(02:37)
The four measures before us from the Oversight Committee, H.R.4922, 5125, 5140 and 5143, serve to restore law and order in DC, address chronic juvenile crime and expand the constitutional oversight of Congress over the district.
(02:55)
I do anticipate we'll have a good thorough discussion of these bills, in which we'll hear more about the policy prescriptions that can help restore law and order in DC and make this city safe again for its residents and visitors. I look forward to that testimony and discussion. With that, I look forward to today's discussion.
(03:13)
I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make.
Mr. McGovern (03:19):
Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and knowing of your desire to get out of here by 6:15, I promise that I will do everything I can to make sure we can be done by then, and I will be uncharacteristically brief in my opening and in my questions.
(03:39)
But the measures before us this week are unfortunately more of the same from this Republican majority. Policies that put the rich and the powerful special interests ahead of average Americans. Our economy is under real strain, jobs are disappearing, wages aren't keeping up, layoffs are mounting, and families are struggling with prices that just don't seem to let up. Yet, instead of working together to ease those burdens, House Republicans are advancing bills that will undermine Washington DC's right to self-govern, as well as policies that hand out favors to big coal and big oil.
(04:13)
There's a lot of talk about how do we deal with crime in DC? I have a radical idea, maybe we ought to stop preventing DC from spending its own money and actually investing in policies to help alleviate poverty, to provide young people with opportunities during the summer, to invest in people. That's the way you prevent crime in DC and any other city or town in this country.
(04:40)
But every American community deserves the ability to make decisions for itself. Every American family deserves an economy that works for them, but these bills move us in the opposite direction. Democrats are focused on lowering costs, protecting communities, and building a clean energy future. What we see here instead are proposals that risk dragging us backward, leaving working families to shoulder the consequences while powerful interest benefit. So, I'm here to hear from our witnesses.
(05:08)
I look forward to today's discussion and I yield back my time.
Madam Chair (05:13):
Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel Representative Latta and Representative Menendez from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes or less. Representative Latta, I welcome your testimony.
Mr. Latta (05:57):
H.R.1047, the Grid Power Act, all three bills are aimed at unleashing our nation's abundant, natural resources, and establishing more efficient and modern process for the delivery of affordable energy and grid reliability. H.R.3015, the National Coal Council Reestablishment Act sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio's Sixth District, would codify the National Coal Council and ensure long-term certainty that the council can provide critical advice on the strong American industry.
(06:28)
The National Coal Council was established in 1984, is a nonpartisan advisory committee made up of a diverse range of stakeholders and has prepared over 40 technical reports for the secretary of energy that have enhanced our federal government's understanding of this abundant energy source. Unfortunately, in 2021, the Biden administration decided to unilaterally disregard 37 years worth of guidance from the Coal Council by refusing to provide a new charter, even as the US is home to the largest coal reserves on Earth. The coal industry employs hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs with stable salaries and benefits, and make up approximately 16% of our nation's electrical generation. This is particularly important at a time when our nation has projected the historic increases in electricity demand from data centers powering AI models and reshoring of manufacturing facilities away from adversarial nations, like Communist China.
(07:25)
If we do not expand our supply of baseload generating resources, these historic increases in demand will continue putting upward pressure on prices for household and businesses across our country. H.R.3015 will support the Trump administration's recent decision to restart the Coal Council and will ensure that it cannot be disbanded at the behest of left-leaning environmental groups.
(07:51)
H.R.30 62 is introduced by the general lady from North Dakota would establish a statutory process to authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of an international border-crossing facilities for the import and export of oil and natural gas and the transmission of electricity. The North American energy market is large integrated system, due to the significant trade of oil, gas, and electricity between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In fact, in 2024, the value of energy trade between the United States and our North American partners exceeded over $1 trillion. It is imperative the United States has a consistent permitting process for the development of cross-border infrastructure.
(08:37)
Congress has not asserted its authority to establish statutory procedures for permitting cross-border energy infrastructure. In the absence of a statutorily-directed process, agencies have evaluated cross-border infrastructure within the context of a myriad of executive orders. Under these executive orders, the secretary of state has the authority to issue presidential permits for cross-border liquid pipelines, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, for natural gas pipelines, and the Department of Energy, DOE, for cross-border electric transmission facilities. This scheme has allowed for unilateral denial of otherwise permitted projects, subjecting critical infrastructure development to the political whims of the executive branch. H.R.3062 would remedy to this by removing the presidential permit requirement and authorizing FERC to review applications for cross-border oil and natural gas pipelines and DOE to review application for cross-border transmission facilities. As energy demand grows, it is important that a consistent statutorily-directed process is in place to allow the efficient permitting of infrastructure and to lower prices for consumers.
(09:49)
H.R.1047, sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio's 12th District, will provide grid operators with additional tools to address grid reliability challenges by allowing the prioritization of generating resources that provide reliability and resilience benefits to the bulk power system. As you read in the bill, you can see it is fuel neutral. No fuel sources are mentioned throughout the text. Instead, the focus of the bill is on prioritizing resources that provide the essential reliability services that are necessary to keep the lights on.
(10:24)
Over the last few years, we've seen interconnection queues explode with wind and solar resources because of excessive subsidies and federal and state policies that attack baseload-generating units. These delays raise project costs and could keep electricity prices high by limiting the amount of supply needed to power the grid. Throughout the 119th Congress, the Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce has held several hearings to hear directly from grid operators engineers in those charges maintaining grid reliability. What we heard is that supply is not keeping pace with the demand and that premature retirement of baseload generation is causing a reliability crisis. This legislation is an important step to rebalance the nation's bulk power system to fuel next-generation industries, while lowering electricity costs for hardworking households and businesses.
(11:18)
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R.3015, H.R.3062 and H.R.1047. And I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair (11:32):
Representative Menendez, you're recognized.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, and Ranking Member McGovern and all the members of the Rules Committee. Just a few months after reconciliation, which will jeopardize electric reliability and drastically increase electricity prices, Republicans are doubling down on their plan to make energy more expensive, less reliable, and dirtier for American families.
(11:55)
Before we get to what Republicans want to do this week, let's talk about what they did this summer. The Reconciliation Bill will prevent over 300 gigawatts of power from coming on the grid at a time when everyone says that we need more energy on the grid. To put that in perspective, that's 23 times the amount of electricity generation capacity in New Jersey. These next few years if your lights flicker, if your air conditioning goes out in the summer or heating goes out in the winter, that's Republicans fault, Madam Chair. Republicans will have to own that.
(12:25)
This law will make utilities widely more expensive for Americans. One forecast found that families energy bills could increase by nearly $300 each year. $300 to make your electricity less reliable and dirtier. One letter that said that the House version of the bill "amounts to the single largest nationwide utility bill increase in American history." American families and businesses will spend $52 billion more on energy over a decade. It doesn't sound like a very good deal to me.
(12:57)
Of course, the president hasn't stopped there. In the last few weeks, he's canceled three different offshore wind projects that are going to provide stability and clean megawatts to our nation's grid. New England's grid operator, which was counting on those projects, now says that New England could face a higher risk of blackouts explicitly because of President Trump's actions.
(13:18)
It's a real shame that Republicans have engaged in a full-on war against clean energy. Clean energy is the fastest growing source of energy in the country, but they want to kill every project they can. It's going to put us behind in competing with China for new technologies. It's also going to devastate our fight against climate change. But clearly, Republicans still think climate change is a myth, otherwise they would never have passed reconciliation. This bill guts the progress we've made. It will see emissions decreases stall out this decade and will increase annual greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half a billion tons. It's a complete disaster.
(13:55)
Republicans have broken our energy system. Surely, they must have ideas for what they want to do, not just roll back the progress made during the Biden administration, but that's not the case. These bills are about relitigating fights from a decade ago. We're fighting the energy battles of 2010, not the 2020s or 2030s. H.R.1047 would allow grid operators to prioritize fossil fuel power plans over wind, solar and batteries. Republicans don't like the fact that solar and batteries are the quickest types of energy to build, so they want to cheat and make it harder to connect them to the grid. This bill won't make our grid more reliable, but it'll remove requirements that anytime grid operators metal with power plant queues changes be just and reasonable.
(14:43)
H.R3015 would bring back the National Coal Council. I know we've had a lot going on in this Congress, but in case you were not aware, President Trump and Secretary Wright already did that. Instead of putting forward something useful, republicans would rather use floor time on legislating something that's already happened. They've added a coal-substituted reconciliation to pad the profits of fossil fuel companies that export this coal to China, so they can manufacture steel to power their economy. Secretary Wright has ordered two fossil fuel-fired power plants to stay open, even though they were old, expensive and unnecessary. And now, the people of Michigan, who were going to save $600 million when one of those coal plants shut down, are now going to lose that money.
