Sparks Fly As House Judiciary Committee Continues Epic Debate On Policing Legislation - Part Two

Mr chairman there are 13 eyes and nine nose the table Mr chairman it passes yeah I see to strike the last I strike move to strike the last word the ranking members recognize Mr chairman in this last amendment by Miss Scanlon that was just ruled out of order it uh you ruled it out of order because it references a specific date in my parliamentary universe adding a specific date is considered a limiting Amendment it limits the scope of the underlying Amendment it does not expand it therefore it cannot be a grounds for uh holding it holding a uh an amendment out of order because it limits it it doesn't expand it it's called in parliamentary terms a limiting Amendment which is always permitted so this is just another example of Republicans using obviously specious reasoning because you're afraid to vote and anything to do with January 6th you're afraid to vote on all the things we've talked about before because your constituents might hold you responsible so I would ask you why this is not a limiting Amendment why this EX in what way this expands the scope of the amendment and I'll yield to you for the purpose I'll be I'll be happy to answer we will belabor the point further I've already explained this that by making by presenting this amendment it changes the purpose of the bill and makes it about January 6 on its face by your explanations by all the comments that have been made you want this to be about January 6. you just said it again you emphasize the same point that's not what the underlying legislation in my time reclaiming my time you asked me to respond response okay so on its face the amendment violates house rule 16 Clause 7. now you can disagree with me but you're not the chairman anymore I'm sitting in the chair now reclaiming my time I certainly did do disagree with you and I again I repeat that the motives of the Republicans today are shameful as seeking only to avoid voting on all these different subjects that have been raised today I yield back the gentlemen with the gentleman you the gentleman has yielded back does anyone else seek recognition and then I'll get to you Ms Johnson I have an amendment so I think Mr Johnson wants to speak with respect to this so I'm happy to defer to him John was recognized thank you the blatant hypocrisy on display throughout this hearing is mind-numbing Mr chairman it's very disappointing that the intellectual dishonesty that is on display is it's it's shockingly abusive to the process I mean you can't tell the American people who are looking at this that to ex to include federal law enforcement officers in a resolution honoring the service of local and state law enforcement officers is irrelevant or non-germaine or out of order in some way the American people understand that law enforcement is law enforcement they understand that January 6 Capitol Hill police officers died they understand that federal law enforcement officers over the years have died over actually 650 have died from gunfire over the years 650 have died from gunfire federal law enforcement officers not to mention the seven fallen officers of the U.S Capitol Police Department two of whom have passed away within the last two years due to the insurrection and so we've had Law Enforcement Officers federal law enforcement officers who've given their lives to protect us they were the ultimate displays of Courage but yet this committee doesn't have the courage to vote up or down a germane amendment that simply seeks to add federal law enforcement officers to this resolution it's simple the American people understand it they're not getting thrown off track by uh talking about uh crime and by the way the crime that you speak of is caused by your policies in opening the floodgates for more guns on the street this is a failed experiment more guns does not mean more safe more guns means less safe but yet the response to the Republicans is always more guns we should be instead of a resolution to honor police today just state and local we should actually be using our time to make our police officers and to make the citizens of this country more safe by limiting guns by reversing the trend that you all have started and that you continue to adhere to that makes us less safe it's it's ridiculous that we would honor police officers at a time when we're making them less safe and refusing to do anything about it other than to offer prayers and to talk about how Brave they are when they respond to the next mass casualty event which could be taking place right as we speak and could be confronted by federal law enforcement officers coming to the aid of state and local officers every mass shooting that we have seen has involved a response by the FBI an ATF but yet you want to defund those two agencies so we've been doing a lot of talking today the American people see through it if we're going to honor police let's honor our state local and federal police moreover let's get past these messaging messaging bills and let's start doing what the American people want us to do and that is past some gun reform legislation to keep our communities safe Democrats have been making our communities safer voting on legislation to make our communities safer while Republicans have been stopping the legislation either in the house or in the Senate it's time for it to end it's time for the killing to stop it's time for the philosophy of more guns means more safety to go by the wayside less guns will make us more safe and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the chair is going to respond to the outrageous claim that there's hypocrisy hypocrisy going on here all the clutching of pearls is so far out of order and I'm going to clarify the record here for anyone who's watching at home high school students who are studying Civics and some on this committee who should understand the rules the rule is again let me State very simply what the rule is house rule 16 Clause 7 says that an amendment cannot introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us let me tell you why the last amendment by way of example was ruled out of order I've already explained this again but I'll give you further detail Miss scanlon's Amendment says on page 2 strike all that follows in the underlying bill after the resolving clause and insert the following that Congress acknowledges the United States capital attack on January 6 2021. the underlying bill says something very different it says be it resolved that Congress recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement who keep our communities safe and two condemns and condemns calls to defund disband and dismantle or abolish the police the reason everybody watching at home the reason that they're so anxious to change the language of the underlying legislation is because the last sentence that I just read you that last Clause because this resolution condemns calls to defund disband dismantle or abolish the police they're all on record including the ranking member who just clutched his pearls and told me that I was out of order here he is on record saying that he wanted to defund the police I'm not going to yield you guys have talked enough and you've all accused us of abusing the rules this re this amendment just like the ones before it is a blatant violation of house rule 16 Clause 7 it is not germane because it wants to talk about January 6 and it wants to get rid of the condemnation of the call to defund police which was their Mantra here until just recently because now we've seen the results I will yield if you have an amendment no I'm not going to yield to a question no you've talked enough Mr sicilina you don't get to decide that Mr chairman you don't get to decide it's my time and I'm not yielding okay then I asked recognition I'll yield back the gentleman's recognized thank you so I haven't talked enough apparently uh first of all Mr chairman this notion that the claim you just made that because you've concluded the amendment changes the purpose of the bill as a basis for rolling it not Germaine is just wrong there's no such test it's not whether or not you think it changes the purpose of the bill if God knows how we determine what the purpose of the bill is we thought the purpose of the bill was in fact to praise police to praise the local police but now you secretly let out what the real purpose of it is it's to claim that Democrats want to defund the police that's not the purpose of the bill this is a this is for Police