Jim Jordan Leads Contentious House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Major Border Security Law — Part 1

[0:00] Order without objection. Chairs authorized to declare recess at any time. Pursuant to [0:05] Committee Rule 2, House Rule 11, Clause 2, the chair may postpone further proceedings today [0:12] on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment which is [0:17] whichever court of vote is ordered. I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. [0:22] Ondar to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America and to the republic for [0:34] which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank the [0:44] gentlemen. First Order of Business today is adopting an updated subcommittee roster. This [0:49] roster was distributed to members yesterday and updates the subcommittee assignments of a few of [0:53] our Democrat colleagues. Is there any discussion before we vote on approving the roster? Maybe I [0:58] would ask, does the ranking member have anything to say about the roster? I think we're... Yes, let's see. [1:05] Summer's not here right now, but she's been added to the committee. I'm not sure if we had a moment [1:10] to welcome her yet, Mr. Chairman. We can do that later. And... To your eyes, we can do that? Yeah. And [1:16] let's see. Are we going to do the subcommittees now or no? Because... We update the subcommittee roster. [1:23] That's next. The question is on approving the updated sub... The gentleman yields back. The question [1:26] is on approving the subcommittee, updated subcommittee roster. All those in favor say aye. Aye. [1:31] Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. And the subcommittee roster is approved. Pursuant to notice, [1:36] I call up H.R. 9773, the permanent Trump Secure Border Act for purposes of markup and move that [1:43] the committee report it favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. H.R. 9773. [1:48] Not objection. The bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now [1:52] recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, for an opening statement. Well, Mr. Chairman, we're doing the [1:58] N.S.? No, you do. Go ahead and get the statement. Yeah. Well, thank you, Chairman. I keep asking my [2:06] colleagues what's it going to take. What's it going to take before we work together to make sure the [2:11] border remains secure, no matter the occupant, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When I started working as a [2:18] staffer in the United States Senate shortly after September 11th, and a group of visa overstayers murdered [2:24] nearly 3,000 Americans. I thought surely Republicans and Democrats could agree that we should close the [2:29] loopholes that allowed 19 foreign terrorists to game our immigration system. But the Democrats were [2:35] only interested in amnesty. The loopholes remained. During then-President Obama's administration – I [2:42] want you to hear this – under President Obama's administration, after surges of unaccompanied [2:47] alien children and families crossed our southwest border illegally, the President, [2:52] along with then-Secretary Johnson, asked Congress to close certain loopholes that allowed those [2:57] surges. Democrat President – House Republicans passed a fix, but Democrats in Congress wouldn't [3:02] come to the table to do what the President of their party had requested. The loopholes remained. [3:08] When President Trump called for additional legislative tools to help secure the border [3:13] during his first administration, our Democrat colleagues refused to work with us to help the [3:18] President. The loopholes remained. And even after the Biden-Harris administration unleashed the [3:24] largest mass illegal immigration in United States history, our Democratic colleagues refused to [3:31] fix the statutory loopholes that they were abusing to allow and incentivize that mass illegal immigration [3:39] to occur that resulted in the deaths and destruction of thousands of American people and the flow of [3:47] fentanyl into our communities. Tens of millions of illegal aliens later, after thousands of Americans were [3:51] murdered or otherwise violently victimized by illegal alien border crossers, the loopholes still [3:57] remained. Three years ago, this committee mobilized to pass the critical border security components in [4:04] H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, leading to its passage on the House floor, bringing different corners [4:10] of the Republican conference together to codify common sense border security. We did it then, and we can [4:17] do it today. Our nation's future depends on it. I suspect that today my Democrat colleagues will once [4:23] again refuse to support common sense statutory changes to secure the United States border. And again, [4:31] I want to clarify statutory changes, that is to make permanent changes irrespective of who occupies the [4:39] White House. But my GOP colleagues cannot lose focus. We must ensure that border security is not a byproduct of [4:46] of whoever is elected to the presidency. President Trump has succeeded where none other has even [4:52] tried. He's done so using nearly every available statute and administrative authority. He has done so [4:58] despite constant rhetoric from open borders advocates, including my Democratic colleagues in Congress. [5:04] He's done so because that's what he promised the American voters he would do. But the president [5:09] only has so many tools at his disposal. And the statutory loopholes that were present decades ago [5:14] and during the Biden administration remain today. Meaning that when President Trump's administration [5:22] actions to secure the border go away, the border could once again be abused. Today, we consider the [5:29] permanent Trump Secure Border Act, which closes statutory loopholes that allow the Biden-Harris [5:34] administration to flood our country with millions of illegal aliens. Title I enshrined statutorily the [5:39] changes that the Trump administration made to asylum law and policy by regulation and other executive [5:45] action. The changes include additional criminal bars to asylum, a requirement that the alien claim [5:51] fear at a port of entry, an increase of the credible fear standard to deter frivolous claims, [5:56] and reining in immigration and federal courts abuse of asylum grounds like, quote, particular social [6:02] group, end quote. Title II clarifies in statute that the DHS secretary must remove or detain illegal aliens [6:10] who arrive at the border or place them into a remain in Mexico type program. There would be no other [6:17] options. The aliens cannot be paroled or otherwise released into the United States unless an immigration [6:23] court grants the aliens asylum claim or other immigration benefit claim. If an administration [6:30] refuses to follow the law, state attorneys general have standing to sue under these provisions. Title II also [6:36] allows the DHS secretary to suspend the entry of aliens at the border to gain operational control. Title III [6:44] helps end mass unaccompanied alien children migration. It requires that current law regarding unaccompanied [6:50] alien children from Mexico and Canada be applied to children from other countries. This means that UACs [6:57] from non-contiguous countries will be screened for trafficking or a fear of return and if none is found [7:02] will be sent home and reunited with their family in their home country. Title III will help disincentivize parents [7:08] to pay violent smuggling cartels to transport their children across the border and it will reduce [7:14] the exploitation of UACs once in the United States. Title IV closes the so-called Flores settlement [7:21] agreement, that loophole that has for many years prevented families who cross the border illegally from [7:26] being detained for the pendency of their immigration court proceedings. As many know, the number of real and [7:32] fake family units illegally crossing the border skyrocketed over the last decade because these aliens knew [7:38] they will be promptly released once they get to the United States. Title V puts visa overstay, [7:44] currently a civil infraction on par with illegal entry as a misdemeanor crime and increases penalties [7:50] for overstay. I will remind people how I introduced this statement that it was overstays that attacked the [7:58] towers on 9-11. Finally, Title VI helps end the abuse of immigration parole. Over the years, administrations of [8:06] both parties have abused statutory authority to allow classes and other large numbers of aliens not [8:12] otherwise admissible to the United States to enter and remain in the country indefinitely. This despite [8:17] the purpose of the provision to be case by case. The Biden-Harris administration took such abuse to the [8:23] extreme, creating several illegal categorical parole programs and paroling into the United States at least [8:29] 2 million illegal aliens. I want everybody to remember what was happening. You can build a wall from the Gulf of [8:35] Mexico to the Pacific Ocean and I support constructing barriers and support such a wall, but you can do [8:42] that and if you open the doors wide open to the abuse of parole and asylum, then it does you no good. [8:48] President Trump has rightly ended that practice. Title VI brings the use of immigration parole back to its [8:54] intended purpose to allow a foreign national to enter the United States for an emergency purpose for a short [8:59] period of time, like a surgery or getting access to some family member or something that's an emergent case-by-case [9:05] issue. Americans deserve an administration that is interested in securing the border. In January 25, [9:10] they got that. They also deserve a Congress willing to do the hard work to ensure the next president [9:16] can't unilaterally open that border. Kayla Hamilton's family deserves that. Lake and Riley's family deserves [9:25] that. Jocelyn Nungary's family deserves that. Rachel Morin's family deserves that. Sheridan Gorman's family [9:35] deserves that. And to that end, I urge my colleagues to support the permanent Trump Secure Border Act. [9:41] I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The ranking members recognized for an opening statement. Thank [9:47] you kindly, Mr. Chairman. So for the entire 119th Congress, which is now limping to an historically [9:57] unproductive finish, we've been urging the majority to set aside the demonization of immigrants to pass [10:03] comprehensive, common sense immigration reform on a bipartisan basis. We should be able to agree that [10:10] we need to make it a whole lot harder, as close to impossible as we can, to enter or stay in the [10:16] United States unlawfully and a whole lot easier for people to become Americans lawfully. After all, [10:24] we've got crying labor shortages in nursing, construction, farming, seafood, landscaping, [10:31] and the hotel and service sectors, to name just a few. And after all, America is an immigrant society. [10:38] All of us here, except for Native Americans and the descendants of people who were kidnapped and [10:44] enslaved and brought to the country, all of us are descendants of immigrants in this country. And yet, [10:52] that's not what's happening. We should be able to agree on these basic values. We should be able to [10:58] legislate accordingly. And we should be able to get the administration to stop poorly trained ICE [11:04] officers from killing American citizens and immigrants in service of a lawless, authoritarian, [11:12] and brutal clampdown on American communities. Two more people have been shot down in cold blood [11:18] in one week on July the 7th and on July the 13th. But instead of engaging with us to map out a pathway [11:30] to citizenship for dreamers, which the president promised to do a decade ago, instead of working [11:35] with us to fortify the border, to expand the categories and numbers of lawful immigrants, instead [11:40] of trying to get ICE to change their terrifying police state tactics, and just to focus on the worst of [11:47] the worst as they promised, our colleagues are wasting the last few days of this Congress playing [11:53] summer rerun anti-immigrant propaganda and ignoring the brutal and often lethal federal government assault [12:02] on the rights of both Americans and immigrants. Masked immigration officers have shot and killed in [12:09] broad daylight six human beings in the streets of America, three of them American citizens exercising [12:15] their first and their second amendment rights, three of them immigrants posing no threat to anyone, [12:20] and two of those not even the target of the operation by which they lost their lives. ICE killings [12:27] are like having the death penalty in your state without a crime, without an arrest, without a prosecution, [12:34] without trial, without conviction, without sentencing, without any judicial due process, [12:40] just the sudden violent death of mothers and fathers in states that don't even have the death penalty, [12:49] like Maine and Minnesota, administered by poorly trained and hastily recruited unqualified agents, [12:56] courtesy of billions of dollars provided by the taxpayers via the permanent Trump Republican Caucus. [13:05] Is there no one left in Donald Trump's party who will speak up for the rights of the American people [13:12] against a federal government killing spree under the pretext of immigration raids? DHS agents have tear [13:20] gassed babies and shot pepper balls at pastors and members of Congress. They've packed tens of thousands [13:27] of immigrants into mismanaged and dangerous for-profit detention centers whose corporate owners are [13:33] plundering the taxpayers for billions of dollars while overseeing the deaths of a record 53 people [13:41] in their custody. ISIS separated families, stolen breastfeeding mothers away from their infants, [13:48] and caused the death of a three-year-old boy and the sexual abuse of a three-year-old girl. [13:54] Our refugee system was once a proud, robust, well-vetted program that helped desperate people fleeing [14:02] tyrants and dictators all over the world. Now it's a closed, whites-only presidential perk operation, [14:11] catering to Elon Musk's fellow Afrikaners and white South Africans. To be fair, Trump has also issued [14:17] an emergency visa to a corrupt right-wing Polish minister evading justice while categorically barring [14:24] anyone from 40 percent of the countries in the world from even applying for a visa to flee oppression. [14:31] President Trump today has among the lowest polling numbers of any president in the history since [14:38] polling began. Immigration used to be his strongest issue, but after the lawlessness, cruelty, and [14:44] corruption we've seen, it's now one of his worst issues. A post to Ipso's poll from last week found [14:49] that nearly 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the way he's handling immigration in our country, [14:55] and yet here we are again today, rejecting oversight to curtail this reign of terror, [15:01] or the prospect of any reforms to repair our broken immigration system. The majority brings us [15:07] another partisan red meat enforcement-only bill to make Trump's policies permanent. Congress has pumped [15:14] an extraordinary $240 billion into immigration enforcement, and yet this committee has done no [15:21] oversight of ICE and no oversight of the CBP. Republicans have not brought in a single official [15:27] from either ICE or CBP or from Geo Group or CoreCivic, the private prison companies that are collecting [15:33] billions of dollars from our constituents every year to operate these facilities. The only DH official [15:40] official who's appeared before this committee was former Secretary Kristi Noem, who refused to apologize [15:46] for defaming Renee Good, a mother of three, and Alex Preddy, a VA nurse, as, quote, [15:53] domestic terrorists and failed to provide any explanation for her spending of hundreds of [15:58] millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to buy luxury jets and lavish personal PR campaigns with pictures [16:05] of her on horseback at Mount Rushmore. She was fired within 24 hours of appearing before this committee [16:12] because she actually had to take questions, and one saw the inevitable departure of Ms. Noem. [16:21] Why are our Republican colleagues abdicating responsibility to oversee and rein in the [16:26] continuing corruption and lawlessness at ICE and CBP? ICE has recruited domestic abusers who go out and [16:34] kill people. In shooting after shooting, we're told there's no body-worn camera footage either because they [16:40] lack the funding to provide them to their agents or because the agents who have them can't turn them on [16:45] because ICE has not paid for the subscription required for the cameras to work, all despite [16:51] having an unprecedented $240 billion of taxpayer money. Why do our colleagues have nothing to say [16:58] about the waste, fraud, and abuse that we're seeing throughout that system? The majority wants to give [17:03] the mega ICE bureaucracy even more power to make this cruelty machine permanent. The bill before us today [17:09] would take the asylum system already decimated by Trump and then permanently destroy it. It removes [17:16] protections for unaccompanied children and opens the door to sending them to war-torn countries, [17:21] traffickers, and abusers. It would allow for the indefinite detention of children and the evisceration [17:27] of long-standing safeguards for children. America's had enough of the violence and bloodshed and lawlessness. [17:33] It's time to stop these lawless tactics in the streets of America. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. [17:38] Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. The chair now [17:42] recognizes the gentleman from Texas to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. [17:47] Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. [17:49] Clerk will report. [17:51] Amendment in the nature of a substitute. [17:52] Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be [17:55] considered as base text for the purpose of the amendment. The chairman from Texas is now recognized. [18:00] This amendment makes technical changes to the bill to clarify that state attorneys [18:03] general have standing to sue an administration for non-compliance with parts of Title II of the [18:08] bill and provide an effective date for Title III. I yield back. [18:12] The gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from Washington is recognized. [18:19] Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Recognized. Okay. This bill is yet another example of [18:27] how incredibly out of touch Republicans are with the views of the American public. This weekend, [18:33] three more U.S. service members were killed in Trump's most unpopular and illegal war on Iran, [18:41] now making it 17 service members killed, even as gas prices continue to go back up, squeezing Americans [18:48] everywhere. Despite all this, Republicans are moving forward with another $60 billion check for this war [18:54] this week. Trump has called affordability concerns a, quote, hoax, and even refused to sign a once-in-a-generation [19:02] housing bill that addresses the housing supply crisis we have across the country. [19:07] And then there's immigration, the number one way that Republicans have tried to distract Americans [19:13] from all of their problems by criminalizing and blaming immigrants. Last year, Trump and Republicans [19:19] handed ICE and CBP $140 billion, even as they stripped health care from tens of millions of Americans [19:26] because apparently we couldn't afford it. Then a few weeks ago, they gave them another $70 billion of taxpayer money [19:34] to continue to unleash a rogue militia on the streets of America with loaded up arrest quotas [19:41] of 2,000 people a day that have led to the killing of at least six people in ICE enforcement activities, [19:49] and 65,000 people every single day being incarcerated in for-profit detention facilities that cost U.S. taxpayers [19:59] billions of dollars and don't even meet basic required conditions of human decency. Now, just last week, [20:06] ICE agents killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Johann Sebastian Guerrero in Houston, Texas and Biddeford, Maine, [20:14] two fathers who left behind U.S. citizen children families, a three-year-old in bluey pajamas watching [20:22] what they did on the streets of America as they snatch people away in unmarked cars with agents that have [20:30] no body cameras hiding behind masks. Just imagine the ICE agent who shot Mr. Guerrero has a record of [20:38] domestic violence and threw his 13-year-old daughter through a glass coffee table. These are the people [20:46] who are implementing government policies in our cities and towns. And on Friday, the outrage continued [20:53] when an employee of GEO Group, who operates ICE's detention center in Aurora, Colorado, shot a 42-year-old [21:01] woman. Let's just play a short video of footage from just three of these ICE killings. [21:07] Get out of the fucking car. Get out of the car. [21:12] Get out of the car. [21:16] You fucking bitch. [21:41] Not a single bit of accountability for any of these. Imagine that they pulled a man who was shot multiple times [21:49] out of the car and handcuffed him on the ground while his daughter was watching. Americans, including [21:56] those who supported Donald Trump in the last election, are clear that this is not what they want. [22:02] Polling across the country has shifted dramatically. And today, two-thirds of Americans are rejecting [22:08] this cruelty, this lack of accountability, and the outrageous actions of these lawless agencies. [22:15] Is today's bill recognizing any of this? Demanding accountability? Putting a stop to ICE and CBP's [22:22] actions? Quite the opposite. This bill is doubling down on cruelty, [22:28] in a massive sign of disrespect to families across the country, including the many U.S. citizens and [22:35] people of every immigration status who have been the targets of ICE and CBP. This bill eviscerates [22:42] asylum, strips due process protections for unaccompanied kids, and allows for the indefinite [22:48] detention of families and children. It is so extreme that it is not clear that it can even pass the House [22:55] floor because there are some Republicans who oppose it themselves. Instead of demonizing immigrants, [23:02] we should work together to reform an immigration system that has not been modernized in over 30 years [23:09] because of Republican opposition. We should recognize the value of immigrants who keep our country going [23:15] every single day, and we should demand accountability for an out-of-control ICE and CBP, and stop unleashing [23:22] cruelty on our communities across the country. I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues [23:28] to do the same. I yield back. [23:30] The gentleman from New York is recognized. [23:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. [23:39] The gentleman is recognized. [23:40] Mr. Chairman, our nation was built by immigrants. For generations, we have welcomed people to our shores, [23:47] whether they were fleeing violence, seeking a path out of economic despair, or simply hoping to start a new [23:53] life. And our country is much richer for it, both economically and culturally. Our communities have [23:58] benefited from their ingenuity, their hard work, and their vibrant culture, enriching our society and [24:04] helping our economy flourish. If our tradition and history of welcoming immigrants to this country [24:09] represents the very best of America, this bill and the Trump administration policies it seeks to bolster [24:15] represent the very worst. This xenophobic and cruel legislation would essentially shut down our asylum [24:22] system while stripping needed protections from vulnerable children and subjecting them to [24:27] indefinite detention. It is a shameful abandonment of our fundamental values and ideals. Even worse, [24:34] this bill completely fails to address the cascade of cruelty and chaos emanating from the White House, [24:39] ICE, and CPB as they carry out the Trump administration's failed immigration policies. [24:46] Over the last 13 months, Congress has showered immigration enforcement agencies with $240 billion [24:52] with no guardrails attached. With this money, these agencies have assembled a massive force consisting of [24:59] tens of thousands of agents who have flooded our streets to carry out Donald Trump's brutal and reckless [25:05] mass deportation campaign. Rather than going after the worst