(15:28)
And H.R.3062 is designed to explicitly to help the Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline that has been dead for four years and is never going to be built, not in the lease because Donald Trump's tariffs have completely destroyed any desire from Canadians to send energy to the United States.
(15:46)
These bills are a symptom of a group of people that has zero ideas about how to actually help Americans with their lives or their power bills. They represent the fact that Republicans want to bring us back to an energy system of the 19th century. It's a shame that Americans are going to have to pay for it.
(16:03)
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Madam Chair (16:05):
Thank you, Mr. Menendez. I'm going to skip over myself for asking any questions. So, Ms. Fischbach, I'll recognize you.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any questions. I just want to say thank you both for being here and I really appreciate H.R.3062, since I also border Canada and I think that Mrs. Fedorchak put together a great bill, and so I'm excited about it. And with that, I yield back.
Madam Chair (16:30):
Thank you. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.
Mr. McGovern (16:32):
Thank you. I just have one question to Mr. Menendez, and I want to focus on H.R.3015, the "National Coal Council Reestablishment Act," because I'll admit it, this one befuddles me. Mr. Menendez, does solar energy, wind energy, hydropower batteries or any renewable source of energy have a separate advisory council at the Department of Energy?
Speaker 2 (16:56):
It does not. They do not.
Mr. McGovern (16:58):
And this bill establishes a coal council that has already been restarted by the administration. So, why does the coal industry need such special treatment?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Well, it's clear that the administration is going to do whatever it can to pick winners and losers. In this case, prop back up the coal community here in the United States. There are 28 advisory councils, and this is the only one that they seek to give legislative authority to, which I think represents the broader issue with all of these bills in what we saw in reconciliation, which is that the Republicans in the administration want to prioritize and give preferential treatment to certain types of energy in this country.
Mr. McGovern (17:37):
Thank you and thanks for both of you for being here. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith (17:42):
The gentlemen yields back. The gentlemen from South Carolina, Mr. North.
Mr. Norman (17:44):
I really don't have any questions. I appreciate y'all coming and putting this before us. I think it's a good bill. South Carolina's got a energy crisis with all the companies we have, particularly AI companies that are moving there. But I think this will expedite it and appreciate your work. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith (18:04):
The gentleman yields back. Now, recognizing the gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her time of questioning.
Ms. Scanlon (18:10):
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am troubled by the energy agenda being pushed in these bills and by the administration. We should be pursuing energy policies that develop all kinds of energy and that ensure that our electrical grid can handle future energy demands, which as noted, are increasing exponentially with AI. But here, it seems like we keep doubling down on corporate welfare offering bill after bill to promote expensive and climate-damaging fossil fuels, while at the same time blocking all sustainable energy development. I mean, whatever happened to the all-of-the-above energy policy?
(18:47)
Mr. Menendez, you outlined some of the things that have happened in the last few months to block or terminate sustainable energy projects that were already underway. Can you just tell us a little bit about how the termination of the IRA tax credits in the Big Ugly Bill that passed this summer is going to lead to higher utility costs?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Sure. So, a lot of those project sponsors who were relying on those tax credits and building out their plan and thinking about how they're going to invest capital were already in the process of seeing those projects hit the ground. And so, now the project's fundamentally changed because the administration's walking back a lot of the progress that we've made in the last Congress with the prior administration on clean renewable energy.
(19:32)
So, if those projects don't come online, we're losing access to energy production that's right there for the taking. We've seen in states like Texas, so not a blue state, but over 30% of their energy production comes from solar and wind. And we're seeing the prices in Texas for consumers go down. So, if that was a nationwide strategy that this administration and this Congress and the Republican majority saw through, we would see a greater mix of energy production, and we would eventually see lower costs for all Americans.
(20:07)
This is taking us in a very different direction, where some of the plants that we're going to keep online are more expensive to maintain and operate, and we're putting one arm behind our back in the energy production fight. China's not doing that, but here in America we are, it's going to make a sweeper and it's going to make energy prices more expensive for all Americans.
Ms. Scanlon (20:27):
Yeah, and I am hearing a lot about increasing energy costs from my constituents. I know energy costs are up about 15% across the country, it's higher in the Northeast. And in fact, in my district, we have one of those older obsolete fossil fuel plants that was scheduled to go offline, but now the administration has said that it has keep operating, even though it's incredibly expensive and inefficient to do so. So, thank you for your testimony.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
If I could just pick up on one thing that you mentioned earlier real quick is when a lot of this forecast was happening, it predated the robust growth in AI data centers. Now, we know that's a reality. So, instead of having a holistic approach and all-of-the-above strategy that's going to deal with the increased energy demand because of these AI data centers. And how do we prevent the cost from being shifted to our residents and our constituents and the consumer? We're not tackling that issue, but that's the exact type of conversation we should be having if we're thinking holistically about energy production and demand.
Ms. Scanlon (21:25):
Yeah, and I know you and many of our colleagues would love to have that bipartisan conversation, and we would welcome it.
(21:31)
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith (21:33):
Gentle lady yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott (21:37):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Latta, according to Reuters news, China hit a 10-year high in coal power construction in 2024. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Latta (21:49):
Could you repeat that again please?
Mr. Scott (21:51):
According to Reuters, China hit a 10-year high in coal power construction. Is that-
Mr. Latta (21:56):
That is correct.
Mr. Scott (22:01):
I'm glad we're doing this bill. We need reliable energy in this country. I wish we could do more nuclear. I hope that we get to the point that we're able to do more nuclear, but I don't have any real questions. I think it's-
Mr. Latta (22:16):
If I could just expand because what we're seeing is that Communist China, you're looking at about 95 gigawatts that that they talked about getting online starting in 2024. And so, as we're retiring our coal-fired plants, they're expanding. So, when we're retracting, they're expanding. So, it's important for us to look at what's happening out there is that we have to have more power. We had a hearing where our regional transmission organizations and also our ISOs [inaudible 00:22:54], and they all said the same thing, "We have to have more power."
(22:57)
And at the same time, every one of them said the same thing, "You cannot retire anything offline right now." Because especially with the data centers coming online that we're seeing this massive growth, it was estimated between 4.5% half to 6% last year, maybe up 10%. It's just going to keep going exponentially. So, the data centers are consuming a lot of power out there, and if we don't respond to that, we're not going to have the power.
(23:22)
But that's why it's important to hear what those folks out there are saying is that you can't make these retirements. And so, that's why it's important that we keep what we have out there right now.
Mr. Scott (23:31):
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the solar panels that are bought and used in America are manufactured in China, do you know?
Mr. Latta (23:44):
Yeah, I'd have to go back and double-check that. We have the largest manufactured solar panels is in my home county, in Wood County in Northwest Ohio, but they're national and global. and so, First Solar, but you're in competition with a massive amount of communist Chinese, which we saw also in the last administration when they were allowing these panels to come in.
Mr. Scott (24:10):
Yeah. The price of energy is embedded in everything that we consume in this country. It's embedded in our groceries. It's embedded in everything that we purchase in this country. And I believe that our enemies, like the Chinese, are the ones that fund the environmental movement in the United States that is not rooted in the facts. And so, with that, I'll yield.
Mr. Griffith (24:41):
The gentleman yields. I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse, for his time of questioning.
Mr. Neguse (24:46):
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Latta and Mr. Menendez, for being here and for your testimony. Mr. Latta, I want to drill down on something that I believe a ranking member alluded to earlier, which is the impetus or the necessity for this legislation. So, my understanding is the Trump administration has already reestablished the National Coal Council. They did so in June of this year. Is that right?
Mr. Latta (25:16):
What we're looking at trying to do here is get it in statutory language.
Mr. Neguse (25:21):
Sure. Did they not reestablish it or is it-
Mr. Latta (25:27):
I believe that's correct.
Mr. Neguse (25:28):
Okay. So, Trump administration in June of this year reestablished the National Coal Council, and your argument is that you'd like to have statutory authorization for this Coal Council that the Trump administration has restarted, is that a fair assessment of your-
Mr. Latta (25:45):
Correct.
Mr. Neguse (25:45):
Okay. And how important a priority is this? I mean, would you describe this as something that urgently needs to be done, that needs to be done with expediency or…
Mr. Latta (25:58):
Well, thank you for the question.
Mr. Latta (26:00):
It's important because, again, as I mentioned to the previous question, what we're seeing happen in this country is that we have to have more power. There's no question about it. I've asked everybody in the energy and commerce, this committee that they come force the energy subcommittee. Do we have to have more power, less power produced? Everyone has agreed that we need to have more power.
Mr. Neguse (26:23):
So would it be fair to say that you believe it's really important that this National Coal Council get up and running?
Mr. Latta (26:28):
Well, it needs to be because again-
Mr. Neguse (26:31):
Okay, so can I ask you a question on that front?