Week to praise local law enforcement and support it's my time don't try it The Jig Is up you've been exposed we have ladies and gentlemen on the Democratic side sorry we've been laboring under the assumption that this was about praising local law enforcement because that's not what it's about so I'm going to give you one more chance Mr chairman yet again to redeem yourself and these rulings and offer an amendment oh the gentleman hasn't oh no I'm happy to yield to him just briefly I mean the the Chairman's comments that we were you know scared of that language I mean the amendment I offered maintained all of that language in fact you guys blocked or voted down I think four amendments that maintain the same language so that's clearly wrong but your Amendment did other things that would be on the scope as well no and look I imagine answered it's I'm not raising that again that's clearly not correct but you know I just wanted to point out that the statement you made about we're scared of the no it was in the language that you blocked us from offering to vote on thank you Mr Ivory excellent point okay I I reclaim my time I now have an amendment Mr chairman which is at the desk procedurally though yield back and then I'll I'll recognize you for the amendment purpose okay I yield back all right and the gentleman has an amendment at the desk the clerk report amendment to H con res 40 offered by Mr sicilini of Rhode Island without objection the amendment be considered as read in a zero point order the point of order is reserved by Mr Bach and the gentleman's recognized to explain his Amendment thank you Mr chairman I think this should finally withstand this effort to have all Democratic amendments declared not germane because you've already accepted the language uh in the Su um swallwell Amendment this simply uh adds language that says whereas gunvans continues to be the leading cause of line of duty deaths uh 64 on law enforcement officers were shot and killed while severing their communities uh guns violence continues to pose a serious threat to law enforcement children families in our communities and where whereas the law enforcement deaths by Gunman's reflect a 21 increase of historical average of firearms related deaths between 2010 and 2020 and just to avoid any concern we omit reference to state police agencies and just refer to local police agencies and in the final paragraph again say local police officers I think we finally fit through the eye of the needle it's all about local law enforcement language you've already accepted with respect to the swallow Amendment so I look forward to not only a ruling that it's Jermaine but also your support and I yield back the underlying resolution the underlying bill is to praise police and to condemn the effort to defund the police the it is not about January 6th it is uh it is not about uh strategies to address gun violence it is about praising the police plain and simple I will read if I can find it underneath all these amendments you want the underlying yeah thank you I will read the resolved two paragraphs again Congress recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement who keep our communities safe and condemns calls to defund disband dismantle or abolish the police that is the purpose of this and the offered amendment is not germane does the sponsor of the amendment uh wish to be heard on the point of order yes I I don't know how this one to watch Mr chairman because you've already ruled that the amendment offered by Congressman swalwell was Jermaine and that this amendment that I offered today again speaks about protecting police officers uh and I will just read it whereas police officers face increasing dangerous guns proliferate across our nation whereas the police organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police the International Association of chiefs of police and major City Chiefs have supported legislation to curb gun bonds by expanding background checks and enacting extreme risk protections while opposing bills that would require states to recognize all concealed carry prints from other states whereas despite the objections and safety concerns expressed by local police agencies organizations and officers right-wing state legislators have eliminated permit and training requirements to carry handguns in public and whereas high-powered Farms with armor-piercing bullets pose a continued risk to police officers you have already ruled that language that really just strengthens the underlying purpose of the resolution is in order so I don't know how you can now determine other than you like Eric swallow and you don't like me which uh I'll which I hope is not the case but I'll yield to Mr Nadler certainly not thank you I do I agree with everything that uh Mr sicilinia said I just want to tell you the hypocrisy here uh we've been in contact with a former uh parliamentarian to the house has been watching these proceedings on TV and he says every single amendment was in order because striking a clause in the Preamble is per se Jermaine neither Edge nor subtract and police by definition means all police and that includes the January 6th police it includes anything else so I just want to tell you that's just another confirmation of your hypocrisy are you back to Mr and I I yield uh as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from uh North Carolina thank you Mr sicilini just want to remind the committee that last time we took up bills during for National Police um appreciation week we took up the actual bills that the police asked us to take up um and we did pass them through the house and this amendment involves the actual bills that the police would like us to take up um including all of my local law enforcement and I just want to thank Mr sicilini for the second year in a row for listening to local law enforcement and bringing before this committee the things that local police actually care about and I yield back to Mr Sicily thank you and I would just say Mr chairman to conclude that this amendment is not your main you would have to conclude that recognizing the dangers that local law enforcement faced from gun violence is wholly unrelated to any resolution which recognizes their heroism and thanks them for their service to our communities that just is impossible to reconcile unless you are make a complete mockery of the dangers that the men and women who serve in local law enforcement face every day the two are completely connected and so this one I want to watch as you roll does that mean the gentleman yields back and I would just say finally that you specifically talk about putting local law enforcement in particular danger in the very language of the underlying resolution so how is it possible when my Amendment simply amplifies another danger that law enforcement faces every single day that somehow it is wholly unrelated so as to be a different subject matter not properly considered during this markup and I yield back gentleman yields back does anyone else seek recognition on the point of order cheers prepared to rule Mrs Sicilian you pay attention you want to hear this you want to see it um the amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purpose test before you ball wait let me explain explain because you you cut out the second resolution Clause the important sentence about defunding police that the sponsor of legislation just said was was Central to his this is not a warehouse Clause it's the resolution you're changing the scope of the legislation by striking that out Mr chairman you can always limit the scope of a bill by an amendment you can always limit it this that's not that doesn't go to its it changes the purpose of the gentleman's business there's no such thing that says you can't change the purpose of the thing and should be voted on you don't get to decide what the purpose of the underlying resolution is Mr chairman so it's when do we have argument while the chair is making a ruling I'm in a chair started being so absurd I mean oh wait a minute hold on wait a minute Mr ranking member I sat under lots of absurd decisions from you all right let me read you section seven under house rule 16 is Clause 7 fundamental purpose another chest used by the chair in determining germainus is one in which the fundamental purpose of the bill is compared with the fundamental purpose of the amendment see manual section 933 if the purpose or objective of an amendment is unrelated to that of the bill and which is offered the amendment may be let me finish uh