The House Rules Committee holds a hearing for pending legislation.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:00In objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Before we get
00:00:04into the bulk of today's business before the committee, I'm going to say a few
00:00:10words about the lawlessness and rioting on the part of protesters in Los Angeles
00:00:15over the last few days in response to ICE upholding the rule of law. Every
00:00:26aspersion and wild characterization in the book have been as every aspersion and
00:00:36wild characterization in the book have been thrown around online and within the
00:00:41media by those who have obvious animus towards this administration. There's
00:00:45nothing new. We've heard the same crowing for months by these same people. But
00:00:50here's what so many refuse to acknowledge, let alone accept. We are a
00:00:56nation of laws. If you come into our nation illegally, you're breaking the law. If you
00:01:02overstay your visa and refuse to return to your own country, you are breaking the law.
00:01:07No one is objecting to the right to protest peacefully. That right is historic
00:01:14and enshrined in the First Amendment and we all should support that. But what is
00:01:19not enshrined in the Constitution is what we've seen over the past few days in Los
00:01:25Angeles. People setting cars on fire, pelting federal agents and their vehicles
00:01:31with all matters of projectiles, and committing criminal acts that would land
00:01:36you in jail within the snap of a finger. The failure of both state and local
00:01:41officials to support the faithful execution of our laws is appalling. I'm sure
00:01:47our Democrat colleagues will attempt to pivot the conversation away from this
00:01:52lawlessness and direct their deeply harbored grievances toward an
00:01:57administration that's simply working to protect the safety and security of
00:02:02Americans. As President Trump said, order will be restored and these riots will be
00:02:08put to an end. Now on to our business today in the Rules Committee. Today the Rules
00:02:15Committee is convening to consider four separate measures, H.R. 884, H.R. 2056,
00:02:23H.R. 2096, and S. 331. H.R. 884 prohibits individuals who are not citizens of the United States from
00:02:34voting in elections in the District of Columbia and repeals the local resident
00:02:39voting rights amendment act of 2022. Let me make one thing abundantly clear. The only individuals who
00:02:47should be voting in American elections are American citizens. That's just a cold hard fact that some
00:02:54cannot stomach. Last May during the 118th Congress, the House passed an identical version of H.R. 884
00:03:03on a bipartisan basis. Given that the Senate did not take up this legislation and the District of
00:03:11Columbia's non-citizen voting law having gone into effect, we're here to correct this issue
00:03:17immediately. H.R. 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025 requires the
00:03:27District of Columbia to comply with all federal immigration laws. This legislation removes the
00:03:35District of Columbia's sanctuary jurisdiction laws and requires strict compliance with lawful detainer
00:03:43requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as the Department of Homeland Security.
00:03:50The D.C. City Council has a history of thumbing its nose at federal agencies such as Immigration and
00:03:57Customs Enforcement and Customs Enforcement, ICE, that are responsible for protecting national
00:04:03security and the safety and well-being of the American people. For example, in 2020 the Council
00:04:10enacted the Sanctuary Values Amendment Act. This prevents D.C. from learning about the immigration status
00:04:19of someone in custody and prevents the release of an individual for the purpose of transferring the person
00:04:26to a federal immigration agency. As the nation's capital, the District of Columbia should set a serious
00:04:34example that harboring illegal aliens and obstructing the work of federal law enforcement is not an option.
00:04:44It's time to end these sanctuary policies once and for all so that law and order can truly be restored.
00:04:51H.R. 2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, restores due process rights of
00:05:00officers who are part of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, MPD, and helps to confront crime in
00:05:07Washington, D.C. This legislation addresses two separate aims, restoring collective bargaining rights for MPD
00:05:16officers on disciplinary matters, and reinstating a statute of limitations on disciplinary cases to prevent
00:05:29indefinite investigations that undermine officer retention and recruitment. The D.C. City Council's
00:05:37anti-police policies have led to a serious reduction in force within MPD, and as a direct result,
00:05:46these officers do not have the support necessary to carry out their jobs and duties on a day-to-day basis.
00:05:54H.R. 2096 will change this by providing MPD with those resources that will lead to the recruitment
00:06:03of high-quality officers in the nation's capital, who will ensure that law and order is maintained,
00:06:10and that residents and visitors to the nation's capital are kept safe. Finally, regarding S-331,
00:06:18the HALT Fentanyl Act, we are working to tie a bow on this piece of legislation that has gained
00:06:25substantive bipartisan support and are very much looking forward to shipping it directly to President
00:06:31Trump's desk for his signature. With that, I look forward to today's discussion and now yield to the
00:06:38ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make.
00:06:42Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and since you brought up the situation in L.A., I feel I have to comment.
00:06:49First of all, let me be clear. The President is escalating this situation. This isn't just a
00:06:55disagreement about the right course of action or the appropriate way to enforce immigration laws.
00:07:00Hell, President Obama deported far more people than Trump, those with criminal records, and he did
00:07:06it responsibly and lawfully. He didn't need to call in the National Guard. And guess what? Trump didn't
00:07:13need to either. In fact, the governor didn't even ask for the National Guard to be called in. And I'm
00:07:19looking back at a quote from Donald Trump in 2020, after January 6th, when he was asked about why he
00:07:28didn't he call in the National Guard. He said, we have to go by the laws. We can't move in the National
00:07:33Guard. I can call insurrection, but there's no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case. We can't
00:07:40call in the National Guard unless we're requested by the governor. That's Donald Trump's words. But boy,
00:07:45he's changed his tune. Trump — and I gotta love this — Trump praised the National Guard for calming
00:07:51the situation. They weren't even there yet. They weren't even there yet. And he's praising them.
00:07:56Because this isn't about enforcing immigration laws. It's about creating a spectacle to justify
00:08:01his authoritarianism. This is what he wants. We learned today that Dr. Phil — yes, that Dr. Phil
00:08:09was embedded with ICE agents during the raids in California. Now, are you really going to try to
00:08:14tell me that this isn't a White House escalated, made-for-TV spectacle? Give me a break. That's
00:08:21exactly what this is. This is a manufactured crisis unnecessarily made, produced, and orchestrated
00:08:27by Donald Trump because he thinks it helps him politically. Constitution and simple human decency
00:08:33be damned. And let me be clear. Those who engage in violence — anyone who engages in violence — those
00:08:41that harm our law enforcement should be brought to justice. Period. But I support the right to
00:08:47peacefully protest in this country. So please, to my Republican colleagues, please, please,
00:08:53spare me. Spare me your lectures. Spare me your outrage. Spare me your crocodile tears
00:08:59for our brave first responders. You all and the president stand up and talk tough about supporting law
00:09:07enforcement. Trump said nobody's going to spit on our police officers. This is the same guy who,
00:09:13four months ago, pardoned people who beat police officers with pipes, baseball bats, flagpoles,
00:09:20and two-by-fours. You all can't even bring yourselves to hang the plaque honoring law enforcement that
00:09:26protected you and defended this building that day — a plaque that the law requires you to hang.
00:09:32So until my friends condemn the pardons by President Trump of the violent criminals that assaulted our
00:09:39police on January 6th during an insurrection on our nation's capital, until you recognize the brave
00:09:46law enforcement that day, then you have no credibility to speak on the issue of violent protests against
00:09:52law enforcement. Madam Chair, now to get to the business at hand. We've got a long week ahead,
00:10:00so let me get straight to the point. Today's bills are nothing new. It's more of the same from House
00:10:05Republicans — more power grabs and more empty rhetoric — all to distract from the fact that
00:10:10two weeks ago you all voted to give billionaires tax breaks by robbing hard-working families of things
00:10:16like health care and food. Three of the bills this week meddle in D.C.'s local governance. They either
00:10:23chase problems that don't exist or duplicate efforts already being handled by the district's local
00:10:28government. What this makes clear is that Republicans are not interested in solutions. They're interested
00:10:34in control. Because if my Republican colleagues were serious about making D.C. safer, as they claim,
00:10:40the first thing they would do is restore the $1 billion in the district's funding that they slashed
00:10:46earlier this year. To be clear, this is D.C.'s local taxpayer money, not federal money. We are talking about
00:10:54the city being able to spend their own money. How would you like it if the federal government
00:10:59came into Boone, North Carolina, or Madisonville, Kentucky, or Rock Hill, South Carolina, and they
00:11:05told your local governments that we are taking away half of your budget funded by your local taxpayers?
00:11:11$1 billion was taken from D.C.'s budget by February's continuing resolution — money that is crucial to
00:11:19support the public safety programs, social services, and infrastructure that residents and tourists alike
00:11:25rely on. And in case you don't know, the Senate already passed the fix. Donald Trump says he supports
00:11:32it and has asked for you all to pass it. So why are we still waiting? Why push a political agenda
00:11:40instead of letting this city spend its own money necessary to address these issues? Is this really about
00:11:46public safety and the rule of law? Are just more performative politics? The other bill this week
00:11:53makes formatting changes to the Halt Fentanyl Act, a bill that the House has already passed in February.
00:12:00Look, two things can be true. The fentanyl crisis is deadly serious, and we have a responsibility to act.