Mr. Latta (26:32):
Yeah, go ahead.
Mr. Neguse (26:32):
So Trump established this council, reestablished it in June. Who's the chair of the council? Do you know?
Mr. Latta (26:39):
I'm sorry, I don't.
Mr. Neguse (26:40):
There is no chair. I went on the website this morning, couldn't find one. Do you know who serves on the council?
Mr. Latta (26:48):
Right off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you.
Mr. Neguse (26:49):
Well, you know what? I wouldn't be able tell you either because there are no members who serve on the council. No members have been appointed since the Trump administration established this commission or reestablished this Coal Council nearly four months ago. They haven't bothered to name one member or name a chair of the council, notwithstanding the urgency that you described that this issue merits. Do you know how many times they've met since June?
Mr. Latta (27:15):
I'm figuring you're going to tell me. Probably they haven't met at all since-
Mr. Neguse (27:18):
That's a great guess.
Mr. Latta (27:19):
… this is not a council.
Mr. Neguse (27:20):
You're right, sir, council, coalition, commission, whatever you want to call it, this new entity that the Trump administration has reestablished as an urgent priority to boost coal production has not met once since this all-important executive order that was issued in June. They have not named any members. They have not named a chair. For anybody who's curious about this, go online, go on Google, National Coal Council or Commission and you will find nothing but coming soon attractions on every page of the council. They don't have any future meetings scheduled. Again, it just says coming soon on their website.
(27:59)
You could understand, Mr. Latta, my indignation here. And I think the indignation, frankly, from a lot of Americans who would say, "If this is such an important priority, why are we spending time considering before the Rules Committee a bill to codify a council when in fact that isn't necessary?" The council could do its business today. And, of course, even more ridiculous under the circumstances, given that this council has not begun to do any work whatsoever. I mean, why reestablish it? Do you know when they're going to meet? Have you gotten a sense from them?
Mr. Latta (28:39):
Again, if I may.
Mr. Neguse (28:40):
Sure.
Mr. Latta (28:41):
Again, it's important that this is done statutorily, because as I mentioned a little bit earlier, we're in a race right now.
Mr. Neguse (28:49):
No, I hear you.
Mr. Latta (28:49):
And the race that we're in is with Communist China, and Communist China is not waiting. And when you're looking at probably over 100 coal-fired plants coming online in the future over there, when you think about what they're doing on all their energy sources, but they're putting a big emphasis especially on coal.
Mr. Neguse (29:10):
But why pass a bill to create a council that it's never going to meet?
Mr. Latta (29:13):
Well, because I think, again, it's important that we have it in the statute that we make sure that we have the folks on this council that move forward with it. Because we're looking across this country, and it was mentioned a little bit earlier about certain regions of the country. You look up on the coal side, but you look on the New England states when the governor is up there saying that people up there are paying 40% more and they're looking at pipelines.
Mr. Neguse (29:39):
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta (29:40):
This is where we fall back in 2008-
Mr. Neguse (29:41):
I hear you. I want to give you ample time to respond.
Mr. Latta (29:44):
That we all look forward in all the above energy is fair and includes everything.
Mr. Neguse (29:46):
I would just say, again, we're not talking about the merits here. We can have a debate. I think you had that debate previously about the merits. I'm simply saying, I don't understand the rationale of spending time passing a bill to create a council when that council already exists and when they refuse to meet now as it is. I mean, if we pass this bill, are you saying that now they will magically start meeting that the Department of Energy is going to decide to appoint a chair?
(30:11)
They could appoint one today, the council could meet tomorrow. They could update their website. I suspect they probably will after now this exchange here that perhaps there's some folks in the Department of Energy who've realized that lo and behold, this really important Coal Council that they've decided is integral to the future of the country, hasn't bothered to do anything. They haven't even bothered to update the website. I suspect they're going to change that. But in any event, that's my only point, Mr. Latta. I mean, they clearly don't share your sense of urgency. You'd agree with that, right? Otherwise, they'd be meeting
Mr. Latta (30:45):
Well, and again, the United States, it's estimated we have the largest amount of coal reserves in the world.
Mr. Neguse (30:51):
So why don't they meet?
Mr. Latta (30:52):
Well, again, I think it's important that we do it in a statute and get it-
Mr. Neguse (30:55):
They don't need it. They can meet now.
Mr. Latta (30:56):
So that's why I think we ought to get the bill passed.
Mr. Neguse (30:58):
Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate it Mr. Latta, and I appreciate the chair's indulgence.
Mr. Latta (31:02):
Thank you.
Mr. Neguse (31:02):
But I think if pressed, the chair might concede that this is a salient point, that there's no reason for us to be spending our time. I mean at a minimum, if you're going to make the case to your colleagues in the house that this is an urgent priority, somebody's got to call someone over the Department of Energy and tell them, "Hey, you know what? Maybe update the website and appoint a few members and act like you're doing some work so that we can convince our colleagues that this is a council worth supporting and ultimately enshrining into statute." But anyway, I'm not in charge here, so I defer. I'll yield back to the chair. I thank Mr. Latta and Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Griffith (31:39):
The gentleman yields back. Chairman now recognizes himself first time of questioning. Mr. Chairman, are you trying to tell us that you think that the administration would be more emboldened to appoint people to this if in fact it were a part of the legislation as opposed to just being something that they think is important but also that Congress thinks it's important?
Mr. Latta (31:58):
I believe that's correct, Mr. [inaudible 00:31:59].
Mr. Griffith (31:59):
And would you further agree that some of the people who are doing vetting within the White House are probably concerned about getting judges appointed and confirmed by the United States Senate, other high-ranking government officials both appointed and then confirmed by the United States Senate including US attorneys, marshals, et cetera, and that they may have been focused on that as opposed to filling the Coal Council even though they consider it to be important?
Mr. Latta (32:25):
I agree with that statement.
Mr. Griffith (32:27):
And isn't it accurate that the Senate, particularly members on the other side of the aisle, have been slow or helping to bring those matters to the fore and as a result the Senate has changed its rules slightly in order to bring about a quicker confirmation process of appointees by the administration?
Mr. Latta (32:47):
I agree with that and I believe that, that's what the majority leader over there is doing trying to get that done.
Mr. Griffith (32:53):
All right. And it always strikes me as fascinating and it's become a part of my stump speech and I don't want to take up too much time, because I know we're hurrying, but electric rates going up. The electric rates are going up based on policies that have already been passed and now they're going to say that the electric rates are going to go up because of Republican policies. But isn't it fair to say that electric rates are growing up because of the war on coal and both the Obama and the Biden administration and the stranding of assets, which is sometimes hard to explain, but when you're shutting plants down before their life expectancy is up, that's an asset that no longer is being utilized and yet the rate payer still has to pay for it. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Latta (33:32):
That's correct.
Mr. Griffith (33:33):
And in fact, I would say to the gentleman that I have in my own district, a Virginia City plant run by Virginia Power or Dominion Power, excuse me, that was opened up in 2012. I was at the ribbon cutting with a 50 to 70-year life expectancy and yet some want to see that shut down as early as 2035 or 2040 under coal policy in this country. And that's not reflecting at all what the Chinese are doing. They're not stranding anything. They're building more coal as I think you said earlier. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Latta (34:03):
That's correct. [inaudible 00:34:05].
Mr. Griffith (34:04):
But when you strand those assets, you're paying for both the new renewables, which I'm okay with and the coal, but in other parts of the world, they're not stranding their assets, they're using those assets till they're gone. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Latta (34:16):
That's absolutely correct.
Mr. Griffith (34:17):
And I would've to agree with the gentleman from Georgia that I also am in support of nuclear and I don't have any problem. In fact, helped get some funding for a solar plant in my district, so I'm for all of the above. You can't say that the policies we're passing today have caused the rates to go up and are going to cause the rates to go up more when in fact we are, as somebody said earlier, we are actually tying our hands behind our backs by not utilizing our coal.
(34:45)
And for the comment that we're exporting coal to China, we don't export coal to China out of my district currently, but we used to, because in Buchanan, I learned this this year in Buchanan, Virginia, as a county, we have the most volatile coal in the world, which means it burns hotter. It creates more energy than any other coal in the world, and somebody is going to use that coal to make steel. Wouldn't it be a lot better if we made that here in the United States? Because right now, the rules and regulations imposed on us by prior administrations have caused us to have a problem with producing steel in this country because of regulations and we have an abundance.
(35:24)
My coal miners and my coal companies be happy to sell to US manufacturers steel, and yet we're not allowed to. Would you agree that, that's pretty much-
Mr. Latta (35:33):
I agree with that.
Mr. Griffith (35:34):
… Senator, the most Americans, that we ought to be using our natural resources for our economies? You would agree with that?