that's eight Canon section 2911. the test is particularly applicable to an amendment in the Nature's substitute okay if the purpose well it gives lots of examples all right let me let me say this the parliamentarian who's watching by on television who is I'm sure a Democrat parliamentarian or would not have had Mr nadler's cell number let me tell you that this does in the view of this chair and this parliamentarian expand uh or change the purpose of the bill before us and so our interpretation of house rule 16 Clause 7 is that it is not germane now the other side is going to disagree but that's the beauty of our system we the majority party is in the chair makes decisions it's appealable it's subject to table we've gone through that process here this is this this is the way this works and always has and there are thousands of of uh of examples of this and precedent that has been set in a Judiciary Committee and its storied history so Mr chairman for no you're no I'm not you're not recognized so for all of the um of the drama here um that is the ruling of the chair and I yield back I appeal the ruling of the chair the appeal the ruling is appealed this gentleman seeks table motion to table the appeal is made and the uh clerk will call the role Mr Jordan Mr Jordan Mr Jordan votes yes Mr Isa Mr Buck Mr Buck votes yes Mr Gates Mr Johnson of Louisiana yes Mr Johnson of Louisiana votes yes Mr Biggs Mr Biggs votes yes Mr McClintock Mr Tiffany aye Mr Tiffany votes aye Mr Massey Mr Roy Mr Bishop Miss spartz Mr Fitzgerald Mr bence Mr Klein Mr Klein votes aye Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes yes Mr Nels Mr Nels votes yes Mr Moore Mr Moore votes yes Mr Kiley Miss Hagerman Miss Hagerman votes yes Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Hunt votes yes Mr Frye Mr Fry votes yes Mr Nadler no Mr Nadler votes no Miss Lofgren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson of Georgia Mr Johnson of Georgia votes no Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes no Mr sicilini Mr sicilini votes no Mr swalwell Mr swallow votes no Mr Lou Miss jayapal Mr Correa Miss Scanlon Mr nagoos Miss Macbeth no Miss mcbath votes no Miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Escobar votes no Miss Ross Miss Ross votes no Miss bush Mr Ivy no Mr Ivy votes no remember gentleman from California yes Mr Gooden Mr good I'm good on votes yes okay I think uh I think any member Mr Biggs gentleman from Arizona you voted okay I think the clerk can report Mr chairman there are 14 eyes and nine nose uh the motion to table it prevails um reporting gentleman from California is recognized Mr chairman of an amendment at the desk clerk will report amendment to H Conrad's 40 offered by Mr schifferent from Arizona reserves a point of order they uh without objection the amendment will be considered as read the gentleman from California is recognized for his Amendment I think Mr chairman uh the amendment is very simple it inserts language expressing opposition to the abolish the ATF Act of 2023 which would eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and explosives immediately after that Bill's enactment it expresses opposition to that bill is a dangerous effort to defund the police and harm local law enforcement and just in case members are unfamiliar with what we would be abolishing under that legislation the ATS responsibilities include investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use manufacture and possession of firearms and explosives I was led to believe for many years that the Republican Mantra was we don't need any new gun laws we should enforce the ones that we have but apparently today they don't even want those laws enforced more than that the ATF also combats illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco I guess my GOP friends don't think we should be doing that either the ATF also operates a fire research laboratory where they examine ways of detecting criminal arson I guess we want to abolish their ability to do that ATF uses its legislative mandate to investigate investigate and recommend prosecution of offenders to reduce the level of violent crime enhance Public Safety I guess we want to abolish those efforts ATF strives to increase state and local awareness of available Federal prosecution under the statutes and works to curb the illegal use of firearms enforce Farm laws ATF issues Firearms licenses I guess we don't want to issue any Firearms licenses anymore either they also work on combating the import manufacturer and dealing in explosive materials so I guess we're going to abolish those efforts um so as well as the Special Response teams which are Elite Tactical groups that respond to high-risk law enforcement operations so we don't want them to be able to do that in conjunction with local law enforcement so um that's what that bill would do Mr Gates Bill uh it is you know one of the clearest efforts to defund law enforcement and given that this underlying bill is about expressing our opposition to efforts to defund law enforcement I presume I'll have the support of my colleagues to express opposition to that effort um and uh and I'm happy to yield to my Republican colleagues if they want to express support for Mr Gates efforts to defund the ATF what any of my Republican colleagues like to express their support from Mr Gates efforts to defund the ATF I I think we're going to get to that would uh I think we're going to get to that Mr chair Mr Jordan would you like to me to Yale do you express your support for Mr Gates legislation to yield to I'm gonna I'm gonna yield to Mr Gates no no I'm yelling to you Mr Jordan well I wanted to let me know I want to listen to Mr Gates commissioner arguments that I know will be sure my time I'd be happy to yield to you for the purpose I appreciate your willingness Mr Jordan if you let me finish I will uh it is my time I'm happy to yield to you for the purpose of saying yes or no whether you support Mr Gates efforts to defund the ATF do you Mr Jordan I support Mr Gates effort to send a message to the ATF which is what he says to support the legislation to uh defund the answer you say that I said I support his efforts to send a message Bill that Mr Gates has introduced changed the rule after 10 years of telling American citizens that it would it would abolish it would eliminate the bureau immediately after enactment do you support that Mr Jordan yes or no I've given my answer do you support it give him my answer yes or no Ms Jordan give him my answer okay I guess your answers you don't support it or or you're afraid to say that you do but I I'm hoping I'm happy to yield to Mr Johnson or Mr Biggs or Mr McClintock Mr Tiffany Mr Massey anyone anyone else like to join Mr Gates and anyone anyone like to any like anyone like to express their support from Mr Gates effort to abolish an entire federal law enforcement agency anyone over there Mr I said you support abolishing the ATF thank you for yielding I uh it's a yes or no you and I have served here for 20 almost 22. reclaiming my time I'm not getting a yes or no from anything I was getting to that well yes or no I'm sorry what I was saying is yes or no it took 22 years to see yesterday the deposition of your colleagues apparently Mr Gates is the only one willing to publicly say he supports defunding the ATF maybe that's progress and and I hope that will mean it's going to be a vote I think this is going to be a vote you're going to know here I hope that my colleagues who accept the amendment uh claiming my time you don't have any time to reclaim well I would if you hadn't been speaking over it all of you you ask us all the questions well and what's the answer from Arizona what's the answer do you support people do you support abolishing the ATF Mr Jordan the gentleman from Florida is recognized thank you I greatly appreciate this interest in the legislation I've offered and many of the feature years of government that are important that Mr Schiff points out occur in other areas they don't occur only in the ATF now the ATF is an agency that has totally exceeded any sense of authorization and by the way it's not even an authorized entity of government it just continues to get funded and what have they done with that funding not according to me but according to the Department of Justice's own Inspector General they have failed to secure their facilities and then they have violated people's civil liberties and rights by maintaining electronic records that they have no legal authority to maintain did they do that to just