of the worst, as the administration [25:10] repeatedly claims, they're indiscriminately targeting anyone they suspect of being here unlawfully. [25:15] With the vast majority of people detained having no criminal record. In the process, they are [25:20] engaging in racial profiling on a massive scale and using dangerous tactics that have already led to [25:26] the deaths of multiple people, including three American citizens. When tragedy does strike, the [25:32] administration has employed a tried and true strategy. They smear the victims, calling them domestic [25:37] terrorists or some other slander. And then they blatantly lie about the events, trying to tell us not to [25:42] believe what we can see with our own eyes. It is straight out of the authoritarian playbook. [25:47] Not only are we seeing unprecedented mayhem and destruction on our streets, but we are also [25:52] witnessing the highest death rate in immigration detention facilities in decades. Despite the best [25:58] efforts of this administration to deny access to these facilities, a few months ago I conducted an [26:03] oversight visit to Delaney Hall, a privately owned ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. What I learned [26:11] there was absolutely shocking and appalling. In particular, the medical neglect, denying people [26:16] access to potentially life-saving care and withholding necessary medicine is truly abhorrent. I saw people [26:22] diagnosed with cancer and denied any treatment. At Delaney Hall and across the country, detainees are [26:30] being held in squalor in facilities that do not meet basic sanitary needs. As if that weren't bad enough, [26:36] this legislation would dramatically increase the number of children who are subjected indefinitely [26:41] to such deplorable conditions. That is the very definition of cruelty, but it is standard operating [26:47] procedure for this Republican majority. A year and a half into this second Trump administration, [26:53] a clear picture of its immigration policies and their consequences has emerged. They have sent [26:58] masked agents to terrorize our communities with aggressive and violent tactics, arresting and in some [27:03] cases murdering American citizens. They are tearing children away from their parents and where when they [27:10] are caught violating the law, they've deliberately lied to the American people and even to federal courts, [27:15] which have called them out at unprecedented levels. And where is this Republican Congress? [27:21] Rather than holding this administration accountable, they have served as its enablers, [27:26] fueling its reign of terror with hundreds of billions of dollars and no accountability measures. [27:31] And today they seek to pass legislation that would codify some of the worst and most cruel policies. [27:37] I understand that marking up this bill was the price that some members extracted from the Speaker [27:42] in order to allow action to proceed on the House floor. But if this bill were to become law, [27:47] it is the American people who would pay the cost. I urge all members to oppose this legislation and I yield back. [27:54] The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California. [27:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this bill, the Permanent Trump Secure Border Act. [28:22] This bill expands detention, reduces due process, strips protections for children and hands even more [28:30] unchecked authority to agencies that have already harmed communities like mine in Los Angeles. [28:38] We already know what an ICE with unchecked power looks like. [28:43] At Dilley Detention Center in Texas, it looks like children reporting mistreatment, [28:48] contaminated food, sleeplessness and inadequate medical care. In Hawthorne, California, [28:54] it looks like Carrie Lopez Alvarado, a nine-month pregnant U.S. citizen shoved against a truck, [29:02] handcuffed, chained and interrogated by ICE agents about where she was born. [29:07] She later went to the hospital with abdominal pain and gave birth early. [29:12] In Huntington Park, California, it looks like federal agents using explosive devices outside Jenny Ramirez's [29:19] home while her one-year-old and six-year-old children were inside. Everyone in that home was a United [29:26] States citizen. And in my district, I saw firsthand what it looks like. During my visit to Atalanto ICE [29:33] Detention Center, I met my constituent, Carlitos Ricardo Parias. He's a food bank volunteer. He's been [29:39] recognized by the city for his good works. He is a father and a husband. And he was shot in the arm [29:45] during a traffic stop by immigration agents before being taken into custody. Mind you, the judge dismissed [29:54] those trumped-up charges. But he is still in Atalanto and he is still not receiving the medical [30:00] treatment that he deserves. I went to visit him and what I saw was horrifying. He reported severe pain, [30:08] nerve impairment, swelling, reduced mobility, headaches, vision problems and a bone infection. [30:15] It looked to me like his arm will be amputated. And when I was able to get the medical records, [30:24] it was revealed that for his gunshot wound, he is receiving vitamin D. I was told by the folks at [30:34] Atalanto that pre-existing conditions are not treated. I was told that the doctors at Atalanto are not liable [30:42] for treating any kind of medical issue that occurs before arrival. That is stupid and it is malpractice. [30:50] Mr. Parias remains in detention and he is still not receiving the medical attention that he deserves. [30:58] So why are we not marking up legislation to address these abuses? Why are we not conducting the necessary [31:07] oversight on these conditions? Why are we so afraid to have the folks responsible for this kind of [31:16] behavior come before us and answer questions? If you are not afraid of the answers, then you should not be [31:22] afraid of the questions that will be asked of you. Why are we marking up a bill that rewards inhumane [31:29] treatment with more authority and fewer safeguards? A bill that imprisons children, a bill that weakens [31:36] asylum protections, a bill that criminalizes technical errors, a bill that empowers agencies with a [31:42] documented record of abuse. None of those things in this bill will make us safer. This is a doubling down [31:52] on cruelty. And yes, Republicans in this Congress have given DHS $240 billion. That is larger than the [32:04] budgets of 150 countries. They have more police officers than the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, [32:18] Washington, DC, Vegas, LA combined. And the American people don't want to see more killings on their [32:29] streets. And they don't want this bill. They want that madness to stop. They want answers to their [32:38] questions and they want oversight. And this committee has an obligation to stop trying to ram this kind of [32:49] nonsense through a committee and to instead conduct the kind of oversight that we all deserve. If one of [32:59] these people in any of these videos was your child, your friend, your neighbor, even somebody you didn't [33:10] like, you would still be pressing for oversight. So let's get to that business instead of this bill. [33:15] And with that, I yield back. General Lady yields back. [33:29] General Lady from Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. [33:36] General Lady is recognized. Yeah, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, which would codify some of Trump's [33:43] cruelest immigration policies and does nothing to combat the atrocities committed by the Department [33:49] of Homeland Security on our communities. When immigration officers violate people's constitutional [33:55] rights or physically harm people or kill people or terrorize communities, it's not accident or an [34:01] outlier. It's the Department of Homeland Security's planned policy. It's also not unique to this [34:07] administration because immigration enforcement was designed to be cruel and callous and lawless. [34:13] When DHS was formed, it took power away from other agencies that may have been better served to [34:20] provide the individual services and stuff them together all in the name of national security. But [34:26] since its start, it's been responsible for the targeting, the detainment, and family separation of [34:31] hundreds of thousands of people. The courts are separate, the judges are unaccountable, and detention [34:37] networks remain deplorable. This isn't just Trump administration manipulating an otherwise [34:43] effective agency, though. It is rogue by design. DHS has caused so much harm to our communities, yet [34:48] Republicans keep wanting to throw money at it with no oversight mechanisms to rein in their bad actions. [34:55] In the last 13 months alone, they've been given $240 billion. DHS has taken that money and hired [35:03] incompetent and unqualified immigration enforcement officers. They've thrown the money at private prison [35:08] corporations to expand attention centers. They've even purchased spyware and people's data to get [35:14] around the Fourth Amendment protections. Six people have been killed by ICE and CBP during immigration [35:20] enforcement actions, and another 53 people have died in ICE custody. The agency has gone out of its way to [35:28] not cooperate with local law enforcement to investigate these killings, though. There have been no reports that [35:34] agents responsible have faced any discipline or consequences. Often, DHS won't even identify them. [35:41] DHS has also racially targeted people smashed into people's houses without warrants and disappeared people. [35:47] These arrests are usually based on no real, no cause, no investigation, no hearing with the judge, [35:53] and no due process. The immigration officers don't care about a person's status, whether a person is [35:59] actually a citizen, if that person has a child at home, or even if they physically harm the person [36:04] during an arrest. This committee should be holding hearings with DHS officials demanding transparency [36:10] and accountability. We should be examining how DHS's creation allowed the agency to operate outside [36:15] the law and the Constitution. We should be listening to refugees and asylum seekers about how to improve [36:21] the intake process and better protect them. Cruelty is the point of the Department of Homeland Security, [36:27] and this bill fully supports that. I urge my colleagues to grow a conscience and to oppose this [36:31] bill, and I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Only one to seek recognition. The gentleman from [36:40] California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report. Point of order [36:48] reserved by the gentleman from California. The other gentleman from California. Amendment to the [36:55] amendment and the nature of his subject. Not objection. The amendment will be considered as read. The [36:59] gentleman from California is recognized to explain his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Folks, once again, [37:08] our nation is at war. So far, 17 American service members have made the ultimate sacrifice for our [37:17] country. Hundreds others have been injured. These are soldiers that take an oath to defend our country, [37:26] to make the ultimate sacrifice when necessary. These soldiers need to know that we back home have their [37:35] back. My amendment essentially codifies current President Trump administration policy. [37:45] H.R. 2 protects parole only the children and spouses of active duty servicemen. My amendment would [37:55] essentially, again, codify current Trump policy of protecting children's spouses and the parents of [38:03] active duty service members, reservists, and veterans. As you know, today, actually, very sadly, ICE is willing to go [38:13] after the military families and specifically the parents who are not protected by this bill. Again, ICE is [38:21] going after the parents of soldiers who are serving in our battlefield today. In my district, Santa Ana, Narciso Barranco, [38:31] a hardworking law-abiding man and father of three U.S. Marines. Folks, you make movies about individuals like this. [38:42] He was pepper sprayed, handcuffed, and beaten while being restrained by ICE agents. After the incident, [38:50] Mr. Barranco was held in custody for three weeks by our government as they tried to deport him. After a [38:59] judge ruled in Mr. Barranco's favor, DHS still worked to appeal the ruling to pause his parole in place [39:08] application and to deport him. It's important to note he had a parole in place application, a father of three [39:18] Marines, and our U.S. government, DHS, was doing everything in its power to deport this father of three [39:27] Marines. The second case, in Huntington Beach, Umberto Martinez Martinez was stopped and taken into ICE [39:38] custody while driving with his daughter, Ana, to school. He was removed to Mexico within hours. [39:47] At the time of his arrest, he had a pending parole application in place based on his daughter, [39:54] his other daughter's active duty military service. His daughter, Jessica Martinez, a Navy aviation [40:03] ordnance man serving aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, 20 years old Navy Abraham Lincoln. On the same day [40:16] her father was deported, Jessica was deployed aboard the Lincoln to the Middle East amid the conflict [40:23] with Iran. Folks, this is not the way to reward our soldiers. You have to make sure you let our men and [40:34] women in uniform that are fighting for our country know that our nation has their back. My amendment [40:42] again is simply codifying President Trump's current policy of extending parole in place to again to [40:51] parents of active duty service members reservists and veterans. Since 2013 USCIS has approved over 40,000 [41:01] applications for military parole in place, including 20,000 applications approved by the Trump [41:08] administration from 2017 to 2020. Mr. Chairman, I yield. The gentleman yields back. This gentleman [41:17] insists on his point of order from California. The gentleman withdraws his point of order. The gentleman [41:21] from Texas is recognized. I thank the chairman. Under current law, members of the United States military [41:28] can seek an expedited path to LPR status. The legislation that we have contemplates very specifically [41:38] dealing with the spouse and children with respect to parole for members of the United States military. [41:45] We believe that is directly reflective of what the administration is doing and reflective of the [41:49] appropriate policy and that this amendment is unnecessary. Now, I would add in response to [41:55] some of the rhetoric from my colleagues in their statements regarding the legislation. I want to [42:02] remind everybody out there who's viewing this, this is legislation that we passed. The construct of this [42:11] was passed previously in Congress and out of this committee. This legislation is designed very specifically [42:19] to codify current practices which have objectively and irrefutably slowed, stemmed, eliminated the border [42:28] crisis that was resulting directly in the deaths of American people in a moment. But I just want to finish [42:36] here in response to the amendment. That's the purpose here. And I heard my colleagues bringing up other matters [42:44] involving enforcement, ICE, and things going on, which we can have a full-throated debate about, and we have, [42:49] repeatedly, in this room and elsewhere. But what we're talking about here is stopping what happened. [42:57] Again, we've had repeated testimony in this room from people who were victimized by folks that were [43:05] released into the United States. In a little bit, I'm not going to do it right now, I've got an entire [43:11] folder here, an entire folder of the examples of people that I'm going to ask to insert in the record a [43:18] little bit of Americans, hundreds, dozens, like all of these pages right here. These are all Americans, [43:24] all people, and by the way, all immigrants who were abused by people released into the United States [43:30] under the previous administration's and my colleagues policies of abusing asylum and parole [43:37] that resulted directly in these rapes, murders, and destruction, and death, and fentanyl, and impacts on the [43:44] state of Texas to the tune of 11 billion dollars of incalculable impact that we're trying to deal with. [43:49] So here, we have legislation designed to codify it. I remember, you know, as my daughter's here, [43:55] we were watching an episode of the West Wing from 1999-2000, it was the Sheboleth episode, [44:01] and they were talking about there were some refugee, Christian refugees from China, and there was an entire [44:08] episode dedicated to credible fear, and trying to figure out and determine whether there was in fact [44:13] credible fear. And here, fast forward, and we are long gone from the days of Chuck Schumer taking to [44:18] the Senate floor and talking about the need for border security, or our Democratic colleagues going to [44:23] the House floor and talking about the need for border security, or a relatively left-leaning television show [44:30] talking about the law and following the law with respect to credible fear. And instead, we have seen this [44:36] evolution to abuse credible fear, make it completely meaningless, drive a truck through loopholes of [44:43] that parole, asylum, and all of the things that are designed to allow us to be a country that does [44:49] the things I think the gentleman is referring to, right? That we have a country that wants to say that [44:56] when there's a baby at your doorstep, or when there's somebody that is deserving of a parole so they can [45:00] come here and have a kidney transplant, or see their grandmother, or do the things we all as human beings [45:05] and people of faith want to do, we are left having to deal with the exploitation and using loopholes [45:16] to undo the purpose of the law. And so thus resulted in the countless millions of people in the United [45:23] States that then harmed Americans. So the purpose of this bill is to leave in place paths, as I said, [45:30] military, if you're here, there's a path, expedited path to LPR. If you're the spouse or child of that [45:37] person, there is a path under parole. This legislation would leave in place a path for asylum, a path for [45:43] parole, a path to be able to deal with unaccompanied children, being able to seek asylum, all of the [45:49] paths we want to do as people of faith to help individuals, but not allow it to be exploited, to dump [45:55] people onto the streets of our country that have resulted directly in the death, destruction, [45:59] murder, mayhem of the American people. And with that, I yield back. [46:03] The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. [46:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got an amendment at the desk. [46:14] Well, we're still on the other amendment. [46:16] Oh, we're on the other amendment. [46:17] The gentleman from Washington is recognized. [46:19] Thank you. I yield time to Mr. Correa. [46:21] From Texas, I want to get you back on point on my amendment. [46:29] Again, this is President Trump's existing policy on his website. [46:36] You mentioned children and spouses of military personnel. [46:41] My amendment simply adds parents of active duty, service members, reservists, and veterans. [46:48] I have my colleagues here in this committee focus on what we're talking about here. [46:54] On this amendment, you have Jessica Martinez, a Navy aviation oardsman. [47:01] On the SS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier. [47:05] Her job is to, again, load up those F-18s with ordinances as they go off to another mission. [47:13] This is a 20-year-old off naval personnel in an aircraft carrier. [47:20] What are we telling her the day you deport her father? [47:25] The next day you say, please make the ultimate sacrifice for your country. [47:30] We're talking about keeping this country strong, defending this nation, about soldiers who are [47:35] human beings, and more importantly, my friend from Texas, I am essentially codifying with this [47:46] amendment current Trump administration policy. [47:50] This is the Trump administration policy. [47:53] And if we are here to keep America strong, we got to make sure that we watch, and watch the backs of [48:00] those military officers, those military personnel, men and women, fighting for us across the country. [48:07] This is a common-sense legislation, common-sense amendment to keep our country strong. [48:14] Again, Narciso Barranco, the father of three U.S. Marines, who was, both of these fathers [48:22] were following the legal process to adjust their status, to stay in the United States. [48:29] ICE went out of the way to arrest them. [48:32] They deported one individual. [48:34] The second one they're trying to deport. [48:36] What is this all about? [48:38] Narciso Barranco, father of three Marines. [48:41] We should be getting ready to make a movie about this guy. [48:46] His three sons he raised to be patriots, and we want to deport him. [48:55] Mr. Martinez, daughter, Navy, proud American, and we're trying to deport her father. [49:03] Mr. Chairman, I yield back to Ms. Jayapal. [49:08] Thank you, Mr. Correa. [49:10] I don't know if there's a misunderstanding, but the Trump policy that's on the website [49:16] is what this amendment is about. [49:18] The bill that is in the bill, the military parole option only benefits the spouses and minor children [49:27] of active military service members. [49:29] And so in doing so, it leaves out the service members' parents and the families of U.S. veterans. [49:35] It leaves out the families of individuals who served or are currently serving as reservists. [49:40] That is different from the Trump policy that is on Trump's website. [49:46] So Mr. Correa's amendment seeks to codify the one parole program that the Trump administration [49:54] is actually using, and I don't understand why my Republican colleagues want to restrict [50:00] a parole program that is actually being utilized by Donald Trump for members of our military. [50:07] And to your broader point about, you know, the work that we need to do, [50:13] if only we would actually reform the immigration system. [50:16] We have spent between 400 to 450 billion dollars on border security over the last 10 years, [50:23] instead of actually providing more legal pathways. [50:27] You can't do one without the other and expect one to work. [50:31] What we need is a functioning immigration system that allows people to have a process [50:36] whereby they come to the United States. [50:38] It is orderly. [50:39] It is humane. [50:40] We respect the rights of those who are here. [50:43] We don't try to throw out people who are here and who have committed no crimes, [50:48] who are working, who are doing all the things. [50:50] And we have not provided a pathway to citizenship for people in this country, [50:54] including those who have lived here for 30 years. [50:58] Imagine how this country would suffer if we actually succeed in kicking out everybody [51:03] that Trump and Stephen Miller want to kick out. [51:06] Would the gentlelady yield for a question? [51:08] I would. [51:08] So my question is this. [51:11] They're calling this the Permanent Trump Act, but it seems like there's at least one Trump policy [51:16] they don't like. [51:17] They're positioning this legislation to the right of Donald Trump. [51:21] Why are they doing that? [51:22] That's my question, ranking member. [51:24] That is my question. [51:26] They are taking away the one parole program for our U.S. service members and their families [51:32] that Trump actually codified or put onto his website. [51:36] They don't want to codify that. [51:37] Time is expired. [51:38] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [51:40] I yield back. [51:40] I move to strike the last word. [51:42] Wait a second. [51:44] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [51:47] Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. [51:49] I yield my time, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Texas. [51:53] I think the gentleman from Wisconsin, a few data points here that I think are important. [51:56] Number one, this policy dates back to Obama. [52:00] It was a Biden policy. [52:02] So to say it was a Trump policy is not accurate. [52:04] Number two, this amendment was offered. [52:06] This amendment was offered when we debated this bill in the last Congress before the [52:11] current Trump administration. [52:12] But this amendment was offered under Biden being president. [52:16] So the