Mr. Latta (35:41):
Absolutely.
Mr. Griffith (35:41):
All right. I appreciate that. I tried to do it as fast as I could. Mr. McGovern and I yield back and see.
Mr. McGovern (35:47):
Can I just have one question of clarification?
Mr. Griffith (35:49):
Yes.
Mr. McGovern (35:52):
Is Senate confirmation required on this Coal Council?
Mr. Griffith (35:59):
Let me answer that, because I'm the one that raised that. The answer is Senate confirmation is not required, but many times in most administrations, the people who are vetting, the people to go on the various councils are involved in the process whether it be one that requires Senate confirmation or that does not. And if you're utilizing your assets to try to get judges, US marshals, US attorneys, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, approved and cabinet assistants, deputy secretaries, et cetera, that you oftentimes will focus more on that than you do on one that doesn't necessarily require that. I grant your point though, it is valid.
Mr. McGovern (36:32):
Yeah. No, I appreciate clarifying that there's no senate confirmation required, but thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith (36:37):
The gentleman yields back, I yield back. And that concludes the testimony from these witnesses.
Mr. Latta (36:41):
Thank you very much.
Mr. Griffith (36:41):
We do appreciate you all being here. And as always, thank you. All right, we're going to suspend for a minute or two so y'all can get out and the next crew can come in.
(36:52)
All right. Now, welcome our second panel, Representative Higgins and Ranking Member Garcia from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Higgins, you are first and I welcome your testimony.
Mr. Higgins (38:15):
I thank the chair and I thank the ranking member and the members of the Rules Committee and my colleague, the ranking member, the Oversight Committee. Thank you for having us here today. I urge the Rules Committee to grant a prompt rule for the House's consideration of H.R.4922, the D.C. CRIMES Act; H.R.5143, the District of Columbia Policing Protection Act; H.R.540, the District of Columbia Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act; and H.R.5125, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act.
(38:53)
Crime in the District of Columbia has recently reached levels unseen since the violent era of the early 1990s. Juvenile crime has reportedly more than doubled the national average as of February 2024. The D.C. Attorney General and D.C. Council's policies have created an environment of school absences and offenders to be released, allowing juvenile crime and violent crime to flourish.
(39:27)
Further, recent anti-law enforcement rhetoric and highly restrictive policing laws from the D.C. Council have created retention and recruitment challenges for the Metropolitan Police Department. President Trump in response made sweeping moves to bring federal law enforcement resources into the district and exercise existing authorities under the Home Rule Act to direct law enforcement to combat the crime crisis.
(39:59)
Like President Trump, House Republicans are committed to restoring law and order in our nation's capital. The Home Rule Act, which was signed in the law in 1973, provides a charter for the local government of the District of Columbia, granting a degree of self-governance to D.C. . Officials recognize that authority and including the authority to legislate, conduct elections, and otherwise govern local municipal affairs. Under the Home Rule Act, Congress retains its constitutional authority to enact legislation for D.C. on any subject including legislation to amend or repeal any law enforced in the district prior to or after enactment of that law, and any act passed by the D.C. Council. Last week, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform considered several pieces of legislation to reinforce President Trump's efforts to make D.C. safe again.
(41:05)
H.R.4922 to D.C. CRIMES Act overturned targeted portions of the D.C. Council's Youth Rehabilitation Act by amending the definition of a youth offender from a person under the age of 25 to a person under the age of 18. This bill requires that we treat adult criminals as adults like the rest of the country. The bill also requires a D.C. Attorney General to create a publicly available website that better tracks juvenile crime data. This data will inform Congress, the district's elected officials, the Metropolitan Police Department, the public, and others regarding the severity of juvenile crime in the city.
(41:56)
H.R.5143, the District of Columbia Policing Protection Acts, the legislation that I introduced, amends Title S of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 and replaces it with policies empowering police pursuit of a vehicle fleeing the police.
(42:18)
H.R.5140, the District of Columbia Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act lowers the age that juveniles can be tried for certain violent crimes as adults to 14 years old. For example, such violent crimes include murder, first-degree sexual abuse, burglary in a first degree and robbery while armed.
(42:43)
And lastly, H.R.5125, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act aligns the appointment of D.C. judges with the constitutional process for appointing members of the federal judiciary. This bill preserves the President's authority to nominate with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, anyone deemed appropriate to sit upon the D.C. court.
(43:12)
Every resident and visitor deserves to feel safe in our nation's capital and Congress should continue to fulfill its constitutional duty to oversee district affairs and make D.C. safe again. By considering these bills, we step in that direction. Again, I ask the Rules Committee to grant a prompt rule for the House's consideration of this legislation, and I welcome the Committee's questions.
Mr. Griffith (43:41):
The gentleman yields back. Appreciate that. And now, recognize Ranking Member Garcia for your opening statement.
Mr. Garcia (43:48):
Thank you Mr. chair and to all the members of the Rules Committee. And I do want to thank of course Representative Higgins, who also of course chairs one of our subcommittees and appreciate his work. So I think today, we're going to be looking at four different pieces of legislation, which quite frankly, all four are a direct attack to the governance of the district in Washington, D.C., which of course we know is also an American city of over 700,000 residents. D.C. has more residents than two states. D.C. taxpayers pay federal taxes more per capita than any other state. And D.C. as a whole contributes more total federal taxes than 12 states. It pays more in total federal income tax than 19 other states. And more than 8,000 D.C. residents currently serve in the military and can be sent to war to fight for our country and our values. But they, of course, do not have full representation.
(44:45)
Now, D.C. is not a state and we're surely not debating statehood here today, which of course a lot of us and personally I certainly do believe in, but we do know that while the Constitution created Washington D.C. as a federal district, the founding fathers always wanted self-governance for D.C. Madison wrote that the Constitution meant for D.C. and what it meant even before it was ratified in 1788, he wrote, and I want to quote. "A municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages will of course be allowed."
(45:16)
Now, of course, D.C. should have self-government. I hope that something we could all agree on, and that's what certainly democracy means, and that's how our system works best. D.C.'s government is and should be held accountable to the people who live here, and local leaders should be empowered to solve problems without Congress interfering.
(45:35)
I've said this many times. Now, if folks wanted to get involved in city politics or if the president wants to run the district, he should resign from the presidency and run for mayor. Folks can run for city council if they want to get involved in local government. I was a council member back in my hometown. I was a mayor of my city for eight years. It is a great job, and I know that we all claim to love local government and we know that local government can do great things, but we shouldn't sit here in Congress and pretend we're a super city council lording over residents who reject the proposals that we put in place.
(46:11)
Now, today, the majority is proposing four bills, which we believe as Democrats on the committee attack D.C.'s right to self-governance. And we know D.C., of course, is a unique city and we all want it to be safe. And by the way, in the last few years, the city of D.C. and the district has actually become safer and the crime rate has actually decreased over the last few years.
(46:33)
These four bills move the district in the wrong direction, and I want to briefly touch on all. The first is 5125, the Judicial Nominations Reform Act that would eliminate D.C.'s Judicial Nomination Commission and give the President sole power to choose local judges. This is crazy.
(46:51)
Right now, there is a commission right now made up of appointees, which include appointee of the president that actually go through the judges and they present to the president options for selection. This would bypass that entire process and allow the President of the United States to directly appoint judges who are involved in municipal affairs for the city. It is wrong and maybe one of the most egregious bills that the majority is presented in this package of bills.
(47:22)
H.R.4922, the D.C. CRIMES Act removes judges' discretion in sentencing young adults. This bill would essentially ban judges from waiving mandatory minimums for young offenders. In D.C. courts, adults are not treated like children. This bill applies to young adults who are prosecuted as adults by the US attorney. And essentially, the bill removes flexibility for judges to work with those in front of the court that would actually hurt public safety. Moving this forward would have not make D.C. safer. And it's interesting, the sponsor of this bill is from Florida, and Florida has the same right now policies that D.C. adopted, yet the author is not pushing these changes in his home state, and so I would hope that we would leave the district alone.
(48:13)
Now, the next bill that we're discussing is H.R.5140, the Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act, again, incredibly horrendous in my opinion. This would let children as young as 14 be tried as adults and sent to adult prison. The science is clear, putting kids in adult prisons increases reoffending and deepens racial disparities. More than 90% of D.C. youth who are involved and who are before our courts, more than 90% are Black children, and this bill would make things worse, not safer. We should not be treating 14-year-olds as adults.
(48:52)
Then we have H.R.5143, the Policing Protection Act, which would overturn D.C.'s rules on high-speed police chases. Now, we know that D.C. is a dense community. It's actually one of the most walkable cities in the United States, and this new law essentially allows police officers discretion to begin high-speed chases in neighborhoods and communities without consideration if it's actually necessary at that moment.
