SUPERCUT: Best Moments From Explosive House Oversight Committee Hearings — 2025 Rewind

[0:00] Is that right? [0:01] Can you please explain the difference [0:03] between the definitions of telework and remote work? [0:06] Yes, remote work is 100% from a different location [0:10] and can include living entirely thousands of miles away. [0:14] Telework is having the ability to work anywhere [0:18] from one to five days a week at a remote location. [0:21] Okay, can an agency force a federal employee to telework? [0:25] Like similarly, can an agency force [0:26] a federal employee to show up for work? [0:29] Yes, and we saw that happen during COVID-19. [0:31] There was forced telework that happened [0:34] and they should have the ability to force an employee [0:36] to show up to work. [0:38] But when you have problematic components [0:39] that are baked into the cake for the new administration [0:41] that prevent such as deputy commissioners at SSA [0:45] from having that authority [0:46] because of a collective bargaining agreement, [0:48] that's arguably counter to the law. [0:50] Do you feel it's within the purview [0:51] of the president of the United States [0:53] to set the work schedule [0:54] for federal employees across the board? [0:56] I do, and in particular telework, [0:57] that's what the telework act of 2010 requires. [1:00] Ms. Cross, do you agree with that assumption [1:02] that the president of the United States [1:04] has the broad authority [1:05] to set work requirements for federal employees? [1:10] Well, you can't think about it now, Ms. Cross. [1:12] We're here, we're on the fly. [1:13] Do you think it's under the purview of the president [1:15] to set work requirements for federal employees? [1:18] Since essentially we, in our system of government, [1:20] we have a unitary executive [1:22] and the president of the United States [1:24] is the executive branch? [1:26] Mr. O'Malley, do you agree with that assessment [1:29] that the president of the United States [1:31] has the unilateral authority [1:32] for setting work requirements for federal employees? [1:37] No, under the law, he has the ability, [1:40] but it's not unilateral, he has to abide by the law, [1:43] at least in a republic, you abide by the law. [1:45] Mr. O'Malley, do you believe [1:46] that the president of the United States [1:48] is the executive branch, [1:49] whether it's President Trump, President Biden, [1:51] President Obama, President Bush, [1:53] President Bush, Herbert Walker Bush, President Reagan? [1:58] Do you believe that the president of the United States [2:00] is the unitary executive and is the executive branch? [2:03] Mr. Yes, and he has to abide under the law. [2:05] He has to obey the law. [2:06] So you mean to tell me that the president [2:08] of the United States doesn't have the ability [2:09] to set work requirements? [2:10] Mr. I'm saying that he does, [2:12] but he has to do so under the terms [2:14] and the rule of the law. [2:16] And so, and contract law, [2:19] and things contained in agreements [2:24] that are negotiated under the law [2:26] are things that the president has to be mindful of [2:30] and should be, you know, and should be guided by. [2:33] When you signed this agreement with the unions [2:36] over at the Social Security Administration, [2:38] did you do it purposefully to undermine President Trump [2:41] on his way in the door? [2:42] Mr. No, I did it to sustain [2:44] the big customer service delivery improvements [2:47] that this greatly depleted agency [2:49] had made in the course of the year [2:51] and to try to staunch the attrition rate [2:55] and the fact that so many are eligible for retirement. [2:58] You know, the reduction in staffing [3:00] is really hurting a lot of seniors [3:03] in every one of your districts, [3:04] a lot of people with disability, [3:06] a lot of our poorest people that are on SSI. [3:10] It's, I did what I did [3:13] in order to better serve the American people. [3:16] But when you set this agreement, [3:18] knowing that the presidential election [3:20] had already been decided, [3:22] did you call Mar-a-Lago and say, [3:24] hey, what's your opinion on this? [3:26] Mr. No, I... [3:27] Did you ask President Biden [3:28] to reach out to President Trump [3:29] in the matter of transition and say, [3:31] hey, which way do we want the next president [3:33] to be able to administer the employees [3:34] that are under his purview? [3:35] Mr. I certainly did not. [3:37] I worked for President Biden. [3:39] He appointed me, and I was concerned, [3:41] I was confirmed in a lopsided bipartisan margin [3:45] by the Senate, and I executed the duties [3:48] that I was assigned at Social Security [3:51] to better serve senior citizens, [3:54] better serve people on SSI, [3:56] and people with disabilities. [3:57] That's what I did, Congressman. [3:58] My counterargument to you, Mr. O'Malley, [4:00] is that whether it's whatever president [4:02] we're talking about, they all have the same duty [4:05] to serve the seniors who were promised something [4:08] on Social Security, and that mission [4:09] is going to be executed regardless of party, [4:12] regardless of president. [4:14] But, sir, what you did was to essentially [4:18] do a workaround of the incoming administration. [4:20] But I'm going to come back to you later. [4:21] Ms. Gressler, I'm going to come back to you. [4:23] You stated earlier in your testimony about, [4:26] we do have an issue with some of the federal employees [4:28] who are doing work, union work, [4:31] on federal government time. [4:33] Can you expound upon that? [4:35] Ms. Yes, unfortunately we don't have any more data [4:37] on that because the Biden administration [4:39] stopped collecting that, but if you use what [4:42] the Obama administration, those figures, [4:45] and convert them to today's salaries, [4:47] taxpayers are paying over $300 million per year [4:50] to pay federal employees to step away [4:52] from the jobs they're hired for, [4:54] and to instead go do union work on taxpayers' time. [4:58] Mr. Chairman, if you will oblige, [4:59] what is some of the, do you have an idea [5:02] of some of the work that's being done [5:04] on federal government