idea that you're trying to say that, oh, this is somehow a Trump policy, it is a policy [52:21] that has – it is a policy that I acknowledge has spanned several administrations and folks [52:27] across the other side of the aisle and Republicans. [52:29] I agree with that, that that policy has existed. [52:31] But it was put in place – hold on one second – that it was put in place under Obama, [52:38] that it was carried forward under Biden, that we debated it when Biden was president, [52:43] we offered the same amendment during that time, and then now, yes, it has stayed as the policy. [52:48] The point of the statutory change is to make the statutory change very specific that does not [52:54] do anything to change what is already law, that you can seek LPR status if you're the [53:00] active duty member of the military. [53:02] That's currently allowed and under the statute. [53:05] It's lawful. [53:06] But it is putting in place a specific parole category for spouses and children. [53:12] That is what the legislation does, I think, in good faith to deal with this issue, [53:17] broadly speaking, for the men and women in the military, [53:20] and to provide for that – for the direct spouse and children. [53:24] And whatever the policies are of the administration, they can do that. [53:27] But this is Congress speaking with one voice with a tight definition [53:31] with respect to how we handle the men and women in the military and their spouses and children. [53:36] And that's the purpose of the legislation. [53:38] With that, I yield back to the gentleman. [53:40] The gentleman from Wisconsin – the gentleman from Wisconsin controls – [53:43] I yield back to the gentleman from Wisconsin. [53:45] And I yield back to the chair. [53:46] The gentleman goes back to the further discussion. [53:49] Mr. Chairman. [53:49] Mr. Goldman. [53:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [53:55] I want to just clarify one thing that my friend from Texas said. [54:00] It's not a Biden policy or Obama policy or Trump 1.0 policy. [54:07] We're talking about what the policy is right now under this administration. [54:11] So stop deflecting to try to put the blame on somebody else for a policy that you don't like. [54:19] It is this administration's policy. [54:22] That's what we're talking about. [54:23] But I want to go back to something that my friend from Texas said earlier a couple times. [54:30] That people of faith are just trying to help other people, I believe you said. [54:39] That trying to find that inner humanity and that faith to do what is right for the American residents and the American people. [54:50] The question then becomes, why don't you care about the immigrant children who are being absolutely terrorized and abused by this Department of Homeland Security? [55:05] First of all, this administration tried to stop providing counsel to unaccompanied children. [55:14] Two unaccompanied children. [55:16] Obviously, these unaccompanied children are not making these decisions of their own volition. [55:23] They are children. [55:24] Many don't speak the language, have no idea how this immigration system works. [55:31] And this Department of Homeland Security wants to take away their legal counsel. [55:35] Well, thankfully, a judge intervened and required the administration to abide by the contracts [55:41] that it had to provide counsel for unaccompanied children. [55:47] Now, recognizing they can't prevent it or withhold it, the administration is now withholding payment [55:58] under those contracts to the legal services providers. [56:02] And in fact, they are demanding private confidential information, some of which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, [56:10] in order to be able to in order to send that money that they are owed. [56:18] These are not big law firms. [56:20] These are small nonprofit organizations that cannot survive without getting paid. [56:26] And yet the administration refuses to do it. [56:29] And as of today, more than six months of payments have not been made. [56:36] But that's not it. [56:40] The average length of time for unaccompanied children in ORR custody in October 2024 was 35 days. [56:51] In November of 2025, it was 185 days. [57:00] This administration, on average, is putting children in jail for more than six months. [57:11] Many of them are actually eligible for SIDGE, for their own protection as unaccompanied children [57:22] who cannot, if they are returned to their country, will face abuse from a parent. [57:29] So now this bill says we're going to actually reduce the protections for those children who can show [57:38] an abusive or violent parent by saying that if they have one parent that they can be with [57:47] that is not abusive, then they don't qualify for SIDGE. [57:51] But the problem is that one parent is often here in the United States. [57:56] And so by denying them this lawful parole, they are then going to be deported back to the one parent who is abusing them. [58:06] So if you really are a person of faith who cares about the humanity of people [58:14] and wants to do right by people, then why don't you care about children, [58:20] whether they are immigrant children or American citizen children? [58:24] Why are you punishing children? [58:27] Children who often are not making decisions of their own because, as we know from our own law, [58:34] children generally are not considered capable of making decisions on their own. [58:42] So I call on your faith, faith of all of us, to care for children, basic human decency. [58:53] And I yield back. [58:54] The gentleman's time has expired. [58:55] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [58:57] Mr. Chairman. [58:57] Mr. Nadler. [58:58] Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple question. [59:01] I would ask the gentleman from Texas. [59:04] Does he oppose supporting parents of soldiers in the manner that the gentleman's amendment would do? [59:20] I'm yielding you the time to answer the question. [59:27] If a member of the Armed Services seeks LPR status, then that individual can then go seek... [59:34] That wasn't my question. [59:35] Mr. Well, but that's the path right now under a current law. [59:38] They can do that. [59:38] And this legislation contemplates spouses and children. [59:41] Mr. Yes, but why would you oppose this legislation also contemplating parents? [59:46] Mr. Well, first of all, the legislation has a number of flaws in it, [59:49] which we can go into it, and that are issues involving... [59:52] Mr. Reclaiming my time. [59:53] The gentleman's amendment would cure this one flaw. [59:57] Why would you oppose it? [59:58] Mr. There are numerous issues with the amendment. [1:00:01] We believe the legislation, as it is crafted, does exactly what we intend to do to ensure [1:00:05] that Armed Services folks have a path, that their spouse and children have a path. [1:00:09] Mr. But not their parents. [1:00:10] Mr. That if you seek LPR, the parents have a path if you seek LPR status. [1:00:13] Mr. But not their parents. [1:00:13] Mr. And that's a tight and good way to do it. [1:00:16] That's what the legislation contemplates. [1:00:17] Mr. I fail to understand the grounds for opposing amendment that would give [1:00:23] parents the same status as children and spouses here. [1:00:29] Mr. As I've said, the legislation allows for that possibility for the [1:00:37] member of the Armed Services to seek LPR. [1:00:39] Mr. Why not provided? [1:00:39] Mr. Not simply allowed the possibility. [1:00:40] Mr. Because our laws, that way you know whether the individual is serving the Armed Services, [1:00:43] they want to become an LPR, there's a path to do that expedited, they can do that, [1:00:46] and then they can seek status for their parents. [1:00:48] Mr. Reclaiming my time. [1:00:50] Mr. But it establishes as the parole status for the spouse or the child. [1:00:53] Mr. Reclaiming my time. [1:00:54] Mr. Which is a good policy. [1:00:55] Mr. Reclaiming my time. [1:00:56] It establishes the status of the spouse and the children, but not for the parents. [1:01:03] It seems to me there's no logical reason not to establish the same [1:01:07] status, the same rights for the parents of a soldier. [1:01:11] I yield back. [1:01:12] General Leo's back. [1:01:13] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [1:01:16] Mr. Askin. [1:01:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:01:19] I want to first thank the gentleman from California for introducing this amendment and for spotting [1:01:25] this outrageous departure from even current policy. [1:01:31] As I understand it, military parole is in place today and available to people who are the immediate [1:01:39] relatives of U.S. military service members and veterans. [1:01:43] I'm assuming these are people who've had honorable discharges and people who have nobly served the [1:01:51] country and many of them are decorated, but certainly they all have honorable discharges. [1:01:56] And so the military parole is available to people who are their immediate relatives, [1:02:02] including their spouses and including their parents. [1:02:09] Now, despite the fact that this legislation is called the Permanent Trump Act to codify his policies, [1:02:17] they want to they want to reject the policy and not codify the policy of allowing these immediate [1:02:26] family members of veterans to get in categorically, even spouses. [1:02:32] They just want to go to active members of the forces, but not allow these people to come in [1:02:39] with veterans who may even be decorated war heroes. [1:02:43] They want to get rid of that. And I heard you mention a case of some people who live right [1:02:50] near you, which is perhaps why this caught your eye, Mr. Correa. But I wonder if you would tell us [1:02:55] exactly what we're talking about in this case, because as I heard you say it, we're talking about [1:03:01] three sons, all of whom serve in the U.S. military, and they want to be able to deport their father. [1:03:09] And that's something that is an ongoing case. Is it right? Would you just apprise us of what's happening? [1:03:15] Yes. And let me say to you that one of them is a veteran and two are active Marines. [1:03:22] Two are actually in the Marine Corps now. One of them honorably discharged. [1:03:28] Okay. Under the existing policy, Trump policy, the father applied for parole in place, submitted [1:03:37] the application, moved ahead. And that's why when he was arrested, okay, he was not immediately deported, [1:03:44] but deportation was paused. He went before a judge. The judge ruled in his favor. DHS is essentially [1:03:53] coming back and appealing that favorable ruling. You're talking about three Marines, two active, [1:04:03] one, essentially a veteran. Always followed the law, has not been an individual with any criminal record. [1:04:12] This is the individual we're talking about. Okay. And so if this, if your amendment doesn't pass, [1:04:19] essentially the legislation would say you have three sons, say, who served honorably and dutifully in [1:04:25] Iraq or Afghanistan, and their father is now petitioning to be part of the military parole in [1:04:34] place, he would be rejected because they're veterans at this point and because they're not active service [1:04:41] members. I understand in the case today, it's a mixture of, but they just want to categorically say, [1:04:47] if you're just a veteran of the United States, you don't get the benefit of this policy. And I got to [1:04:52] believe that this is an oversight, although I'm a, um, a little stunned to hear, um, the distinguished [1:04:58] gentleman from Texas substantively defend this policy, instead of just say, this looks like an [1:05:05] oversight. Certainly the families of veterans should be included as they were under Trump and Biden and [1:05:13] Obama. It's a policy so obvious that it has had bipartisan participation by all of the presidents. [1:05:20] And now for some reason, I guess in an eagerness to demonstrate the anti-immigrant bona fides of [1:05:28] the majority, they want to go way to the right of what the current policy is and do some serious damage [1:05:33] to people's families. Mr. Correa, yield to you. Yes. Just wanted to, this is even more shocking. [1:05:41] Jessica Martinez on the SS Abraham in the Middle East, her father also had a parole in place application, [1:05:49] but when ICE picked him up, they took him to the Santa Ana ICE detention center. Instead of checking his [1:05:55] status, which would have enabled him to stay in the country, when he, when they walked him in, they said, [1:06:01] our computers are down. Sorry, we're sending you to the border immediately. That is what they did. [1:06:08] They said, the computers are out. We'll taking you, we're deporting you immediately. This is a violation of [1:06:13] the Trump administration current policy when it comes to the family members of soldiers. [1:06:19] Thank you. You're back. [1:06:20] The gentleman's time has expired. Is there further discussion on the amendment? [1:06:23] Ms. Chiaipa has already spoken. [1:06:28] Yes, Ms. Chiaipa has already spoken. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, [1:06:33] the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. Those in [1:06:37] favor say aye. Aye. [1:06:38] Those opposed say no. No. [1:06:40] The no's appear to have it. [1:06:42] Recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. Recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll. [1:06:46] Mr. Jordan. No. [1:06:47] Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. McClintock. Mr. McClintock votes no. Mr. Tiffany. [1:06:57] Mr. Massey. Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Klein. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Van [1:07:08] Drure. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Hageman votes no. Ms. Leah Florida. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. [1:07:24] Mr. Kiley. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Knott. Mr. Knott votes no. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. [1:07:36] Onder. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin. Aye. [1:07:46] Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson. [1:07:56] Mr. Liu. Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Jayapal votes aye. Mr. Correa. Mr. Correa votes aye. [1:08:05] Ms. Scanlon. Aye. Ms. Scanlon votes aye. Mr. Neguse. Ms. McBath. Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross votes aye. [1:08:13] Ms. Ballant. Ms. Ballant votes aye. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes aye. Ms. Kamlager Dove. [1:08:20] Mr. Mosk votes. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes aye. Ms. Crockett. Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania. Ms. Lee of [1:08:28] Pennsylvania votes aye. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany votes no. Ms. [1:08:43] Kamlager Dove, you are not recorded. Ms. Kamlager Dove votes yes. Mr. Fry, you are not recorded. Mr. [1:08:59] Fry votes no. Mr. Baumgartner votes no. Mr. Kline, you are not recorded. Mr. Kline votes no. Mr. [1:09:31] Grothman. Mr. Grothman votes no. Clerk of report. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, you are not recorded. Mr. [1:10:02] Johnson votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Mr. [1:10:19] Mr. Onder. [1:10:20] Mr. Onder votes no. [1:10:21] Mr. Kiley. [1:10:22] Aye. [1:10:23] Mr. Kiley votes aye. [1:10:42] Clerk of report. [1:10:46] Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 16 noes. [1:10:48] The amendment is not adopted. [1:10:51] Seeks recognition. [1:10:52] Gentleman from Pennsylvania. [1:10:57] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:10:59] I have an amendment at the desk. [1:11:00] Clerk of report. [1:11:01] Point of order reserved by the gentleman from California. [1:11:09] Amendment to the amendment. [1:11:10] Objection. [1:11:11] The amendment will be considered as read. [1:11:12] The gentlelady is recognized to explain her amendment. [1:11:15] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:11:16] This amendment is simple. [1:11:17] It would ensure ICE does not use any of its warehouses that it's purchased over the past year for family detention. [1:11:24] It's honestly shameful that we even need to offer this amendment, but unfortunately, cruelty knows no bounds under this administration. [1:11:31] It's also necessary because Republicans have given ICE over $50 billion just for immigration detention with no guardrails or oversight. [1:11:40] This country has way too much practice warehousing human beings. [1:11:45] It's so deep within our history that we have perfected a system where we can strip away someone's humanity and put them in a holding pen, [1:11:52] where they are treated as lesser human being, less deserving of rights and dignity. [1:11:58] We have the highest incarceration rate of any developed nation, and Republicans want to expand it further. [1:12:04] In February, internal ICE documents revealed plans for what the agency called the ICE Detention Reengineering Initiative. [1:12:10] This proposal would replace the current detention system with one centered on 34 ICE-owned facilities, including eight large-scale detention centers that would each hold 7,000 to 10,000 people in refurbished warehouses. [1:12:24] ICE has since acquired warehouses in my commonwealth, Pennsylvania, as well as Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, Arizona, Maryland, and Utah at a cost of $1 billion. [1:12:37] These three of these facilities are intended to be large-scale facilities with 7,500 to 10,000 planned beds, [1:12:46] a warehouse in Social Circle, Georgia, located 50 miles outside of Atlanta, [1:12:51] a warehouse in Socaro, Texas, in the El Paso metro area, and a warehouse in Tremont, PA, in central Pennsylvania. [1:12:58] The other six, which have already been purchased, are smaller processing centers with plans to hold 1,000 to 1,500 people each. [1:13:06] The goal of the revamped detention and deportation system would, as former acting ICE director Todd Lyons put it, [1:13:12] be an Amazon Prime but with human beings. [1:13:17] A reminder that Amazon Prime is also a distribution warehouse, so what does that even mean? [1:13:22] But needless to say, this is disgusting. [1:13:25] Luckily, the agency has partially reversed course and is now planning to offload seven warehouses [1:13:30] by either giving them to other federal agencies or selling them outright. [1:13:34] But the casual cruelty of this scale of detention cannot be overstated. [1:13:39] The government is essentially treating these people, mothers and fathers and grandpas and little kids, like livestock. [1:13:48] These are human beings being held in inhumane conditions, [1:13:51] and Republicans want to convince people that this is the source of pride rather than shame. [1:13:56] History will treat these actions as shameful, just as enslaving people was shameful, [1:14:00] and putting Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II was shameful, [1:14:05] and the Trail of Tears was shameful. [1:14:07] Geographical borders should not be the lines that determine how we treat other human beings. [1:14:13] If that's the only standard, then we may find that one day, we too are not worthy of compassion. [1:14:19] Isn't the golden rule in our Christian Bible, [1:14:22] do unto others as you would have them do unto you? [1:14:26] These actions, are they not inviting the same sorts of treatments upon our descendants one day? [1:14:32] And none of this touches on the fact that our country has, in many cases, [1:14:35] played a significant role in the destabilization of the country's people are being displaced from in the first place. [1:14:43] Republicans are taking away all context and saying we must hurt these human beings into inhumane warehouses indefinitely. [1:14:49] It's imperative that we ensure the remaining warehouses facilities are not used to detain families. [1:14:54] The conditions in the regular facilities are already unconscionable. [1:14:58] When I visited Moshanna Detention Center in Pennsylvania and spoke to the women detained there, [1:15:02] they told me about bad food and toxic water and a lack of proper medical care. [1:15:07] Delaney Hall in New Jersey's conditions were so bad that detainees conducted a hunger strike. [1:15:12] Rather than do something to improve these conditions, whistleblowers and protestors have been transferred around the country to break up organizing power. [1:15:20] These facilities designed for detention with the right infrastructure, and it's still terrible. [1:15:26] We've seen the disaster that was Alligator Alcatraz in Florida. [1:15:30] Millions of taxpayer dollars funneled into a failed makeshift detention center. [1:15:34] Detainees at the facility reported difficulty accessing lawyers in poor conditions like worms in the food, [1:15:39] or toilets that didn't flush and floors flooded with fecal waste and mosquitoes and other insects everywhere. [1:15:45] Detention is bad enough, but a commercial warehouse is no place for a child. [1:15:50] I encourage all my colleagues to support this common sense amendment, and I yield back. [1:15:55] Gentleman withdraws his point of order. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. Then we'll come to Texas. [1:16:04] Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, but I've got to respond. [1:16:08] I don't know that there was one word that I agree with my colleague from Pennsylvania and what she just said. [1:16:14] I, for one, have been to some of these facilities, and I actually have been overwhelmed with how the reality of those facilities operate differs from the narrative that we're hearing from the other side of the aisle. [1:16:24] One in North Carolina that I was at recently, they have workout facilities. They have recreational courts. [1:16:29] They have a video game portal where these detainees can go and play video games. [1:16:34] They have movie rentals. They had unbelievably sufficient dining options. [1:16:40] They even cater to individuals' faiths on an individual basis. They have worship facilities. They have free attorney portals. [1:16:50] The idea that this is somehow anything other than a professional and very humane option is simply dishonest. [1:16:58] And for my colleague to say that the United States destabilizes countries in the world and therefore we should welcome millions and millions of people into our country illegally, [1:17:09] that's the most specious claim I think I've heard in several weeks, if not months, in Congress, which is saying something. [1:17:15] My question to the Democrats on the other side is, is there a number that we should cap enrollees? [1:17:22] Is it 10 million? 20 million? 