00:12:07But the action has to be real. That means stopping dangerous drugs from entering our communities
00:12:14and investing in the treatment and support systems that help people recover. But while Republicans
00:12:22talk a big game about stopping fentanyl, they are slashing funding for mental health services,
00:12:28addiction treatment, and even Medicaid, foundational for supporting our most vulnerable in their recovery.
00:12:35You can't claim to care about fighting addiction while gutting the very programs that make recovery
00:12:41possible. Unfortunately, this is the Republican playbook. Pay lip service to real problems,
00:12:46then undercut the solutions that actually work, all while handing out more tax breaks to the rich.
00:12:51Look, I get it. Your GOP tax scam is deeply unpopular. If I had just voted to rip health care away from 16
00:12:58million people, deny food assistance to seniors and children, and explode the deficit by trillions to
00:13:03reward wealthy donors, I'd want to change the subject too. But these bills, these distractions,
00:13:09they're not going to work. The American people see through this, and we're not going to let up,
00:13:14because this is about more than politics. This is about people's lives. And with that,
00:13:18I want to thank today's witnesses for being here, and I look forward to the discussion,
00:13:22and I yield back my time. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared
00:13:30statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first
00:13:37panel, Chairman Comer and Acting Ranking Member Lynch from the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
00:13:45Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask you to summarize your statement
00:13:50in five minutes. Chairman Comer, I welcome your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Ranking Member,
00:13:57I'm here today to encourage the Rules Committee to advance HR 2056, HR 2096, and HR 884. First,
00:14:05HR 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, which the Oversight Committee
00:14:11considered in our March 25th makeup. The Oversight Committee has held multiple hearings on the failings
00:14:18of the Biden-Harris administration to secure our borders and protect our citizens. In March,
00:14:23the Committee heard from Sanctuary City mayors who offered carefully crafted, lawyerly statements
00:14:29defending their decisions to not work with the Trump administration as it works to remove criminal
00:14:35illegal aliens as quickly as possible. At the end of the day, illegal alien criminals who threaten
00:14:41our communities have no right to be here in the first place. President Trump's electoral mandate
00:14:47includes his promise to the American people that Republicans would resolve the criminal illegal alien
00:14:53crisis across our nation. This bill is a necessary step in ensuring our nation's capital is an ally,
00:14:59not an opponent, in the fight to end this crisis. State and local governments must work with the Department
00:15:05of Homeland Security to share information on individuals they arrest. They must also honor lawful
00:15:12detainers. When they do not, Congress must act. H.R. 2056 ensures that the District of Columbia
00:15:21cooperates with federal immigration agencies, including ICE, to protect our citizens and nullifies prior
00:15:27attempts by the District to make itself a sanctuary city. I want to thank Mr. Clay Higgins from Louisiana
00:15:34for his work on this important topic. He is the sponsor. Our next bill is H.R. 2096, sponsored by Mr.
00:15:40Gabarino of New York, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act. The men and women of the D.C.
00:15:48Metropolitan Police Department serve their community every day to keep the district safe and secure.
00:15:54On January 4, 2023, the D.C. Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
00:16:01Act of 2022. The act stripped D.C. police officers of certain employee protections,
00:16:08making their jobs more difficult despite rising crime in the district. When the D.C. Council passed this
00:16:14law, Congress acted swiftly in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to overturn it. The House and Senate passed
00:16:23H.J. Resolution 42, which would have overturned the entire D.C. law, with 14 House Democrats and six
00:16:32Senate Democrats joining Republicans in support of the resolution. However, then President Biden vetoed
00:16:38the bipartisan resolution of disapproval. Either President Biden or the auto pin, I'm not sure,
00:16:45but we'll give President Biden the benefit of the doubt. Allowing the harmful policies of the D.C.
00:16:50Council to remain in effect today. In another attempt to protect D.C. police, Representative Gabarino
00:16:56introduced this bill in to repeal certain provisions of the D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice
00:17:03Reform Amendment Act. That bill passed through the Oversight Committee last Congress in 2024 and was
00:17:09reintroduced this Congress and again favorably reported out of the Oversight Committee at our May 21st
00:17:16markup, but now with the full support of the White House. H.R. 2096 restores D.C. police officers' right to
00:17:23collectively bargain over disciplinary matters and reinstates clear timelines for disciplinary
00:17:29investigations. H.R. 2096 also repeals the D.C. Council's requirement that the time and place
00:17:34of some adverse action hearing be posted to a public website. This public posting requirement enables
00:17:41activists to harass officers attempting to pursue their due process in the workplace. In summary,
00:17:47this legislation is necessary to support the recruitment and retention of the D.C.
00:17:52Metropolitan Police Department. D.C. cannot afford to continue to lose police officers during the
00:17:58ongoing crime crisis right here in the nation's capital city. My colleagues recognize the importance
00:18:04of supporting law enforcement officers who risk their lives to protect our communities. By restoring
00:18:09employee protections, this legislation gives the Metropolitan Police Department officers the due process
00:18:15they need to confidently do their jobs. Finally, I present H.R. 884, sponsored by Mr. August Luger of Texas,
00:18:23that prohibits individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the
00:18:27District of Columbia. On November 21st, 2022, the D.C. government enacted the Local Resident Voting Rights
00:18:34Amendment Act permitting non-citizen residents to vote in local elections. This includes illegal immigrants and even
00:18:42foreign diplomats whose interests may not be in line with Americans' best interests. This radical change
00:18:52to D.C.'s election laws upset lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. For instance, my friend Washington,
00:18:58D.C. Mayor Bowser withheld her signature on the act, something she has done only a handful of times. And last Congress,
00:19:05when an incidental bill was brought to the floor, 262 members voted in favor, including 52 Democrats.
00:19:13Unfortunately, the Senate refused to take up this bipartisan, common-sense bill to maintain election
00:19:18integrity in our nation's capital. The right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship.
00:19:27Diluting that right by extending it to non-citizens, whether here legally or illegally, undermines the
00:19:32voice of D.C. residents. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the
00:19:38nation's capital, and the House Oversight Committee is charged with ensuring responsible governance in
00:19:43the district, including its election laws. I urge my colleagues to support Representative Pflueger's bill
00:19:48to restore common-sense protections and ensure that only U.S. citizens have the right to vote in D.C.
00:19:55local elections. I strongly support these timely and much-needed bills and request the Rules Committee to
00:20:00bring these bills before the full House for consideration this week. I welcome your questions,
00:20:05and I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Comer. Ranking Member Lynch, you're recognized.
00:20:11Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the Committee.
00:20:17It is ironic that the overreach of these bills before us today regarding the District of Columbia
00:20:23Congress, reflect a similar disregard that we see today in Los Angeles by President Trump's attitude
00:20:34and overreach beyond local government in disregard of local government control.
00:20:43The protests and demonstrations in Los Angeles are the direct result of the Trump administration using
00:20:49extrajudicial methods without due process and deploying military forces against the civilian population.
00:20:57Donald Trump intentionally avoided the courts. He circumvented the legal and orderly
00:21:02adjudication of immigration cases and completely disregarded state and local officials and law enforcement
00:21:09in ordering a military deployment against innocent civilians, knowing that this would inflame tensions.
00:21:19President Trump wanted this violent confrontation to pit people against one another and distract Americans
00:21:26from the ongoing meltdown in the White House, the increase in prices due to Trump's tariffs,
00:21:33and our nation's declining reputation among our longstanding allies around the world.
00:21:39Specifically, with respect to the bills before us today, I strongly oppose these three bills,
00:21:43which would repeal or nullify laws, policies, or practices duly enacted by the District of Columbia,
00:21:50because I support local self-government for D.C. Congress does not have a constitutional duty to legislate
00:21:57on local D.C. matters. The framers expected Congress to establish a local government for D.C.
00:22:05James Madison, one of our founding fathers, said, and I quote,
00:22:09a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages will of course be allowed
00:22:16to them, meaning the people of D.C., close quote. Indeed, Congress has established various forms of
00:22:22local government for D.C. since 1802. The Supreme Court has held that, and I quote,
00:22:27there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full
00:22:34legislative power, close quote. And in 1973, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which
00:22:40established an elected chief executive and elected legislature for D.C., and the purpose of the Home
00:22:47Rule Act is to quote, grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of self-government,
00:22:53local self-government, and relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local
00:22:59district matters, again, close quote. Republican President Richard Nixon, who had been a long
00:23:05time supporter of D.C. Home Rule, said the following upon signing the Home Rule Act, and I quote,
00:23:12one of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local
00:23:17control and to provide local government with the authority and resources they need to serve their
00:23:22constituents effectively. The measure I sign today represents a significant step in achieving this
00:23:28goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to
00:23:33elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs. As the nation approaches
00:23:39the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in
00:23:45our capital city the rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen, close quote.
00:23:51And it is notable that H.R. 2096, H.R. 2056, and H.R. 884 contravened the purposes of the Home Rule Act.