(49:22)
And just so everyone on the Rules Committee is aware, if you look at high-speed chases across the country, and certainly here locally, half the people that are injured in high-speed chases are pedestrians, are people that are actually not involved in high-speed chase. So we should be allowing D.C. to create its own policies for transportation systems.
(49:42)
And so just to conclude, we oppose all these bills. These bills are opposed by D.C. residents, by the mayor, by the council. We should reject them. We should allow D.C. to govern itself. And with that, I thank my friend of the majority and certainly want to thank the Rules Committee. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith (49:59):
All right, gentlemen yields back, now recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Fischbach, for her time of questions.
Ms. Fischbach (50:05):
I have no questions.
Mr. Griffith (50:06):
She has no questions, waives. I recognize the ranking member, Mr. McGovern for his time.
Mr. McGovern (50:10):
I just have a few brief questions. Mr. Higgins, did the Oversight Committee hold a hearing this Congress on any of the bills before us today?
Mr. Higgins (50:21):
To the gentleman's question regarding hearings, I've been on the Oversight Committee for years. We've had many hearings regarding crime in D. C.
Mr. McGovern (50:30):
But on these bills-
Mr. Higgins (50:31):
I would say the answer to the gentleman's question is yes. We've had many years through the years. Maybe you aren't there, but I was.
Mr. McGovern (50:39):
Well, I looked over this Congress, the hearings you've held, I did not see a record of you holding hearings on any of these buildings.
Mr. Higgins (50:47):
The body of work of the Oversight Committee, respectfully to the gentleman, is replete with hearings on crime and the impact of liberal policies and D.C. warnings. My specific warnings to the council that if they venture down that path, there would be an increase in violent crime, and I was right.
Mr. McGovern (51:13):
Well, okay, so you're not answering the question. But anyway, is the Oversight Committee holding a hearing on Thursday with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson, and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb?
Mr. Higgins (51:27):
That's my understanding was scheduled.
Mr. McGovern (51:30):
So I guess the question is, why didn't the Oversight Committee hold a hearing with those D.C. officials before marking up these bills and bringing you to the Rules Committee then bring you to the floor? That make significant changes to D.C. law when you're going to have all the leadership up here on Thursday.
Mr. Higgins (51:49):
Well, the many hearings that we have conducted, I participated in on the Oversight Committee with D.C. officials through the years certainly before this legislation
Mr. Higgins (52:00):
… had been brought to the House floor.
Mr. McGovern (52:02):
Mr. Garcia did we-
Mr. Higgins (52:04):
If you're going to discount everything prior to January this year-
Mr. McGovern (52:08):
No, but I do think that-
Mr. Higgins (52:09):
… then I suppose you have the right to do that, sir.
Mr. McGovern (52:11):
No, I am not discounting it, but I do think that it is not unusual. In fact, it's kind of normal procedure that every Congress is unique and that we bring bills that we intend to bring to the floor. We do hearings because I'm sure that the Oversight Committee membership has changed over the years. I know you're not the ranking member. I mean, you weren't in the last Congress, so I do think there are new people and they have unique perspectives and so what I'm asking-
Mr. Higgins (52:38):
Yes, sir. I would concur with that.
Mr. McGovern (52:41):
Okay.
Mr. Higgins (52:42):
Let me just say respectfully that this is a topic that has been visited many, many times through the years on Oversight and other committees.
Mr. McGovern (52:51):
Mr. Garcia, did D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the 13 D.C. council members and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who are D.C.'s top elected officials support or oppose these bills?
Mr. Garcia (53:06):
They oppose the bills.
Mr. McGovern (53:07):
And I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing these bills from Mayor Bowser, 13 council members, and the Attorney General.
Mr. Griffith (53:14):
Without objection.
Mr. McGovern (53:15):
And just the final thing I would say, I'm from Massachusetts, you're from Louisiana, you're from California. I mean, we're all from different states here, but none of us are from D.C. And I really think it is probably a better approach to dealing with D.C.'s challenges to work with and rely on the expertise of the local elected officials who were elected by people who live here.
(53:45)
Because I do think that the solutions to crime in D.C. are a little bit more complicated than incarcerating 14-year-olds. And again, as I said earlier, my opening statement, we should let D.C. spend its money appropriately as it sees fit in the ways that actually prevent the conditions that we all want to see improve. But in any event, I appreciate you being here and I yield back.
Mr. Griffith (54:18):
Gentlemen yields back. Now recognize Mr. Norman for his time of questioning.
Mr. Norman (54:22):
Thank both of you for coming. Congressman Higgins, you've got a long history of service in law enforcement. You're a captain and you've seen crime at its worst, at its highest. And I looked at the statistics in D.C. as it compares to New York, you have 644 violent crimes, rapes per 100,000. 644 and New York has got 186 per 1,000 residents. Is it working in D.C., crime prevention, or is it lax? What's your take as being a veteran of the police force?
Mr. Higgins (55:13):
Sir, we had very respectfully warned the District of Columbia Council, the city council, that if they enacted the laws that they shared with us years ago, they intended to do that violent crime would go up, and that a big part of that would be juvenile crime. And that indeed is the case. I believe that the percentage is something along the lines of 52% of the category of crimes, carjacking arrests were juveniles. 52% of robberies and carjackings were juvenile. It's way, way off.
(55:59)
So when you create an atmosphere where juveniles are not going to be arrested, you're actually condemning that strata of our society. 14, 15, 16-year-olds, they're much more likely to participate in crime if there's no accountability there. They don't have a shot to be tried as an adult. And the gentleman mentioned imprisonment. Juveniles are not in imprisoned in adult jails, they're not in prison. We have to keep them separate. You understand? They'll be transferred if they're incarcerated. They're tried as an adult, they're still separated as juveniles from the adult population, so there's never a circumstance where juveniles are incarcerated with adults.
(56:57)
But if you want to prevent crimes and create an environment where crime rates will be reduced, violent and property crimes, then you have to have law enforcement empowered to do their job, and you have to have accountability in prosecution. So my experience is that the types of laws, well intended though they be, that you find in liberal-run cities, they generally lead to increased crime. So we have an obligation to do something about it where we're able, and the only municipality in the country where Congress has authority is D.C., the nation's capital. So we're doing what we can, where we can.
Mr. Norman (57:55):
I think D.C. in '22 got 7. 5 billion from the federal government.
Mr. Higgins (58:05):
I'll take your word for it. I know it's a lot. It's a massive budget. I think the district attorney, the D.C. district attorney, I'm going by memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his budget is equivalent to some state attorney general.
Mr. Norman (58:28):
I know we withheld some because we're so frustrated with a lot of things, that Bowser and her counsel were doing. Now, the going through, before you chase a suspect, Mr. Garcia mentioned this, you have to go … I read 14, I guess 14 things-
Mr. Higgins (58:49):
In D.C.
Mr. Norman (58:50):
In D.C.?
Mr. Higgins (58:50):
Yeah. It's established like this matrix of considerations that I guess look good on paper to people that have never worked the street, but in reality, that means that there'd be no pursuits. And if that was their goal to have no vehicular pursuit, then congratulations, but that's automatically going to lead to an increase in crime, and especially juvenile crime, because the juveniles at that age, 14, 15, 16 years old, it's like Representative Norman, they're old enough to have adult desires. They want a piece of the street, they want a shot at some cash. They want a shot at what they call stripes on the street amongst the criminal element, whatever element they're working within, but they're not old enough to really recognize that they could be burning their entire future.
(59:56)
So if you don't have any chance for accountability for a 14, 15, 16-year-old in a density of population where there's a organized crime element, I mean street organized crime, then you're going to draw those juveniles into the game. You're going to draw them into the criminal game where they may never have stepped if you'd have built in accountability, and vehicle pursuit is one of the primary things they do is jack a car. They're going to jack a car whether it's occupied or not, because they want that stripe. You understand? So you're like reeling these guys in, man, and you're setting a stage where they're going to destroy their life if you don't build in accountability and strong law enforcement.
Mr. Norman (01:00:49):
Mr. Garcia, you want to respond to that? Because you brought up that you hit pedestrians in car chases.
Mr. Garcia (01:01:00):
Sure. Let me just begin just by saying that different jurisdictions, state restrictions, city jurisdictions, they have different vehicular laws because cities are different. And so you just can't apply one set of laws even when it comes to policing public safety and the way that the police vehicular agendas or police vehicular rules are laid out. It's not a one size fits all.
(01:01:28)
I'll tell you. I obviously was not a police officer or law enforcement officer like Local Representative Higgins, but I did manage a police force of almost 750 incredible officers, men and women alike, respect every single one of them. And I think they and others would tell you that laws have to be designed to the jurisdiction.