50 million? What about 100 million? [1:17:28] If destabilized countries in the world is your threshold, we could triple our nation, our population in a week. [1:17:35] We're not talking about, we're not talking about people who come here legally, mind you. [1:17:39] We are talking about people in the country illegally. [1:17:42] And there is the reality that our immigration system that your party has supported has weakened the country. [1:17:49] So with that, if anyone on this side would like to respond, I'll certainly yield the time, Mr. McClintock. [1:17:56] There's one other detail about these detention centers that I think needs to be added. [1:18:03] Those who are detained in them can leave them anytime they want for any country that will accept them. [1:18:10] They're simply not allowed to return to our country. [1:18:14] And the reason for that ought to be self-evident. [1:18:18] In fact, the whole purpose of these detention centers is simply to arrange for transportation back to their home countries. [1:18:26] I yield back to the gentleman. [1:18:27] Anybody else on this side? [1:18:28] Mr. Chairman. [1:18:29] Yes, sir. [1:18:31] Thank you, Mr. Knott. [1:18:32] You know, I see the outrage from my colleagues about what's happening at DHS. [1:18:36] And I just didn't see that in the Biden years. [1:18:39] And the border was wide open. [1:18:41] The whole reason we've got this bill before us today is because of the damage that the Democrat administration before this one did. [1:18:48] And we wouldn't be talking about this had the border remained secure in the four years prior to President Trump coming back. [1:18:54] But we're in this situation because of mismanagement and because of a DHS that harmed the American people for four years. [1:19:02] And we could never get answers from the Homeland Secretary when he was here, Mr. Mayorkas. [1:19:08] He sat right there and defied every question that was asked, said the border was secure, lied to this committee, and now here we are. [1:19:16] And it's a shame that we've even come to this place. [1:19:19] But I applaud your pushback, and I thank you, Mr. Roy, for this bill. [1:19:24] And I'll just close, Mr. Chairman, again. [1:19:27] I do want to know from the Democrats, is there a number that we should cap it of illegal aliens inside the country? [1:19:35] Because there was, without any question, an unchecked harm that's been inflicted on Americans because of- [1:19:40] Gentlemen, you? [1:19:41] Yes, sir. [1:19:42] Mr. Nott, thank you for that question. [1:19:45] And I would say that it takes two, okay? [1:19:49] Not only undocumented, these are undocumented workers, taxpayers, hardworking individuals who are hired by honest, law-abiding businesses. [1:20:01] So the answer to your question, sir, is how many employees do our growing economy need to sustain that economic growth? [1:20:10] That's the answer to your question, sir. [1:20:12] It's not a singular statement or a singular subject. [1:20:16] It's the economic growth of the United States. [1:20:19] That's the answer to your question, sir. [1:20:21] That is not the answer to my question. [1:20:22] Yes, it is, sir. [1:20:23] For you to say- [1:20:24] Sir, yes, it is. [1:20:25] I'm reclaiming my time. [1:20:26] For you to say that we should hire anybody, or we should allow anyone that can be hired- [1:20:30] We need immigration reform, and that would be the answer to your question, sir. [1:20:34] That doesn't answer the question. [1:20:35] We have millions and millions of people who are here illegally that take rather than produce. [1:20:41] And your side cannot condemn them. [1:20:42] Work. [1:20:43] Workers that are here supporting our national economy. [1:20:47] Will you say that if someone is taking more than they're producing, they should leave? [1:20:52] I'm just saying- [1:20:53] That's a very simple yes-no question. [1:20:55] Immigrants support this economy, sir. [1:20:56] To say that every illegal immigrant is a net producer for the country- [1:20:58] Immigrants support this economy, sir. [1:21:00] That is absolutely and provably false, and I think that you know that. [1:21:04] I yield back. [1:21:06] Time of the gentleman has expired. [1:21:07] The gentleman yields back. [1:21:08] Who seeks recognition? [1:21:09] The gentleman from New York, and then I'll go to Washington. [1:21:11] Mr. Chairman, I don't know what universe some of the gentlemen on the other side inhabit, [1:21:19] but a couple of months ago, Mr. Goldman and I inspected Delaney Hall, which is a large facility, [1:21:27] a large privately operated ice facility in Newark, New Jersey. [1:21:33] What we saw there was terrible. [1:21:36] We saw maggoty food. [1:21:39] We saw that the food was not prepared at proper temperatures to kill bacteria. [1:21:46] I saw a girl who had been in this country from one year old, who was taken from high [1:21:55] school a week before her prom and had no idea what was going to happen to her. [1:22:00] I saw two people with advanced cancers who were not being treated at all, literally not being treated. [1:22:08] We were told that doctors were available Monday through Friday at 9 to 5 p.m. [1:22:16] We were there from 3 to 5 p.m. on, I think it was a Wednesday. [1:22:19] There were no doctors available in the facility at all. [1:22:23] A facility that had several thousand people in it. [1:22:26] So I don't know how you can say that these are humane facilities. [1:22:33] I don't want to say they're designed to, but they certainly have the effect of killing people [1:22:42] for lack of cancer treatment, for example. [1:22:46] And they are a shame on this nation. [1:22:51] I can't speak for every single facility, but I certainly can speak for Delaney Hall, [1:22:56] which is one of the largest facilities and the one that Mr. Goldman and I inspected. [1:23:02] And that facility is terrible, life-threatening. [1:23:07] The inmates at one point went on a hunger strike to protest the maggoty food, [1:23:18] which they couldn't eat in any event. [1:23:21] So I just wanted to inform the committee of what we actually saw, [1:23:26] not what somebody else may say or what the administration may assert, [1:23:31] but what Mr. Goldman and I observed with our own eyes and ears. [1:23:36] Will the gentleman yield? [1:23:37] Yes, I will. [1:23:38] Well, just to give you some peace of mind, everything I said was firsthand account as well. [1:23:43] I went and visited. [1:23:44] And I am working with the department to go to Delaney Hall, [1:23:48] and I'm going to try to do so with very little notice to see if what you're saying is accurate today. [1:23:53] It shouldn't be accurate. [1:23:54] But even besides that, I do have to ask, should the American taxpayers be forced with a bill to cover the world sick? [1:24:01] I mean, this is a fundamental question that I think a lot of Americans— [1:24:05] You're reclaiming my time. [1:24:06] The American taxpayers should not be forced to cover the world sick, [1:24:11] but the American taxpayers should certainly cover the medical expense of people seized by the government and kept in confinement. [1:24:19] Just as we— [1:24:21] And we're here illegally. [1:24:22] Whether they're here illegally or not, if they're put in a facility and kept there, [1:24:28] they should not be killed by lack of medical attention. [1:24:31] When we have people in our prisons, we hopefully, guilty of whatever crime they may be, [1:24:37] we hopefully give them adequate medical treatment. [1:24:42] Same thing here. [1:24:43] If someone is held in a facility, for whatever reason, valid or invalid, [1:24:48] they should be given adequate medical treatment. [1:24:50] And I don't think anybody can quarrel with that. [1:24:53] And I would hope that if you tour Delaney Hall, you don't give reasonable notice. [1:24:57] You give no notice at all. [1:24:58] You have a right as a matter of Congress to do that. [1:25:00] I agree. [1:25:01] And if you give notice, they may— [1:25:05] Dress up, sir. [1:25:06] They may clean up what you're permitted to see. [1:25:10] Sure. [1:25:11] So go there with no notice, as Mr. Goldman and I did. [1:25:13] Yes, sir. [1:25:15] I yield back. [1:25:16] May I be heard? [1:25:19] Back. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. [1:25:21] Thank you, Chairman. [1:25:23] So I was in Delaney Hall. [1:25:25] I looked at it. [1:25:26] I heard all this stuff. [1:25:27] People are eating maggots. [1:25:29] People are being beaten. [1:25:30] They don't have medical care. [1:25:32] The whole bit. [1:25:33] We didn't give them a whole lot of notice at all. [1:25:35] We showed up there. [1:25:37] We went through everything, not just on the regular guided tour that they give, but went [1:25:42] through each and every part of it. [1:25:44] Let me tell you, this comes from a congressman now who was the head of the prison gang task [1:25:49] force for the state of New Jersey. [1:25:51] So let me give you some information. [1:25:53] The Laney Hall was nicer, cleaner, better than any facility that the state has, the state [1:26:01] of New Jersey, any of the prisons they have, period. [1:26:05] And quite frankly, that's under repeated Democratic governors over and over again. [1:26:10] In fact, recently New Jersey just got in trouble for their state facilities. [1:26:14] So let's talk about what I saw. [1:26:16] We went there. [1:26:17] I saw the law library. [1:26:19] I saw the computers and the iPads they can have. [1:26:22] Okay. [1:26:23] Then we saw the lending library. [1:26:24] If they're not interested in law, they can get regular books. [1:26:26] I'm a dentist. [1:26:27] I met with the physician. [1:26:29] The physician showed me the prescriptions, showed me the charts, showed me the people [1:26:33] who for the first time in their life, ever had medical care. [1:26:37] Came into the Laney Hall, never really had medical care before. [1:26:41] He's found diabetes, found high blood pressure, found just about every condition that you can [1:26:48] think of, high cholesterol. [1:26:50] And now they're getting medications that they never had before. [1:26:54] And now, especially if they request it, or they think it's needed, the food that they [1:27:00] get is for salt-restricted diets, or for people that have any kind of medical need, a special [1:27:06] diet. [1:27:07] Let's tell the truth. [1:27:09] This was a show that, I'm sorry to say this, that the other side put on to make things look [1:27:15] terrible that just weren't true at all. [1:27:18] Will the gentleman yield? [1:27:19] No, I will not, because I want to finish this. [1:27:21] If I get time in the end, I will yield. [1:27:23] And then we went through the rest of the facility. [1:27:26] And I did speak with, I didn't have long conversations. [1:27:29] Some of them didn't speak English, and truth be told, didn't have an interpreter in me. [1:27:33] But I spoke to people doing okay, and we bueno, bueno. [1:27:36] You know, everything's fine. [1:27:38] And by the way, I said this before, I'll say it again. [1:27:40] I don't know how well they work or don't work, but if we want to test who's telling [1:27:44] the truth out here, I'll go on a lie detector test anywhere, anytime, with anybody who wants [1:27:50] to do this and say, you know, that I'm telling the truth on this. [1:27:54] Because I didn't know what to expect. [1:27:55] I was hoping it would be up to state standards of the state prisons I visited and walked [1:28:01] through when I was a state senator, and found that the standards were much better. [1:28:06] But get this, I'm not done yet. [1:28:08] So then they, well, they don't have recreation. [1:28:10] They can't move around enough. [1:28:12] And by the way, in the state facilities, they can't. [1:28:14] And the state facilities, because our governor in New Jersey was criticizing it, they have to stand and eat over their bed. [1:28:20] They no longer have a table to eat at. [1:28:23] But here, they had a place to eat. [1:28:26] They had the things that they need. [1:28:28] And then they said, well, they don't have recreation. [1:28:30] Well, hell, I know a lot of people that don't have recreation. [1:28:33] But okay, we're a humane society, and it's America. [1:28:36] So, you know, I asked, because they weren't going to take us to that part. [1:28:40] I go out, and I'm looking at soccer fields. [1:28:44] They have soccer tournaments. [1:28:45] They play soccer. [1:28:46] Most people don't have this. [1:28:48] I work out every morning. [1:28:50] I know what gym equipment's supposed to look like. [1:28:52] Man, this gym equipment was top notch, more than most people have or use. [1:28:58] And it was typical of what a good gym would have. [1:29:01] All kinds of machines for every body part. [1:29:04] So come on, man. [1:29:06] It's tell the truth time. [1:29:08] Stop it. [1:29:09] And any time somebody says this, I'm going to say it. [1:29:13] And that's why I got sick of it. [1:29:14] That's why I went there. [1:29:15] That's why I looked through. [1:29:16] That's what I found. [1:29:17] I know what my eyes see, and we look at them. [1:29:20] By the way, the meals, bad food. [1:29:22] Look at the food. [1:29:24] They have halal for Islamic people. [1:29:26] They had kosher for Jewish people. [1:29:28] If anybody else had some other restrictions, they would work with you. [1:29:32] That's the real deal. [1:29:34] So I will yield, but I may reclaim my time. [1:29:37] Gentlemen, yield to the gentleman from California. [1:29:40] Yes. [1:29:42] I just wanted to add that an illegal alien who agrees to voluntarily return to their own country, [1:29:49] that is, who agrees to obey the law, spends an average of four days in detention. [1:29:54] And that's a good point, by the way. [1:29:56] And I will yield in a second. [1:29:58] I reclaim my time. [1:29:59] If they want to go back to their country, they absolutely can go back. [1:30:04] And by the way, the famous hunger strike, those folks were getting money, and they were going into the commissary, [1:30:10] because they also have a commissary besides the regular food you get. [1:30:14] And they were getting food there, saying they were on a hunger strike. [1:30:17] Nobody was on a hunger strike. [1:30:19] Who wanted me to yield? [1:30:20] Your time's up. [1:30:22] Okay. [1:30:23] I yield back to the chairman. [1:30:25] The gentleman yields back to the general aide from Washington, then I'll go to New York. [1:30:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:30:31] I guess the question I would have for my colleague on the other side is, [1:30:35] why are you asking taxpayers to pay for the profits of for-profit prison operators? [1:30:43] The two largest detention operators in this space that occupy the vast majority of detention contracts are GEO and CoreCivic. [1:30:56] GEO in 2025 alone had a record-breaking $254 million in net profit. [1:31:06] That was 700% more than compared to 2024. [1:31:11] And they had a revenue stream of $2.6 billion. [1:31:16] They're projecting, the executives at GEO have these stock portfolios that are projecting that they're going to increase their profits to $3.1 billion this year alone. [1:31:29] So then you look at CoreCivic, which is the other one, revenue of $2.2 billion, up 13% from the year before. [1:31:37] They just got $1.47 billion in a multi-year deal to either sell or operate specific facilities. [1:31:49] They've built nine new detention centers in this year alone. [1:31:53] So what you're saying is you want taxpayers to foot the bill for profits to these mega-corporations [1:32:00] that are using the imprisonment and incarceration of immigrants of every single immigration status. [1:32:07] U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, people who are here with work authorization, people who have committed zero crimes. [1:32:15] You want these taxpayers to pay for the profits of these guys that go out and continue to just reap the benefits of this industry. [1:32:27] No, I will not, has gone absolutely wild. [1:32:31] Absolutely wild because of all the money you've plowed into this system. [1:32:35] And you have to ask yourself, well, who are these people that are in detention? [1:32:41] Why are they there? [1:32:43] Why are we having to hold people in prisons who are legal permanent residents, U.S. citizens, people who have been here for 30 years, never committed a crime? [1:32:53] Let's look at ICE's own statistics. [1:32:55] Over 72 percent have zero criminal records, zero, zero. [1:33:02] Most of the people that are being held in immigration detention are being held for civil immigration violations. [1:33:10] And I'm going to make the point that I make a hundred times in this committee. [1:33:14] I'm going to make it again. [1:33:15] Immigration violations are civil offenses. [1:33:20] Wrong. [1:33:21] It is a civil matter. [1:33:23] That's why, before 9-11, it was all handled out of the DOJ. [1:33:27] These are not for criminal violations. [1:33:32] And you're holding people, forcing taxpayers to pay for this while you cut their health care, while you launch illegal wars in Iran, while you refuse to do anything about housing or groceries or gas prices. [1:33:46] You just want to make this over and over again about so-called criminal immigrants who are bombarding our country and taking over everything. [1:33:57] And the reality is that this country would collapse without the contributions of immigrants. [1:34:03] We should be providing the legal pathways. [1:34:06] But what has this Republican Congress done and this administration done? [1:34:10] They've taken away every legal pathway. [1:34:12] They've slowed down all the processing of applications for legal visas, means of legal processing. [1:34:21] People show up for their hearings and they're suddenly put into deportation proceedings when they're doing what we asked them to do. [1:34:27] So the people that you are holding in these detention... [1:34:32] You had your time, Mr. Van Drew. [1:34:34] This is my time. [1:34:35] I'm going to claim it. [1:34:36] You had your time. [1:34:37] And I was asking Mr. Not this. [1:34:39] And I might just see if he has a response to this. [1:34:42] But I have a lot to say on this issue. [1:34:44] I'm the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee. [1:34:47] Do we have a single hearing on reforming the immigration system? [1:34:51] No. [1:34:52] You know why? [1:34:53] Because Republicans have, since 2013, when I was not in Congress and I was advocating for immigration reform, [1:35:01] there was a bipartisan bill. [1:35:02] It passed the United States Senate with 68 bipartisan votes. [1:35:07] And you know what happened? [1:35:08] John Boehner was the Speaker of the House. [1:35:10] And John Boehner was pressured by his right-wing members to not bring that bill to the floor. [1:35:15] Because what would happen if we passed immigration reform? [1:35:18] Like a truly humane, bipartisan, comprehensive reform. [1:35:22] We would no longer be able to blame immigrants for everything that you want to distract us from. [1:35:28] And so it angers me that people keep putting out the same lies instead of genuinely recognizing that we need legal pathways. [1:35:39] We need a reform to an antiquated system. [1:35:41] And that is what we should be doing in this committee. [1:35:44] I yield back. [1:35:46] The lady yields back. [1:35:47] The gentleman from Texas is recognized. [1:35:49] I thank the chairman. [1:35:51] I oppose this amendment. [1:35:53] My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim it will result in indefinite detention of families, which is patently false. [1:35:58] I mean, you can look right now, what we can see, if you look at the data, which I don't have a chart big enough for people to see. [1:36:02] But if you look at the data of the impact of what we see under this current president, you see a massive drop-off here. [1:36:08] A massive drop-off while we're dealing with family units. [1:36:11] And it's dropped and plummeted directly correlated to the enforcement measures that have been put in place and the policies of this administration that we're trying to codify here. [1:36:20] And the reality is, I mean, I can sit here and offer into the record articles phase out of, here we got private, Biden use of private migrant centers grows amid border crisis. [1:36:32] Another one about Obama, expansive use of private centers. [1:36:36] The fact is, this has been a part of our policy on this for a long period of time. [1:36:42] The reality is that these centers include housing, playgrounds, schools, and meals for families. [1:36:47] The guidelines state that they will offer access to reading materials and other programmatic activities, such as adult educational classes, organized recreational programs, and groups focused on healthy living. [1:36:57] And at the end of the day, the stay in these centers is not supposed to be indefinite. [1:37:02] In fact, multiple administrations have created a fast, dedicated docket for family-based claims. [1:37:07] And what we're trying to do is ensure that we're able to do that. [1:37:09] As we saw under the Biden-Harris administration, the status quo simply didn't work. [1:37:13] And for four years, these policies incentivized hundreds of thousands of aliens who were part of family units to travel to the southwest border. [1:37:20] It allowed cartels to exploit them. [1:37:22] It allowed the furtherance of the profiting of the cartel members. [1:37:25] Cartel members are using children to pose as family units. [1:37:30] We know this to be true. [1:37:31] We know it was documented. [1:37:32] And it was all a direct consequence of the open border policies that resulted in the trafficking of children using these policies to do so. [1:37:41] We know that this administration lost tens of thousands of children, could not keep up with them, could not know where they are because of the flawed policies of what they were doing. [1:37:50] And this legislation is designed to end those perverse incentives, to stop the empowerment of cartels, to protect children, to protect family units, and to be able to get those processed without the perversion of our laws. [1:38:02] The fact that there are private centers does not mean we shouldn't have oversight. [1:38:06] Of course we should. [1:38:07] The executive branch, Congress should oversight over the quality of the facilities and where they fall short. [1:38:12] Those should be addressed. [1:38:13] But we have private prisons in numerous categories throughout our country, in state incarceration, in federal incarceration, and here with respect to dealing with those that are detained who are here illegally. [1:38:27] And look, I mean, I was out in Aurora, Colorado, after that center was targeted for protests back in 2019. [1:38:37] And I happened to be in Colorado visiting family. [1:38:39] So I went out to Aurora and literally spot check walked in. [1:38:43] It wasn't announced. [1:38:44] I just showed up to go say what's going on. [1:38:47] And they walked me through the facility. [1:38:49] It wasn't pre-gamed out. [1:38:50] It wasn't set up to be some sort of cleansed sort of situation. [1:38:54] And I walked around the facility and I saw a clean facility. [1:38:58] I saw ping pong tables, video game centers, phone rooms to be able to call home. [1:39:03] I saw dental process. [1:39:05] I saw a big storage warehouse of all of their private effects when they'd come into the center. [1:39:10] I saw people there that were engaged in athletic activity and physical activity. [1:39:14] I saw people that had iPads being given to them. [1:39:17] And any number of things that people would frankly, most taxpayers would say, wait, what? [1:39:23] We're doing what? [1:39:24] And we're giving how much and spending how much? [1:39:27] And that's where most taxpayers that I represent would say, well, we're 40 trillion in debt. [1:39:31] And I've got people that are trying to figure out how to rebuild after a flood and try to deal with what's happening. [1:39:35] And wait, we're giving iPads to people who are here illegally and in a detention center in Aurora. [1:39:40] And then we're trying to say that somehow that's something we need to, you know, address and undo. [1:39:45] Again, I take the gentleman at his word about what he observed in some abhorrent conditions. [1:39:51] We should address those and fix those. [1:39:53] Those could occur in government-run facilities. [1:39:55] Those could occur in private facilities that the government's supposed to have oversight over. [1:39:59] But to suggest that we shouldn't allow for the executive branch, be it under Biden or Trump, [1:40:06] to be able to use whatever they can in facilities to be able to deal with and manage this so that we can have people properly and appropriately detained [1:40:15] and then be able to be removed as appropriate or go through whatever procedures are appropriate to seek asylum or whatever they're doing under our laws, [1:40:22] I think is foolhardy and I oppose the amendment. [1:40:25] I yield back. [1:40:26] Mr. Chairman. [1:40:28] The gentleman yields back. [1:40:30] The gentleman from, I think it was New York and then Georgia. [1:40:33] A lot to respond to here. [1:40:35] Mr. Roy, I'm glad you agree we should do oversight. [1:40:38] How come we haven't done a single bit of oversight of ICE? [1:40:44] Not one hearing. [1:40:46] We have not done a single oversight hearing of ICE and the $240 billion that they have received [1:40:55] the excessive force, the murdering of people who have done nothing wrong, [1:41:03] even though, even if they did do something wrong, they shouldn't be murdered. [1:41:08] No oversight hearings. [1:41:09] So I appreciate you saying that. [1:41:11] We should do it. [1:41:12] We'll do it. [1:41:13] Do it. [1:41:14] Let's do it right here. [1:41:15] My friend from North Carolina who said that all of these detainees in the facilities, [1:41:26] private or public, whichever you want, are here illegally. [1:41:29] Wrong. [1:41:31] Asylum is a legal pathway. [1:41:36] They are here legally. [1:41:38] I understand. [1:41:41] My colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not like the asylum process. [1:41:47] And frankly, I agree it takes far, far too long to get through the asylum process. [1:41:54] We should absolutely reform it. [1:41:58] The James Langford, Chris Murphy bill would have done that. [1:42:02] And we need to do it. [1:42:04] But stop saying they're here illegally. [1:42:07] Asylum is a legal pathway. [1:42:09] That is what the law is. [1:42:12] And so all of those people, not all of them, most of those people at Delaney Hall that I spoke to, [1:42:22] I'm sorry, Mr. Van Drew didn't have an interpreter. [1:42:24] I was able to stay for two and a half hours and speak to a number of them. [1:42:28] Many spoke English. [1:42:29] The ones that didn't were translated by