time for the unions [5:08] that they're a part of? [5:10] Ms. That can include negotiations. [5:11] It could include lobbying Congress. [5:13] It can include helping employees to file grievances [5:15] or unfair labor practices [5:16] if they have their telework policies [5:19] taken away from them. [5:20] Mr. Chairman, I would move that it's in the interest [5:22] of this committee, and frankly, [5:23] of the United States going forward, [5:25] that we find out exactly what work is being done [5:28] while employees are being paid [5:30] by the federal government that is not within the purview [5:32] of the job that they were hired to perform. [5:34] I yield back. [5:35] Absolutely. [5:36] The chair now recognizes Ms. Ansari from the bill. [5:40] The chair now recognizes Ms. Mace from South Carolina. [5:42] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [5:44] Mr. Martin O'Malley, I want to wish you luck [5:46] in your campaign to be chair [5:47] of the Democrat National Committee. [5:49] And let me just say, I think you are the perfect candidate [5:52] to chair the Democrat Party. [5:55] Your liberal record is truly astonishing. [5:59] Thank you. [5:59] At an event in 2005, [6:01] you compared a federal budget request [6:02] which cuts spending to the terrorist attacks of 9-11. [6:06] You raised taxes, tolls, and fees on your constituents [6:09] 83 times as governor of Maryland, [6:12] including increasing sales taxes, income taxes, the gas tax. [6:16] You also created an array of new taxes [6:18] on services for your constituents. [6:21] And the number one public... [6:22] I'm talking, I'm going to reclaim my time. [6:23] I'm talking right now. [6:24] I've not asked you a question yet, have I? [6:26] No, I have not. [6:26] No, you haven't. [6:27] For your constituents. [6:28] Making your constituents, [6:30] the people you served in Maryland pay more. [6:32] You love some law-breaking illegal aliens as well. [6:35] You've advocated for mass amnesty for illegal aliens. [6:39] My favorite part of your love for criminals in this country [6:42] is you don't refer to them as illegal aliens, [6:44] but instead you refer to them as new Americans. [6:49] You must really hate American citizens. [6:52] You must really hate our country. [6:54] In 2011, you signed a bill into law [6:56] to allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition [7:00] at public universities in Maryland. [7:02] And the hits are going to keep on coming. [7:04] In 2014, you signed a bill into law [7:06] to allow illegal aliens to get Maryland driver's license. [7:10] In 2014, you signed a bill into law [7:12] to allow gender-confused, sexually perverted men [7:15] to use women's restrooms and locker rooms. [7:17] In other words, you forced women and underage girls [7:19] to undress in front of men. [7:21] I could go on. [7:22] Suffice to say, you're perfectly in line [7:24] with the Democrat Party today and emblematic of why Democrats [7:27] just can't stop losing elections. [7:30] You are emblematic of why the Democrat Party [7:32] has no dignity and no respect for women. [7:35] You are emblematic of why Democrats [7:37] don't put Americans first. [7:39] Mr. O'Malley, my first question this morning, [7:41] can you, a candidate to be chair of the Democrat Party, [7:45] define what a woman is for me today? [7:50] Madam, or Congresswoman? [7:52] Can you define what a woman is? [7:54] Oh, yes. [7:55] What is a woman? [7:56] You're going to ask me to define what a woman is? [7:58] Yes, I am right now. [7:59] Well, I'm talking. [8:00] You just said you could. [8:01] Explain it to me. [8:02] I'm talking to a woman right now, distinguished woman. [8:06] What is a woman? [8:06] Elected representative. [8:07] What is a woman? [8:09] I think you're kind of denigrating the purpose of this. [8:12] What is it? [8:12] You can't define what a woman is. [8:14] All right. [8:14] In an effort to be fair and unbiased, [8:17] in an effort to be fair and unbiased, [8:19] can you define what a man is for me? [8:21] I have two sons that are men. [8:24] I have a series of yes or no questions. [8:26] So the potentially future chair of the Democrat Party cannot define, [8:29] let's for the record, Mr. Chairman, [8:31] he cannot define what a woman is, [8:33] and he cannot define what a man is. [8:36] And you expect people in this country to follow your lead? [8:40] I'm a woman who has broken so many glass ceilings in my life, [8:43] the first Republican woman elected to Congress from South Carolina, [8:46] the first woman to ever graduate from the Citadel of the Military College of South Carolina. [8:50] I know what a woman is, and I'm going to protect every one of them. [8:53] So I have a series of yes or no questions for you. [8:55] Today, one of my Democrat colleagues yesterday stated a rape victim's fear of rape was just, [9:01] quote, fantasy. [9:02] Do you agree with this statement? [9:04] Is a woman's fear of rape, being raped, a fantasy? [9:07] Yes or no? [9:08] No, it's not a fantasy. [9:09] Okay, one of my Democrat colleagues yesterday stated a rape victim's fear of rape is being, [9:13] quote, dramatic. [9:14] Do you agree with that statement? [9:16] Fear of rape being dramatic. [9:17] Yes or no? [9:18] Well, it could be. [9:19] Okay, you can't answer the question. [9:21] My next question, you've spoken of Democrats needing to restore credibility [9:24] and learn from your failings, and to quote from you recently, [9:27] learn from your very bad loss. [9:29] Is this in reference to Democrats raising taxes on the middle class? [9:33] Yes or no? [9:34] No. [9:35] Is this in reference to Maryland not requiring an ID to vote in their elections? [9:39] No. [9:40] Is this in reference to coddling criminal illegal aliens? [9:42] No. [9:43] Is this in reference to starting a war on real biological women? [9:49] No. [9:50] Is this in reference to allowing men in women's bathrooms? [9:52] No. [9:54] Is this in reference to forcing women and girls to undress in front of men in the locker [9:57] room? [9:58] Oh, come on. [9:59] Yes or no? [10:00] Congresswoman. [10:01] This is your party's platform. [10:02] You understand what I'm laying out for you? [10:04] Do you understand