a few will the gentleman yield hundreds of thousands of times they broke the law and the reason that that's problematic in Florida with which the ATF continues to grow beyond their limits is because they are now imposing on I'm defending my bills shift on they are now imposing on regular Americans a sense of zero tolerance that isn't for Public Safety they're putting people out of business like those who are contacting each of our offices who have some scrivener's error or technical violation that oftentimes isn't even the fault of the individual that the ATF is bringing Hellfire down on from a regulatory sense so yes I do believe that the current structure of the ATF is absolutely not worth vindicating or funding or continuing in its operational setting in that case we do yield Mr Gates I'll yield Mr Gates can you identify any of your Republican colleagues on this committee who are supporting your bill well I I can identify one and then I'll get back to my remark Mr Biggs is a co-sponsor I don't know if anybody else is I'd invite your co-sponsor so there are people here look we're going to say two of the Republican members who favor police agencies I tell you what you can get on the list I control the time and you can get on and see that there's a handful of members who've co-sponsored the legislation I I would encourage everyone to do so because the ATF has been weaponized and again I repeat this is not a partisan conclusion the Department of Justice Inspector General was appointed by President Obama he's an Obama appointee and not only do they point out the high frequency at which the ATF violates the law then they point out the recalcitrance of that agency to even follow the recommendations that have been set forth by the Inspector General so sometimes when you get an agency that goes Rogue as the ATF has it is the right time to start with a fresh sheet of paper and that is not to say that every function of the ATF is a bad function of government it is saying that this particular agency cannot meet those functions and that's a position that's held not just by me not just by by my co-sponsors some of whom at least one of whom is on this committee it's something that at least in the factual articulations of the deficiencies of the agency is articulated by inspectors General there's also a GAO report there's also a GAO report that goes over records maintenance that excoriates the ATF and that is also not a partisan entity that is a nonpartisan entity that has a watchdog where the gentleman yield for a question I'll yield if you acknowledge that there are multiple functions that the ATF currently performs that should not be abolished wouldn't it have made sense to say in your bill other than we're abolishing the ATF immediately to provide some sort of transition for those functions to other agencies to transition for the funding I would attending cases certainly something I'd be willing to work with you on I'm not I'm open-minded I don't want to get rid of this function so I'm not working that's the problem right you don't want to get rid Democrats I'm sorry I'll address the chairs as we're entitled to do my my objective here with with house Democrats is to try to build a system that in here adheres to the values that many house Democrats used to espouse regarding protecting individuals from too much government surveillance and too much government overreach and the ATF has done that that has been the conclusion of multiple entities that have observed their conduct they haven't fixed the things that they were told wrong and so yes I would start with a blank sheet of paper and I don't think support for my measure in any way buying someone of the theory that these functions of government are not appropriate but I do not trust the ATF to do those things I really don't I think that they're too busy going after law-abiding gun owners and because I don't use them to do the importance so you you literally want to abolish now earlier you said it was a shout across the bow you literally want to abolish the agency in Toto immediately I would I would get rid of the funding we currently have through functions and I would reorient it where it does not go through ATF and I would work on I would start that work tomorrow gentleman's time has expired Houston recognition the question the question occurs on uh the amendment from the gentleman from California all those in favor say yes all right or I all those opposed say no no opinion of the chair is the nose have it the chairman another request recorded vote recorded vote is requested that uh clerk will call the roll Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Buck Mr Buck votes no Mr Gates Mr Gates votes no Mr Johnson Louisiana Mr Johnson of Louisiana votes no Mr Biggs Mr McClintock Mr Tiffany no Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massey Mr Roy Mr Bishop Miss spartz Mr Fitzgerald Mr bentz Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr goodin Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes no Mr Nells Mr Nels votes no Mr Moore no Mr Moore votes no Mr Kiley Mr Kiley votes no Ms Hageman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Hunt votes no Mr Frye Mr Fry votes no Mr Nadler aye Mr Nadler votes I miss Lofgren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson of Georgia Mr Johnson of Georgia votes yes Mr Schiff aye Mr schiffert's aye Mr sicilini aye Mr sicilini votes I Mr swalwell Mr spaldo votes yes Mr Liu Miss jayapal Mr Correa Miss Scanlon Mr nagoos Ms mcbath yes Miss mcbath votes yes Miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Escobar votes yes Miss Ross hi Miss Ross votes aye Ms bush Mr Ivy aye Mr Ivy votes aye Mr I see you're not recorded Mr ISO votes no um chairman how am I recorded generally from Texas Miss Jackson Lee you're not recorded I'll vote I am enthusiastically leave out I know uh gentlelady from Pennsylvania Miss Dean you're not recorded Miss Dean votes yet are we good excuse me clerk report oh I'm sorry that's right Mr Paul votes yes Mr chairman there are 12 eyes and 14 nose uh the amendment is not agreed amendment's not agreed to okay getting them all in before you go aren't you I'm a slow learner I think I have an amendment at the desk that Jermaine if I follow the logic gentleman from Rhode Island when does the gentleman actually head back to Royal I'm not that way 31st I thought it was this month yeah we're gonna we're gonna miss you but still we'll still see what this amendment's about gentlemen is recognize report the gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order amendment to H conrades 40 offered by Mr sicilini with objects in the member you uh considered as read uh the the gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized thank you Mr chairman this amendment is the same amendment I just offered a moment ago with one modification to respond to the parliamentarian's concern well sorry the acting Chairman's concern when he ruled it not Germaine he ruled not germane because it struck language at lines seven through eight and changed the purpose of the bill according to Mr Johnson so this amendment just introduces new language it does not strike lines seven through eight it's otherwise the same Amendment so I think it is now Jermaine and I urge my colleagues to support it I'll draw my point of order uh the gentleman gentleman from Florida withdraw this point of order who seeks recognition the gentleman from Louisiana is recognizing I'd just like to point out to Mrs sicilini the system does work my friend assistant does work um gentleman yields back question occurs on the amendment all those in favor say yes all right all those opposed no no in the opinion the chairs the nose have it the chairman asked for a recorded vote gentlemen from Rhode Island asked for a recorded vote clerk will call the roll Mr Jordan no Mr Jordan votes no Mr Isa Mr Isa votes no Mr Buck Mr Buck votes no Mr Gates Mr Gates votes no Mr Johnson Louisiana Mr Johnson of Louisiana votes no Mr Biggs Mr McClintock Mr McClintock votes no Mr Tiffany Mr Tiffany votes no Mr Massey Mr Roy Mr Bishop Miss spartz Mr Fitzgerald Mr bence Mr Klein Mr Klein votes no Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes no Mr Nells Mr Nels votes no Mr Moore Mr Moore votes no Mr Kiley Mr Kiley votes no Ms Hageman Miss Hageman votes no Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Hunt votes no Mr Frye Mr Nadler aye Mr Nadler votes aye Ms Lofgren Miss Jackson Lee Miss Jackson Lee Miss Jackson Lee votes I Mr Cohen Mr Johnson of Georgia Mr Johnson of