00:24:01I'll briefly discuss the substances of each bill. H.R. 2096 would repeal provisions of 2023 D.C. law that
00:24:09made it easier for the police department to discipline officers for crimes and serious misconduct. Before this
00:24:16law, every D.C. police chief for at least the prior 25 years have had to have had requested such
00:24:24authorities, H.R. 2096 would inexplicably revoke this authority. Contrary to the claims made in the
00:24:32purpose section of H.R. 2096 as introduced, violent crime is not rising in D.C. and the police discipline
00:24:39provisions in the 2023 D.C. law are not the cause of the police department's difficulty recruiting and
00:24:45retaining officers. In 2025, violent crime in D.C. is down 22% compared to the same period in 2024.
00:24:53In 2024, violent crime in D.C. was the lowest in over 30 years. The D.C. police department is not
00:24:59alone in having difficulty recruiting and retaining officers. Police departments of all sizes across
00:25:04the country, including in the city of Boston, have had the difficulty for many years. H.R. 2056 would
00:25:11effectively nullify laws, policies, and practices duly enacted by D.C. by expanding cooperation with
00:25:17federal immigration authorities. D.C., like many other jurisdictions, limits cooperation with federal
00:25:23immigration agencies. Why do jurisdictions limit such cooperation other than the fact that immigration
00:25:30is a federal responsibility? I'll share the answers of the major cities chief's association.
00:25:35And I quote, enforcement of routine civil immigration by police would undermine the trust and cooperation
00:25:41with immigrant communities, which are essential elements of community-oriented policing. Courts have
00:25:47held that the lack of legal authorities to enforce federal civil immigration statutes expose police to
00:25:53liability for unlawful arrest and detention. Local agencies do not possess adequate resources to enforce
00:25:59these laws in addition to the added responsibilities of homeland security. Immigration laws are very
00:26:05complex, and the training required to understand them significantly detracts from the core mission
00:26:10of local police to create safe communities, and I close quote. H.R. 884 would repeal a D.C. law that allows
00:26:18residents who are not United States citizens to vote only in local elections, namely for mayor, members of the
00:26:24council and state board of education, attorney general, advisory neighborhood commissions, and ballot measures.
00:26:30The D.C. law does not allow non-citizens to vote in federal elections, which is a crime under federal law.
00:26:37D.C. is not the first or only jurisdiction to allow non-citizens to vote. At various points in American
00:26:43history, Congress and 40 states allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections. Territorial, federal elections,
00:26:50including the home state of every Republican member of this committee. Today, approximately 20
00:26:55municipalities allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Republicans say they are concerned
00:27:01foreign diplomats might vote in local D.C. elections. I find that hard to believe, both because foreign
00:27:08diplomats would have to, under penalty of law, renounce their right to vote in their home country and because
00:27:14D.C. has no authority over federal matters. In D.C., the penalty for voter fraud include imprisonment for
00:27:21up to five years. Republicans are also concerned that undocumented immigrants might vote in local D.C.
00:27:28elections. We believe that is also highly unlikely because the D.C. voter roll is a public record
00:27:34and undocumented immigrants likely would not want to identify themselves, including their address.
00:27:39I will close with the plea for Republicans, instead of interfering in local D.C. matters, grant D.C.
00:27:45statehood petition. The more than 700,000 D.C. residents deserve nothing less. Voting representation
00:27:54in Congress and full home rule. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Chairman Comer,
00:28:04would you like to respond to anything Acting Ranking Member Lynch had to say with respect to his opening?
00:28:11I don't pay that much attention to my good friend, Mr. McGovern, but I will say this.
00:28:16It wasn't me, it was Mr. Lynch. Oh, oh, Mr. Lynch. Yeah, well, I would. I actually, Mr. Lynch,
00:28:22Mr. Lynch, he cited the Home Rule Act, and I want to remind everyone that in the Home Rule Act,
00:28:30it grants Congress various power to interject when the D.C. government goes too far. So I appreciate
00:28:37what he said, but again, it specifically states that Congress can go in and
00:28:45act if Congress deems necessary with Washington, D.C., and we did that last Congress in a bipartisan,
00:28:55bicameral way, and I feel like this is another example of our rule, our duty in Congress and
00:29:03our role on the Oversight Committee. Well, I've always understood Article I, Section 8,
00:29:10clause 17 to give Congress the authority over D.C. As some have said, Congress has chosen to delegate
00:29:22some powers to D.C.'s local governance through the Home Rule Act, but as you mentioned,
00:29:29these are delegated authorities, and you said if D.C. goes too far, then the Congress had the right
00:29:38to go in and say we think D.C. has gone too far, and you pointed out these were bipartisan bills in
00:29:46past sessions, did not get through the Senate. D.C. went ahead and put some things in law. We
00:29:54weren't able to undo those until now because we did not have unified government. Is that correct?
00:30:00D.C. That is correct, Madam Chairman, and if you'll remember two years, two years ago, we had the,
00:30:08I think it was H.J. Resolution 42, sponsored by Andrew Clyde. It made it through the Oversight
00:30:14Committee, then Ranking Member Raskin acted like it was a racist bill or whatever, and many Democrats
00:30:20voted for it on the floor. It then passed the Senate with a Democrat majority. Schumer brought it to the
00:30:26floor, and then Joe Biden signed it into law. That was the first bill that passed in the previous
00:30:34Congress, and that rescinded their excessive criminal justice reform. And I might remind,
00:30:42much of the stuff when we step in on Washington, D.C., stuff that the mayor either supports or
00:30:49wouldn't sign her name on legislation that the very liberal D.C. Council passed. So, you know,
00:30:58we communicate with the mayor's office. I'm not saying she endorses the legislation, but she didn't
00:31:03endorse what the council did because she refused to sign many of the bills that we take up in the Oversight Committee.
00:31:09Yeah, I do think that it's worth mentioning again that in the Constitution, this is a special
00:31:19piece of property in this United States that is not a state, and all these bumper stickers that say,
00:31:30you know, taxation without representation, all they have to do is join the state of Maryland, right?
00:31:37Rejoin the state of Maryland, right? So, I thank you very much for bringing these bills to us,
00:31:46and I now recognize Mr. McGovern. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Comer,
00:31:53there are some D.C. residents in the room right now. I assume they're D.C. residents. They all have
00:31:57free D.C. T-shirts on. But I presume that they're here, at least in part, to stand up for D.C.'s right to
00:32:06spend its own money. The Senate already passed a bill to fix this. Can you tell them why we have
00:32:13not acted yet? I can't answer that. I support D.C. spending its own money. That has nothing to do
00:32:19with the legislation we're presenting today, but I've said publicly, I believe Washington should
00:32:24spend their own money, and that was something that passed out of the Appropriations Committee,
00:32:29so it had nothing to do with the Oversight Committee. But I support Washington spending
00:32:34their own money. Well, that's good news, and since, you know, it's your conference that's holding this
00:32:38up, maybe you can, since you're, you know, you do a lot of, you focus a lot of attention on this,
00:32:44you might be able to put in a good word to say, you know, this is the money. I will. I appreciate that.
00:32:49Chairman Comer, if the right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship, which I think you've
00:32:54said in the past, do you support granting the American citizens who live in D.C. voting
00:32:59representation in Congress? They have a delegate in Congress, Ms. Norton. She's on the Oversight
00:33:05Committee, a good member. But she doesn't have the same influence that everyone else does in terms of
00:33:11her ability to vote on things. I mean, she's a, her vote counts on the Oversight Committee as much as
00:33:17everyone else. That's what I'm here to speak on is the Oversight Committee. She's a member in good
00:33:22standing on the Oversight Committee. So would you favor me giving you the
00:33:26same power she has and putting you in that category? That has nothing, with all due respect,
00:33:31it has nothing to do with the legislation we're, we're doing today. Well, if, if allowing non-citizens
00:33:37to vote undermines the voice of D.C. residents, does Congress repealing a law enacted by locally
00:33:42elected D.C. government undermine the voice of D.C. residents? I don't think that has anything to
00:33:47do with the legislation where we're saying illegal aliens can vote in local elections.
00:33:55Yeah, well, I mean, Los Angeles has nothing to do with what we're talking about here today. And,
00:33:59and that was the, um, you know, and the chair of this committee opened up with comments on that,
00:34:05and, um, and others have talked about that as well. Uh, Representative Lynch, uh, what are your
00:34:09thoughts, thoughts on, uh, on non-citizen voting? Well, uh, consistent with the, uh, D.C. Home Rule Act,
00:34:18passed in 1973, the, the, the chair is correct that constitutionally, um, it gives Congress the ability
00:34:26to, uh, delegate certain, uh, certain subject matter, certain, uh, affairs at the local level to the
00:34:38the District of Columbia leadership, the, the mayor and council. They've done that in the 1973 Home Rule Act.
00:34:47It was a partial grant of, of, uh, of jurisdiction and of Home Rule. But in that legislation, it, it,
00:34:57it has a bright line distinction between local affairs and, and affairs that Congress retained at
00:35:05the federal level on federal matters. These matters that are addressed in the, including voting in
00:35:12local elections is clearly within, within the area of local control. And so that, that has been granted
00:35:21to the District of Columbia and they should retain it. They have that, they have that right under law.