other people there. [1:42:32] They have no criminal record. [1:42:34] They have work authorizations. [1:42:36] I was talking to a mother who had an 18 year old single mother, 18 year old, 12 year old and eight year old. [1:42:44] And she had been there in months with no hearing in sight. [1:42:49] Lawfully here, work authorization, working. [1:42:52] Her eight year old is being taken care of by her 18 year old because she's in jail. [1:42:59] You want to compare this, Mr. Van Drew, to state criminal detention facilities. [1:43:06] These are not criminals. [1:43:09] They are not criminals. [1:43:12] They are here illegally. [1:43:14] 70, just, I will if I have time, 70% of those who are arrested have no criminal record whatsoever. [1:43:24] And the data is about 5% have serious criminal convictions and they should be deported. [1:43:29] But these people are not criminals. [1:43:34] They do not belong in jail indefinitely. [1:43:37] And what's worse is you don't have to take my word for it. [1:43:40] You can take the word of 88% of federal judges in this country. [1:43:48] 88%, every single president. [1:43:51] I know we all like to name who appointed it because obviously if it's appointed by the other party, it's not legitimate. [1:43:57] Well, plenty of Trump appointed judges. [1:43:59] Since July of 2025, the federal courts have decided 16,400 habeas cases. [1:44:09] Of those 14,350 went against the administration and the detainees were ordered to be released. [1:44:21] 88%. [1:44:22] Let me tell you something. [1:44:23] Let me ask you something. [1:44:24] If your agency had 88% of their cases lose, do you think you might change your policy? [1:44:36] Do you think you might say, okay, this is probably not legal. [1:44:40] Maybe we should do something different. [1:44:43] But no. [1:44:44] You know what Stephen Miller wants to do? [1:44:46] He wants to suspend habeas corpus because he doesn't like the fact that he can't just do whatever he wants and there's actually a law that he has to follow. [1:44:56] So yes, the criminals should be deported, but that's not who are being kept in these detention facilities indefinitely for months and months and months and months. [1:45:09] Many of with work authorizations paying taxes, having businesses. [1:45:14] What are they doing in a criminal jail? [1:45:18] They're not criminals. [1:45:20] So yeah, that's all well and good. [1:45:23] You want to compare it to a state criminal jail, but these are not criminals and they should not. [1:45:28] And they should not be in jail as 88% of federal judges have determined. [1:45:33] And I yield back. [1:45:38] California is recognized. [1:45:39] Well, the gentleman from New Jersey has some unanimous consent and then I'll come to you. [1:45:42] Without objection. [1:45:56] The gentleman from California is recognized. [1:45:58] Move to strike the last word. [1:45:59] The gentleman is recognized. [1:46:00] Mr. Chairman, I patiently listened for five minutes to the word illegal is not a criminal. [1:46:07] But I want to go a little further back because it needs to be said. [1:46:14] This committee has tried to, in previous times, prior to President Trump, to deal with people who drink and drive and hurt or kill people that are illegally in the country. [1:46:27] And the other side has repeatedly turned down with amendments such as, well, what if someone did it 10 times a DUI? [1:46:38] What if they did it 20 times? [1:46:40] And in every case, the then majority Democrats would vote no. [1:46:45] So it pales in comparison to the definition that they painted because, of course, their definition of criminals, that statistic that was cited, only 5%, of course, ignores the DUIs, ignores the wife beaters, ignores anything except having been convicted of a felony. [1:47:09] Now, if 5% of the people you're trying to throw out are criminal felons and you're having trouble sometimes even getting rid of them, then I don't care if it's 80% of the cases or not. [1:47:23] Of course, you continue to do it. [1:47:25] And within those who were denied the being held and released, there were lots and lots of people who hadn't held jobs, were involved in or suspected strongly of being involved in gang [1:47:40] criminal activities, and the list goes on. [1:47:43] And yet, the other side says, well, we're OK if it's a crime. [1:47:47] No, you're OK if the guy's been charged and convicted, unless, of course, he's going out the back door of one of your sanctuary cities. [1:47:57] If he's going out the back door of one of your sanctuary cities, you're OK with releasing them again and again. [1:48:02] So how dare the other party make the statement that somehow, well, we're OK with locking up criminals. [1:48:10] We're OK with deporting criminals. [1:48:12] Your definition of criminals and your treatment of criminals in sanctuary cities, most of the blue states and cities, has shown us that that's just not true. [1:48:23] So, yes, we are dealing with a good piece of legislation here. [1:48:28] We are fighting amendment after amendment. [1:48:31] And I'm OK with just voting no on the amendments as appropriate. [1:48:35] What I'm not OK with is sitting silent while somebody redefines crime and forgets their own history. [1:48:43] The history of this committee is when Democrats are in charge, nobody gets deported. [1:48:48] Everybody gets let in. [1:48:50] I'll yield with you in just a moment. [1:48:54] My grandfather came through Ellis Island, as so many did. [1:48:59] That was an orderly way to come in. [1:49:02] But even then, if they found or suspected criminal activity, you didn't get off the island. [1:49:09] If you had tuberculosis, you didn't get off the island. [1:49:12] If, if, if. [1:49:13] The fact is there was a time under presidents of both parties when people said it's a privilege to come to America. [1:49:21] And even when you're invited, you still can be fact checked. [1:49:25] Unfortunately, today we're not talking in those terms. [1:49:28] It is a, this is not the only bill I'd like to see passed, but I'm delighted that it's finally being brought up. [1:49:34] And I look forward to voting for it. [1:49:35] And I yield to my colleague from California. [1:49:37] I think I just want to make a couple quick points. [1:49:39] The, the, the Langford bill would have prevented President Trump from taking the actions that he took to secure our borders until illegal crossings reached 4,000 a day. [1:49:51] That's why we oppose this bill and why Langford ultimately disowned it. [1:49:56] Now, remember the Democrats said there was nothing could be done. [1:49:59] The president proved them liars when he enforced the law and illegal crossings immediately dropped more than 95%. [1:50:06] Now we're also told these are not criminals. [1:50:08] Well, that's both true and untrue. [1:50:11] What's untrue is that they've not violated the law. [1:50:14] They have indeed. [1:50:15] If they've crossed the border illegally, they've committed a misdemeanor under federal law punishable for, by up to six months in prison and a thousand dollar fine. [1:50:23] If they reenter, it's a felony. [1:50:26] But what is true is that they are normally not charged for this crime. [1:50:32] So their illegal presence is a civil matter. [1:50:35] It's remediated by the civil enforcement of deportation. [1:50:38] Deportation is not a punishment. [1:50:41] It is a simple recognition that they've got no right to be here. [1:50:44] It's analogous to being escorted off the premises of a property that you have no right to be in, [1:50:50] even if you're not charged with the actual crime of trespass. [1:50:54] Thank the gentleman for yielding. [1:50:56] And I yield back. [1:50:57] Mr. Chairman. [1:50:58] Gentleman yields back. [1:50:59] Gentle lady from California is recognized. [1:51:00] I moved to strike the last word. [1:51:01] Gentle lady is recognized. [1:51:02] I would just note that, as usual, the Judiciary Committee is all over the mat without actually talking about the amendment that is before us. [1:51:13] The Trump administration has gone all over the country and paid, in many cases, inflated prices two or three times the assessed value for a bunch of warehouses. [1:51:24] Now they're having to sell some of them. [1:51:26] And what they've found all over the country is that in red states and blue states is the neighbors don't want these warehouses to be converted to detention facilities. [1:51:40] The amendment would preclude converting these warehouses to detention facilities for families. [1:51:47] That's what the amendment is. [1:51:49] And I would challenge any of us to go home and explain to our constituents why we think that's not a good idea when the people of the country are saying, [1:51:57] don't do this, suing, in some cases, a red state sheriff cutting off the road access. [1:52:05] People don't want this. [1:52:06] And that's what the amendment would do. [1:52:08] I'm favorite. [1:52:09] And with that, I would yield the balance of my time. [1:52:12] I'll take it if, Zoe, I'll take it. [1:52:15] To Mr. Goldman. [1:52:18] All right. [1:52:19] Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. [1:52:22] Just to respond to a couple things that Mr. Isis said and that Mr. McClintock said. [1:52:30] First of all, my grandmother also came through Ellis Island. [1:52:33] There was no immigration law at that time. [1:52:37] And certainly there was no NCIS where you could look at a database and figure out whether someone has a criminal record from their own country. [1:52:46] And those with tuberculosis and other illnesses went into a huge hospital that they built at Ellis Island in order to rehabilitate people so that they could come in. [1:53:02] Ninety eight percent of the people who arrived at Ellis Island were allowed into this country. [1:53:08] So I don't think you want to go back to the, quote, orderly process, unquote, that you said Ellis Island is given everything that you've said here today. [1:53:20] Sanctuary cities. [1:53:22] If there's a criminal conviction and I ask you, please cite me one case where there was a criminal conviction. [1:53:33] The defendant served his time and was convicted of a removable offense under the INA. [1:53:42] And he was not turned over by the city or the state to the Department of Homeland Security. [1:53:50] You have not and are unable to provide one is my guess. [1:53:56] Maybe you'll have one or two. [1:53:57] I'm sure that some fall through the cracks. [1:54:00] But the policy of sanctuary cities and sanctuary states is that if you are removable after you're convicted, after you complete your sentence, you are turned over to the Department of Homeland Security. [1:54:12] The problem you all have is the conviction part. [1:54:16] You don't think there should be a conviction. [1:54:19] You think it is enough that someone is arrested for a removable offense. [1:54:24] But we have due process here and you're innocent until proven guilty. [1:54:29] And that's why these people are not turned over before they are convicted. [1:54:37] And then finally, I just go back to one thing that you talk about. [1:54:43] Mr. McClintock, I believe you brought this up. [1:54:45] That there is a crime that says you are that it is a crime to enter illegally. [1:54:52] That is true. [1:54:54] But you are also allowed to. [1:55:00] And this supersedes it to claim asylum. [1:55:03] And then you are here legally. [1:55:05] And I understand now the policy is that you can only claim asylum if you come through a port of entry. [1:55:12] I think that's a worthwhile policy to discuss. [1:55:18] But the asylum laws allow you to claim asylum even if you cross over the border illegally. [1:55:27] So it is a defense to that claim. [1:55:31] It is not, therefore, a crime if you can claim asylum, which is a legal pathway. [1:55:38] And the issue will keep coming back to it over and over again. [1:55:42] You keep saying everybody here who's detained is illegal. [1:55:48] They're not. [1:55:49] They're not. [1:55:50] If they claim asylum, that is a lawful pathway. [1:55:54] I know you don't like it, but it is a lawful pathway. [1:55:57] So they are not here illegally. [1:55:59] And I wish this administration would stop putting those people in jail indefinitely when they are simply following the law. [1:56:12] The lady's time has expired. [1:56:14] The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. [1:56:16] And then we'll go to. [1:56:17] Well, just briefly respond to some of that. [1:56:19] Number one, claiming asylum does not mean that the United States has to take someone in. [1:56:24] They can't. [1:56:25] A claim can certainly be denied and candidly. [1:56:27] Gentlemen, one second. [1:56:29] I will claim the time and I'll yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. [1:56:32] Thank you. [1:56:34] I would argue that the asylum process has been abused. [1:56:38] People come across the border and yell, I'm afraid of something, and they're granted entry. [1:56:42] And, of course, the previous administration was far more liberal in granting those requests. [1:56:45] And I will just say I agree with you. [1:56:47] Well, but secondly, I would say, and probably importantly, a conviction is not required to deport someone, [1:56:55] especially if it is an illegal reentry, your presence here is criminal. [1:57:00] I mean, 8 USD 1326, I use that all the time when I was a federal prosecutor. [1:57:06] So being here is sufficient to be detained and deported. [1:57:09] But thirdly, the sanctuary jurisdictions do have a very wide paradigm in how they're operated. [1:57:17] You know, there's some sanctuary-leaning jurisdictions in my home state of North Carolina. [1:57:22] We had to pass a law at the state legislature to override the discretion. [1:57:25] But we had members of, I believe it was Fairfax County, Steve Descano, where he campaigned on not charging and not leading, not even hiding the ball. [1:57:37] He wanted to plead them down to a non-deportable offense under the INA if they were here illegally. [1:57:42] And we heard of numerous cases where that was exercised. [1:57:46] Number one for me was when he cut loose a pedophile with overwhelming evidence because the judge said your plea offer is deficient. [1:57:53] So sanctuary cities, there is some merit to some of them, but the other ones, they do go far too extreme. [1:58:00] And in terms of waiting until an illegal alien is convicted, I would just say that what we're arguing for in that instance is for an American to be harmed, the illegal alien to be caught, the illegal alien to be convicted before they're deported. [1:58:14] And I disagree with that. If they're here, especially a second time illegally, I would prefer we not wait for an American to be harmed, that we appropriately seize them and deport them with greater efficiency. [1:58:25] And those are my three points. [1:58:27] The gentleman yield? Well, it's back to the term. [1:58:29] I'm happy to yield to whoever, Mr. Roy and Mr. Goldman, whoever. [1:58:33] You go to the gentleman for Texas. [1:58:35] I just want to add just a couple of things to this deal, which is the Biden-Harris administration acknowledged this problem with asylum when they said a full window ahead between 2014 and 2019, [1:58:49] a full 83 percent of the people who were subject to expedited removal and claimed fear from that window were referred to an immigration judge. [1:58:58] In fiscal year 24, for asylum cases originating with a credible fear claim at the border, only 8 percent of applications were eventually granted in immigration court. [1:59:12] 6 percent were denied. 34 percent were not adjudicated, including cases that were terminated or dismissed. [1:59:17] 42.7 percent of cases did not even bother filing the asylum application. [1:59:23] Look, the point here is our effort to streamline this process to make sure that those who are able to claim asylum and credible fear can have it heard without being inundated, [1:59:35] without having the system overwhelmed so that the 85 percent in the 2024 data under Joe Biden that were not. [1:59:43] And by the way, 8 percent were eventually granted immigration courts and 92 percent weren't. [1:59:48] That number is completely unacceptable and it's indicative of everything that was wrong with our system under the previous administration [1:59:55] and why we are seeking to make codification of the policies that have restored order, [2:00:00] that have restored sensibility, common sense, that have made it to now where you can actually do your job, [2:00:06] where somebody has an asylum claim, you can at least hear it, [2:00:09] where you can manage the border without total abject chaos, where ranchers are overwhelmed, rapes are occurring, [2:00:16] unaccompanied children are being abused, cartels are being empowered, [2:00:20] fentanyl are killing Texans and Americans. [2:00:22] And the purpose of this is to avoid that ever happening again irrespective of who is in the White House. [2:00:29] I yield back. Or I yield to the chairman. [2:00:32] Will the chairman yield? [2:00:34] I yield to the gentleman from New York. [2:00:35] Just real quick in response to Mr. Knott, 8 U.S.C. 1326 is a federal crime. [2:00:42] Whenever anybody is arrested federally and they don't have status, they're not here legally, [2:00:50] they go into immigration custody if they're not put into federal custody. [2:00:55] The issue is with the sanctuary cities, we're talking about city and state criminal prosecutions. [2:01:02] And Mr. Roy, I guess what I would just ask is why is not some of the $240 billion that is being given to our immigration enforcement [2:01:12] going to hire many more immigration judges to get out of the backlog of asylum? [2:01:19] That's a pretty simple thing. Instead, it's going to $50,000 bonuses to people who are unvetted, [2:01:25] who don't even have their background checks completed, and who are being hired just to terrorize people [2:01:31] and arrest them for people who have no criminal background. [2:01:35] I yield back. [2:01:36] Time has expired. [2:01:39] Money was used to get more immigration judges as part of the bill we passed last year. [2:01:45] The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. [2:01:48] Well, the facts are that Trump has doged the immigration judges. [2:01:55] So you have fewer judges now than you had a year ago or two years ago. [2:02:01] And they continue to narrow the funnel from the top where you are putting immigrants into the private, [2:02:14] for-profit, crony capitalist, prison industrial complex, private detention facilities. [2:02:21] You hire 20,000 agents to terrorize the communities across America, arrest people, put them in private detention. [2:02:35] The average stay for an asylum seeker is 700 days in private detention. [2:02:42] And the fact is, if they're in private detention, they're going to spend more time there at taxpayer expense [2:02:50] than they will in a public detention center, a government-run detention center. [2:02:57] So this private, for-profit prison detention industrial complex is one that makes money for a few people at the top, [2:03:11] and those are the crony capitalists associated with Donald Trump. [2:03:15] And it's hurting Americans when our neighbors, and in some cases our relatives, are getting caught up in that funnel. [2:03:24] You're putting a bunch of people in, but yet you're adjudicating fewer and fewer cases, meaning more lengthy stays in the detention centers at taxpayer expense. [2:03:35] Connect the dots, it hurts the taxpayers, but it also hurts people on the ground. [2:03:42] I want to read parts of an article written by Miriam Jordan, a national immigration correspondent with the New York Times, [2:03:52] in an article published yesterday and updated to date. [2:03:56] She says, quote, [2:03:58] The Trump administration's immigration crackdown is colliding with a demographic reality. [2:04:04] Americans are aging rapidly and living longer, creating soaring demand for elder care, [2:04:12] when the industry is already buckling under the weight of chronic labor shortages. [2:04:17] Almost 70 million people in the United States are 65 years of age or older, [2:04:24] and government projections estimate that 70 percent of older adults will need care at some point in their lives. [2:04:33] Millions of immigrants eligible to work in the United States fill positions across the elder care industry, [2:04:41] such as nurses, dieticians, fitness instructors, and maintenance technicians. [2:04:47] And countless undocumented immigrants care for seniors in their homes, part of a vast informal economy. [2:04:57] Immigration enforcement is choking both labor pools. [2:05:01] And so when you get older and you don't have anybody to take care of you, [2:05:09] you can blame Trump and you can blame MAGA Republicans here in the House of Representatives and also in the U.S. Senate. [2:05:16] I'll also talk about the 1.5 million people that the United States Supreme Court, [2:05:27] the 6-3 MAGA majority on the United States Supreme Court, [2:05:31] has authorized Donald Trump to revoke their temporary protective status and deport them. [2:05:37] Where do you think they're going first before they get deported? [2:05:41] They're going into those private for-profit detention centers, [2:05:45] wreaking more profits for the crony capitalists. [2:05:49] So you have 350,000 Haitians who President Trump has accused of being dog eaters and cat eaters, [2:06:05] domestic pets, you know. [2:06:08] But do you think he gives a damn about them, those 350,000? [2:06:13] Many of them work in the nursing homes. [2:06:16] Many of them work in the informal economy, taking care of yours and mine, [2:06:23] our elderly relatives, our mothers, our fathers, uncles and aunts, grandmothers. [2:06:31] And so be careful of what you do. [2:06:35] You can talk about illegal immigrants being criminal or being non-criminal, [2:06:41] whatever you want to call them, but these are the people who are working in this economy [2:06:46] and they are helping make life better for you. [2:06:50] And when they're not there, you have only yourself to blame. [2:06:53] And with that, I yield back. [2:06:54] The gentleman yields back. [2:06:55] The gentleman from Kansas is recognized. [2:06:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:06:59] I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy. [2:07:01] The gentleman from Texas is recognized. [2:07:03] I thank my friend from Kansas and I thank the chairman. [2:07:05] Let me just juxtapose a couple of things. [2:07:07] In the window of time from the time that we passed H.R. 2 in the previous Congress in May of 2023, [2:07:12] but that we were being stonewalled by Democrats in the Senate and by the previous administration. [2:07:18] During that window of time between then and when President Trump took office [2:07:22] and was able to get control of the situation at the border, [2:07:25] enacting the very policies that my Democrats clearly support by virtue of the way they're talking about what we want to try to accomplish here [2:07:32] and what we're trying to do right now in that Republicans in that time, we passed the bill. [2:07:37] In that window, more than three and a half million illegal aliens encountered at the southwest border alone. [2:07:42] Five million encountered nationwide. [2:07:44] We had millions of illegal aliens released. [2:07:46] Hundreds of thousands of aliens chauffeured into the country through illegal parole programs. [2:07:50] At least two million new cases in immigration court. [2:07:52] Let me repeat that. [2:07:53] At least two million new cases in immigration court. [2:07:56] We had the preventable murders and deaths of Lake and Riley, Jocelyn Nungary, Rachel Morin, Katie Abraham, [2:08:01] Sheridan Gorman, Stephanie Mentor and countless other Americans. [2:08:06] All of that since May 2023, since the time Republicans took action [2:08:11] and that we are trying to do right now to codify what President Trump did that actually restored order at the border. [2:08:18] Let's talk about immigration judges. [2:08:20] The EOIR announces 77 immigration judges and five temporary immigration judges. [2:08:26] I'd like to put this into the record without objection from the chairman. [2:08:30] Subjection. [2:08:31] The largest class in agency's history. [2:08:32] The Executive Office for Immigration Review announced the swearing in of 77 immigration judges [2:08:36] and five temporary immigration judges. [2:08:38] The largest class of new adjudicators in EOIR's history. [2:08:41] Growing the total immigration judge court in nearly 700. [2:08:44] It's hired 153 permanent immigration judges this fiscal year, the most in any single year in the agency's history. [2:08:52] I would also ask to insert into the record this adjudication statistics, which shows