(01:01:48)
I happen to believe that in D.C., the folks that understand the city the best and certainly the layout of the city are going to be the local city council members and the mayor, and so they're the ones should be setting the laws. And I'll just add one more thing as it relates to police chases and certainly when you have these vehicular chases, half the time that, that happens, it arises into when someone is hurt, it's usually a pedestrian, not the people involved in the actual accident. So we have to be very thoughtful about how those rules are laid out.
Mr. Norman (01:02:20):
So if you had a family member that was victimized, you'd want the police, basically if you got 14 renditions to go through, just let him go.
Mr. Garcia (01:02:28):
No, I would want the police to follow the local law. And if in that law you can have a vehicular chase and it meets that criteria, then they should actually have that police car chase. But if it doesn't meet that criteria, except for the local government, and they've got to make that decision at the local level.
Mr. Norman (01:02:45):
Congressman Higgins, I don't know how you think, if you've got 14 things to think about before you get in the car to chase, do you have that kind of time?
Mr. Higgins (01:02:53):
You're not going to pursue.
Mr. Norman (01:02:53):
He's not going to.
Mr. Higgins (01:02:54):
It just becomes a part of a department policy. That discretion, you have to leave it with that officer, bottom line. A lot goes through your mind, but the policies of your department is if you're basically at a hard no on pursuit, then you have to make a decision very, very fast if you're going to try and catch that vehicle.
(01:03:21)
And boy, sometimes those guys have done real bad stuff, but you're not quite sure. It may be a vehicle that matches a description of an armed robbery where somebody got beat, shot at. It could be some violent stuff and then you got a red sedan and you got a red sedan rolls up on you. You see him and he sees you, looks like, and he turns all the way and jets. You're not going to chase that guy in this city. Not chasing him, because you don't have a license plate, confirm, check with your supervisor, all that.
(01:04:00)
It may have been him. It may be commonly, you find they're up to some bad stuff when they run. Sometimes, they're not. Sometimes they're just kids fooling around, but you find that out when you stop the car. And then in every case, they learn that lesson that if they run, they're going to get caught. And when they get caught, there's going to be some consequences at home and at school to get kicked off the ball team. There's consequences you have to have.
Mr. Norman (01:04:36):
Well, it just seems common sense. If you don't chase them, then the victim suffers, then the criminal wins. Anyway, thank you for putting this up. Thank both of you for coming.
Mr. Griffith (01:04:48):
The gentleman yields back. Now, recognizes Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania for her time of questioning.
Ms. Scanlon (01:04:54):
Thank you. I'm having some trouble with these bills because they really run counter to the work I did before coming to Congress, to my grandfather wrote one of the first criminal justice codes for juveniles in the country. I represented kids and I've been carjacked, so what you're saying doesn't really drive with a lot of my personal experience. Mr. Garcia, are D.C. residents pro-crime?
Mr. Garcia (01:05:25):
I mean, absolutely not. I mean, any D.C. resident you talk to wants their community safer. The work that the council and the mayor have done to survey the community, they are opposed to these measures. They want their community safe and they don't believe this will actually make them any safer.
Ms. Scanlon (01:05:42):
Well, and that's what really has struck me about this. I mean, of course, there's the obvious anti-democratic element that we have people who don't represent the people of D.C. trying to impose their views on crime fighting here, at the same time that we are still denying the people of D.C. actual representation in Congress. So I find that troubling from kind of a 30,000-foot democratic republic perspective. But even more, it's the fact that it's trying to impose these so-called tough-on-crime punitive measures in a way that is contradicted by decades of research and experience about what works with young people who are much less likely, as you mentioned, Mr. Higgins, to understand the consequences of their action. It's something about the prefrontal cortex and when that develops and whether they can understand consequences, and they're less likely to understand these kind of deterrent effects that punitive measures might have.
(01:06:56)
I've found with kids in the criminal justice system that, yes, accountability is absolutely important as are the opportunities for rehabilitation, et cetera, but the kids that we've dealt with in some of these inner cities, it's not lack of accountability that's spurring them to do these activities so much as the fact that they don't think they're going to live to be 20. You make very different decisions if you don't have a place to live, you don't have enough to eat, nobody in your family is going to college, much less been on the ball team. It's a very different, vastly different world view.
(01:07:37)
And I think when we are stripping away some of the supports that can help people develop that responsibility and respond when they are held accountable, as occurred this year when Congress failed to allow a budget for D.C. to pass through and then we ended up with cuts to mental health services, cuts to D.C.'s own policing force, it just feels like attempting to impose these punishments and have harsher consequences. It's not going to solve the underlying problems that got us here. Mr. Garcia, you said something about who is most likely to be impacted. Am I correct that it tends to be young men of color who get swept up in this?
Mr. Garcia (01:08:22):
Absolutely. And in the case of D.C., it's overwhelmingly young Black men.
Ms. Scanlon (01:08:28):
It feels like our country has gone down this path before trying to incarcerate a whole generation of young Black men and the impact it had on our communities. We now hear a lot about how we have to rebuild the family. And in many of these communities where the automatic incarceration, the mandatory sentences occurred, we've seen whole family systems disrupted, so I don't think it makes a lot of sense to go down that path again. I just think it's treating a symptom and not the underlying causes. Is there anything else you want to add?
Mr. Garcia (01:09:12):
I'll just add that one of the thing that you think is important to consider is at the local government level, there is so much work that goes into creating a local law. There's public hearings, there's public testimony, there's community meetings, there's folks that gather with the local elected officials. And, of course, in these proposals, none of that has happened with the D.C. community. And so essentially, we are just mandating what Congress believes is the right approach versus actually listening from the community and building something with the community. I think that's a big difference.
Ms. Scanlon (01:09:44):
So just to be clear, the D.C. community did do that kind of work when it brought these policies forward to implement.
Mr. Garcia (01:09:51):
Every single one of the policies that have been implemented that are essentially being rolled back or changed were product of the D.C. community working with their local government and, in some cases, years of discussion, of debate, of public hearings, of community public comment at the council meetings, and so it's a lot of work went into these.
Ms. Scanlon (01:10:11):
And it does track with what I know of the research that's been done on developmental abilities of young people in particularly how that intersects with our criminal justice system. You also mentioned the need for community input when developing, for example, pursuit regulations with respect to … What is the bill about? I'm sorry, I don't have the technical term in front of me, but when you can have a car pursuit, right?
Mr. Garcia (01:10:39):
Yeah, it's called the D.C. Policing Protection Act.
Ms. Scanlon (01:10:43):
That's it. I mean, we actually did have a hearing on that in the Judiciary Committee and there's been quite a lot of evolution in thinking on that and I can very clearly see that it could be a very different situation if you've got a Dukes of Hazzard kind of country pursuit chase as opposed to a crowded D.C. We've got thousands of tourists cramming the sidewalks and whether there are different calculations that need to be made in that environment. So, obviously, I'm not a big fan of the bills, and I thank you both for your testimony.
Mr. Griffith (01:11:20):
Thank you. Gentlelady lady yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for his time of questions.
Mr. Scott (01:11:26):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to commend the President of the United States for sinking another panga and stopping those drugs from getting to the United States of America. We lose a lot of Americans to drug overdoses every day, and I hope that they will continue to sink the drug boats.
(01:11:42)
Mr. Higgins, we've already talked about the pursuit that it's just part of police work. Is that a correct statement? If you're not going to pursue the criminal, the criminal is going to get away just by definition every day?
Mr. Higgins (01:11:56):
Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott (01:11:57):
Are they just going to quit because we say, "Pretty please, don't do that again?"
Mr. Higgins (01:12:01):
Yes, sir. The police officer has to be able to make that decision very quickly on the street, and just like we have to make every enforcement decision and pursuit is not something that we take lightly, but you're absolutely responsible for everything you do when you're in that unit and wearing that uniform. Pursuit is something that we train very, very heavily on and it's usually in a good crowded environment. Those are the people you're protecting from whoever's running.
Mr. Scott (01:12:47):
I want to get to this definition of youth offender. That seems to be such a problem for the Democrat Party. This bill reduces the maximum age of a youth offender from 24 years in Washington D.C. to 18 years. My understanding is that in 44 states, the maximum age for a youth offender is 17. When you hit your 18th birthday, you're no longer a youth offender, that's 44 states. Five states, including your state and my state that's limited to 16 and one state is 19, and that would be Vermont. Is that correct?
Mr. Higgins (01:13:30):
If you're asking me sir, the definition of an adult is varying from at what age bracket a juvenile could be tried as an adult. So in the two topics, yes sir. Most states recognize adults as over 17. D.C. has a different approach. They have a bracket up to 24, and we've addressed that. I think that's a big error and would lead to an increase in juvenile crimes, which indeed you have seen.
Mr. Scott (01:14:13):
Mr. Garcia, what is the maximum age in the State of California?