00:35:27Congress made that grant. They, the, uh, the, the local council has not gone beyond their, their writ
00:35:35in terms of, uh, dealing with local issues. So, uh, their, their, their preferences at the local level
00:35:42should stand. Chair McCormick, is violent crime rising in D.C. this year? I'm sorry. Is violent crime
00:35:49rising in D.C. this year? Uh, it's, it seems like it is. But do you know? Well, from the information I
00:35:58received it, it is. Well, the information I'm receiving says violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent
00:36:04compared to the same period. I can tell you this. Most of my staff and, uh, the people that,
00:36:08my constituents that come to Washington D.C. are afraid to walk around at night because of the
00:36:12violent crime. That's why I was listening to you testify. But last year, violent crime in D.C.
00:36:16reached an, uh, an over 30-year low. So, um, you know, that, again, goes back to what I said before,
00:36:21is why it's so important to release the money that, uh, Congress is withholding from D.C. Uh, H.R. 2096,
00:36:27the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, would repeal provisions of a recent local D.C.
00:36:32law that made it easier for the police department to fire officers for crimes and other serious
00:36:38misconduct. Ranking Member Lynch, did all the D.C. police chiefs dating back at least 25 years
00:36:44support the department getting this increased authority? Absolutely. There, there have been,
00:36:49uh, I've been on this committee for 24 years. And we've had a number of, of, uh, uh, police chiefs
00:36:56during, during testimony, before the committee, asked to, to retain or obtain, uh, that very power.
00:37:02So that's something that the local D.C., uh, police chief has requested of this committee.
00:37:08And I'm going to ask you to enter into the record a letter from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser opposing
00:37:14H.R. 2096. Uh, the mayor said that H.R. 2096 would, quote, reverse common sense disciplinary
00:37:20reforms adopted by the district to the sole benefit of those few Metropolitan Police Department officers
00:37:26who engage in egregious, sometimes criminal misconduct and seek to evade accountability, close quote.
00:37:34Without objection, is that okay? Yeah. Without objection. Yeah. And just the final thing I want to
00:37:39say, um, I don't think we should be referring to the District of Columbia as property. Uh, that,
00:37:45that, that, that, that, that's like a throwback to, uh, an era in this country that I think we
00:37:50all look at with, with great shame. Uh, and, um, and I'm, I for one believe that, uh, the, uh,
00:37:57the, uh, hardworking people of the District of Columbia who pay their taxes, uh, like everybody
00:38:03else in this country, uh, deserve a hell of a lot better than they're getting. And with that, I yield back.
00:38:09Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Ms. Fishbach, you're right.
00:38:12Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, I don't necessarily have any questions, but I just wanted to say that
00:38:17I agree with you, Mr. Comer, regarding the, the crime rate. Um, you know, we've had, we've had
00:38:23colleagues assaulted. Uh, we've, uh, carjacked. We've had many staff members hurt. And, um, I know that at
00:38:31least one, uh, very close that I know was, um, was mugged. Right. Um, and so, and, and even though maybe,
00:38:39maybe it's going down, it's still serious. It's still serious. And when our constituents are
00:38:44concerned, our staff is concerned, I'm concerned. I mean, I, I don't walk around. Um, and so I just,
00:38:50I think that we need to, um, as, as, uh, Chairman Fox mentioned that this is a special piece of land,
00:38:58and we have a special responsibility. And so I absolutely appreciate that you brought these
00:39:02forward and thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Fishbach. Ms. Scanlon,
00:39:08you're recognized. Thank you. Uh, I can think of a million more important things that Congress should
00:39:15be focused on right now, but instead we're micromanaging, uh, D.C.'s affairs without
00:39:22providing D.C. the funding to which it is entitled. Uh, time and again, we've seen our Republican
00:39:29colleagues in this speaker use D.C. as a punching bag to fight dumb culture wars, uh, often in ways that
00:39:36directly can contravene the political decisions of D.C.'s elected officials. Congress shouldn't be
00:39:42meddling in Washington, D.C.'s affairs. We've had this debate many times before the Rules Committee.
00:39:48D.C.'s residents didn't vote for a single person sitting on this committee or testifying before it,
00:39:54and we have no place telling those residents of D.C. how their city should be managed. It does hearken
00:40:00back a bit to, uh, the very founding of our country and the idea that people from far away should not be
00:40:08making political decisions for the voters in, of all places, the capital of our country. Uh, D.C.
00:40:17residents voted for their mayor and their city government, and for decades Congress has respected
00:40:21the ability of D.C. residents to vote for their own officials and manage their own affairs. The last
00:40:27thing D.C. residents need is a bunch of conservative politicians coming over the top to tell them what
00:40:33to do. And it's such a frustrating example of the hypocrisy, outright hypocrisy, of our Republican
00:40:40colleagues, because they love to talk about limited government, right? That's a core principle of the
00:40:45Republican Party and local control. But the second that a local government does something that they
00:40:52don't like, they bring the full weight of the federal government down on them. So this is
00:40:56a very disturbing farce. Um, when Republicans are in the minority, they are fiscal hawks, but when
00:41:03they're in the majority, they jump at the bit to tax and spend and drive up the deficit, apparently.
00:41:09Uh, claim to support limited government, but are quick to use the powers of the federal government to
00:41:14survey, to police, to call out federal troops against our own citizens, and imprison political opponents.
00:41:22So, uh, we might be able to still find some Republicans who claim to want to take back Article
00:41:291 powers ceded to the President, but not a single one is going to be allowed to vote to end the
00:41:34President's trade wars here. So we could debate the merits of these bills all night, but we should be
00:41:42in agreement that DC should at least be able to govern itself, and we should not be telling the city's
00:41:48residents what to do. So with that, I yield back. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
00:41:59Madam Chair, I don't have any questions. I yield back.
00:42:01Thank you. Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, you're recognized.
00:42:06Uh, thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you for appearing, uh, here today on this bill, and, uh,
00:42:12thank you for attending our Rules Committee. We, uh, have had some very exciting Rules Committee. A couple
00:42:18of weeks ago, this room was crammed with Democrat, uh, uh, Congress people who wanted to make sure they
00:42:24heard their voices, and so thank you for attending. Um, uh, Chairman Comer, um, have you done an in-person
00:42:31town hall in the last few months in spring? In person. I have, uh, lots of meetings with, with people
00:42:40where, uh, there's, you know, lots of people in the room, and I open up for questions. So an in-person
00:42:46town hall, an in-person town hall where anybody, where the, where the public is invited, where anybody
00:42:53is invited to come attend. Well, I, I go to different, I have 35 counties, and I don't, I'm not in charge of
00:42:59inviting who comes. They usually post it on Facebook, so I guess it's kind of public.
00:43:04Well, you know, I have a huge rural district. In fact, I would actually argue that my district
00:43:09is larger than yours, although yours is in a very beautiful part of the country. Um, and I've had a
00:43:14lot of town halls. I, I, uh, noticed that there had, you know, I wanted to make sure if you had,
00:43:18and I noticed that there were quite a few news releases about how, uh, people were asking you
00:43:23to have town, have town halls, and they, uh, they did not believe that what you were doing
00:43:28was actually a town hall that was open to the public. But I've done several, uh, and I need to
00:43:33share with you, uh, that I've collected hundreds of handwritten questions. Um, I've answered, you know,
00:43:41by random. Anybody can ask a question. We, we pull it out of the hat, because we've had thousands
00:43:48show up to answer questions, right? We've got in rural areas, more urban areas.
00:43:57I can, yeah, I can. It, it's, uh, predominantly rural, a few suburbans, yeah. Yeah, yeah.
00:44:05Not a single one of those questions, either written or spoken, has ever asked us,
00:44:14what are you doing to micromanage DC? They are concerned about the Medicaid cuts. They are concerned
00:44:21about the impact on the VA and veterans. When we start firing federal employees, 30% who are veterans,
00:44:29they are concerned about the education cuts. They are concerned about our failure to pass a
00:44:34Farm Bill. They are concerned about the decline of democracy in the United States. They're concerned
00:44:40about all this. But they never say, what are you doing to make sure that the local elected officials
00:44:48in DC don't have a say in what they're doing? It's just not something that they seem to be concerned
00:44:55about in my part of the district. But here we are, despite the fact that America is incredibly worried
00:45:04worried about the cost of living, dealing with four bills, three bills to overturn and micromanage DC.
00:45:17And, you know, one of the bills is called Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act.
00:45:22In some ways, there is truth to that title. There is an emergency in our nation's capital that we should
00:45:27protect Americans from. But I would argue it's Trump's greed for corruption and race, not DC's local
00:45:34government. For example, next week, Trump is going to host a massive military parade for his birthday,
00:45:42for his birthday. Chairman Comer, how much money is that parade going to cost the Washington DC
00:45:49government? Do you know? I have no idea. You have no idea? Well, it's estimated that Trump's
00:45:55vanity parade could cost $16 million, $16 million to DC. They're going to have to repair
00:46:04the roads. People are going to lose income because that's going to be going on. So do you know how
00:46:09much money Trump's parade is going to cost American taxpayers separate from DC?
00:46:14I do not. It's $45 million. So we're going to be spending $45 million for a military parade.