the extent to which initial receipts have plummeted. [2:08:58] You see this chart got a zero in on the screen. [2:09:01] The receipts have plummeted under this administration in terms of who's coming into the system. [2:09:06] Yet the total completions of the adjudication of claims is going up under the Trump administration because we took the money that we got under the OBBB. [2:09:14] We took that and our efforts and we've added to the immigration judges. [2:09:19] We've been processing the backlogs, diminishing the numbers and no longer filling the courts with new people because we're actually doing the job we're supposed to do at the border. [2:09:30] So I totally agree that we should be doing exactly what we're doing right now. [2:09:35] That's the whole point. [2:09:37] We want to codify it and make it to where it's permanent. [2:09:41] With that, I would yield back to the gentleman from Kansas. [2:09:43] Gentleman yields back. [2:09:45] Gentleman from Kansas yields back. [2:09:47] Yes. [2:09:48] Gentleman from Kansas yields back. [2:09:49] I think it's Ms. Scanlon and then Ms. Crockett. [2:09:51] Thank you. [2:09:53] I have found so many of the statements from the other side of the aisle today absolutely astonishing. [2:10:01] The way that people can try to justify this detention fantasy that underlies their efforts to justify mass imprisonment of people is just inhumane and immoral and everything else. [2:10:20] I mean it's a house of cards which if you examine any one of those cards the whole thing is going to collapse. [2:10:28] Perhaps it starts with this idea that we have all these dangerous criminal immigrants in this country. [2:10:35] It's a fantasy. [2:10:36] Even the people they have picked up, the vast majority of them are not criminals. [2:10:41] So that card is not structurally sound. [2:10:44] Then we have the lies that all these people came here illegally. [2:10:48] That's not true. [2:10:49] Many of the people who have been detained have come here legally under visas under different under as recipients of TPS and the rules got changed under them. [2:11:01] We also know that there are millions of people who came here legally and because our immigration system is so broken and all the money is going to detention and border walls. [2:11:13] We don't have the resources to process the people who are in line trying to follow the rules. [2:11:20] And those people are getting picked up as they go to their court hearings as they go to meetings in which they are trying to follow our rules. [2:11:29] So it's just one lie after another which then is used to justify the unconstitutional and inhumane treatment that is being doled out using taxpayer dollars. [2:11:44] There are prisons, many of them privately run, that are being operated in conditions where there is inadequate clean water, inadequate meals, unsanitary conditions, and a lack of medical care as court after court after court has found in recent years. [2:12:04] We now have thousands of decisions indicating over the last two years that people are being held in inhumane conditions. [2:12:12] And if every one of these people could get a lawyer, then we would have thousands more released than have been already. [2:12:18] Probably one of the most perverse things is that some of the taxpayer dollars being used to fund these private prisons are actually taxpayer dollars from the people who are being held there now. [2:12:29] Because so many of the people who have been detained are actually here working legally, working and paying taxes. [2:12:37] Because as several people have pointed out, our immigrants are a net monetary benefit to this country. [2:12:44] The arguments are just not credible, they're not true, and to justify the kind of conditions where we've had over 50 people die in the last just year and a half in ice facilities, that is vastly more than we've ever seen before. [2:13:05] And in so many cases, these people died from lack of medical treatment, from inhumane conditions. [2:13:12] And to try to justify continuing that kind of immoral behavior, I think is well beneath this institution and this country. [2:13:22] But I do want to make the point that I think kicked off this part of the debate. [2:13:27] My colleague from Pennsylvania has offered a very simple amendment saying that we should not be detaining people in warehouses. [2:13:36] If we can't even agree upon the fact that we should not treat people like an Amazon package, I have very little hope for anything productive getting done in this body in the foreseeable future or at least until November. [2:13:52] So it is not just the human rights of the folks that are involved, but we have seen across the country as these warehouses have been gobbled up by ice, often at excessive prices. [2:14:05] The local communities are saying, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, our sewer system, our electrical grid, our hospital system can't handle you putting 7,000 or 10,000 people in an Amazon warehouse in our district. [2:14:19] So there are so many other issues here that deserve to be dealt with. [2:14:24] I do think an overarching one is the fact that so many of these facilities are being run for private, for profit prison contractors who, as we heard detailed earlier, are raking in billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, [2:14:39] some of which they're turning around then and making millions and millions of dollars of contributions to the White House and to members of Congress. [2:14:46] So the whole thing is a very sick, inhumane cycle. [2:14:50] And obviously, I will be supporting my colleague's amendment and voting against this bill. [2:14:55] I yield back. [2:14:56] General A yields back. General A from Texas is recognized. [2:14:58] Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. [2:15:00] And this amendment specifically, as it goes back to what my colleague was just saying, it's about these Amazon warehouses. [2:15:07] And I know that there's been a lot of talk about sanctuary cities and blue states and red states and things like that. [2:15:13] But I want to tell you the story of a town by the name of Hutchins. [2:15:18] In the town of Hutchins, there was a proposal for ICE to purchase a building that was a million square feet. [2:15:28] It was a warehouse. [2:15:30] It had previously been utilized specifically by Amazon. [2:15:34] And the Department of Homeland Security and ICE considered the site to convert it into a massive detention facility, [2:15:42] which would have held roughly 9,500 to 10,000 individuals, far exceeding the small town's population of around 6,000 people. [2:15:52] In the following weeks, the people rose up and the people decided that they were going to push and use every tool in their toolbox to make sure that this ICE facility did not go through. [2:16:07] The town of Hutchins is actually in Texas. [2:16:10] It actually sits in Texas 30. [2:16:12] And I do want to applaud not only the people of the town of Hutchins, but also my elected officials on every single level that worked together to make sure that that was shut down. [2:16:23] But let's talk about what this is really about. [2:16:26] And I know y'all knew it was coming, especially once I showed up. [2:16:30] It's racist. [2:16:31] It's just racist, racist, racist. [2:16:34] Okay. [2:16:35] Now, let me tell you why it is racist. [2:16:37] All right. [2:16:38] This ain't about whether or not you're concerned that the immigrant is coming in and the immigrant is going to kill everybody. [2:16:44] That is not what it is. [2:16:45] It's not. [2:16:46] It's the things like what your fearless leader said when he said they're poisoning the blood. [2:16:51] Okay. [2:16:52] What this is about is racism, because the last time I checked, supposedly this administration, supposedly not even just this administration. [2:17:01] Let me just be clear. [2:17:02] Your president, he is the one that said white South African refugees needed their own program. [2:17:10] And so therefore he decided that he would raise the cap on how many refugees could come into the United States. [2:17:19] But it was only raised for white South Africans. [2:17:23] The administration said a limit of 17,500 slots planned to admit more white South Africans as refugees this year. [2:17:33] So here's the point. [2:17:36] Every time I see these images of these officers who obviously are completely incompetent. [2:17:42] None of that money that has been given to ICE has been given so that they could be trained up and know how to do the job. [2:17:48] Seems like they are specifically targeting people because of how they look. [2:17:52] In fact, earlier, one of my colleagues from across the aisle was talking about let's not forget our history as he quoted the history of how his family came in. [2:18:07] And I guess he was trying to say they came in the right way. [2:18:11] Let me be clear about something. [2:18:14] The people that were here are the indigenous folk. [2:18:16] And you know who ICE been rounding up? [2:18:20] They've been rounding up indigenous people. [2:18:22] The people that originally came, not the colonizers, but the original people. [2:18:28] So what this is about is whiteness. [2:18:31] Everything that this administration has pushed has been about white supremacy, your fear. [2:18:36] In fact, you say things like, oh, you just want them to come in so that they will vote for you. [2:18:41] Because we know that when you look at the numbers, I mean, I'm just being real with this. [2:18:47] But white people, they're not the ones that carry the Democrats. [2:18:50] They aren't. [2:18:51] And so this is literally about you say things, you tell on yourselves. [2:18:56] You believe that somehow they will become citizens and they will start voting in the interest of equity. [2:19:03] Those are the things you fight against when you say no diversity, equity and inclusion. [2:19:09] You want to sit up here and act like the crime is being perpetrated by people of color, but the statistics stay otherwise. [2:19:16] If you look at the real numbers, I know that y'all believe in propaganda and y'all don't want people to know the truth. [2:19:21] And y'all definitely don't want them to know history because then you got to again acknowledge colonizing. [2:19:26] But nevertheless, when you look at the numbers, you want to tell me about one offs. [2:19:31] And listen, as a criminal defense attorney, I have represented people of all colors. [2:19:35] Let me tell you, anybody can commit a crime on any given day. [2:19:39] The idea that you put a white sweeping brush on everybody that happens to have a little bit of melanin as a criminal, that is really the crime. [2:19:51] When you are elected to represent somebody, you should be understanding that your job is to fight for everybody. [2:19:59] And what makes this country great is our diversity. [2:20:02] I'll yield. [2:20:05] Time is up. [2:20:11] General A from California is recognized. [2:20:12] Me. [2:20:15] Okay. [2:20:16] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [2:20:17] I support this amendment. [2:20:20] I certainly supported that history lesson we just heard. [2:20:24] And there's so much to talk about based on what my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have been saying. [2:20:30] So we want to talk about the border. [2:20:32] Well, let me see. [2:20:33] If I recall, we had a bipartisan immigration reform bill that did address the border. [2:20:41] That in fact, Trump tanked because he wanted to make sure that, you know, he had Republicans falling in line so that he could try and win the election in 24. [2:20:54] And so in my mind, this bill that we're debating now is like sloppy seconds to a bipartisan piece of immigration reform legislation. [2:21:04] Let's talk about immigration and immigrants. [2:21:09] There are all kinds of immigrants. [2:21:10] There are the ones that landscape your homes. [2:21:13] There are the ones that care for your families. [2:21:16] There are the ones that prepare your food. [2:21:19] There are the ones that design your Teslas. [2:21:23] There are the ones that come up with vaccines that cure diseases. [2:21:27] There are the ones that marry people that ultimately become the president. [2:21:32] There are all kinds of immigrants with all kinds of status. [2:21:38] So let's not try and lump immigrants into one kind of bucket to push a very perverse narrative about who immigrants are. [2:21:50] Let's talk about criminals. [2:21:54] Criminals has come up, I guess. [2:21:55] And I don't know like what Democrats think about criminals and Republicans. [2:22:00] Well, we can talk about criminals. [2:22:03] Let's talk about the ones that stormed the Capitol on January 6th. [2:22:06] I have not heard anybody say round these people up and put them in jail. [2:22:10] I have heard people say give them restitution. [2:22:13] Give them a job working for ICE. [2:22:15] Reparations. [2:22:16] Reparations. [2:22:17] Reparations is what they get. [2:22:18] You know, give them a car and a bonus and all of this. [2:22:21] And there are so many other kinds of criminals than just those January Sixers. [2:22:27] There are white collar criminals. [2:22:29] There are terrorists. [2:22:30] There are folks, and not just immigrants. [2:22:33] There are folks, Americans, that are involved in trafficking, human trafficking, drug trafficking. [2:22:40] And you know what? [2:22:42] We have agencies for this. [2:22:44] We have DEA. [2:22:45] We have ATF. [2:22:46] We have Homeland Security. [2:22:49] And I'm not talking about ICE. [2:22:50] And you know what? [2:22:51] This administration, you all, you know what you all have done? [2:22:55] You all have stopped the thousands of agents working in those departments. [2:23:02] You have stopped them from going after criminals. [2:23:07] You have stopped them from pursuing their prosecutorial work to go after people that are trafficking [2:23:14] children. [2:23:15] And you have put them on ICE detail. [2:23:20] Anybody who does that, in my mind, is a criminal. [2:23:24] If you are taking folks away from their job trying to stop child trafficking, then you're [2:23:29] a criminal. [2:23:30] Let's talk about judges. [2:23:32] People have come up with these judges. [2:23:34] Well, there are judges that are saying no to ICE because of these warehouses, because [2:23:41] of these detention facilities. [2:23:43] These warehouses that are warehousing two-month-old babies. [2:23:48] Pregnant women. [2:23:49] What is a two-month-old baby doing? [2:23:52] What kind of high crime is a two-month-old baby committing? [2:23:56] Crying more than three seconds? [2:23:58] What is that? [2:23:59] Why are we doing this? [2:24:00] Why are we warehousing babies less than a year old? [2:24:06] Pregnant women. [2:24:07] Why are we shackling pregnant women, putting them in these warehouses? [2:24:11] The judges are saying no. [2:24:13] A judge in my district has said no. [2:24:15] Because you said that these warehouses, these detention facilities, y'all's ICE are violating [2:24:21] the Fifth Amendment. [2:24:23] People are dying because of inhumane conditions of confinement. [2:24:29] And so what we're saying through these amendments to try to fix this sloppy second bill is have [2:24:39] some oversight. [2:24:40] Say the thing. [2:24:41] We are saying the thing. [2:24:43] You want to talk about people being killed? [2:24:45] Well, you know what? [2:24:47] My colleague didn't add Alex Preddy to the list. [2:24:52] Renee Good to the list. [2:24:56] Be honest. [2:24:57] I really don't understand why no one on the other side of the aisle can be honest about what is happening. [2:25:06] A death is a death, regardless of if it fits your narrative or not. [2:25:11] And you should be demanding oversight over your dollars being misused to create inhumane conditions, [2:25:18] which is why I support this amendment. [2:25:20] I yield back, Mr. Chair. [2:25:22] Gentlemen, our gentlelady yields back. [2:25:24] The question occurs. [2:25:25] Gentlemen from Maryland. [2:25:26] Mr. Chairman, thank you. [2:25:28] Our colleagues want to strike the pose of anti-crime warriors over this legislation. [2:25:37] But they are complete bystanders, even enthusiasts, when it comes to certain kinds of crime. [2:25:43] White collar crime. [2:25:45] The frauds that are sweeping the country today. [2:25:49] Any of Donald Trump's crimes and any of the crimes committed by the convicted felons, he pardons. [2:25:56] Pardoned more than 1,500 felons who attacked and assaulted our police officers. [2:26:04] Stormed the capital of the United States. [2:26:06] Threatened to assassinate his own vice president. [2:26:11] They did. [2:26:12] And tried to overthrow a presidential election. [2:26:16] And then he pardoned all of them. [2:26:18] Commuted their sentences. [2:26:19] Gave them clemency. [2:26:20] Forgave any fines or restitution that they owed to their victims, including to the United States of America. [2:26:27] And we don't hear a peep from them about that kind of crime. [2:26:31] We heard about DUI. [2:26:35] Well, a lot of our families have been touched by DUI. [2:26:38] Lots of families in America. [2:26:40] 12,000 people every year are lost to drunk drivers. [2:26:44] 34 deaths a day. [2:26:47] Don't all these families deserve something more than just a rhetorical invocation of DUI in order to pass a terrible anti-immigration bill that everybody knows is going nowhere in the dwindling days of this Congress? [2:27:08] Why didn't we have one serious hearing about drunk driving in America and people getting killed every single day? [2:27:15] When I was a state senator in Maryland, I advanced legislation which passed to impose a mandatory compulsory ignition interlock device on the cars of convicted drunk drivers. [2:27:28] And yet, what have our colleagues done about that? Nothing. [2:27:33] No hearings. [2:27:34] No markup. [2:27:35] No legislation. [2:27:36] But they will use DUI as a way to make an argument for more immigrant bashing in America. [2:27:43] We keep hearing fairy tales about the Obama administration, the Biden administration. [2:27:51] If the Democrats had their way, they say there'd be 100 million illegal aliens swarming the streets of America. [2:28:00] If Democrats had their way, there'd be a billion people. [2:28:02] The whole world would be here. [2:28:03] Well, you know what? [2:28:04] Under the Obama administration, more than 3 million people were removed, deported and repatriated. [2:28:11] Under the Biden administration, more than 4 million people were removed, deported and repatriated from the country. [2:28:19] I went back because I remembered a hearing that we had. [2:28:23] The Republican chairs of the Oversight and Homeland Committees interviewed the border patrol chiefs for each section of the southern border to try to find out what was going on under Biden. [2:28:31] Here's what they said. [2:28:32] You can go back and listen to the whole hearing or check out the report. [2:28:35] The Biden administration made investments to address the spike in undocumented immigration and to control the border. [2:28:42] There was no open border. [2:28:44] They tried everything they could to get one of them to say there was an open border. [2:28:47] And they said, no, there was no open border. [2:28:49] There was robust drug interdiction at the border. [2:28:52] Gregory Bovino, whom Trump made the commander at large of the Border Patrol, was the chief patrol agent for the El Centro sector under President Biden. [2:29:01] And he testified about the successful Border Patrol operations he was running. [2:29:06] And he discussed applying consequences for those illegally crossing the border and drug traffickers under President Biden. [2:29:15] So look, if you want to go off and continue to divide and polarize Americans and demagogue this issue, do it. [2:29:22] But stop misstating the historical record when it comes to the administrations of President Biden and President Obama. [2:29:31] While America is involved in an illegal, unconstitutional, disastrous war in Iran, taking American lives as well as Iranian lives, they want to replay the best of the worst of all of their anti-immigrant fantasies, which have turned the vast majority of the country against them. [2:29:50] As more than 60% of Americans reject the failed immigration policies of this administration. [2:29:57] Tom Paine said when he got over to America in 1774, two years before a revolution, that this country, if it lives up to its ideals and values, will be an asylum to humanity. [2:30:07] Not an insane asylum, but a place of refuge for people seeking freedom from political and economic and religious and intellectual persecution from all over the world. [2:30:17] That's who we are as a country. [2:30:19] And instead, they want to set Americans against Americans and continue to have ICE agents killing Americans, shooting them down in the streets. [2:30:29] And we say no, enough of this. Let's get together and have serious bipartisan common sense immigration reform. [2:30:37] I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. [2:30:38] The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. [2:30:43] All those in favor say aye. [2:30:44] Aye. [2:30:45] Those opposed, no. No. [2:30:47] Any of the chairs, the no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to. [2:30:51] Seek a roll call, please. [2:30:52] Roll call being requested. The clerk call the roll. [2:30:54] Mr. Jordan. [2:30:55] No. [2:30:56] No. [2:30:57] Mr. Jordan votes no. [2:30:58] Mr. Issa. [2:31:00] Mr. Issa votes no. [2:31:01] Mr. Biggs. [2:31:02] Mr. McClintock. [2:31:03] No. [2:31:04] Mr. McClintock votes no. [2:31:05] Mr. Tiffany. [2:31:06] Mr. Massey. [2:31:08] Mr. Roy. [2:31:10] No. [2:31:11] Mr. Roy votes no. [2:31:12] Mr. Fitzgerald. [2:31:13] Mr. Kline. [2:31:14] Mr. Gooden. [2:31:18] Mr. Van Drew. [2:31:20] Mr. Nels. [2:31:22] Mr. Moore. [2:31:24] Mr. Moore votes no. [2:31:25] Ms. Hageman. [2:31:26] Ms. Hageman votes no. [2:31:28] Ms. Leah, Florida. [2:31:29] Mr. Hunt. [2:31:31] Mr. Hunt votes no. [2:31:32] Mr. Frey. [2:31:33] Mr. Kiley. [2:31:34] Mr. [2:31:36] Mr. Grossman. [2:31:38] Mr. Knott. [2:31:40] Mr. Knott votes no. [2:31:46] Mr. Harris. [2:31:47] Mr. Harris votes no. [2:31:48] Mr. Onder. [2:31:49] Mr. Schmidt. [2:31:51] Mr. Gill. [2:31:52] Mr. Gill votes no. [2:31:54] Mr. Baumgardner. [2:31:55] Mr. Raskin. [2:31:58] Aye. [2:31:59] Mr. Raskin votes aye. [2:32:00] Mr. Nadler. [2:32:01] Aye. [2:32:02] Mr. Nadler votes aye. [2:32:03] Ms. Lofgren. [2:32:05] Ms. Lofgren votes aye. [2:32:06] Mr. Cohen. [2:32:08] Mr. Johnson. [2:32:10] Mr. Liu. [2:32:12] Ms. Jayapal. [2:32:13] Mr. Correa. [2:32:16] Mr. Correa votes aye. [2:32:17] Ms. Scanlon. [2:32:18] Aye. [2:32:19] Ms. Scanlon votes aye. [2:32:20] Goose. Ms. McBath. Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross votes aye. Ms. Ballant. Ms. Ballant votes aye. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes aye. Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes aye. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes aye. Ms. Crockett. Ms. Crockett votes aye. Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania. Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald, you are not recorded. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Mr. Schmidt, you are not recorded. Mr. Schmidt votes no. [2:33:08] Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Baumgartner votes no. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 13 nos. [2:33:45] The amendment is not agreed to. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from Maryland. [2:33:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got an amendment at the desk. [2:33:53] Clerk will report the gentleman from California reserves a point of order. [2:34:00] Amendment to the amendment in the nature. [2:34:04] Out of objection, the amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to explain the amendment. [2:34:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is about the necessity of ICE agents wearing [2:34:13] body cameras, something which I think the vast majority of Americans and people in Congress agree to. [2:34:20] We've watched in horror as poorly trained and out of control DHS and ICE officers shot more than two [2:34:30] dozen Americans and immigrants and killed six of them, including three U.S. citizens during immigration [2:34:37] enforcement operations since Trump has taken office. Despite these killings in the streets of America, [2:34:42] the majority has refused to conduct any investigative oversight into these homicides or to hold the [2:34:47] Department of Homeland Security or its agents accountable in any way. To my knowledge, the majority [2:34:52] has not sent a single letter, marked up a single bill or held a single hearing to try to restrain [2:34:58] this violence against innocent people on the streets of America from Texas to Minneapolis to Maine. [2:35:06] Democrats have been demanding reform, including a requirement that all DHS officers wear and use fully [2:35:12] functioning body cameras when conducting these enforcement operations. But despite repeated [2:35:18] assurances from DHS that this would happen, it has not happened. Shortly after agents killed Renee [2:35:24] Good and Alex Breddy in Minneapolis in January, DHS vowed to quickly deploy functioning body cameras for [2:35:31] every officer across America. But nearly six months later, it still hasn't happened. And the carnage [2:35:38] continues. Earlier this month, ICE officers fatally shot Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, father of three children, [2:35:44] all of them U.S. citizens, in Houston, Texas, during an operation. The officers involved were not wearing [2:35:52] body cameras, according to reports, leaving lots of questions about why this happened. Just days later, [2:35:58] ICE officers fatally shot Johan Sebastian Guerrero during an operation in Maine. The officers were wearing body [2:36:04] cameras this time. But no, they were not turned on. They were not functional. For both shootings, [2:36:09] we've been forced to rely on DHS's official bureaucratic description of events because no body camera footage [2:36:15] is available to provide either a corroborating or a contradictory account of what actually took place. And DHS's [2:36:23] veracity and credibility have been repeatedly debunked after eyewitnesses, reporters, and judges [2:36:31] in federal courts have determined the government simply did not tell the truth about what happened. [2:36:36] Following these most recent crimes against citizens, immigrants and communities, DHS announced that all [2:36:42] agents and officers will be equipped with fully functioning body-worn cameras in the next 60 days, [2:36:48] they said. We can only welcome this announcement, but given the administration's bloody track record, [2:36:54] we cannot take their word for it. Trust, but verify. We need these cameras yesterday. No more [2:37:01] bureaucratic red tape and evasions. DHS and its component agencies have consistently made false and [2:37:08] unsubstantiated allegations about the people that its agents shot dead, including Renee Good and Alex [2:37:15] Preddy, who the secretary quickly called terrorists. Terrorists, she called them. A defamatory lie [2:37:22] that she refused to retract in this committee. DHS has routinely claimed that its own homicide victims, [2:37:30] the people that their agents shot down in broad daylight at point-blank range, were actually attacking [2:37:38] the officers and that they had tried to weaponize their cars against them. All of this has been proven [2:37:45] obscenely, demonstrably false, both the false charge of terrorism attributed to moms of three kids and [2:37:54] VA nurses and the false assignment of guilt in people causing their own deaths at the hands of DHS and ICE. [2:38:02] In each case, evidence emerged that definitively contradicted and debunked the government's claims. [2:38:08] In other incidents, it was found ICE agents lied and acted inappropriately, resulting in several of the [2:38:14] prosecutions of DHS victims being dismissed in federal court with prejudice. As a result, [2:38:21] Donald Trump's DHS has completely lost the trust of the people that it was created to protect and [2:38:27] serve. We need DHS using body-worn cameras to ensure the accountability, bureaucratic transparency, [2:38:34] and public safety against a bloated, masked paramilitary force. This is a basic constitutional [2:38:41] requirement, not a partisan complaint. Most law enforcement agencies across America are using [2:38:47] body cameras as a standard practice. Just last week, Republican Senator John Cornyn called it a mistake [2:38:55] that the officers didn't have body cameras. So this is not a question of a lack of resources, [2:39:00] Mr. Chairman. They've got the resources to do it. I urge my colleagues to support this constitutionally [2:39:05] compelled and common sense amendment, and I yield back. The gentleman yields back. And now we'll have [2:39:56] a word from our sponsor. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? I do, Mr. Chairman. [2:41:01] The gentleman is recognized to explain. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would introduce [2:41:05] material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us and therefore violates House Rule 16, [2:41:11] Clause 7. I yield back. The gentleman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental [2:41:17] purposes test. Therefore, it is not germane and is out of order. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from [2:41:28] Timmons. Mr. Chairman, was there a ruling on this? Yeah. What was the ruling? It's not germane. [2:41:36] Okay. I have another amendment that we can introduce that's written more narrowly, and I'll [2:41:42] introduce that one. The gentleman is recognized. The clerk will report. Amendment to the amendment [2:42:02] and the nature. Objection. The bill be considered as read. The gentleman is recognized to explain the [2:42:05] amendment. Point of order being reserved by the gentleman from California. The gentleman from [2:42:08] Maryland is recognized. We're talking about body cameras for ICE agents on the streets of America, [2:42:15] and we're talking about in the aftermath of numerous killings of U.S. citizens and also immigrants. [2:42:25] Immigrants who were not even the target of the original operation and were not committing any crimes. So, [2:42:33] this is a matter that the vast majority of Americans agrees about. These ICE officials should be wearing, [2:42:43] these ICE agents should be wearing body cameras the way that the vast majority of local and state police [2:42:50] do when they're out on the beat. And ICE has a lot more money than our local police departments. [2:42:56] They've got billions and billions of dollars to do it. They've got a force of agents larger than the local [2:43:07] police departments of Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, [2:43:14] all combined. We're talking about a huge police force and they're going around masked and they've been [2:43:22] killing American citizens as well as immigrants in their work. We need those body cameras and the [2:43:29] administration doesn't disagree. The administration keeps saying, yes, we're going to get to that. [2:43:34] And now there's a promise within 60 days. Before that, it was going to be immediately and so on. [2:43:39] Enough. This has to be a matter of law. And everybody should take a position on this and [2:43:44] not try to squirm out of it. Do we believe that ICE agents should be able to continue this [2:43:50] masked rampage across America without wearing the body cameras that our police officers back home [2:43:59] are wearing to great effect? So that's the purpose of this amendment. And I submit it to the judgment of [2:44:06] the committee. If you don't like it, vote against it. But if you do like it and you stand with most [2:44:10] American people vote for it. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. We're not [2:44:14] trying to squirm out of anything. We're just trying to follow the rules. If it's germane, [2:44:17] the amendment will be allowed. We'll debate it and we'll vote on it. If it's not germane, [2:44:20] it'll be ruled not germane. That's how it operates. The gentleman from California, [2:44:24] does he insist on his, withdraws his amendment. Imagine that. The gentleman from Texas is recognized, [2:44:30] the gentleman from California is recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, [2:44:35] the ranking member laments the fatal encounters with ICE officers and we join him in that. But [2:44:42] it must be remembered that no one, not ICE officers, not rioters, not fugitives and not bystanders, [2:44:51] have ever been injured, let alone killed, when ICE officers have been able to arrest illegal immigrants [2:44:59] while they're already in custody. But the Democrats' sanctuary laws don't turn them over when they can [2:45:07] be safely arrested. They release them back into our streets to prey upon innocent Americans instead. [2:45:13] And by the way, prey upon immigrants until squads of ICE officers have to go out, track them down and [2:45:20] take them back into custody by force. And when they do that, they must often encounter violent mobs, [2:45:27] often incited by the Democrats, or confront violent fugitives. And people get injured and they get [2:45:34] killed. Indeed, a Democrat member of Congress last year doxed an ICE officer to a violent mob in [2:45:41] California who then sat upon him and put him in the hospital. Another Democrat member of Congress stands [2:45:47] indicted for assaulting law enforcement officers at an ICE facility in New York. You cannot lament these [2:45:53] injuries and deaths while defending the sanctuary laws that caused them. But now to the point of the [2:45:59] body cameras. We support body cameras on all law enforcement. Republicans appropriated 20 million [2:46:05] dollars for this purpose. But I need to remind the ranking member that he and his colleagues voted to [2:46:10] shut down DHS for 75 days, the longest government shutdown in American history, during which time they [2:46:17] could not draft RFPs to start the bid process to obtain these cameras. They're now in that process, but the [2:46:24] gentleman and his colleagues are the reason we're 75 days behind in achieving this objective. And I yield the [2:46:30] balance of my time to the general from Texas. I concur with my friend from California. I mean, I do think it merits [2:46:35] repetition of what the gentleman just said, for the record, that we in fact funded said cameras. The [2:46:43] administration has publicly stated their intent to implement and are in the process of implementing [2:46:49] said cameras that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stonewalled for about half of this year [2:46:56] our ability to easily fund ICE and Border Patrol, which delayed their ability to have funds that they knew [2:47:03] that they're going to have in place and why they were shutting it down while we worked to use a reconciliation [2:47:07] process to do what we should have done through appropriations. But my colleagues on the other side of the [2:47:13] aisle refused to do it. So they literally are now complaining about not implementing something that [2:47:19] they held up for months on end without being willing to fund ICE and Border Patrol to do their basic duty [2:47:25] and their basic job. Then Congress Republicans in leadership had to step in the breach, use reconciliation [2:47:32] to solve the problem and did so. I would also note that the structure of this amendment is flawed in the [2:47:38] sense that it is it is going to exacerbate the problem by trying to withhold implementation of the [2:47:43] of the of the codification of the policies that we ought to have put in place that would make [2:47:49] permanent our ability to not have the situation where we have people in America and in our streets [2:47:56] that have to have enforcement. So we would delay and not allow the implementation of the codification of [2:48:02] the very policies that would help avoid the problem that we're having to deal with by having people here [2:48:06] who are not supposed to be here under our laws. We funded it. We put it in place. Democrats opposed it [2:48:14] and now they want to try to turn this legislation which is designed to codify and improve our policies [2:48:19] with respect to who gets into our country under what procedure so they can't be abused by a future [2:48:24] president as they were under the previous president under asylum, parole, catch and release and all the [2:48:28] other policies unaccompanied children that created this situation that resulted in the death of Americans, [2:48:34] that resulted in the death of immigrants and now they want to try to do this when we all agree [2:48:38] that we want to have the problem. The administration agrees that we want to have the problem addressed [2:48:42] and that they themselves delayed by delaying the funding of ICE and Border Patrol in the spring. [2:48:47] With that, I would yield back to my friend from California. [2:48:49] Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. [2:48:54] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Firstly, I appreciate the ranking member for bringing this amendment. It's so [2:48:58] pertinent and important that body cameras be on ICE officers. We can't make sure they don't turn their [2:49:04] cameras off when they're doing something or the cameras aren't on them and don't happen to work, [2:49:08] which happens in many cases in my city with the police. For some reason or another, the body camera [2:49:12] is not working. But this is an attempt. And I agree with Mr. McCullough and Mr. Roy about the need [2:49:18] for ICE agents. We do need Customs Patrol and immigration control, but this ICE group is out of control. [2:49:28] They are out of control. I've written to the secretary, who is amazing to me that he's a secretary with a capital [2:49:35] U.S. that want to know what ICE is made up of. If there are any people in there, are there January 6 [2:49:44] folks who have been convicted? If there are people or policemen in other eight departments who were [2:49:51] dismissed for some reason, what are their criteria for hiring officers? And we haven't had an answer [2:49:56] yet, but it's recently sent. I've seen pictures on the street of ICE agents. This is no DEI thing, but I've [2:50:04] never seen a person that looked like they were black, an ICE agent, looked like they might have been [2:50:10] Asian, never seen anybody look like an immigrant. It's all white, white, white. It's the color of the [2:50:17] Proud Boys. It's the color of all those groups that have tried to destroy democracy on January 6 and [2:50:24] came up here. So I'd like to know who they hire, what their criteria is, and what training they get. [2:50:28] And there was a gentleman on television recently who was a whistleblower, I believe, and he said that [2:50:33] they didn't, their training, and he was a trainer, and deadly force was very limited, and they didn't [2:50:39] have nearly as much as police officers have, and that they don't have really good training on when [2:50:44] to shoot and when not to shoot, and they were given improper information about shooting at cars. [2:50:48] In Memphis, the police department, I was the legal advisor for the police department many years ago, [2:50:52] they're prohibited from shooting at a vehicle because if you hit the person, you're liable to have [2:50:57] the car go off and kill somebody else. But they shoot, shot Ms. Good in the car, and they shot Mr. [2:51:04] Pretty. And these people are saying they're holding these posters. Democrats are trying to, [2:51:08] we're trying to stop, not trying to protect you. Well, Mr. Pretty and Ms. Good were American citizens, [2:51:16] and we were hoping they'd have been protected by body cameras or some other better use and choice of [2:51:23] who the ICE officers are. The people that were shot in Maine and Texas shot the wrong guy in Texas. [2:51:31] They shot the wrong person in Maine, too. We need a force that is properly trained and properly chosen, [2:51:41] not just what we've got out there, which has got some people that are not qualified and like the power [2:51:48] they've got. The ones that got up in Minneapolis after they took the weapon that Mr. Good had a right, [2:51:55] Mr. Pretty had a right to, licensed in Minneapolis and Minnesota, allows you to carry. They took his, [2:52:02] one guy took his gun and ran. And as soon as he took the gun out of his back pocket, which he never [2:52:07] tried to use, and he ran towards across the street, the other officer next to him immediately shot him [2:52:12] and shot him and shot him. And then the other guys got away, turned away and turned back. And two of them [2:52:18] shot him and shot him and shot him. That's wrong. It's murder. There's no question it's murder. [2:52:25] And yet they're not cooperating with the Minneapolis Police Department. They need to cooperate with the [2:52:29] local law enforcement and find out which of these ICE agents committed murder and don't understand the [2:52:36] law. They had no business killing that man. And the same thing goes with Ms. Good. The officer got in [2:52:43] the way and they said, sometimes officers get in the way intentionally car to be able to justify [2:52:48] shooting. And the gentleman I think in Maine was shot three times in the face, his car shot directly into [2:52:56] the car. The man was in front of him. You have to have the rule of law and you have to have public [2:53:07] orders. Will the gentleman yield? I yield to the ranking member. Thank you. Our colleagues invite [2:53:14] us to believe that sanctuary cities are the cause of ICE agents shooting people in the face, shooting [2:53:21] people in the streets of America. Well, let's take a controlled case study. Let's look at what happened [2:53:27] in Texas. Texas banned sanctuary cities, but that didn't stop ICE agents from going out in the community [2:53:32] and killing Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston a couple of weeks ago when he wasn't even the target [2:53:40] of their operation. A father of three with no criminal record, no criminal charges against him, [2:53:45] shot down in cold blood by ICE agents who must have not known that Texas had banned sanctuary cities [2:53:53] because they proceeded to completely embarrass the argument of my colleague who claimed that it's [2:53:59] sanctuary cities that are at fault for ICE's misbehavior. The gentleman yields back. The [2:54:05] gentleman from Texas recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American people elected President [2:54:11] Donald J. Trump with a clear mandate that was to secure our border and restore the rule of law, [2:54:17] which is exactly what he has done by putting the American citizen first. That's exactly why the permanent [2:54:24] Trump secure border act. And I want to thank my colleague from Texas, Mr. Roy, for doing this [2:54:29] common sense immigration enforcement measure so we could codify this in the law and to do exactly [2:54:35] what the American people asked him to do. Now, for years, we have sat through hearing after hearing in [2:54:41] this very room listening to grieving mothers and fathers describe the unimaginable pain of burying [2:54:47] a son or daughter because our border was deliberately left unsecured by the left. We have heard stories of [2:54:54] Americans murdered by people who should have never been in this country in the first place. And I'll be [2:55:00] damned if I have to listen to the defense of people that have no business being in this country in the [2:55:06] first place murdering other Americans. Sheridan Gorman, Katie Abraham, Chloe Polson, Lincoln Riley, [2:55:16] Jocelyn Nungary, Rachel Morin. Their names say their names. Yet my colleagues on the left continue to oppose the [2:55:24] very policies that would have prevented these tragedies. I want to thank my law enforcement [2:55:31] officers. I want to thank federal law enforcement officers. I want to thank ICE agents. I want to [2:55:36] thank local police officers. I want to thank law enforcement individuals specifically for their desire [2:55:41] to put their lives on the line to keep everybody here in this country safe and harmed. I want to thank [2:55:48] them from the bottom of my heart. If I played a drinking game and every time I heard the word white, [2:55:54] white, white, white, or white supremacist while watching CNN, watching MSLSD, I mean NBC, or listening [2:56:00] to my colleagues on the left talk about white supremacy and white people all day every day, [2:56:06] I would be drunk after an hour and I would die of alcohol poisoning. What are we talking about? [2:56:14] This is about protecting every single American in regards of your race, religion, color, or creed. [2:56:20] And I can assure you, as I have said in this room many a day, I've been black for my entire life, [2:56:25] I'm not a white supremacist. What I want to do is be safe in my own communities, regardless of what [2:56:31] you look like. And that's exactly what my colleague from Texas Chip Roy is trying to do here. That's [2:56:36] exactly what we have done. Secured our borders to ensure that people that have no business in this [2:56:41] country harm and arbitrarily murder our children. This is not hard. I thank God every day I'm not a lawyer. [2:56:51] I'm just a soldier, just an American. I'm a father, a follower of Christ, somebody that believes in this [2:56:56] great nation and ensuring that we have safety for the future. That's literally all I care about. [2:57:02] And that goes for every single red-blooded American, regardless of your race, religion, [2:57:06] color, or creed. And with that, I yield my time to my colleague from Texas if he has anything to say. [2:57:12] I appreciate my friend from Texas. I would note that it merits repetition that my colleagues [2:57:24] literally voted against funding the very thing and implementing the very thing by delaying ICE and [2:57:30] Border Patrol funding for four months. That's no small thing. We were sitting there in February and [2:57:36] ICE and Border Patrol funding was entirely shut down and blocked by my colleagues on the other side of the [2:57:42] aisle. And we had to save it by backdooring into something that is not the typical use of [2:57:50] reconciliation in order to fund the very operations of government that would carry out the implementation [2:57:56] of the thing my colleagues are raising. And with that, I yield back to my friend from Texas. [2:58:00] Will the gentleman yield? Time belongs here. Gentleman from Texas. [2:58:05] Sure, I yield. Thank you. [2:58:07] Was $175 billion, I think it was, that wasn't enough to pay for the body cameras, Mr. Roy? [2:58:18] They're funded. I mean, they were funded by the OBB. You guys blocked implementation of ICE and [2:58:23] Border Patrol having funding to be able to carry out their operations. [2:58:26] So it's OBB. It's not the most recent reconciliation. [2:58:29] The dollars that were put in place to be able to get cameras put in place, that funding has been put forth [2:58:34] by by us in this administration. The problem is you guys blocked ICE and Border Patrol being able to [2:58:40] operationalize for four months. You stopped them from being funded. [2:58:44] Wait, are you talking about OBB or are you talking about the second reconciliation? [2:58:48] The reconciliation, the second reconciliation package literally just funded the operations [2:58:52] of ICE and Border Patrol because you all wouldn't. [2:58:54] Okay. That's what we did. [2:58:56] Right. Well, I understand. [2:58:59] You shut them down. We had to reopen them. [2:59:01] The first reconciliation bill had put how much money into the Department of Homeland Security? [2:59:07] Money that's there for the cameras that are being implemented. [2:59:08] $175 billion. The cameras are being implemented. [2:59:10] And that was not enough to pay for the cameras. And the issue here is it's not just whether there's [2:59:15] funding for it, but whether it's required. And why would you not want the ICE agents [2:59:22] enforcing our immigration laws to be required to wear body cameras so that they can be held [2:59:27] accountable for the work that they're doing? What is the argument against it? [2:59:34] The time of the gentleman from Texas, this gentleman from Texas, has expired. [2:59:41] And the chair now recognizes the general aide from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon. [2:59:46] Thank you. I just wanted to interject some revisions to the revisionist history we're getting here. [2:59:53] So first off, we heard that the reason people were killed in the last two weeks in Houston [2:59:59] and in Maine was because there'd been rioting and criminals and sanctuary cities. But I think we do [3:00:07] need to recall the fact that there were no riots taking place, that neither of these people were [3:00:13] criminals. In fact, they were family men driving to work, and neither of them was the target of enforcement. [3:00:20] So yet another reason why we need some accountability here. The second piece of the revisionist history [3:00:26] is the idea that the incredibly overfunded, well-funded, whatever, DHS hasn't been able to get body cams in [3:00:35] place because Democrats blocked them. I mean, that's just bullshit. I mean, the reason