Mr. Garcia (01:14:18):
I believe it's 18, sir.
Mr. Scott (01:14:27):
I think when you hit 18, you're no longer considered a youth, as in 44 of the 50 states. Five states or 16, one state is at 19. In Washington D.C., is it 24, correct? That's not correct?
Mr. Garcia (01:14:56):
Under the YRA that we're discussing right now, there's alternatives, but adults … This, of course, only provision applies only in adult court, so this is not in juvenile courts. There's actually the difference between the two types of courts. This goes strictly to under the YRA Act that was passed by the council. This essentially eliminates the judicial discretion to impose sentences below those mandatory minimums.
Mr. Scott (01:15:22):
I can understand how states have some disagreements. 16, 17, 18, 19, but there is no way that a 24-year-old, in any circumstances, should be considered a youth, especially in the criminal justice system. I'm going to leave it at that. I hope these bills pass. I, again, want to commend the president for sinking another panga filled with drugs that were coming to the United States to kill our citizens, our families, and I hope that they will continue to take action to stop the drugs from coming to the shores of the United States of America. With that Madam Chair, I yield.
Ms. Foxx (01:16:10):
Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.
Mr. Griffith (01:16:12):
Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just once again refer the Rules Committee to my D.C. Retrocession Bill in regard to age 14. I would just say that while the law is broader in Virginia than it is in Maryland, both states recognize that in certain heinous crimes, decisions have to be made and juveniles can be tried as adults at the age of 14 in both states.
(01:16:36)
Virginia's is broader than Maryland's, but both of them exist. And then on high-speed chases, Madam Chair, I would have to agree with my Democrat colleagues in part in that I'm very concerned about high-speed chases. Too often, we have high-speed chases that end in injuries to officers or to other people.
(01:16:57)
The reason that I can support this bill is the Savings Clause in H.R.5143 where it says, "If a law enforcement encounters a suspect fleeing in a motor vehicle, the officer shall engage in a vehicular pursuit of the suspect, unless the officer or a higher ranking official with supervisor authority over the officer reasonably believes that a vehicular pursuit would entail an unacceptable risk of harm to a person other than the suspect or be futile, or that the suspect can be apprehended more effectively or expeditiously by means other than vehicular pursuit."
(01:17:37)
I think that language is a Savings Clause that makes the bill acceptable, and I would hope that our law enforcement folks in D.C. would use those and train their officers to use that kind of discretion. And I believe that probably Mr. Higgins had that language included because he knows that oftentimes, leadership in various police departments will go over the rules
Mr. Griffith (01:18:00):
… and go over ways that you can have an effective high-speed chase but not get carried away. And with that Madam Chair, I yield back.
Madam Chair (01:18:08):
Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Are there any further questions? Mr, Langworthy, you're recognized.
Mr. Scott (01:18:16):
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The bills before us are about restoring law and order, protecting residents and ensuring that the millions of Americans that visit our beautiful capital city here in Washington DC, and the millions of people that come from around the world can do so safely. And we have a duty as the Congress to exercise oversight of the district when its policies put the public at risk. I come from a state that has destroyed its criminal justice system with many of the same policies that the DC Council has engaged here in the district. So I have firsthand knowledge of what it's meant to the law and order in the streets of New York, especially the elimination of cash bail and what that has done to recidivism, and basically, eroding any fears that criminals have of conducting continual sprees of crime. We've seen crime in Washington has surged in recent years.
(01:19:08)
One of our own colleagues was carjacked last year, one of our colleagues intern was shot in cold blood in the streets this last year. Juvenile offenses are climbing, while soft on crime policies have kept offenders on the streets instead of holding them accountable. Criminals, they violate the law willfully, if there are no consequences to those crimes, they will continue to commit crime. So residents and visitors alike deserve better and these bills are a first step in restoring order and safety to all the people that are here in our nation's capitol. No matter how the other side tries to spin it here, the facts speak for themselves.
(01:19:49)
Even after a reported drop in homicides last year, DC is still ranked among the most dangerous cities in America. And now we're learning that crime data may have been manipulated raising very serious questions about whether the situation is way worse than it was advertised. But what we do know is that since President Trump stepped in, violent crime is down 40%, carjackings have dropped 75% and those results prove that tougher policies work and why we need to act and act with authority. So Mr. Higgins, we've heard a lot of wild claims from the other side this afternoon. Is there anything that you'd like to clear up in the final moments here?
Mr. Higgins (01:20:27):
Thank you for asking, sir. I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to legitimately consider what I'm going to respectfully share. When you create an environment on the street, the street is like a living organism as it relates to crime and a criminal element, what we call a gang. They run their plays, we run ours. And the street responds to its environment that's created by city councils and by whether you have a DA that prosecutes or a DA that leans towards not prosecuting, what the age limits are for a juvenile crime or whether or not you have a soft zone over 18 where you may be considered a juvenile. This is the environment. And the living organism of the street and the relationship between the criminal element and the law enforcement element sort of breathes in that environment. And if you create an environment where there's no noticeable accountability, your reporting goes way down.
(01:21:49)
So the street, the citizenry stops reporting crimes. If they report a burglary and you catch a guy that did it and that afternoon they see the same guy walking through the neighborhood crawling in another window, they don't report the next burglary. You understand? It's like the street and the citizenry get it. If there's not going to be prosecution, there's not going to be accountability and the juvenile age stretches up to 24 potentially, especially on property crimes, and where a 14-year-old, 15-year-old, 16-year-old no shot is going to be charged as an adult, prosecuted as an adult, the street responds to that environment and crime is going to increase. And in many criminal cases, especially property crime but sometimes violent crime, where people get hurt a little bit but they say, "I'm not calling it in, it doesn't do any good," your reporting will go down.
(01:23:08)
So when we enact these bills and they're signed into law, you may see an increase in reported crimes and I expected my Democrat colleagues are going to say, "Look, there's been an increase in crime." But that's not intellectually sound. You really have to look at the realities of whether or not your citizenry is even reporting crimes because of the environment that you've created in DC. We hope to correct that and I encourage my colleagues to support the bills. We did have some Democrat support in markup on a couple of these bills.
Mr. Scott (01:23:48):
Thank you, Mr.-
Mr. Higgins (01:23:49):
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Scott (01:23:50):
Thank you, Mr. Higgins. These bills make common sense reforms to protect our nation's capitals, deter repeat offenders and ensure justice for victims. It is about restoring safety and accountability to this district and I'm proud to support these measures and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair (01:24:06):
Thank you very much. Mr. Jack, you're recognized.
Mr. Jack (01:24:09):
Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Higgins, it's always good to see you my friend. I'm just curious if you could expand upon that last comment you made about the bipartisan support. Could you talk a little bit about the committee markup last week and which of these bills does have and does enjoy bipartisan support?
Mr. Higgins (01:24:31):
Yes, sir. You're asking me a specific question, so I'm going to refer to my notes here, but I believe a representative from California voted for both HR 4922 and HR 5140 in committee markup. Let me just add to that by saying there was legitimate discussion and some passionate debate in markup. And reading the room, I think that if Congress was not so divided in bipartisan sort of entity, I think we would've had more bipartisan support for these bills because we all oppose crime, having a free rein. We want to protect our citizenry. We all have compassion for our fellow man including those Americans that are participating in crime. So we all would seek, I think, more bipartisan agreement if perhaps Congress itself was not so divided on partisan lines. But even so, we did have Democrats support for a couple of these bills during markup. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jack (01:25:51):
Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Madam Chair (01:25:54):
Thank you very, Mr. Jack. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak or ask any questions? Hearing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.
Group (01:26:46):
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair (01:26:59):
Thank you.
(01:26:59)
Can we please shut the door?
Mr. Scott (01:27:13):
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move the committee grant HR 4922, HR 4143, HR 5140 and HR 5125 close rules. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of such bills. The rule provides that the respective amendments in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print specified in Section 3 of the rule shall be considered as adopted. Each such bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in each such bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate on each such bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform or their respective designees. The rule provides each such rule one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR 1047, the guaranteeing reliability through the interconnection of Dispatchable Power Act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
(01:28:21)
The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill an amendment in the nature of the substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 119-9 shall be considered and adopted in the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR 3015, the National Coal Council Reestablishment Act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment and the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted in the bill as amended shall be considered as read.
(01:29:19)
The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR 3062, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of the substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted, in the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
(01:30:10)
The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides that in the engrossment of HR 3633, the clerk shall add the text of HR 1919 as passed by the house as a new matter at the end of HR 3633, conform the title of HR 3633 to reflect the addition of HR 1919 as passed by the house to the engrossment, assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment, conform cross-references and provisions for the short titles within the engrossment and be authorized to make technical corrections to include corrections in the spelling, punctuation, page and line numbering, section numbering and insertion of appropriate headings.