English? [10:05] I understand what you're trying to lay out, but our party's platform is the economic [10:08] security and the well-being of every man, woman, and child in the United States of [10:14] America. [10:15] That's our party's platform. [10:16] I'm going to reclaim my time. [10:17] Ms. Mace's time. [10:18] Mr. Chairman, the witness should not be badgered. [10:22] The chair recognizes Ms. Mace. [10:24] Ms. Mace. [10:26] Just yesterday, only two Democrats voted with us to protect women in sports. [10:33] This is your platform. [10:34] You want boys and men to be, to women, to be able to watch women undress in a locker room. [10:40] So, is your big loss in reference to taking away women's achievements in sports? [10:45] Yes or no? [10:46] No. [10:48] I don't. [10:49] Is your loss in reference to allowing men to take away women's scholarships? [10:53] Yes or no? [10:54] Mr. Chairman, the general lady's time has expired. [10:56] He took my time, Mr. Chairman. [10:58] She had about 15 seconds that rolled around, so you got one time for one last question, [11:04] Ms. Mace. [11:07] Thank heart. [11:09] She asked the question. [11:11] You have learned nothing from your own failings when you tried to run for president as a [11:14] far-left progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton and dropped out after getting one-half [11:17] of one percent at the Iowa caucus. [11:19] So, good luck with that, Mr. DNC Chairman. [11:22] I yield back. [11:23] Thank you. [11:24] I appreciate your well wishes. [11:25] The gentlelady yields back, Chair. [11:27] Okay. [11:28] Thank you. [11:29] Thank you. [11:30] I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud. [11:32] Thank you, Madam Chair. [11:34] For far too long, D.C. politicians have gotten away with measuring their personal value and [11:39] worth by how much of other people's money they give away. [11:43] And for far too long, they self-righteously have opined that the spending was for altruistic [11:49] purposes given out of care and compassion. [11:52] For far too long, they've been more concerned with looking like they cared than having enough [11:57] care and concern to actually do the due diligence to ensure that the tax dollars were being [12:02] used wisely and effectively. [12:05] And for far too long, those of us who've worked to uncover waste, fraud, and abuse have had [12:09] to deal with what amounts to an unconstitutional fourth branch of permanent bureaucracy that has [12:15] too often worked to ignore, obfuscate, delay, and frustrate our efforts to bring transparency [12:21] and oversight. [12:22] Over the last few weeks, the DOGE effort has begun to uncover not only how massive the waste, [12:28] fraud, and abuse is, but also the extent at which D.C. politicians and too many obstinate [12:33] bureaucrats have coordinated to create what is essentially the largest money laundering [12:38] scheme in history. [12:40] And while Americans have been working to make ends meet, they have been using taxpayer dollars [12:45] to fund unnecessary, egregious, and even evil things here at home and around the world. [12:51] Thankfully, in DOGE, we have a president bringing the leadership needed and a focused effort along [12:57] with the talent, technology, tools, and transparency to this waste, fraud, and abuse. [13:05] And to those who would stand opposed to this effort, I would just point out while it's understandable [13:11] to find waste, fraud, and abuse that has grown and metastasized in this government even over [13:16] decades, certainly accelerated over the last few years, to continue to protect it is corruption. [13:24] I want to thank the chair for beginning this war on waste on this side of Pennsylvania Avenue [13:31] in bringing together this committee. This effort is so important as we work to relieve the Americans, [13:37] people of this burden of waste, fraud, and abuse. [13:40] Mr. Talco, you mentioned in your written statement and talked about it in your statement at the beginning [13:46] that this waste, fraud, and abuse is a national security threat. [13:50] And certainly one of the challenges facing us that is a national security threat is our fiscal situation. [13:55] And so we have got to find ways to find savings to the American people in order to strengthen, [14:01] bring confidence to the bond markets, to put our country on a fiscal footing, [14:05] and to reverse the curse, so to speak, that we are placing on our children and our grandchildren. [14:11] You mentioned a couple threats, though. You mentioned internal threats. [14:14] You said that these cases involve government employees, individuals entrusted with administering benefits [14:20] who, instead of using their positions to approve fraudulent claims, override security controls, [14:26] or even sell sensitive claimant information for profit. [14:30] Now, this is not every federal employee for sure, but within the context of people who are trying to give their best effort, [14:37] we have an internal threat. But you also mentioned transnational fraud rings, [14:41] terrorist organizations, nations, nation states, North Korea nuclear weapons programs funded by our tax dollars, [14:47] China, Nigeria, Iran, Romania, Russia, not our friends necessarily that are being funded by taxpayer dollars. [14:53] Could you give us some examples of how this is happening? [14:56] God, yeah. So when you think about what happened during the pandemic, [15:00] one trillion dollars was stolen. Seventy percent of that money went overseas. [15:07] And I can give you some examples. In a Western state, they had more people applying for unemployment insurance benefits [15:14] and they had individuals over 18. The people that were stealing the money from Romania were using it to facilitate other fraud schemes [15:24] that include fentanyl, that include doing things to impact our democracy. [15:29] On the insider threat, right, the first thing you have to say, and my dad was a public servant, [15:34] is 99 percent of people that work in the public sector are honest, hardworking individuals. [15:40] But there are some. And what you need is data and technology to root that out. [15:46] There were examples during the pandemic, there