Democrats refused to [3:00:42] allow additional funding for DHS and ICE was because we were demanding that there be guard rails put around [3:00:50] their conduct after they killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota in January. So Republicans refused to put [3:00:59] in place common sense safety guidelines for the American public and anyone else residing in the U.S., [3:01:07] and that is why there were delays in funding. It was Republicans and the White House refused to come to [3:01:14] the table to put those guidelines in place. They continued to refuse to do so, whether in connection [3:01:20] with this bill, with the budget bills that are moving forward, and they were so adamant that they [3:01:24] wouldn't put in place those guardrails, they passed a completely partisan reconciliation bill in order to fund [3:01:31] DHS for billions of more dollars. And then finally, I mean, if we're going to talk about hypocrisy here, [3:01:38] how about the hypocrisy of endorsing and consorting with people who are here? The Tate brothers, Andrew [3:01:47] and Tristan Tate, who were here on the Hill this past week, hanging out with some of our members here [3:01:53] who were just so adamant that their highest duty is to protect Americans from things like rape and sex [3:01:59] trafficking and human trafficking when they are openly hanging out with people who not only have been [3:02:04] charged with that, but are now in U.S. custody for those crimes. So, you know, if you're going to be [3:02:12] all in there for you support body cams, you support expelling criminals, you support all measures to take, [3:02:19] you know, to prevent sex trafficking and rape and human trafficking, let's have a little consistency. [3:02:24] Would the lady yield? I'll yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. [3:02:27] Thank you. Would you go a little further on what the guardrails were that held up [3:02:31] the passage of the budget, the DHS, and what the Democrats held back on and what those guardrails were? [3:02:38] I mean, a large part of it was making sure there was proper training, that there were warrants in [3:02:43] place before homes were broken into. I think body cams were some of it. There was also a requirement that [3:02:51] these agents not be masked and that they be, in fact, identifiable as federal agents. But none of those [3:02:58] things have been enacted. And I would defer to the chairman or someone else who might have a more [3:03:03] top of mind list of recollection of the very short list. Those were common sense things. Not that they [3:03:10] can't wear a mask. Policemen don't wear masks in the city. Well, these were they're masked. These were [3:03:14] elements that every other law enforcement agency in the country is held to because they are things that [3:03:21] do keep all of our populations safe. So we were trying to protect the public. The sign they got [3:03:28] up about two years or two months or 60 days or whatever it is trying not defending the public out [3:03:33] there. We were trying to defend the public from officers who weren't properly trained and uniformed. [3:03:41] Not properly trained, not properly uniformed. And we were trying to do this with the very real evidence [3:03:47] of what happens when you don't have those guardrails in place. Citizens die. Citizens homes are invaded. [3:03:54] People are detained without probable cause, etc. The officer from Maine shot the man and killed him. [3:04:02] His wife said he was throwing hot water at her when she was pregnant, holding her baby, said he tried to [3:04:08] daughter said she came in one time and he had a gun to his head. There were several other incidents that [3:04:11] were reported and he was hired as an ICE agent. He was on the edge, on the edge. He was a racist, [3:04:16] he had racist beliefs and violent tendencies, as his ex-wife said. And if they hired him, [3:04:20] he was purported for ICE. I yield back. Thank you. And I would yield to the gentleman from New York. [3:04:25] Well, Mr. Roy said we want to do oversight earlier. I've heard rumblings that that officer still has not [3:04:33] had his background check completed. So if you want to do oversight, let's send a letter to the Department [3:04:40] of Homeland Security and ask whether that officer who killed the gentleman in Maine had his background [3:04:47] check completed before he was hired. Thank you. And I would yield back. The gentleman's time has [3:04:54] expired. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. So just a couple quickies here. One, masks. First [3:05:02] of all, I do believe in body cams. We all do. We're going to have them. It's kind of a moot point. We've [3:05:07] already said it's going to be. But masks. Masks are needed because unfortunately this has been made a [3:05:15] political argument and we have people on the other side of the aisle that are continually defending [3:05:22] criminal, illegal aliens, period. And agents have been told over and over again, we're going to get [3:05:30] you. We're going to get your family. We're going to get anybody that's related to you. We're friends [3:05:36] with you. And we're going to hurt you or kill you. And there's tons of testimony to back that up. So [3:05:43] there's a reason there are masks. It is different, unfortunately, than regular police officers or [3:05:49] normally what you would find. Second thing is we are also forgetting, I like to get back to the basics, [3:05:55] thousands and thousands of felons, murderers, drug dealers, rapists, child abusers, the list goes on [3:06:05] and on. I mean, have done horrific things, have been caught since we've put this system in place [3:06:12] and since ICE is there. If ICE wasn't there, we would go back to the old days. And that is what [3:06:19] I want to refresh everybody's memory. Why are we here? Why do we need this legislation? Why are we [3:06:24] having this debate? Why does this discussion exist? Because we were actually, we are preventing a clear [3:06:32] and pleasant, present danger to American citizens and legal American immigrants who came here. And [3:06:41] then finally, when we think about the people that are here and we think about why they're here, [3:06:48] immigration is good. Somebody said before they keep mixing illegal felon immigrants and they just say [3:06:54] immigrants. Immigrants are good. We love immigrants. I'm going to say it over and over again. But the bottom [3:06:59] line is, again, this legislation addresses what we've abused. We've abused our parole system and gone [3:07:06] around Congress and are doing much more and allowing people in that never should have been in. Asylum. We [3:07:12] were letting people in at all different points of our borders that were coming in, many of whom were [3:07:19] criminals and were responsible for horrendous illegal activity. Catch and release. What was going on under [3:07:27] the last administration? We are doing all this. We are where we are because of what the horrible policies [3:07:33] were in the last administration. So, you know, in those days we were catching people, didn't matter [3:07:40] what they were or what they did or if they're criminal or not, and pretty much we're releasing, and we have [3:07:45] the proof of it, releasing criminals back into the American public, which is why all the horrible things [3:07:52] happened. Let's not do this in a vacuum. Let's understand why this legislation is here. Let's [3:07:58] understand why we are here and what the American people demanded. They want us to be humane. They [3:08:04] want us to be decent. When we're detaining people, they want us to do it the right way, and we are. [3:08:11] But we also should not endanger our law enforcement who are trying to do their job. And finally, contrary to [3:08:20] what some people said on the other side, in most cases where there is a problem, it is because, with ICE, [3:08:29] because they are given responsibilities that they shouldn't even have to have, there should be [3:08:34] cooperation among county law enforcement, state law enforcement, local law enforcement, and ICE. And in [3:08:42] those cases, it works out well. And in most areas where that's done that way, it works out well and we don't [3:08:50] have these problems. The problem is, when you try, when you're not cooperating with ICE at all, and [3:08:55] they've got to go into the streets and pick up people, other folks get scooped up. That's not their [3:09:02] fault, and it's not the fault, quite frankly, of Republicans. It's the fault of sanctuary cities, [3:09:09] states, and communities that won't cooperate. And by the way, Chairman, just, it's not Germain completed [3:09:16] this discussion. Just hoddle off the news in case people haven't heard. Now the governor of my state [3:09:21] of New Jersey admits they've found at least 70,000 illegals who were on the election rolls. The [3:09:30] governor just admitted today, 70,000. Are you kidding me? I think that was the number. I'd have to look. [3:09:37] 7. 7,000? Okay. Still bad. No, that's funny. 7,000 are bad. I just heard it. I don't think it's funny. [3:09:47] I don't think that 7,000 people voting, some of whom are criminal, all of them who were illegal, [3:09:53] are actually, and that's what she's admitted. God knows what the real number is. It may be closer. [3:09:57] Gentleman yield. How wrong is that? I'm going to say one thing. I don't think that's funny. I don't think [3:10:03] it's funny if it's 7,000. I don't think it's funny if it's 7,000 or 700,000 that illegal criminals are [3:10:10] voting in my beautiful state of New Jersey. I'm sick of that. I'm tired of that, and so are people. [3:10:16] It's not. It's not funny. I yield back. I yield back. [3:10:20] I think the gentlelady from Vermont is up next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to [3:10:29] go back to something my colleague on the other side said earlier. He's now stepped out. He said, [3:10:37] you know, Americans voted for this. He said, Americans wanted this. And I just want to be clear [3:10:46] that I, unlike many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, will admit that President Trump [3:10:53] did win this election. And part of what he ran on was about going after the worst of the worst, [3:11:03] hundreds of times he said that in gatherings with his supporters. We're going to go after [3:11:11] the worst of the worst. We're going to go after the criminals. We're going to go after the racists. [3:11:15] We're going to go after the drug dealers. Americans actually do not support where we are right now, [3:11:21] because he actually is not going after the worst of the worst. And all the data points show that. [3:11:26] But I just want to level set here so that we can see what we're talking about in terms of the [3:11:32] supersizing of the ICE budget, because you can look at all of the years that are leading up from 2017 [3:11:41] till today. And the dark orange is where the ICE budget has been. And then you see this incredible [3:11:49] increase in the budget under the one big beautiful bill, which I've noticed they've stopped calling [3:11:55] that because they know it's incredibly unpopular right now. But this is what we're talking about. [3:12:01] This now they have created the largest law enforcement agency in the country by far. [3:12:09] So if you could if you combined law enforcement in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, [3:12:17] Washington, DC, Las Vegas and Dallas, you would then have the amount of officers that are being [3:12:24] hired and deployed through ICE. 170 billion dollars to DHS and then an additional 70 billion more, [3:12:36] because that 170 plus was not enough. That's 240 billion taxpayer dollars to fund ICE. And no, [3:12:47] Americans did not ask to have ICE agents stopping them on the street based on the color of their skin [3:12:55] or the accent they're using. When I was in Chicago in Minneapolis, when the ranking member on the [3:13:01] subcommittee on immigration led trips to witness what was happening in those two cities, what we saw [3:13:11] were Americans not just being stopped, but being detained. We saw in very similar cases to what we just saw [3:13:21] in Biddeford, Maine, the man was gunned down in front of his kid. He was there legally. He had papers to work. [3:13:31] And so it is so hard to sit in this committee because it is it is this incredible brainwashing that has been done [3:13:45] to the American people saying, don't worry, trust us with the dollars. Trust us with what ICE is doing, [3:13:52] even though we can't still seem to get body cameras. We got people with masks. We got people who are not [3:13:59] identified. You got people chasing after you in unmarked cars. Of course, you're going to be scared. Of course, [3:14:05] you're not going to know exactly what to do. And so, no, the American people did not ask for this. [3:14:10] And so right now, the polling for President Trump in terms of approval on the way that he's handling the immigration [3:14:18] sits at about 37 percent. Meanwhile, 80 percent of Americans consider immigration a net positive. [3:14:28] So two thirds of the people have seen more than enough of what is being done in our name with our [3:14:35] taxpayer dollars. And there is not majority support, far from it, for what ICE is perpetrating against [3:14:44] innocent people across this country. It would be a very different conversation if, in fact, [3:14:51] this president and ICE were going after the so-called worst of the worst. But we're not seeing it. And [3:14:56] that's why the people of Biddeford, Maine stood up this week when this tragic killing happened and said, [3:15:04] we are good people. He was a good man going to work. And this never should have happened. And I know [3:15:09] the ranking member would like to jump in here. Thank you, Ms. Ballant. The distinguished gentleman [3:15:19] from New Jersey said that he supports body cameras. We all do. And we're going to get them. Therefore, [3:15:28] everybody should be voting for this amendment, seriously, to hold the executive branch to account. [3:15:34] Then he says, though, that ICE agents uniquely need to wear masks, whereas our police officers don't, [3:15:42] because they're somehow in more hazardous duty than the police officers who are out there every day [3:15:48] going after real criminals and not innocent people. You know, when El Chapo and Maduro were [3:15:56] apprehended by federal agents, those agents were not wearing masks. And so the gentleman basically [3:16:01] invites us to be more afraid of concerned U.S. citizens like Renee Good and Alex Preddy than we are of [3:16:07] El Chapo and international narco-traffickers. The gentleman yields back. The question occurs. [3:16:14] I move to strike the last word. Mr. Jordan. I think it's the gentleman. [3:16:19] Mr. Chairman. Have I spoken on this one? Okay. I didn't think so. [3:16:26] The gentleman's recognized. Hard to keep track. I think it merits a return to what we're talking about [3:16:33] here. We're talking about codifying the policies that have led to a 94 percent drop of what we're [3:16:40] dealing with at the border. Daily border encounters have plunged 94 percent since President Trump took [3:16:45] office. The reason for that is because of policies that are now consistent with our laws with respect [3:16:51] to asylum, with respect to parole, with respect to catch and release, etc. And we're trying to codify [3:16:56] this to ensure that we can adhere to those policies so that we no longer have the abuses of the previous [3:17:01] administration. I would like to enter into the record a document here with 42 pages [3:17:09] of individual news accounts of people that have been murdered, raped, otherwise assaulted or harmed [3:17:19] by the people who were released into the United States of America through the abuse of parole, [3:17:25] through the abuse of asylum, through flawed catch and relief policies, through the abuse of the [3:17:30] unaccompanied alien children that allowed cartels to use these children to harm them and to harm [3:17:35] Americans. And I could, if I wanted to, under the rules of the commission, I could, I could with [3:17:42] under the rules of the committee, instead of burning five minutes of time, I could just sit here and [3:17:46] enter each one of these articles one by one. We can just sit here. I'm not going to do that, [3:17:50] but I'll use this time to highlight a few from November 23 illegal immigrant who posed as a minor [3:17:57] while crossing border charged with murder in Florida, Florida, stabbing the person in the house that [3:18:02] brought the individual into their home. Number two, Afghan allegedly molested 12 year old and 14 year [3:18:08] old boys at Fort McCoy, a 20 year old Afghan refugee that sexually abused a 12 year old and 14 year old [3:18:16] immigrant sitting at the base where Democrats thought it was okay to have them all cohabitating. [3:18:23] September 21, Afghan pleads not guilty to strangling wife on Wisconsin military base. That's the article, [3:18:29] but it went on to be prosecuted and dealt with. March 2022, the Biden administration released a [3:18:34] suspected terrorist into the United States after he illegally crossed the border. March 22, Biden's [3:18:39] DHS released illegal alien on terrorism watch list. Illegal aliens released in the United States by [3:18:45] Biden's DHS linked to robbery gangs in a sanctuary state of New York. Illegal MS-13 gang member accused of [3:18:51] murdering 20 year old Kayla Hamilton. Illegal alien freed into the United States by Biden DHS now wanted for [3:18:58] drug trafficking in Brazil. Illegal alien charged with raping teen girl released into the United States [3:19:04] by Biden's Department of Homeland Security. Migrant arrested charged with capital murder and death of [3:19:09] another migrant. Illegal alien freed into the United States by Biden's HHS denied bail for allegedly raping [3:19:16] and murdering 11 year old girl. Just stop on each one of these headlines and every single one of them are [3:19:22] about releases by the Biden administration flouting and using loopholes in the laws that we are seeking [3:19:31] to codify to tighten. Illegal alien freed into the United States from southern border charged with [3:19:37] killing 11 year old Aiden Clark. Peruvian illegal immigrants alleged murder victim as US citizen. [3:19:44] Another one ice arrest African illegal immigrant wanted in Senegal for terrorist offenses released into the [3:19:49] United States. Another one. Virginia Sanctuary County frees from illegal alien accused of child rape [3:19:56] after Biden's DHS freedom into the United States. Another one. Illegal migrant released by Border Patrol [3:20:02] charged with rape after local police ignored ICE and let him go. I could go on and on and on on 43 odd pages [3:20:12] with three or four of these articles with summaries on each one. I'm going to insert it into the record. [3:20:17] I may go back to it and make sure that we continue to focus on what has happened to our people in this [3:20:23] country that have been murdered, raped, had fentanyl put into their communities, have lost loved ones, [3:20:30] and not just the ones we've had here testifying, not just having Alexis Nongaray talking about Jocelyn. [3:20:37] And we name a wildlife refuge, which is great. And we invite her to come talk to us. But she's still at [3:20:42] home without her daughter. Kayla Hamilton's family is still sitting there without Kayla. All of these [3:20:48] little 11 year old girl that's raped was in fact raped by someone released into our country [3:20:54] because we completely abuse the very policies we put in place to try to help people. The whole point [3:21:02] of asylum, the whole point of parole, but yet we abuse it and then bad things happen. That's why we're [3:21:10] here to codify these things. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Chair [3:21:15] recognized gentlelady from California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, you know, bad things are going to [3:21:22] happen in this world because people make mistakes. So we should just not try to create some fantasy [3:21:32] about how we're going to never have any bad thing to happen. Bad things happen all the time. You know, [3:21:39] service men and women were recently killed because of this war in Iran that people don't want, that [3:21:47] certainly people don't want to pay for. That was a bad thing that happened. So this is certainly not [3:21:52] the committee that's going to erase or mitigate any kind of bad thing from happening. You know, [3:21:58] I also just want to say that my colleague from the other side of the aisle was talking about [3:22:03] all of the things that we have abused, that you all have abused. I mean, one thing that's been abused [3:22:09] has been the Constitution as a result of all of these shenanigans that you all are actually allowing to [3:22:17] happen by funding DHS and ICE without any oversight or without any guardrails. But I don't want to go [3:22:25] down that rabbit hole because my head is starting to swim. You stay too long in this committee. That's [3:22:30] what happens. I do want to get back to the amendment, which is about body cameras. And I don't know why [3:22:38] anyone would be opposed to this amendment. Law enforcement officers support wearing body cameras. [3:22:48] And they don't say, oh, just have, you know, local LAPD or police officers wear it, but not sheriffs, [3:22:54] or just have sheriffs, but not ICE. Distinctions without a difference. Law enforcement is law enforcement, [3:23:02] and law enforcement support wearing body cameras because it also protects them. It is a two-way street. [3:23:13] I have been in courts. I have watched criminal cases. And you know who often testifies? Law enforcement. [3:23:20] And you know what they do? They refer to objective evidence. And you know where the evidence comes from? [3:23:26] From the body camera. They want it. It builds trust in communities. You know, I'm not going to do anything [3:23:34] crazy because I have this little camera on my chest to make sure that you're protected and that I'm [3:23:41] protected. You know, oftentimes law enforcement get hurt when they are responding to domestic violence [3:23:49] calls. They get injured. And you know how all of that is discerned? From the body camera. It provides [3:23:58] objective evidence. It does build trust in the community. And you know what else it's used for? [3:24:05] For training. So these are the do's and these are the don'ts. So that you have people who are properly [3:24:12] trained to do the job, which is very important. Bless you. Which is to keep communities safe, including [3:24:20] them. So I don't know why you would be opposed to it other than it's a democratic amendment. [3:24:26] But if you want to, if you're espousing support for law enforcement, then you should be like, [3:24:31] I do support wearing body cameras. And that's all this says. This title and amendment made by this [3:24:37] title shall not take effect until the Secretary of Homeland Security has deployed functional body worn [3:24:43] cameras on all US immigration and customs enforcement agents who are engaged in civil immigration [3:24:50] enforcement actions. I mean, that is simple. Wear a camera. So you know what's going on. So I know what's [3:24:59] going on. If you try to lie on me, I can show you the evidence. But no, you all want folks running [3:25:06] around, masked up, no IDs, no warrant, ragtaggy individuals going rogue, running down the street, [3:25:16] shooting folks in cars, which is not legal, yanking them out of the car while they're bleeding, [3:25:22] having their three year old baby in pajamas wailing. That's y'all's idea of a good time. [3:25:27] And it makes no sense to me. And it doesn't make sense to the American people. 65% of voters say, [3:25:37] wear a body camera. Because maybe if you do that, every two or three weeks, we won't have to be [3:25:45] traumatized watching another killing take place that you all have paid for. And you continue, [3:25:56] you continue to pivot and deflect from the accountability piece. I mean, I don't know how [3:26:05] y'all live in my home. There's accountability. You don't take out the trash and you're asked to [3:26:10] something's going to happen. There's a consequence. You know, you don't pay a bill from your credit card. [3:26:18] Something's going to happen. There's a consequence. Well, how about this? You shoot somebody and you're [3:26:22] not supposed to because you're masked up without a warrant. There should be a consequence. And with that, [3:26:26] I yield back. The committee will be in recess for votes on the floor and will resume as soon as votes