Georgia votes I Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes I Mr sicilini Mr sicilini votes I Mr swallow Mr swallow votes I Mr Lou Miss jayapal votes I Mr Correa Miss Scanlon Mr nagoos Miss mcbath I miss mcbathwood's I miss Dean Miss Dean votes I miss Escobar Miss Escobar votes I miss Ross Miss bush Mr ivy hi Mr Ivy votes I all members voted clerk will report Mr chairman there are 11 eyes and 14 nose uh the amendment is not agreed to reporting Quorum being present the question is uh unfavorably reporting the resolution all those in favor say yes yes all those opposed no no opinion the chair the the eyes have it and the resolution is ordered to be reported favored to the house members will have two days submit views without objection you want to roll call dude roll call please roll call being requested the clerk will call the rule roll call being withdrawn the resolution passes and we uh the uh resolution is ordered to be reported favored to the house members will have two days to submit views without objection staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes we need Mr Fitzgerald Harry it's got okay pursuant to notice I call up hr288 the separation of powers restoration act for purposes of markup and move that the Committee reported favorably to the house the clerk will report the bill H.R 288 that objection can still be considered as read and open for Amendment at any point the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming Miss hegeman for an opening statement thank you our chairman I strongly support representative Fitzgerald's separation of powers restoration Act and I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation judicial deference is a harmful Doctrine placing the American people in a distinct disadvantage in court when going up against what has become an all too powerful administrative state separation of powers is the foundation of our constitution guaranteeing our right to a republican form of governance while checking the tyranny of mandates by Fiat the modern administrative state stands in Stark contract contrast to this model and the creation of the deference doctrines has only further appended this separation of powers pursuant to which federal agencies oftentimes not only diminish but sometimes outright ignore Congressional intent with deference than allowing them to also infringe on judicial review so I want to thank Mr Fitzgerald for offering this bill to level the playing field by requiring courts to use de novo review of all relevant questions of Law and to discontinue our judicial Branch's willingness to allow unelected bureaucrats to do their jobs I also believe it is important to clarify the intent of this legislation providing for denova review of all relevant questions of law including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules made by agencies as the bill outlines is not intended to be a limiting statement it cannot be a limiting statement if we are to fulfill our goal of reigning in the administrative State this means addressing the array of issues that may arise under the administrative procedure Act One such issue is the question of agency guidance described as informal non-legislative rules or documents which constitute an agency statement of General applicability intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties that set forth a policy on a statutory regulatory or technical issue or an interpretation of a statute or regulation these forms of guidance don't follow the notice and comment requirements of the APA and don't have the force of law yet we have seen a growing Trend whereby administrative agencies attempt to use guidance to make new law while at the same time avoiding the APA process and then argue that such guidance is not reviewable by the courts because it does not constitute final agency action they compound the problem by then seeking to have the courts defer to their opinions in that regard because guidance is by definition intended to guide something related to a statute of Regulation it must also be subject to an over review under this bill's language it is for this reason that this bill is not limited in scope it follows from the text of the bill and it is the intent behind the bill the judicial de novo review of all relevant questions of law includes questions of law surrounding agency guidance if we are to carry out the mission the American people tasked us with when they gave us the majority which includes reigning in the abusive federal agencies we must include the growing area of abuse as represented by agency guidance the fact is that deference unfairly pits the administrative State against the American people it further undermines our rights by distorting the intent of the laws as written by our elected representatives it also undermines the very purpose of judicial review by creating systemic judicial bias in favor of administrative agencies which at this point in time have become far too powerful and far too dictatorial in their actions correcting this harmful construct of deference to agencies including the guidance that they issue is one of the most important tasks we can take on and this is an important piece of legislation I am proud to support this bill and urge all of my colleagues to do so as well I also request unanimous consent to introduce an article published in the Wall Street Journal on May 9 2023 entitled The Deep state is all too real written by former DOI secretary David Bernhardt thank you Mr chairman and I yield back the lady yields back the chair and I recognize the ranking member Mr Nader for an opening statement thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman H.R 288 the so-called separation of powers restoration act would completely upend the administrative process by eliminating the judicial deference to agencies in requiring federal courts to review all agency rule makers and interpretations of statute on a de novo basis more than 30 years ago the Supreme Court held in Chevron USA Inc versus natural resource defense Council the courts must give quote considerable weight to an agency's construction of a statute it administers this makes sense because while Congress sets broad policies we delegate authorities to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise to craft technical regulations ourselves we do not have the expertise to decide how many parts per billion of arsenic in the atmosphere is safe or how many parts per billion of lead from uh automobile tailpipes in the air is safe under the Chevron Doctrine courts respect the careful process undertaking by the dedicated professionals and our federal agencies many of whom have Decades of experience and vast technical expertise and they give deference to an agency's interpretation of a statutory Authority if the interpretation is determined to be reasonable the Chevron Doctrine has been the ruling precedent for judicial review of agency decisions for decades it rests on the presumption that Congress intended to task agencies with enforcing the laws and carrying out the policies that Congress passed it is therefore in the hands of Congress to change any presumption of legislative intent but instead of taking a careful and deliberate approach to provide more guidance to agencies and thus reviewing courts as to what congressweetches agencies to do the majority is using a broad Bill to undermine a long-standing precedence set by the Supreme Court a move that would throw uncertainty into the entire rulemaking process and grind Court's review of agency action to a stop in addition this bill would Empower judges to completely override the determinations of agency experts and to substitute their own judgment regardless of their comparative lack of technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter thus this legislation would put consumers in consumers in danger by allowing a judge to undermine and second guess the carefully crafted and scientifically based actions Decisions by agencies is the height of hypocrisy for the party that rails against what equals judicial activism to support legislation that is the very embodiment of judicial activism by eliminating judicial deference to agencies this bill would empower the courts to make public policy From the Bench ignoring the careful consideration and Technical expertise of executive agencies H.R 288 would also make the federal rulemaking process even more time consuming and costly as leaning administrative law experts have found the current process of agency rulemaking takes considerable