00:46:27That $45 million could be used for all kinds of amazing things for our veterans. If we want to
00:46:36take care of our military, let's talk about how do we protect our military. Not imposing these costs
00:46:42on DC, not saying you don't get to get, you know, your local officials don't get to actually make
00:46:48decisions. Instead, we're going to have somebody from New York, somebody from Kentucky, somebody,
00:46:52you know, from Texas making these decisions who DC citizens can't vote for. But you know,
00:46:59the problem is about this parade, but is really problematic,
00:47:08is that Trump doesn't honor the military through this parade. In fact, he has done such harm to this
00:47:18military. He has dishonored the military over and over again. He famously referred to Americans who
00:47:24died in war as losers and suckers. He refused to go to the graves of American service members who were
00:47:31killed in World War I and II. And they have removed, they have removed pages and pages of military heroes
00:47:43from their websites. They have changed what's happened where what you can find out in Arlington
00:47:50about Latino and black and Native American and women heroes. And some of those are people I know. I have
00:47:58sat and visited with the code talkers, the Navajo code talkers, who helped us win World War II. And they
00:48:08removed references to them because they were diversity. How dare we celebrate diversity in a
00:48:15country that is diverse? Now, this is another thing that gets me represented, Chairman Comer. How many
00:48:22times did the DC officials and the Capitol Police beg to have the National Guard sent in to help defend us
00:48:29on January 6th? How many times does the National Guard? We were here on January 6th. You were here, I was here. It was my third day on the job.
00:48:41It's my third day on the job. There is violence outside. They are breaking into this Capitol.
00:48:51And our law enforcement and the DC law enforcement, the people who we are now saying you cannot make your own
00:48:59decisions about that law enforcement, they were defending you. They were defending me. They were
00:49:03defending almost everybody on this dais, not the new ones. We were requesting the National Guard. Do you
00:49:12know how many times they were requested before they showed up? Well, I've read differing accounts on who
00:49:19requested and who didn't request. So, you know, that I don't know. And I don't think anybody knows.
00:49:26I think it's been... It was 12 times. It was 12 times, uh, that there were... There are also, look,
00:49:32this has nothing to do with January 6th, but there are also reports that Pelosi refused to call in the
00:49:36National Guard. That's not true. And so, but what we also know though, is even when you, you cannot,
00:49:42you can just tell. If you don't know exactly how many, you know that it was hours and hours before
00:49:49they got here. Now, I would contrast, and this is where, what do you do with the military and how
00:49:57do you honor with the military? We needed the National Guard here. We were requesting it.
00:50:02Local officials were requesting it. Let's compare that to LA since the chairwoman mentioned LA.
00:50:08How many times have the... Do you know? Did the governor of California or the mayor of LA request the
00:50:15National Guard? I don't know anything about what's going on in California with the National Guard.
00:50:21It has nothing to do with the three bills that I'm requesting. But I would like to comment on what
00:50:25you said my constituents won't. My constituents are concerned about crime. They are concerned about
00:50:29illegals voting in elections. They are concerned about cities not cooperating with Tom Holman and
00:50:37ICE to deport the criminal illegals. So, I hear that when I travel the district. And I travel a lot. I mean,
00:50:44I'm... Yeah. I stir as much as anyone. So, you know, we don't disagree that criminal elements
00:50:52and those who are convicted of a crime should, you know, face the consequences. The interesting thing,
00:51:00though, is that the people that ICE are arresting, they've been citizens. And there has been a huge
00:51:12increase in the number of people who are detained and arrested who have no criminal record. And that's
00:51:21what you are seeing in LA and across this country as people saying, well, we may agree on issues around
00:51:29enforcement of immigration laws against people who violate criminal laws. We should not be arresting
00:51:35and deporting people without any due process. And we should not be spending precious resources
00:51:42arresting and detaining kids who are going to school. And that's what we're doing. And that's that kind of
00:51:49outrage that has led to protest, peaceful protest. And they should be peaceful. And we agree.
00:51:56Democrats all say, on this day, it should be peaceful. And those who are not engaging in peaceful
00:52:02protests should face the consequences. But that's not what we're seeing. That's not what we're seeing.
00:52:07And I think it's climbing up to 25 percent of the people in ICE detention have no criminal records. And
00:52:16what's really heartbreaking are those young families who are being detained and deported who have cancer.
00:52:33So anyway, the chairwoman raised these issues. And so I thought it was important that we actually
00:52:40really talk about these issues of what's going on, because we do need to respond to what is really
00:52:49going on. And I think that if we're going to be telling D.C. what to do, we should also be giving
00:53:02them their money, because they are going to have to pay for all of that expense of the destruction of
00:53:08the roads through this vanity parade. And that is not what we should be doing here. This is a city that
00:53:16is named after George Washington, who made it very clear the military should stay out of political
00:53:23issues. It should stay out of civilian issues. And that has been a tradition in the United States.
00:53:29And we should not be having a military parade that is actually a birthday parade, because we do
00:53:37celebrate our military. And we should. We've had beautiful parades. When World War I and World War II
00:53:45ended, when we got into World War II, there are things for this, but it's not to be used as a plaything.
00:53:52It insults George Washington when we do that. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
00:53:57Thank you, Ms. Leisure-Fernandez. Mr. Griffiths, you're recognized.
00:54:04Thank you, Madam Chair. Greatly appreciate it. Let me get some things straight. While there
00:54:08certainly are some things that are hard to piece together from January 6th in relationship to the
00:54:14National Guard, there are other pieces that we have put into place. Part of the reason we don't
00:54:19have everything is some of the stuff that the J6 Select Committee got was damaged or destroyed in
00:54:28the transfer. It never made it to the National Archives. Some of it ended up in the White House.
00:54:35As a member of the Oversight Subcommittee last term for the House Administration Committee, we took live
00:54:42testimony. I've read a lot of the depositions from that day. And so, first we start with President Trump.
00:54:47And it's just putting the record out there. And there's some areas that are gray and some areas
00:54:52there can be controversy over. But there's no question President Trump gave the instruction to his
00:54:59folks in the military that if they needed the National Guard, he wanted 20,000 troops ready to go,
00:55:05if that was what was necessary. At the time, it was not authorized by either DC or
00:55:13the Capitol Police Board, which is comprised of the architect of the Capitol, the Sergeant-at-Arms for
00:55:24the United States House of Representatives, and the Sergeant-at-Arms for the United States Senate.
00:55:29Subsequently, the order was given by Trump to the military, send the National Guardian, because
00:55:38people were starting to request it. And I believe it was the city, but I could be mistaken. Now, obviously,
00:55:41I wasn't prepared for this discussion today when I arrived. But he gave the order. And it's just
00:55:51heartbreaking. And it's not Democrat or Republican. I don't know what happened here.
00:55:55For some reason, and everybody can speculate as to what happened, but a General
00:56:06McCarthy didn't call. He says he did. But according to four witnesses who testified live under oath,
00:56:14all career military, that call never made it to the general in charge of the National Guard that was
00:56:22sitting ready to go. They were sitting just a few miles away. And it took over two hours before the
00:56:28order actually got to them. Why that happened? That's anybody's judgment. I'm not trying to
00:56:34pass judgment on this. I'm just telling you what our investigation found.
00:56:40That's one line. And all four witnesses who were with the general, who said they were on,
00:56:46they were able to see his communications, and they were able to hear his communications. At all time,
00:56:52on January 6th, they all swore under oath, that order didn't come through. And I forget the exact time,
00:56:58but it was about two hours after the initial order was given. Chief Sun, and of course, he might have some
00:57:06bias and that is to be recognized in a separate hearing, testified that he had actually asked for them
00:57:13at some point, and that the chain of command went up to the Sergeant at Arms on the House side,
00:57:18and he didn't get a response back. There's all kinds of controversy about why he didn't get the
00:57:22response back. And different people have different versions. So I'm not trying to get into that today.
00:57:26I'm just saying, before we go saying that for some reason, the President stopped the National Guard
00:57:32from being there, the facts do not support that the President was the problem. Were there problems?
00:57:39Absolutely. Is there plenty of blame to go around? Absolutely. But the President did what he was
00:57:45supposed to, and it was kind of interesting. One of the witnesses at another hearing said,
00:57:51when asked questions, well, why didn't the President just call the National Guard himself?