(01:30:52)
The rule further provides that Section 5 of House Resolution 354 agreed to April 29th, 2025 is amended by striking September 30th, 2025 and inserting March 31st, 2026. The rule further provides that Section 2 of House Resolution 313 agreed on April 9th, 2025 is amended by striking September 30, 2025 and inserting March 31, 2026. The rule further provides that Section 4 of House Resolution 211 agreed on March 11, 2025 is amended by striking quote for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress and inserting during the period from March 11, 2025 through March 31, 2026. Finally, the rule provides that the provisions of Section 202 of the National Emergencies Act, 50 USC 1622 shall not apply during the period from September 16th, 2025 through March 31, 2026 to a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared by the president on July 30, 2025.
Madam Chair (01:32:04):
You've heard the motion by Mr. Langworthy. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern (01:32:14):
Madam Chair, we're going to have three amendments and I have an amendment to the rule.
Madam Chair (01:32:18):
You're recognized.
Mr. McGovern (01:32:19):
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strike Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the rule which blocks privilege, consideration of measures ending the administration's global tariffs and tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and Brazil until March 31st, 2026. Madam Chair, President Trump's trade war continues to increase prices. Americans are paying for food, gas, and other everyday goods. According to the Yale budget lab, Trump's current tariff regime is resulting in a $2,300 tax increase in 2025 alone for the average American household. Fruits and vegetables, beef and coffee are just some of the products experiencing the highest price increases.
(01:33:03)
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that these sweeping tariffs imposed under the guise of bogus emergencies are unlawful. And as we await the Supreme Court's decision, Congress should act to reassert its role over tariffs and trade. And I'm continually disappointed in some of my colleagues who so often talk about the importance of Congress reasserting its role in trade, but when the cards are down, give Trump unchecked power to impose tariffs for whatever reason he wants without so much as a vote in Congress. So in defense of the Constitution and the role of Congress, I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.
Madam Chair (01:33:44):
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Mr. McGovern (01:33:57):
Aye.
Ms. Scanlon (01:33:57):
Aye.
Madam Chair (01:33:58):
All those opposed say no.
Group (01:34:00):
No.
Madam Chair (01:34:01):
No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. The amendments not-
Mr. McGovern (01:34:04):
I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair (01:34:05):
Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (01:34:09):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (01:34:11):
No.
Clerk (01:34:11):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman (01:34:11):
No.
Clerk (01:34:12):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (01:34:13):
No.
Clerk (01:34:14):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Scott (01:34:15):
No.
Clerk (01:34:16):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (01:34:17):
No.
Clerk (01:34:17):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (01:34:18):
No.
Clerk (01:34:19):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (01:34:20):
No.
Clerk (01:34:21):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern (01:34:22):
Yes.
Clerk (01:34:22):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (01:34:24):
Aye.
Clerk (01:34:24):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse? Ms. Leger Fernández? Madam Chair?
Madam Chair (01:34:29):
No.
Clerk (01:34:29):
Madam chair, no.
Madam Chair (01:34:31):
The clerk will report the total.
Clerk (01:34:33):
Two yeas, eight nays.
Madam Chair (01:34:35):
And the no's have it. The amendments not agreed to. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.
Mr. McGovern (01:34:38):
Yes. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strike Section 8 of the rule which turns off privileged consideration of resolutions of inquiry until March 31st, 2026. Madam Chair, earlier this year, Republicans turned off ROIs until the end of September. The rationale for doing so was murky at best. Mr. Roy explained and I quote, "We have extended this through September 30th only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation." Now with reconciliation behind us and as the September deadline approaches, you are turning them off again. What possible rationale can Republicans have now other than that you're scared to take votes to actually conduct oversight of this administration? So I urge a yes vote on my amendment.
Madam Chair (01:35:31):
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (01:35:36):
Thank you. I do support this amendment. I think it's really wrong that Congress hasn't asserted its constitutional authority over these tariffs. I think it's wrong that we're not getting a vote on it. I think all Americans should be able to see where their representatives stand on these tariffs which have been so damaging to so many parts of our economy. I yield back.
Madam Chair (01:35:58):
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Ms. Scanlon (01:36:08):
Aye.
Mr. McGovern (01:36:08):
Aye.
Madam Chair (01:36:09):
All those opposed say no.
Group (01:36:11):
No.
Madam Chair (01:36:12):
No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendments not agreed to it.
Mr. McGovern (01:36:15):
I ask for roll call.
Madam Chair (01:36:16):
Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (01:36:22):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (01:36:22):
No.
Clerk (01:36:22):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman (01:36:23):
No.
Clerk (01:36:23):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (01:36:25):
No.
Clerk (01:36:26):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Scott (01:36:27):
No.
Clerk (01:36:27):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (01:36:28):
No.
Clerk (01:36:29):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (01:36:30):
No.
Clerk (01:36:31):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (01:36:32):
No.
Clerk (01:36:32):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern (01:36:34):
Aye.
Clerk (01:36:34):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Mr. McGovern (01:36:35):
Aye.
Ms. Scanlon (01:36:36):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse? Ms. Leger Fernández? Madam Chair?
Madam Chair (01:36:40):
No.
Clerk (01:36:40):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chair (01:36:42):
The clerk will report the total.
Clerk (01:36:44):
Two yeas. Eight nays.
Madam Chair (01:36:46):
And the noes have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.
Mr. McGovern (01:36:49):
We have one final amendment. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the rule also provide that immediately upon adoption of the resolution the house shall consider HR 4405, the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act introduced by Representative Khanna and Massie under a close rule with one hour of debate. Madam Chair, this issue isn't going away. The American people want the files released. This bipartisan bill does exactly that, while protecting victims and survivors. And I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.
Madam Chair (01:37:20):
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Mr. McGovern (01:37:31):
Aye.
Ms. Scanlon (01:37:31):
Aye.
Madam Chair (01:37:32):
Those opposed say no.
Group (01:37:33):
No.
Madam Chair (01:37:34):
No. In the opinion chair of the noes have it. The amendment's not agree to.
Mr. McGovern (01:37:37):
I ask for a roll call.
Madam Chair (01:37:38):
Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (01:37:41):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (01:37:42):
No.
Clerk (01:37:42):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman (01:37:43):
No.
Clerk (01:37:44):
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (01:37:45):
No.
Clerk (01:37:46):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Scott (01:37:47):
No.
Clerk (01:37:47):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (01:37:48):
No.
Clerk (01:37:49):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (01:37:50):
No.
Clerk (01:37:51):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (01:37:52):
No.
Clerk (01:37:52):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern (01:37:54):
Aye.
Clerk (01:37:54):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (01:37:56):
Aye.
Clerk (01:37:56):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse? Ms. Leger Fernández ? Madam Chair?
Madam Chair (01:37:59):
No.
Clerk (01:38:00):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chair (01:38:02):
The clerk will report the total.
Clerk (01:38:04):
Two yeas. Eight Nays.
Madam Chair (01:38:06):
The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there any other amendment or discussion? Hearing no further discussion, the question's on the motion from the gentleman from New York, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Group (01:38:22):
Aye.
Madam Chair (01:38:24):
Those opposed say no.
Mr. McGovern (01:38:25):
No.
Ms. Scanlon (01:38:25):
No.
Madam Chair (01:38:26):
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Mr. McGovern (01:38:30):
We ask for roll call.
Madam Chair (01:38:31):
Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (01:38:34):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (01:38:35):
Aye.
Clerk (01:38:35):
Mrs. Fischbach, aye. Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman (01:38:38):
Aye.
Clerk (01:38:38):
Mr. Norman, aye.
(01:38:39)
Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (01:38:40):
Aye.
Clerk (01:38:41):
Mrs. Houchin, aye. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Scott (01:38:42):
Aye.
Clerk (01:38:42):
Mr. Langworthy, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (01:38:44):
Aye.
Clerk (01:38:44):
Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (01:38:46):
Aye.
Clerk (01:38:46):
Mr. Griffith, aye. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (01:38:48):
Aye.
Clerk (01:38:48):
Mr. Jack, aye. Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern (01:38:49):
No.
Clerk (01:38:50):
Mr. McGovern, no. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (01:38:51):
No.
Clerk (01:38:52):
Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Neguse? Ms. Leger Fernández ? Madam Chair?
Madam Chair (01:38:55):
Aye.
Clerk (01:38:56):
Madam Chair, aye.
Madam Chair (01:39:00):
The clerk will report the total.
Clerk (01:39:02):
Eight yeas. Two nays.
Madam Chair (01:39:04):
The ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy will be managing the rule for the majority.
Mr. McGovern (01:39:14):
And I'll do it for the minority.
Madam Chair (01:39:15):
Mr. McGovern will handle it for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.