agency time and resources by eliminating deference to agencies this legislation would exacerbate this problem by forcing agencies to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations in order to withstand judicial scrutiny which would further delay the finalization of critical life-saving regulations these are regulations that protect the quality of the air we breathe and what do we drink the food we consume the safety of the products we use slowing down the rulemaking process for these vital health and safety protections would put the lives of Americans at greater risk H.R 288 could also have the perverse effect of undermining the agency rulemaking process in favor of corporate interests as a nonpartisan Congressional research service has observed public participation and agency decision making is highly sensitive to cost and delay by imposing greater scrutiny of agency rulemaking the bill would skew the fact-finding process in favor of those with significant resources large corporate interests devoted only to maximizing profits for the benefits of shareholders already have the edge in this process with their vast resources to weaken regulatory standards by burying an agency with paperwork demands and litigation rather than giving more opportunities for corporate interests to Prevail we should be evaluating ways to ensure that the voices of the public have a greater role in the rule-making process through proposals like the stop corporate capture act which would bring more transparency and more accountability to the rulemaking process this legislation is just the latest step in the Republicans decades-long assault on the regulatory process trying to add hurdle after hurdle on the ability to issue regulations that protect public health and safety regulations whose benefits consistently outweigh their costs Often by many multiples I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerously flawed legislation and I yield back the balance of my Time gentleman yields back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida oh excuse me that's right you have a nature nature of the substance I want to go to miss Hagman I apologize gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized thank you Mr chairman this is an amendment in the nature of a substitute and I have an amendment at the desk the clerk will report amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr2a on objection Amendment initiative we consider as written shall be considered base text for the purpose of the amendment the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming this amendment provides that the separation and Powers restoration Act of 2023 may be cited by its acronym sopra sopra this changed more readily allows this bill to be cited by its commonly known acronym when it is passed into law and it is not intended in any way to alter the important purpose of this bill I urge its adoption and I yield a balance of my time thank yields back physics recognition gentleman from Florida is recognized thank you Mr chairman I used to believe exactly what my colleague from Wyoming used to believe about this legislation and I used to believe it for exactly the same reasons that she laid out because it is true that concerns about a growing administrative state are ones that are commonly held throughout the country and certainly commonly held by a majority on this committee but I have encountered a good amount of conservative scholarship that defends the Chevron decision which is really what this legislation would overrule the Chevron decision set forth the principle that in the absence of an ability to determine Congressional legislative intent that rather than the court starting from scratch that there would be some deference not unovercomeable but some deference given to the agencies and um Justice the late Justice Scalia wrote very strongly in defense of the Chevron legislation and against uh what would what would really or the Chevron decision and against what this legislation would bring and he spoke specifically to this matter and he said it far better than I could so I'll read from the late Justice scalia's writings on this matter quote the extent to which courts should defer to agency interpretations of law is ultimately a function of congress's intent on the subject as revealed in the particular statutory scheme an ambiguity in a statute committed to an agency implementation can be attributed to either of two Congressional desires one Congress intended a particular result but wasn't clear about it or two that Congress had no particular intent on the subject but meant to leave the resolution solution to the agency when the former is the case what we have is genuinely a question of law properly resolved by the courts but when the latter is the case when we have a conferral of discretion upon the agency the only question of the law presented to the courts is whether the agency has acted within the scope of its discretion and chairman nalar is entirely correct when he talks about uh the the critique on the right of judicial activism running right up against the ideology that undergirds this legislation you cannot critique judicial activism as so many on the right of dawn for decades and then say but what we really want as a result of sopra is a more activist to judiciary uh Scalia continues in the vast majority of cases I expect that Congress neither one intended a single result or two meant to convert discretion on an agency but rather three didn't think about the matter at all if I am correct then any rule adopted in this field results from a fictional presumed intent and operates principally as a background rule of law against which Congress can legislate if that is the principal function to be served Chevron is unquestionably better than what preceded it Congress now knows that the ambiguity it creates whether intentionally or unintentionally will be resolved within the bounds of permission permissible interpretation not by the courts but by a particular agency whose biases are well known Scalia writes if we have to serve up these questions to an entity other than Congress at least with the agencies there's a greater degree of predictability with the courts and that is no defense of the agencies so much as it is a critique of the federal court system and the disparate outcomes that can be created in scalia's PC also talks about the need for government flexibility and observes that if the court always has to overrule itself it does so vary begrudgingly infrequent circumstances whereas agencies admitting they get it wrong is not wrong as to a de novo question of law but wrong as to a particular series of events and Scalia Pines that government is is better served under that observation there's also substantial historical a basis for Chevron you uh even had Hamilton writing about the important uh importance of energy in the executive Madison at the Constitutional at the Constitutional Convention talked about this argument he said that when choosing between the executive and the Judiciary quote the former must get greater latitude than the latter in the administration of the country and so if that is the case there's historical precedent I know the new fat the newfangled a concern of conservatives is the growing administrative State and I share that concern but I think that the we don't disagree on the problem I think just as Ms Hageman laid it out she perfectly laid out the problem but I think the antidote to the problem isn't to overrule Chevron it is to do a better job in Congress of being clear as to our intent and then to leave fewer of these decisions to these ambiguities I yield back gentleman's time has expired I think the gentleman from Texas some say that Texas and Florida has much or some in common I hesitate to go there because um a good friend knows that there are challenges in Florida that I cannot counter he might have something to say about Texas but we overcome it with good barbecue but I must say as a gentleman has enunciated some principles that I think are extremely valid I would take his last sentence maybe we need to be better at clarification but the American excuse me the administrative procedure act has been implemented since 1946 and we have been able to live under the APA in fact I remember one of my less interesting but very vital classes in law school was the administrative procedure Act that gave a basis for the complementary aspect of government that fits alongside of executive orders judicial decisions legislative actions in