were some examples even of last week, [15:50] where people got into the Medicaid system in a southern, in a Western state, [15:55] and stole 50 million dollars in less than four months. [16:00] So you have to have these controls in place, right? These aren't individual stealing, Mr. Cloud. [16:06] These are organized criminal groups, both domestic and transnational. [16:11] As you mentioned, taxpayers are being forced to fund the demise of our own country. [16:16] Mr. Winston, I wanted to ask you, because there's a lot of talk about reconciliation right now. [16:21] You mentioned Medicaid and what could be done to bring a pretty substantial amount of savings. [16:27] And this is without affecting those who truly need Medicaid and for what the purpose of the program was extended for. [16:35] The gentleman's time has expired. [16:43] Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to speak frankly at first to the American people. [16:47] We're nearing 37 trillion dollars in national debt. What does that mean? [16:52] That means that each and every U.S. taxpayer owes over 323 thousand dollars. [17:01] Okay. What does that mean? That means when the EPIC, which is the Economic Policy Innovation Center, says we have 18 trillion left. [17:10] That's it. 18 trillion left to take out. And we're spending two trillion dollars in debt every year. [17:16] Folks, we're at the precipice of a debt like a like a debt cycle. [17:24] We are literally at a point in which the dollar will be worth nothing. [17:28] What does that mean? And I mean, I mean, we know Social Security goes bankrupt in eight years. [17:35] Right. Medicare goes bankrupt in 10 years. And then 15 years from now, the dollar is completely devalued and worth nothing. [17:44] So what does that mean? That means your pension, the money in your bank, you know, your savings is me is nothing. [17:55] It's worthless. So what are we doing? We're trying to save this country. [17:59] We're trying to save your pensions. We're trying to save your bank accounts. [18:02] We're trying to save this country for the next generation. [18:05] And it would be nice if we had help. But instead, we have people that are fighting us on this. [18:10] And, you know, they I think that it's I would hate to be in the Democratic Party right now because you're in a really bad bind. [18:16] You're having to defend all of this crazy spending, all of this crazy waste. [18:22] So how do you do it? You do ad hominem attacks. [18:25] You attack the messenger. Oh, Elon Musk. Right. He's rich. He must be evil. Right. [18:31] That's that's the attacks. Really, you can't do any better than that. Right. [18:36] But let's talk on the policy on the policy. Help us. We're trying to save this country. [18:42] This is what an Elon Musk who's making no money doing this is trying to save this country. [18:47] Why? Because he is invested in the United States of America more than anybody. Right. [18:52] So I think that we should embrace it. In fact, not a single company governor of any state would ever turn down Elon Musk. [19:01] Elon Musk and his team of Doge from coming in and providing free services to write the course and financially in any state or organization. [19:10] It's ridiculous that we would demonize someone that loves this country so much. [19:15] Mr. Whitman, the formation of agencies via the executive action is not new. Right. [19:22] The formation of Doge is not new. Can you you know, are you familiar with any other previous presidencies where they've formed organizations like Doge via executive action? [19:33] Yes. So so actually the agency that Doge is occupying is one that was created in a previous administration. [19:41] So it is something that happens routinely. But I don't know if that answers your question. [19:47] Yeah, there's been the Office of Budget Management was created. Environmental Protection Agency was created. [19:52] The U.S. Digital Service, which is now Doge, was created all by executive order. Right. [19:58] And actually one other I'd add is USAID was originally created through an executive order by President Kennedy and then later formalized. [20:06] And then, Madam Chair, I have a video I would like to end with that just let's review if we could cue that. [20:15] To remind and I want to remind my Democratic friends at a point in which you once had the majority of the American people on your side. [20:23] This is this is what your party believed in. [20:26] This report tells us how to cut waste, cut red tape, streamline the bureaucracy, change procurement rules, change the personnel rules and create a government that works better and costs less. [20:44] I've read it. And where it says the president should, the president will. [20:49] Among the 800 recommendations, eliminating 12 percent of the federal workforce, merging some government agencies like the FBI, the DEA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, closing hundreds of government offices outside Washington. [21:02] From the day I took office, one of the commitments that I made the American people was that we would do a better job here in Washington in rooting out wasteful spending. [21:13] We thought that it was entirely appropriate for our governments and our agencies to try to root out waste, large and small, in a systematic way. [21:23] It means cutting some programs that I think are worthy, but we may not be able to afford right now. [21:30] A lot of the action is in Congress and legislative, but in the meantime, we don't need to wait for Congress in order to do something about wasteful spending that's out there. [21:41] We haven't seen as much action out of Congress as we'd like, and that's why we launched on our own initiative the campaign to cut waste. [21:49] And we're going to keep on finding every possible way that we can do that, even if Congress is not acting. There you go. [21:56] There you go. [22:00] I think it speaks for itself. My time is expired. [22:02] The gentleman from Wisconsin. [22:03] Just a comment, because I've heard similar comments from other members of your party, and of course, I love working with you guys. [22:14] When Elon Musk or Doge or the president look into some of the federal employees around