00:57:56And it's fascinating because the arguments are the same that you hear bandied around. And it was
00:58:02pretty clear, had he gone outside of the chain of command and called the General of the National Guard
00:58:07himself. We would be hearing complaints and would have heard complaints that day that he had
00:58:12overstepped his authority that he was supposed to give the order to his military commanders who were
00:58:17there present with him. He did that. And the evidence is very clear on that. Why that, why there was a
00:58:23mis- why it took two hours to get from him saying go to, I mean, had them ready, but from go to when they got the order,
00:58:32we'll be debating that for years. But those are the facts. Sun says that he asked that the order be
00:58:40given earlier, and that it went through the Capitol Police Board, and that it never, he never got the
00:58:49green light to get the National Guard in for hours as well. That's, again, there's all kinds of controversy
00:58:56around that one. But the fact that the order was given is documented, and the fact that it didn't
00:59:00get received is documented. Why it didn't, we can speculate on. That being said, Madam Chair, we've got
00:59:07a lot of important issues here today, and I didn't realize we were going to get into that or I brought
00:59:10all my notes over with me and I could give you even more detail. I probably already gave you more than
00:59:15you wanted. That said, I have always believed and have put bills in in the past and putting it in again
00:59:23that what Virginia did in 1846 regarding its portions of the District of Columbia with retrocession
00:59:32was the correct way to go. And I have, I have had a bill that would take care of everything in the
00:59:38hopper. And again, it's, it's bipartisan. Nobody likes my bill but me. But it's a, there is a retro,
00:59:45I say that. It has been voted on a couple times as motions to recommit when, when the Democrats were
00:59:51in charge. But the retrocession bill that I've introduced takes out a small sliver, sliver,
00:59:57which would be an enclave, be about a hundred people living in it. And those people would be
01:00:02allowed to vote in, in Maryland. All of what is currently the District of Columbia was Maryland
01:00:08territory. The retrocession of 1846 gave back to the Commonwealth of Virginia, those sections of the
01:00:15District of Columbia that had originally been ceded by the Commonwealth of Virginia to the District of
01:00:20Columbia. And there was a vote. It all took place. And it came back in so that Alexandria and parts of
01:00:28Arlington, if not all of Arlington, but at least parts of Arlington, were once part of the District of
01:00:33Columbia. I, I believe that retrocession is the way to go to, to solve a lot of these problems and these,
01:00:40these conflicts that occur when you have such a large federal enclave. As we all know,
01:00:46when they originally created the District of Columbia, it was to be the governing body.
01:00:49The legislature was not to be full-time. It was not thought that it was going to grow into the city
01:00:55that it is today. And so I believe that retrocession is the proper way to go. And what's interesting is,
01:01:01we don't have any, nobody challenged it in 1846. Some might argue that it's unconstitutional to do
01:01:06retrocession. I don't think that it is necessarily, but if it is, then the 1846
01:01:12retrocession wasn't proper either. And that's never been challenged. So we'll see. But that,
01:01:17those are my feelings on these matters, Madam Chairman. And with that, I yield back.
01:01:22Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith. And it's, you're always enlightening to us and I appreciate it.
01:01:28Well, Mr. Norman, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Comber. Thank you, Mr. Lynch for coming.
01:01:41Mr. Comber, doesn't the District of Columbia receive federal funds to the amount of $7.1 billion,
01:01:48representing a quarter of the funding that they get? Yes, sir. And they're arguing about,
01:01:54per the Constitution, the Congress has a right to intervene. Where is the debate on this?
01:02:00It's not debatable. I mean, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress
01:02:05exclusive authority over the District of Columbia. And the Oversight Committee is the Committee
01:02:10of Jurisdiction. Have they given any of the money back $7.4 billion that they've gotten?
01:02:16Not to my knowledge. Because it's passed through,
01:02:19it's administered through, it's administered through, pass through grants and then they can
01:02:23decide how they want to spend it. Yes, sir.
01:02:25Uh, isn't it, isn't it true too that you can, uh, just be a visitor, just coming into
01:02:32District of Columbia and vote? The, they have pretty, uh, lax election laws with respect to, uh, you know,
01:02:40this new bill that we're trying to rescind that allows, uh, illegals to, to vote in local election.
01:02:46You know, most people around this country are laughing at this. The fact they would
01:02:53even let that happen, or want this to happen, particularly with illegals. Particularly with
01:02:59letting illegals who, who are not citizens of this country. So it really makes, um, it goes against
01:03:04everything our Constitution was built on, doesn't it? It does. And you think, uh, so many of the,
01:03:09just think of the embassies that are, that are here and the, the diplomats from the hostile countries
01:03:14that are here that would be allowed to legally vote in DC elections for the mayor, for the school
01:03:21board, and all the local elections. And hopefully they distinguish between local and, and federal
01:03:28elections. There's three electoral college votes here, as, as everyone knows. In the fentanyl crisis
01:03:33that my good friend, Mr. McGovern mentioned about, you know, not having enough counselors and all,
01:03:38I think that's true. But, wasn't this call, a lot of it caused by the 15 million illegals that
01:03:45President Biden let in this country, uh, and the American people rejected during the last election?
01:03:51Yes, sir. The oversight committee traveled three times as a committee, and I know we have individual
01:03:56members that represent border states. But we, we traveled three times, met with the border patrol,
01:04:02met with ICE, met with local citizens, and, uh, all of our drug task force people all said that the
01:04:09overwhelming majority of fentanyl is, is just being packed across the unsecure southern border
01:04:13in the Biden administration. So, really, the empathy, there was no outrage over what Biden did
01:04:22by my good friends on the- Not, not by Congress, but I believe there, there was outrage by the American
01:04:28people. I think that was the, uh, a major issue in the presidential election, in my opinion.
01:04:33That's why 77 million people rejected the Biden administration, what they did to this country.
01:04:38Well, I appreciate you bringing all of these bills up. It makes sense. You know,
01:04:42people watching this are saying, are they really questioning illegals voting? Are they really
01:04:47questioning those who just visit voting? And as far as the crime being down, isn't that,
01:04:53doesn't that have a lot? If it is down, I, I would have to see who put the numbers together.
01:04:58Yeah. Isn't it being, uh, crime is taking a, a downward shift because of this president.
01:05:05Oh. Deporting the gangs that are in here.
01:05:07Mm-hmm. And getting the, uh, going after them. And again, the American people reject, uh, letting
01:05:17everybody in that the Biden administration did. And the only reason you can, that I saw that they
01:05:23were doing that, because I got asked that on the stump, uh, to create a power base. They thought they
01:05:29were having a, uh, an elected group that would keep them in power, and it didn't work, did it?
01:05:34Their, their position on this bill is consistent with their opposition to showing a valid ID to,
01:05:42to vote in, in other states. I mean, it, uh, it seems like it's the position of a lot of our
01:05:48colleagues on the other side of the aisle to let illegals vote in elections. And, you know, that's,
01:05:53uh, that's not what I think a majority of Americans support. I know it's not what people in the
01:06:00first district of Kentucky want. Well, in South Carolina, uh, we reject what, uh, what that
01:06:07administration did. And thank God, we've got to rectify it now. Thanks for what you're doing.
01:06:11Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yell back. Mr. McGovern. Yeah, I, I just want to point out
01:06:16for the record to the gentleman from South Carolina, that, uh, South Carolina receives significantly
01:06:21more in federal funding than it contributes in taxes. In FY 2022, South Carolina received $18.4 billion
01:06:28in federal transfer, and federal transfers. That makes, makes it a taker state. I'm from Massachusetts,
01:06:33there's a giver state, and my constituents are wondering, why the hell are we giving you more
01:06:38than you pay in, uh, than you pay in? Because we're not asking for illegals to vote. No, no,
01:06:43the deal is to vote. No, because people, people, you, you are a taker state, and how much do you give
01:06:49back to the, uh, to the federal government? You take more than you pay, than you give in. I yield back.
01:06:55Yeah. That's just wrong. You're flat out. That's a fact. Mr. McGovern, Mr. Norman has the time.
01:07:00No, he yielded back, Madam Chair. Thank you. Yeah, so I, yeah, and I'll provide him the details,
01:07:06so he understands that South Carolina is a taker state. South Carolina would never ask for, to allow
01:07:12illegals to vote. South Carolina would never ask for visitors to be able to come into the city.
01:07:17I'm tired of taking Massachusetts' money. And South Carolina would never ask for illegals to come
01:07:23into this country like your president, Joe Biden, did illegally. I want our money back from you.
01:07:28Mr. McGovern. Mr. McGovern. Mr. McGovern. I want the $7.4 billion back from District
01:07:31of Columbia. Mr. McGovern. Mr. Norman, do you yield?
01:07:35Yes, I yield. Thank you. Ms. Houchen, you're recognized.
01:07:48Thank you, Madam Chair. Um,
01:07:50I don't know. I really don't know where that came from, but I did just want to note that, um,
01:08:01active duty military by, active duty military by state, South Carolina, uh, service men and women
01:08:08are 37,507. Massachusetts are 3,573. So maybe it's true that tax dollars are coming more from
01:08:20Massachusetts than they are from South Carolina, but, uh, the South Carolina and other states give
01:08:26more, uh, in service to the country than other states. And I think that's worth noting. Madam Chair,
01:08:30I yield back. Yeah, and I'm offended by that statement. Thank you.
01:08:33How people in Massachusetts don't provide in service in the military in a thousand other ways.
01:08:38Mr. McGovern, I'm just noting that there are other ways.
01:08:41I'm just noting that you just offended my state.
01:08:43No, I did not. Ms. McGovern?
01:08:44I did not. Ms. McGovern?
01:08:45Everyone contributes in different ways, and Mr. Norman State contributes significantly to that.
01:08:50I'm just making note of it. Mr. Jack, you're recognized.