the United States Congress and so to weaken that construct that has added to the Democratic process of this nation is the direction in which I would like to go and it seems to me that the gentleman from Florida has made even further uh advocacies including the chevron case that there is value to not having a protracted judicial review of an administrative procedure uh action that may have taken quite a bit of extensive writing research and yes the input of the American people as you well know once you put a regulation out there is a period of time 30 60 or more days and even gets extended for there to be comment in that instance the comment is not Republicans and Democrats it's everyone including those who are specifically impacted or engaged in the particular topical issue so the department of energy can have if you will regulations and the energy industry participates and provides insight and light to whatever the issue is some person could be where they want to challenge it and if we loosen uh or lessen the deference to that process then we have protracted long judicial proceedings I think that what is being attempted to do here is one that we should hesitate now I don't want to scare away persons who may be supporting the theory and thesis of my good friend from Florida but I'm obviously in the corner of the Food and Drug administration's long years or long years of having a particular pill that did not harm anyone and they did it on their research they did it through their processes it was open to the public comment I assume medical professionals at that time uh pharmaceutical industry might have commented at that time uh and we've come full circle because we've got ourselves in the Quagmire of trying to interfere with the private choice and a religious choice and an emotional choice and a medical Choice by women of this country we call that Reproductive Rights but it may come up on many other issues many other issues and this does not negate the purpose for judicial review I think what this legislation is doing as I read it it is extending what we're looking to do is to not have the courts to go de novo on a matter that has been thoroughly researched and approved by an administrative process some of the administration agencies have boards they have they have appointees that come from both sides of the aisle and so it's been vetted in that way as well Rules by agencies and constitutional and statutory provisions are all part of this process so I would make the argument that I don't know if we want to add yet another layer of um interference with the necessary operation of government that has already been accused of not being Timely being dilatory being delayed when we can take the effective work of our agencies Centers for Disease Control issued some rules that from my perspective saved lives Food and Drug Administration has been the Stella agency internationally internationally a drug gets its star points when it gets the fda's approval and the world watches that happen so I'll conclude my remarks Mr chairman your generosity is that I believe that this legislation goes too far in impacting negativity the running of government I asked expired and yields back the generally from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes uh having been a practitioner for over 30 years and having many cases against federal agencies I can assure you the car that the courts have moved well beyond deferring to regulatory agencies in an ambiguous situations I'm going to read some of the language from the rapido's decision that was issued by the United States Supreme Court in 2006 as a way to emphasize this point according to the decision in that case the burden of Federal Regulation on those who would deposit film material in locations that are denominated as navigable Waters of the United States is not trivial in deciding to whether to Grant or deny a permit the U.S Army Corps of Engineers exercises the discretion of an enlightened despot relying on such factors as economics the Aesthetics Recreation and in general the needs and Welfare of the people the average applicant for an individual permit spends 788 days and 271 596 dollars in completing the process and the average applicant for nation wide permits spends 313 days and 28 915 dollars in seeking permits the enforcement proceedings against Mr rapinos are a small part of the immense expansion of Federal Regulation of land use that has occurred under the Clean Water Act without any change in the governing statute I will repeat that without any change in the governing statute during the past five presidential administrations in the last three decades the corps and the EPA have interpreted their jurisdiction over the navigable Waters of the United States to cover 270 to 300 million Acres of Swampy lands in the United States including half of Alaska and an area the size of California in the lower 48 states and that was just the beginning the court has also asserted jurisdiction over virtually any partial of land containing a Channel or conduit whether man-made or natural broader narrow permitted or ephemeral through which rain water or drainage may occur occasionally or intermittently flow on this view the federally regulated navigable Waters of the United States include storm drains roadside ditches ripples of sand in the desert that may contain water once a year and lands that are covered by flood waters once every 100 years because they include the land containing storm sewers and desert washes the statutory navigable Waters of the United States engulf and tiger cities and arid wastelands in fact the entire land area of the United States lies in some drainage basins Basin and an endless network of visible channels furrows the entire surface containing water ephemerally wherever the rain falls any plot of land containing such a channel May potentially be regulated as a quote navigable water of the United States why do I read that because courts have been deferring to that nonsense now for decades in terms of the immense expansion of the EPA and Corps of Engineers authority over what is defined in the act as a navigable water of the United States how have they been able to do that because the courts have been abdicating their responsibilities of deciding questions of la de novo and they have allowed the agencies to make those decisions that's why this act is so important the separation of powers restoration Act of 2023. I can understand what my colleague is saying about the concerns of Courts making the decisions but we're not talking about activist judges actually doing their job if they are if they are reviewing statutory and Regulatory documents laws de novo it is when they defer to the agencies that they fail to do their jobs having been someone who has tried numerous cases against the EPA for example or the Corps of Engineers or the USDA or the forest service or fish and wildlife service I can assure you that in when I represent farmers and ranchers oil and gas companies other other resource producers and small businesses when I walk in the courtroom because of the deference Doctrine typically what you're seeing is that I've already lost the case and then what I have to do is over try it because of the deference Doctrine so what the deference Doctrine actually does is it places the thumb on the scale of the administrative agency against the citizens of this country the exact opposite of what is the foundation of America and what is the foundation of our form of government we don't work for the government the government works for us yet with the deference Doctrine what has happened is these administrative agencies have have taken over so much power and authority simply by claiming that a statute or a regulation or even now a guidance document is ambiguous and therefore they must be the ones interpreted and the the courts need to stay out of it this is a good bill it it serves a great purpose of putting the Regulatory Agencies back in their Lane of only carrying out the law as Congress wrote it not actually interpreting it as our judicial branch is required to do with that I yield back generally yields back the gentleman from Georgia is recognized thank you Mr chairman uh I rise in opposition to this legislation there's a reason why Republicans have been about packing the United States Supreme Court over the last 40 years over the last 50 years to the point now where they have a 6-3 super majority of right-wing Republicans on the bench ruling in favor of Corporations the reason why they wanted to pack