here, and we all know federal employees around here, because maybe we have relatives, we have friends, whatnot, who work in the government, we hear some scare stories about people doing – and there are many hardworking federal employees. [22:39] I'm glad we have good federal employees. But we hear anecdotal evidence of people doing very little. If President Trump is the head of the executive branch and he discovers some employees doing very little, your position is apparently that we must keep these people going through the next budget or what have you and keep doing very little. [23:04] It is obvious to me that both President Trump and the American public, upon discovering people who are doing very little work, should ask that those employees be terminated. [23:15] It's not something he does joyfully, but that is what you do if you are running the executive branch. [23:21] And it is ridiculous that we have to have President Trump attacked and the Republican Party attacked when an effort is made to find employees who are doing very little. [23:34] I am glad that President Trump has assigned people to look into this, and there are critical things you can say about the Republicans, but I wish you'd focus on that rather than trying to claim that every federal employee here in this town is necessary. [23:54] Would you yield for a question? [24:00] Sure. [24:01] Well, because you're bringing up that it should be okay and you see no problem with the Trump administration and with Doge doing this mass firing because, quote unquote, people are doing very little. [24:12] How are they figuring out who's doing very little? I'm just curious. [24:15] Well, you'll have to ask them, right? [24:19] Oh, I'll have to ask them. [24:20] So you're okay with being behind something that's happening, mass firing people firing veterans? [24:26] Congressman Grofman's time. [24:27] The President is in charge of the executive branch. [24:32] I would assume at any given time people are being hired and being fired, probably more than have been the last 50 years around here, but they are. [24:42] They are not going to report to Congress every time they feel a position is unnecessary. [24:47] That would be observed. [24:49] Sure. [24:55] The gentleman yields his time to Mr. Gosar. [24:57] You know, Glenn, I'd like to ask you about, wasn't there, this is not novel, having somebody like this, wasn't Ezekiel Emanuel part of Obamacare? [25:10] And I don't know what's more personal, our personal financial or our personal. [25:17] All presidents have unconfirmed advisers. [25:20] Thank you. [25:21] That is not a new thing either. [25:22] Well, the gentleman yields. [25:23] The gentleman yields back, right? [25:26] Is it your position that the President can delete any agency credit? [25:32] Oh, yeah. [25:33] He yielded his time back. [25:34] Chair, go ahead. [25:35] Mr. Christomorte from Illinois. [25:36] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [25:38] Just to very briefly address Mr. Grothman, I take you as being serious about wanting to improve efficiency in government and so forth. [25:47] I think the issue is when you fire or give a pink slip to 200,000 probationary workers at one time, regardless of their efficiency, [25:57] I think that's where there's a serious concern that's raised. [26:01] But I want to just address one other issue, Mr. Comer, and that's the U.S. Postal Service. [26:06] On December 14th, 2024, the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration was considering at that time a move to privatize the Postal Service and push thousands of federal service employees out of their jobs in favor of a broad privatization of the agency's essential services. [26:25] Then, just last week, on February 20th, the Washington Post stated that the administration is preparing to, quote, dissolve the leadership of the USPS and absorb the independent mail agency into his administration. [26:40] As you know, the Commerce Department potentially throwing trillions of dollars of e-commerce transactions into turmoil. [26:47] These reports are beyond troubling. [26:50] And I respectfully request that you have a hearing again on the USPS. [26:54] You had a very good hearing the other day where we were able to grill Mr. DeJoy. [26:59] And I learned a lot. I think a lot of our members on both sides learned a lot. [27:03] I think we need to have a hearing on this particular issue. [27:07] As you know, the USPS is the foundation of our $1.92 trillion mailing industry, led courageously by numerous veterans, letter carriers, who deliver 44% of the world's mail. [27:22] More importantly, no private sector entity provides universal service across the nation. [27:27] And without these letter carriers and others, more than 51.5 million households and businesses, especially in rural communities, Mr. Chairman, would have no guaranteed delivery. [27:39] As a member of this panel tasked with oversight of the federal government's activities, including the USPS, I believe it's essential, it's imperative that we have this hearing, sir. [27:51] I know that you and the ranking member care deeply about the USPS. [27:56] And what the administration is proposing to do with the USPS, in my opinion, is illegal. [28:05] It is against the framework of the USPS, and we need to look into it. [28:11] I yield back. [28:12] The gentleman yields back. [28:13] Before I recognize Ms. Green from Georgia, I'll just respond. [28:16] When we see a proposal or something, we will have something, either a briefing or a committee hearing or subcommittee hearing or something. [28:25] I'm interested as well to see what. [28:28] You mentioned potentially throw it into turmoil. [28:30] Some would argue the Postal Service is already in turmoil right now with the delays in certain mail sorting facilities. [28:38] So I agree with what you said. [28:40] I know you're sincere. [28:41] And I think ranking member Conley and I have demonstrated we want to support the Postal Service. [28:48] And so when we find out more, we'll do something immediately, have a briefing or a subcommittee hearing or full committee hearing. [28:57] Okay. [28:58] The chair recognizes Ms. Green from Georgia. [29:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [29:01] Democrat