01:08:55Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if I could start with Mr. Comer. First and foremost, of course,
01:09:00privilege to serve on your committee. And, um, we spoke about this a little bit last week during
01:09:05debate on H.R. 2931, uh, the act that we move, actually that we passed out of the House that,
01:09:13disincentivizes sanctuary cities from receiving SBA offices. And I, I mentioned that because
01:09:19specifically as it relates to the bills we're debating today, I talked at length last week about
01:09:24trying to turn off that reward structure, that incentivization structure that existed over the four
01:09:29years of the Biden administration that, as Mr. Norman and others pointed out, flooded our country with
01:09:35illegal immigrants. And we'd love for you to speak on, uh, just in closing today, how this legislation
01:09:40will, yet again, turn off that incentive structure that existed over the four years of the Biden
01:09:45administration. Yeah, with respect, thank you, Mr. Jack, for the, uh, question and your leadership
01:09:50on the Oversight Committee. With respect to sanctuary city legislation, this, this bill sponsored by, uh,
01:09:56Mr. Higgins, also on the House Oversight Committee, helps codify President Trump's executive order.
01:10:03Uh, uh, and, you know, the overall objective, I think it helps ensure, uh, the Oversight Committee,
01:10:09as well as President Trump's overall objective, as well as the residents of D.C., I would assume,
01:10:13the overall objective to make Washington, D.C., a beautiful and safe city again. And that's, uh,
01:10:19you know, this is, uh, consistent with the President's agenda that he campaigned on, uh,
01:10:25to, number one, secure the border, and number two, to deport the criminal illegals. And that's what,
01:10:33that's what the focus is here, on the criminal illegals. And you have cities that are, that simply
01:10:39are not cooperating, that are bragging and advertising in sanctuary cities. And, uh,
01:10:44uh, they've become an obstacle, uh, to, uh, the Homeland Security Secretary Noem and the ICE
01:10:52Director, uh, Harmon. So, uh, I think this bill is consistent with, uh, with the White House's agenda
01:10:58that they campaigned on and, and received a majority of votes for the American people.
01:11:02And likewise, our Republican Congress, uh, Republican majority campaigned on and received
01:11:07the votes that put us here. Uh, just in closing, if you want to tie this all together as the last
01:11:11questioner, uh, would you like to comment on just how all three of these bills will
01:11:15positively impact the District of Columbia in closing? I'd love to, uh, let's start. Mr. Pflueger's
01:11:22bill ensures that, that only U.S. citizens vote in, in Washington, D.C. election. We don't want
01:11:28people who, uh, are here representing hostile nations to have a, a large, a loud voting voice
01:11:36in, in local elections. Uh, you know, the elections, the American people want,
01:11:43American citizens voting in elections. That's, that's an issue. I think anyone can campaign on
01:11:48that and, and I would doubt very few congressional districts would have a majority of people that would
01:11:52oppose what Mr. Pflueger's bill does. Uh, Mr. Gabarino's bill, H.R. 2096, repeals, uh, legislation that
01:12:01many, including those in law enforcement, consider anti-police legislation by the D.C. Council. This
01:12:07was, again, passed when they were in a, in a hyper, uh, criminal justice reform, uh, mode that, uh,
01:12:17that saw them pass legislation that, that in many people's opinion, mine included, sided with the,
01:12:24the criminals over our hard working women and men in law enforcement. And, uh, I think that, uh,
01:12:32as I stated earlier, Mr. Higgins' bill, H.R. 2056, is another step towards a safer Washington, D.C.,
01:12:39and ensuring that, uh, Washington, D.C. is not a sanctuary city, but rather cooperates with,
01:12:47with this administration to deport the criminal illegals. I mean, I, if I were a criminal, if you,
01:12:52if you think about it, where would a, a really bad criminal illegal want to cause the most chaos
01:12:58in America? And it'd be right here in Washington, D.C. So we need to make sure that this city takes
01:13:03national security seriously and working with this administration, which is taking national security
01:13:09seriously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, uh, Madam Chair, I yield and thank both you,
01:13:14Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lynch for testifying. Madam Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
01:13:18Thank you. You have a unanimous consent request?
01:13:22Yes, if I could, I'd like to introduce into the record a, um, press release from the Department
01:13:28of Justice, dated January 3rd, 2025, entitled, Violent Crime in D.C. Hits 30-Year-Low.
01:13:37Thank you, without objection. Thank you.
01:13:39Uh, if there's any, we're seeing no further members to speak, uh, or ask questions of our witnesses,
01:13:49our witnesses are excuse. Thank you all very much.
01:13:53Ms. Hope closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion
01:14:10from the gentlewoman from Indiana, Ms. Houchin.
01:14:13Madam Chair, I move the committee grant HR 884 to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the
01:14:19United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia and to repeal the local
01:14:23resident voting rights amendment act of 2022, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order
01:14:29against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
01:14:34recommended by the committee on oversight and government reform, now printed in the bill,
01:14:38shall be considered as adopted, and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives
01:14:43all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general
01:14:48debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee
01:14:52on oversight and government reform or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion
01:14:58to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR 2056, the District of Columbia
01:15:04Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order
01:15:10against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
01:15:15recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, now printed in the bill,
01:15:19modified by the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted and
01:15:24the bill as amended shall be considered as read. Bless you. The rule waives all points of order against
01:15:29provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided
01:15:34and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government
01:15:38reform or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further
01:15:44provides for consideration of HR 2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act,
01:15:49under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule
01:15:54provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight
01:15:59and Government Reform, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended,
01:16:03shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as
01:16:08amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
01:16:13and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective
01:16:18designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of S331,
01:16:24the HALT Fentanyl Act, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of
01:16:29the bill. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points
01:16:33of order against provisions in the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided
01:16:38and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
01:16:43or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.
01:16:47Thank you very much. You've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?
01:17:00Yes, Madam Chair. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the Committee
01:17:05strike the provision from the rule that self-executes the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 2056, which could
01:17:12require the District of Columbia to turn over undocumented people who have been the victim or
01:17:19witness to a crime. And let me just say to my friends here, this is shameful, not only on a human
01:17:27level, but also from a law enforcement perspective. It would discourage the victims of crimes like sexual
01:17:34assault or robbery from coming forward or discourage witnesses from coming to the police to help solve
01:17:41those crimes. Now, it's my understanding that in committee, Republicans said they included the
01:17:47provision, the one that's being struck by the Manager's Amendment, to negate the argument that
01:17:52this bill would discourage immigrants who are crime victims or witnesses to crimes from
01:17:58cooperating with D.C. police. By removing this exception, which the Chairman didn't say anything about
01:18:05in his testimony, Republicans have made it clear that they're no longer even pretending
01:18:11to care about public safety in D.C. Deportation is all that they care about. And this change,
01:18:17which will make law enforcement jobs harder, is being made with no separate vote. I mean,
01:18:23unbelievable. Foreclosed rules, and this is just being shoved in. So I urge my Republican friends to
01:18:31join with us and vote yes on my amendment, and I yield back. The gentleman yields back.
01:18:37Madam Chair, I'd like to speak on the amendment. Ms. Leisure Fernandez, you recognize.
01:18:44So I'd like to speak on this amendment with regards to its impact on victims of domestic violence.
01:18:53Ms. Leisure Fernandez, And we know that the various existing laws in our immigration
01:19:02So I want to speak in terms of its impact on victims of domestic violence, because we know
01:19:12that it is very important that we protect the victims of crime. And we often see that immigrant women
01:19:23suffer from domestic violence, and they are fearful of reporting that violence, which is why we have
01:19:33had we have the U visas, and we have a system in order to protect exactly them, right? We want to protect the
01:19:41people who are subject to criminal activity. They are the victims. And so when you do things like this,
01:19:49and when you do things in other bills that Republicans have championed, you are actually putting women at risk.
01:19:57And we should not be taking actions that stand with the perpetrators of domestic violence and other
01:20:09violent crimes. I just don't understand. I don't understand how you can say that you want to stand
01:20:15with family values, but you won't protect the women who suffer from abuse. And so I stand in support of
01:20:24the amendment, and hopefully you'll reconsider. The fact that it's also thrown in is just mind-boggling,
01:20:34how you're going to force your members to vote on this, and to vote against women, and to vote against
01:20:41victims of violence. Just once again, just thrown in. I mean, we do so much of that in rules, where you
01:20:49make these laws that people don't really have a chance to debate and vote on. So with that, I yield back.
01:20:58And you're going to ask for your own time, right, Representative?
01:21:01Thank you, Ms. Leisure-Fernandez. Ms. Scanlon?
01:21:04Yes, I'd like to also speak in favor of this amendment. I mean, having worked as an advocate in
01:21:12cases of domestic violence, it's incredibly common for the victims of domestic violence if they are
01:21:19here in some undocumented or in, well, as so many of the folks who are in our system are, they're
01:21:27waiting to hear on their status. That is used against them. So it's not just about protecting
01:21:32the victims of domestic violence by implementing the kind of changes you're talking about. You're
01:21:37talking about protecting the criminals. You're talking about protecting the abusers because if
01:21:42the victims are afraid to come forward, then you're letting the criminals go. So, I mean,
01:21:47we certainly see daily evidence that if you let criminals get away with things, they keep doing it.