the quarters so that they could pass legislation like this which puts it in the hands of the United States Supreme Court to rule on agency rulemaking to be a super rule maker in other words to put the Supreme Court in a position to decide what is best for the health and safety and well-being of Americans through uh oversight of regulatory Authority the FDA for instance Food and Drug Administration when they issue a rule that would protect the health safety and well-being of Americans and they do that let's take methropestone for example a drug that induces uh miscarriages in women who are in need of that medical procedure they want a court that is empowered to overrule the agency rule making process and rule that uh that medication is not efficacious without any support without any factual basis without any expert factual basis they want to put the court in a position to do that and the court is uh basically packed at this point uh and a waiting uh Congressional passage of Regis of legislation like this so that they can do exactly what I said to do and which is to overrule agency rule making that will protect the health safety and well-being of Americans that agency rule making is based on laws passed by Congress laws uh that and I'll I'll point out the fact that if you expect every rule to be uh mandated or passed by the House of Representatives and then the Senate and then the president we basically would have no rules it would be a free market economy with no rules or regulations to protect the people this is what the Republicans want to accomplish in this country they want to do away with government that's why they talk about less government defund the government they want to they want to reduce the size of government to the point where you can strangle it in the bathtub that's why they have all signed on to the grover NorQuest no new tax pledge and so you know they are killing us they're killing us uh literally with their pursuit of free market capitalism so that the rich get richer the poor get poorer and there's no protection for the little guy for this health safety and well-being of the little guy so this legislation I uh I oppose it is a race to the bottom of our democracy for capitalism to take hold of freedom and to drive it into the dirt that is what this kind of legislation does to our ours are living here in this country is very destructive and um and it seems to be uh increasing its Stranglehold first you have Republicans who controlled the house offering legislation next they will want to control the Senate so that they can pass this legislation and then send it to the courts which they have packed which are then in position to do away with all regulations to protect health safety and well-being of Americans dangerous road to go down let's not do this I oppose this legislation and I yield back gentleman yields back chair recognized himself I don't want to do away with government I just want those who are elected to office by We The People by the American citizens to actually make the laws imagine that but that's not what the Democrats want that's not what they want they want to defer to the bureaucrats that's what Mr nandler said in his opening statement he said quote we don't have the expertise well who does the unelected bureaucrats the people in the agencies who never have to go out shake hands talk to the American people get elected to office the people who aren't elected by the American people I mean I leave it to the experts the Democrats said well who's the expert who ran Our Lives I've talked about this a lot because it drives me crazy who's the expert who ran our lives for the last three years who's the expert served longer in our government than anyone else the bureaucrat is Dr fauci Dr fauci the smartest man on the planet never been wrong accepted just about everything he told us about the virus remember when Dr pouchy said it wasn't our tax money that went to that lab in China wasn't right about that one remember when you said it wasn't gain of function research wrong about that one remember when he said the gentleman from the lab I will not remember he said it didn't come from the lab sure looks like it did remember when they told us the longest serving bureaucrat in the government the smartest man on the planet told us that the vaccinated couldn't get it remember when he told us that remember when he told us the vaccinated couldn't transmit the virus then he told us there's no natural immunity first virus in history no natural immunity that from the expert so I while I I appreciate the arguments from Mr Gates and I think he makes some good points and I think there is a balance here when we're talking about the courts and the agencies what bothers me the most and why I support the general ladies legislation is because I am so tired of this argument that we got to leave it to the experts the expert the bureaucrats who know more than the folks who actually go out and talk to the American people put their name on the ballot in the case of Congress every two years put their name on the ballot and get elected to office they should be making the decisions yield to the gentleman from New Jersey chairman I want to agree with you and I agree with the lady's legislation very much I I got to tell you I've had the uh I guess experience of being a state senator a state assemblyman a county commissioner a mayor I've dealt with a lot of regulatory agencies more than most people in Congress to be honest with you and to say that they always do a better job they're often very slow very bureaucratic very opinionated not by any means always right and Fouche you use the example which is the best one of all and on top of all the things that they do this is not the same regulatory agencies that we were used to when this process was started many years ago many of them are tied to politically and involved with politically people who want to get a certain outcome and I've seen it chairman I've seen it over and over again where they desire to have a particular outcome they work within the the agency and if you don't think that our president right now has effect on the agencies and what they're saying or doing or that other people don't in in positions of authority you're wrong it's an imperfect system I don't love the courts either being honest with you at all times but at least there you have a fair and expeditious chance to be heard and to have some some say in what the ultimate result is going to be so after the literal pain I've gone through dealing with these agencies and it could be dep which is the EPA of New Jersey or it can be the EPA or it can be the health organizations and by the way some of the examples that are used these folks have made horrific mistakes they've made terrible mistakes so in a court of law where you may have experts come and speak on both sides of an issue and intelligently thrash it out I think that there's value to that I think we should should really see that value and finally yes Congress should do a better job one thing you know legislative intent we want to have legislative intent where we really get something done but we get it done the way that we envision it these agencies change it our legislative intent how over half of the time is not the legislative intent that they see and they feel and that they enact so I think it's time we did something like this I support your bill one can disagree 's Bill and certainly not agree in deference to the agencies in every circumstance I would simply offer that bills like the Reigns act which we've debated in this committee might be better antidotes to the problem we plan on bringing that that's a great point from the gentleman from Florida uh we we do have votes that have been called on the floor I understand there are three and I believe have been told that we're getting a picture today is that this is it picture day today so the committee will recess because I understand the Democrats have some amendments they want to offer to this legislation I think that's accurate okay so we will recess and uh I will we will get a notice out to when we're going to come back I I want to talk with members and see what what they have this evening so we will probably come back this evening but it may be tomorrow I just want to check with our with our members and I'll check with the ranking members as well so with that the committee stands in recess

Channel: Forbes Breaking News

Views: 181,119

Keywords:

Id: Ds1OKJl-5ho

Length: 81min 57sec (4917 seconds)

Published: Wed May 10 2023