colleagues across the aisle are complaining and pitching tantrums over Elon Musk and his Doge teams, [29:09] cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from the executive branch and the federal government. [29:14] Claiming this is unconstitutional is an outright lie. [29:18] Article 2 of the Constitution clearly states that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. [29:27] President Trump exercised that power by appointing Mr. Elon Musk as a special government employee. [29:34] The president, via executive order, created the U.S. Doge service within the former U.S. Digital Service to implement the president's Doge agenda [29:45] by modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity. [29:53] Doge has been brought in exactly like the U.S. Digital Service during President Obama's tenure. [30:00] This is not unconstitutional. [30:03] 72% of Americans, this is on both sides of the aisles, you guys, these are people in your district, these are people in my district, [30:10] agree that we need to cut the ridiculous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse because Americans, all of us together, are $36 trillion in debt. [30:21] $36 trillion in debt is what should be unconstitutional. [30:26] Not doing everything we can to save the American people their hard-earned tax dollars. [30:32] You can protest all you want outside of departments of this government. [30:36] You can protest all you want, but the American people disagree with you. [30:41] You're protecting the bureaucracy. [30:43] The bureaucracy is not a business. [30:46] Those are not real jobs producing federal revenue. [30:50] By the way, they're consuming taxpayer dollars. [30:54] Those jobs are paid for by the American tax people who work real jobs, earn real income, pay federal taxes, and then pay these federal employees. [31:05] Federal employees do not deserve their jobs. [31:09] Federal employees do not deserve their paychecks. [31:12] And these are jobs that can be fired at will. [31:16] But you want to know why? [31:17] The American people can't pay for it anymore. [31:20] We cannot afford it. [31:22] $36 trillion in debt. [31:24] If you want to make that your platform, your hill to die on, go ahead, because 72% of Americans agree with Doge, [31:32] agree with cutting the waste, fraud, and abuse, and agree with what this committee is supposed to be about. [31:38] Oversight. [31:39] So continue your temper tantrums. [31:43] I would love to win the midterms. [31:44] Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [31:46] General A yields back. [31:47] Mr. Frost from Florida. [31:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [31:50] I appreciate it. [31:51] You know, in the mission statement that you've put out for this committee, it says, [31:55] it's to ensure that the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government, which I think we all agree on. [32:01] We all want to combat waste, fodder, and abuse. [32:04] But the thing is that y'all are all looking in the wrong places. [32:07] You want to talk about making cuts to things like Medicaid, which, by the way, over 35% of all the children in this country are covered under Medicaid. [32:18] Over 100,000 people in my district are covered under Medicaid. [32:23] People like the grifter in chief Trump and President Musk are openly using their public offices to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars. [32:33] So if we want to look at waste, fraud, and abuse, which I'm down to do, why is there complete silence on the other side of the aisle about looking at the complete grifter that is the President of the United States and the richest man on the earth, which is looking into things like Social Security and different things like that? [32:51] Why don't we investigate the real corruption? [32:54] Hold off. [32:55] Hold off. [32:56] Point of order. [32:57] Point of order. [32:58] Point of order. [32:59] Mr. Chairman, point of order. [33:00] Hold off. [33:01] Hold off. [33:02] There was a point of order when you said something. [33:04] Who asked for it? [33:06] Mr. Higgins. [33:07] I can refer to Elon Musk as the President. [33:17] I don't think the First Amendment has been suspended in this committee yet. [33:23] Yeah. [33:25] Y'all were fine with one of your other members talking about fighting someone just a few weeks ago. [33:47] Will anyone on our side make a mean coin right after being elected President of the United States? [33:51] Mr. Frost, before we proceed on all of this, would you like to— [33:56] Hold on. [33:57] I'm the chairman. [33:58] I recognize Mr. Frost and will recognize you. [34:02] Would you like to revise your remark with respect to improperly identifying the President of the United States? [34:12] I'll say President Musk and Grifter and Chief Trump— [34:17] All right. [34:18] Grifter and— [34:19] Hey, Mr. Chairman, point of order. [34:21] What is that? [34:22] If I wanted to challenge someone to a fight, they would know it. [34:24] Thank you. [34:25] There's an extra fundraising video for her. [34:34] Mr. Chairman. [34:44] Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that Mr. Musk is protected by the rules of the House or the committee. [34:52] And—and—and—no. [34:54] We're—we're looking at the—disparaging the President now. [34:57] But I don't believe Mr. Frost disparaged the President. I believe he disparaged Mr. Musk. [35:01] Well, he did disparage— [35:02] Well, he did disparage— [35:03] Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Musk actually came here, then maybe the— [35:06] All right. [35:07] I heard no disparagement. [35:08] I'll say something else. [35:09] We'll save a lot of time. [35:10] I'll say something else. [35:11] Okay. [35:12] All right. [35:13] We're going to let chair recognize Mr. Frost. [35:15] You still have 349. [35:17] You're going to maybe revise the—the disparaging comment about the President, because that's [35:23] supposed to be our decorum here, and— [35:25] It is supposed to be. [35:27] President Musk and the President of the United States, Donald Trump, who is engaged in grifting [35:34] of the American people, often use their public offices to