01:21:53And this provision in the rule only enables criminals to get away with domestic violence. So
01:22:00I think it's a well-taken amendment, and I look forward to supporting it.
01:22:03Well, thank you very much. The thought was that the exception in the original bill was overly broad.
01:22:18Someone could claim to witness a speeding ticket and DC be able to withhold their information from ICE.
01:22:25So we know that witnesses to crimes can request an S visa or a U visa and be protected, and that would give
01:22:38them legal status if they are witnesses to victims, if they are witnesses to crimes. So we know that these
01:22:48folks often have representation from lawyers, and so they're eligible to ask for those visas to then make
01:22:58themselves eligible. So we don't think that this is punishing those who are going to report crimes.
01:23:05Madam Chair, can I just note that because of Congressional inaction, the wait time to get an
01:23:10SU visa or U visa is now more than a decade. So in fact, those opportunities are not currently available.
01:23:17Thank you very much. Is there other further discussion on the amendment by Mr. McGovern?
01:23:27If not, the vote occurs on the amendment by Mr. McGovern. All those in favor say aye.
01:23:35Aye.
01:23:35All those opposed say no.
01:23:37No.
01:23:37No.
01:23:37Any opinions? Chair, the no's have it.
01:23:40That's for roll call, Madam Chair.
01:23:41Mr. McGovern requests roll call. The clerk will call the roll.
01:23:45Mrs. Fishbach.
01:23:46No.
01:23:46Mrs. Fishbach, no.
01:23:47Mr. Norman.
01:23:48No.
01:23:48Mr. Norman, no.
01:23:49Mr. Roy.
01:23:50Mrs. Houchen.
01:23:51No.
01:23:51Mrs. Houchen, no.
01:23:52Mr. Langworthy.
01:23:53Mr. Scott.
01:23:54No.
01:23:55Mr. Scott, no.
01:23:56Mr. Griffith.
01:23:57Mr. Jack.
01:23:57No.
01:23:58Mr. Jack, no.
01:23:59Mr. McGovern.
01:24:00Aye.
01:24:00Mr. McGovern, aye.
01:24:01Ms. Scanlon.
01:24:02Aye.
01:24:02Ms. Scanlon, aye.
01:24:03Mr. Neguse.
01:24:04Ms. Ledger-Fernandez.
01:24:05Aye.
01:24:06Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye.
01:24:07Madam Chair?
01:24:08No.
01:24:09Mr. Madam Chair, no.
01:24:11The clerk will report the total.
01:24:13Mr. Three yays, six nays.
01:24:14Mr. And the noes have it.
01:24:16The amendment is not agreed to.
01:24:18Further discussion or amendment?
01:24:20Ms. Scanlon, do you recognize?
01:24:22Ms. Scanlon, aye.
01:24:23Thank you, Madam Chair.
01:24:24I have an amendment to the rule.
01:24:26I move the committee out a new section to the rule, providing for immediate consideration of Senate
01:24:31Bill 1077, the District of Columbia Local Funds Act 2025, under a closed rule, debatable for one
01:24:39hour, equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
01:24:44This bill would fix the ridiculous omission of language in the March continuing resolution
01:24:50that blew a $1.1 billion hole in the D.C. budget, a budget that Congress had already approved
01:24:57and D.C. had acted in reliance upon.
01:25:01In doing so, it is important to note that every single cent of that budget is local D.C. taxpayer funds.
01:25:10It is D.C. citizens' money.
01:25:13Madam Chair, this legislation passed the Senate almost three months ago by unanimous consent,
01:25:18which means without dissent, yet the House has taken no action.
01:25:22Over a month ago, Speaker Johnson said,
01:25:24I talked to the mayor, told her we would do this as quickly as possible, end quote.
01:25:30He also said, quote, it's just a matter of schedule, end quote.
01:25:34And the President has said that he supports it too, so what the heck is the holdup?
01:25:38If Republicans actually cared about law enforcement and first responders, they would pass this Senate
01:25:44bill to ensure that D.C. has the public safety funds it needs, funds that, I repeat again,
01:25:50are local taxpayer dollars.
01:25:53We see the Speaker bringing all these bills to the floor this week that encroach on D.C.'s
01:25:58self-governance.
01:25:59The least you can do is bring up the bill that would help the district and their first responders.
01:26:05So I urge a yes vote on my amendment and yield back.
01:26:07Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
01:26:09Is there further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Scanlon?
01:26:18Hearing none, the question is on the amendment.
01:26:20All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
01:26:22Aye.
01:26:22All those opposed, say no.
01:26:25No.
01:26:25No.
01:26:26In the opinion, Chair, the noes have it in the amendment.
01:26:28I request a roll call vote.
01:26:30Ms. Scanlon requests a roll call vote.
01:26:32The Clerk will call the roll.
01:26:33Ms. Fischbach?
01:26:34No.
01:26:35Ms. Fischbach, no.
01:26:36Mr. Norman?
01:26:36No.
01:26:37Mr. Norman, no.
01:26:38Mr. Roy?
01:26:38Mrs. Houtchen?
01:26:39No.
01:26:40Mrs. Houtchen, no.
01:26:40Mr. Langworthy?
01:26:41Mr. Scott?
01:26:42No.
01:26:42Mr. Scott, no.
01:26:43Mr. Griffith?
01:26:44No.
01:26:45Mr. Griffith, no.
01:26:45Mr. Jack?
01:26:46No.
01:26:47Mr. Jack, no.
01:26:47Mr. McGovern?
01:26:48Aye.
01:26:49Mr. McGovern, aye.
01:26:49Ms. Scanlon?
01:26:50Aye.
01:26:51Ms. Scanlon, aye.
01:26:51Mr. Neguse?
01:26:53Ms. Ledger-Fernandez?
01:26:54Aye.
01:26:55Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye.
01:26:56Madam Chair?
01:26:56No.
01:26:57Madam Chair, no.
01:27:01The Clerk will report the total.
01:27:02Mr. Three yays, seven nays.
01:27:04Mr. The noes have it.
01:27:07The amendment is not agreed to.
01:27:10Ms. Scanlon?
01:27:11Ms. I would love at this point to bring up the D.C.
01:27:13Statehood Bill, but I'm pretty sure it would be ruled out of order, so we'll have to wait
01:27:17for another time.
01:27:18I yield back.
01:27:19Mr. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
01:27:24Mr. Madam Chair?
01:27:25Mr. Yes, Ms. Chair.
01:27:26I just want to take a moment to thank the residents of D.C. who are here today and apologize to them
01:27:34for what this Congress is about to do to them, but we appreciate your showing up and being here.
01:27:40I yield back.
01:27:42Mr. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
01:27:45Is there anyone else seeking to offer an amendment?
01:27:50Mr. Hearing no further discussion.
01:27:55The question is on the motion from the gentlewoman from Indiana.
01:28:00All those in favor signify by saying aye.
01:28:03Aye.
01:28:03Those opposed say no.
01:28:05No.
01:28:05In the opinion, Chair, the ayes have it.
01:28:07The motion is agreed to.
01:28:09Mr. Roll call.
01:28:09Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote.
01:28:12The clerk will call the roll.
01:28:15Mrs. Fishbach.
01:28:16Aye.
01:28:16Mrs. Fishbach.
01:28:17Aye.
01:28:17Mr. Norman.
01:28:18Aye.
01:28:18Mr. Norman.
01:28:19Aye.
01:28:19Mr. Roy.
01:28:20Mrs. Houchen.
01:28:21Aye.
01:28:21Mrs. Houchen.
01:28:22Aye.
01:28:22Mr. Langworthy.
01:28:24Mr. Scott.
01:28:25Aye.
01:28:25Mr. Scott.
01:28:26Aye.
01:28:26Mr. Griffith.
01:28:27Aye.
01:28:27Mr. Griffith.
01:28:28Aye.
01:28:28Mr. Jack.
01:28:29Aye.
01:28:29Mr. Jack.
01:28:30Aye.
01:28:30Mr. McGovern.
01:28:31No.
01:28:31Mr. McGovern.
01:28:32No.
01:28:33Ms. Scanlon.
01:28:33No.
01:28:34Ms. Scanlon.
01:28:34No.
01:28:35Mr. Ngoose.
01:28:36Ms. Ledger-Fernandez.
01:28:37No.
01:28:38Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, no.
01:28:39Madam Chair.
01:28:41Aye.
01:28:41Madam Chair, aye.
01:28:44The clerk will report the total.
01:28:45Seven yays, three nays.
01:28:47The ayes have it.
01:28:49The motion to report is agreed to.
01:28:52Accordingly, the gentleman woman from Indiana, Ms. Houchen will be managing this rule for the majority.
01:28:58And I will for the...
01:28:58Mr. McGovern for the minority, without objection.
01:29:03Mr. Are we still on for tomorrow?
01:29:04I just want to make sure.
01:29:05Mr. Yes, sir.
01:29:06Mr. Okay, thank you.
01:29:07Mr. Yes, sir.
01:29:09Mr. With that, without objection, the committee is adjourned.