enrich themselves. [35:39] Someone on the other side was just asking, how would you feel if you called someone else— [35:43] Point of order, Mr. Chairman. [35:44] Hold off. [35:45] Hold off, Mr. Frost. [35:46] Hold off. [35:47] There's a—there's a pending motion for disparaging the President. [35:56] The—the—so the motion was words taken down about disparaging the President. [36:05] And the chair finds the words for the gentleman from Florida are not parliamentary because they [36:10] constitute personalities toward the President, which, if you sit on the House floor, that's [36:16] always uttered by the presiding officer on the House floor. [36:21] You cannot disparage the President, I'd say. [36:23] So— [36:25] Mr. Chairman, would you please read back to us the words that were disparaging [36:28] because I didn't hear them? [36:29] If you're willing to request unanimous consent to withdraw the disparaging president—the [36:36] comments about President Trump, I guess you can disparage Elon Musk if you want. [36:40] I will withdraw the grifter-in-chief. [36:43] And I will—I will say the President's grifting because you spent the last two years— [36:54] All right. [36:55] President Biden is corrupted. [36:56] Take down his words. [36:57] I can say—I can say that Trump is grifting. [37:00] What I will withdraw is calling him grifter-in-chief. [37:03] That is what I will withdraw. [37:04] The chair sustains the point of order, and the words in question are ordered stricken [37:09] from the transcript of this proceeding. [37:13] So, the member is barred from further participation. [37:17] I feel— [37:18] I challenge the ruling of the chair. [37:20] Challenge the ruling of the chair. [37:21] Challenge the ruling of the chair. [37:27] I move to table the— [37:28] Okay. [37:29] We have a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair, and then Mr. Gosar made a motion [37:34] to table the— [37:35] Second. [37:37] Mr. Conley's motion. [37:38] So, there's a motion in second to table Mr. Conley's motion. [37:42] The motion is not debatable. [37:48] As many as are in favor of tabling signify by saying aye. [37:54] Aye. [37:55] All those opposed signify by saying no. [37:57] No. [37:58] In the opinion— [37:59] Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. [38:01] A recorded vote is ordered. [38:02] The clerk will call the roll. [38:10] Mr. Jordan. [38:11] Mr. Jordan votes yes. [38:15] Mr. Turner. [38:17] Mr. Gosar. [38:21] Mr. Gosar votes yes. [38:24] Ms. Fox. [38:25] Mr. Grothman. [38:30] Mr. Grothman votes yes. [38:33] Mr. Cloud. [38:34] Mr. Cloud votes yes. [38:38] Mr. Palmer. [38:41] Mr. Palmer votes aye. [38:45] Mr. Higgins. [38:47] Mr. Higgins votes yes. [38:53] Mr. Sessions. [38:55] Mr. Sessions votes aye. [38:58] Mr. Biggs. [38:59] Mr. Biggs. [39:00] Mr. Biggs votes aye. [39:03] Ms. Mace. [39:06] Ms. Mace votes aye. [39:08] Mr. Fallon. [39:10] Aye. [39:12] Mr. Fallon votes aye. [39:14] Mr. Donalds. [39:18] Mr. Perry. [39:19] Mr. Perry votes aye. [39:22] Mr. Timmons. [39:23] Mr. Timmons votes aye. [39:27] Mr. Burchett. [39:29] Ms. Green. [39:32] Ms. Green votes aye. [39:35] Ms. Boebert. [39:38] Ms. Boebert votes aye. [39:40] Ms. Luna. [39:42] Mr. Langworthy. [39:46] Mr. Burleson. [39:49] Mr. Burleson. [39:50] Mr. Burleson votes aye. [39:53] Mr. Crane. [39:54] Mr. Crane votes aye. [39:58] Mr. Jack. [39:59] Aye. [40:00] Mr. Jack votes aye. [40:02] Mr. McGuire. [40:03] Mr. McGuire votes yes. [40:08] Mr. Gill. [40:09] Mr. Gill votes aye. [40:12] Mr. Connolly. [40:13] Nay. [40:15] Mr. Connolly. [40:16] Mr. Connolly votes nay. [40:19] Ms. Norton. [40:20] No. [40:21] Ms. Norton votes no. [40:24] Mr. Lynch. [40:25] No. [40:26] Mr. Lynch votes no. [40:29] Mr. Krishnamoorthy. [40:30] No. [40:31] Mr. Krishnamoorthy votes no. [40:35] Mr. Conno. [40:36] Mr. Conno. [40:37] Mr. Conno votes no. [40:42] Mr. Mfume. [40:43] Mr. Mfume. [40:44] No. [40:46] Mr. Mfume votes no. [40:48] Ms. Brown. [40:49] No. [40:50] Ms. Brown votes no. [40:54] Ms. Stansbury. [40:55] Absolutely not. [40:56] Ms. Stansbury votes no. [41:00] Mr. Garcia. [41:05] Mr. Garcia votes no. [41:07] Mr. Frost. [41:08] No. [41:09] Mr. Frost votes no. [41:12] Ms. Lee. [41:13] Ms. Lee votes no. [41:17] Mr. Kassar. [41:19] Ms. Crockett. [41:23] Ms. accuses no. [41:24] Jen Beades. [41:25] Mr. Kassar. [41:26] Ms. Benvad [41:32] Mr. Get cast out. [41:38] Ms. Laversy. [41:39] Ms. Desä��ers that we will [41:41] be against us just causes us to [41:42] create think it is so true. [41:44] Ms. No. [41:45] Mr. Lee votes no. [41:46] Mr. Zubramanyam votes no. [41:48] Mr. Zubramanyam votes no. [41:51] Ms. Anthe. [41:53] Ms.cut. [41:56] Mr. Bell. [41:58] Mr. Bell votes no. [42:00] Ms. Simon. [42:02] Ms. Simon votes no. [42:05] Mr. Min. [42:05] No. [42:07] Mr. Min votes no. [42:10] Ms. Presley. [42:13] Ms. Tlaib. [42:14] Nope. [42:15] Ms. Tlaib votes no. [42:18] Mr. Chairman. [42:19] Yes. [42:20] Mr. Chairman votes yes. [42:28] Mr. Chairman, how is Ms. Crockett recorded? [42:34] Let's try this one more time. [42:36] How is Ms. Crockett voted? [42:38] Ms. Crockett is not yet recorded. [42:41] No. [42:41] All right. [42:42] I thank my colleague. [42:43] Ms. Crockett votes no. [42:48] Mr. Chairman, how is Mr. Kassar recorded? [42:55] Mr. Kassar is not recorded. [42:58] Mr. Kassar votes no. [43:27] Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 20, the nays are 19. [43:32] All right. [43:33] The motion to table passes. [43:35] I now recognize Mr. McGuire. [43:38] I want to say it's despicable that this committee is going to silence me for bringing up Mr. [43:45] The gentleman's words have been taken down. [43:47] He is not permitted to speak for the rest of the hearing. [43:50] Making millions of dollars. [43:52] Mr. Frank, Mr. Ranking member, I'm going to have the sergeant arms remove him if he doesn't [43:56] refrain. [43:59] All right. [43:59] Chair recognizes Mr. McGuire. [44:01] Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. [44:04] Parliamentary inquiry. [44:06] Mr. McGuire. [44:08] Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. [44:10] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to... [44:11] Chairwoman, and I appreciate you holding this hearing. [44:13] I appreciate you witnesses for being here. [44:15] It's been astonishing to watch. [44:17] We already knew that there was a tremendous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in our federal [44:20] government. [44:21] But to watch over the last few weeks as the extent and egregiousness of it has been revealed. [44:28] I have said a number of times how aggravating it is that this government is forcing the American [44:35] people to pay for the demise of their own country. [44:38] We've seen this a number of times, especially in how foreign aid is treated. [44:43] And much of this funding we're realizing now, as Mr. O'Neill has pointed out, we're uncovering [44:48] is the world's largest money laundering scheme in history. [44:54] And so I would like to think that if these kind of things were put to a vote, that our [45:00] friends on the left wouldn't vote to support a pickle maker in the Ukraine or to have transgender [45:07] operas in other countries or to send people to Paris Fashion Week and the like. [45:13] I would like to think if that was a vote, that that would also get a no vote on the other [45:16] side of the aisle, that this dollar shouldn't be funding. [45:19] But you've got to wonder about the vitriol you see when these things come in cover to [45:23] protect these things. [45:24] Now, definitely the border trafficking institution that was set up, the complete industry, the [45:30] censorship apparatus, those are examples where we really saw that these taxpayer dollar [45:35] funds were going to these NGOs that were purely leftist organizations that were turning [45:39] out voters and getting all this basically being a campaign front at taxpayer expense. [45:43] And so you've got to wonder how this is happening, because this is not in the legislation. [45:47] There's no line item in a legislation that has these sort of things in it. [45:50] So, Mr. Permarack, I'd like to ask you, where are these decisions being made? [45:54] Who's making the decisions about where these dollars go? [45:58] This is a combination of cooperation between the Congress and the White House. [46:02] I can tell you that during my tenure at USAID, everything that we did had strong bipartisan [46:09] support. [46:10] Unfortunately, when President Biden came in... [46:13] But it's someone in an agency somewhere, is that right, making the decision? [46:17] How is that decision made? [46:19] Who's making that decision? [46:20] Like, before the check goes out, who's pushing the button that says, send this check? [46:24] It starts with the administrator, goes down to the bureau level, and the office level. [46:29] But in the end, contract officers have to make sure at the Office of Acquisition Procurement [46:34] that these are following U.S. laws and the policies of the president. [46:38] Contract officers. [46:39] Now, are these people elected? [46:41] We hear a lot about elected officials making these, you know, certain decisions with our [46:45] government. [46:45] There's no one at USAID that is elected. [46:46] So, yeah. [46:47] So the people sending money are not elected officials. [46:50] Okay. [46:50] Just wanted to clarify that. [46:51] One of the issues we've had is trying to track this dollars once it goes out to bring [46:57] accountability to it. [46:59] And there is no connection that we've been able to find to an employee ID number, for [47:05] example, connected to where the grant money is going out or the contract money is going [47:10] out. [47:10] We're working on legislation to fix that. [47:13] But one of the things that's really disturbing is the fact that some of the money that's going [47:17] out doesn't even have a name of where it's going out. [47:19] You talked about that, Mr. Roman. [47:21] Could you speak to that for a second? [47:22] It's to the tune of billions of dollars. [47:23] Correct. [47:24] Miscellaneous foreign awardees. [47:26] The issue with it is is that while the individual grantees have to apply for a vetting process [47:32] that USAID conducts in terms of a government review, including with counterterrorism databases, [47:37] there's a self-certification process by their sub-grantees. [47:41] It's as if though you hire a contractor who has to read to your living room and he hires [47:45] a bunch of robbers that take everything out and you're left with the spades on the wall [47:48] rather than having a fully renovated room itself. [47:51] And so some of these dollars have been going to support terrorist organizations. [47:54] Right. [47:54] Taxpayer dollars going to support. [47:56] Now, what would happen if we found a business that was funneling money to the Taliban? [48:02] They would be indicted. [48:03] They would be charged, go before trial and go to jail for a 20-year sentence for money laundering [48:08] or for material support for terrorism. [48:10] So this is one of those cases where it's only legal if the government's doing it? [48:14] Right. [48:14] In the opening chairman's remarks, she was saying that this is about fraud, waste and abuse. [48:19] And if there was anyone else, it's as if though a private citizen can't do this. [48:22] But if a U.S. government agency or bureaucrat wants to give money to a terror organization, [48:26] it's okay. [48:27] Yeah. [48:27] I find that atrocious. [48:29] I think the American people do, too. [48:30] Mr. Prubrack, I want to touch on one thing because I've talked to ambassadors across the world [48:35] and you hear this, we'd like to align ourselves with the United States, we don't want to align [48:40] ourselves with China, but when we're talking to China, they're talking roads, bridges, [48:43] infrastructure, those kind of things, things we traditionally know in a soft power. [48:48] But right now when they're talking to the United States, what they've gotten from our [48:52] State Department over the last few years is social re-engineering. [48:55] Many of them have come to say, you know, our nation espouses Judeo-Christian values. [48:59] They don't. [48:59] And even as I talk to pastors across our country who are working to send millions into missionaries, [49:04] their eyes and Christian universities to understand the fact that our State Department is actually [49:10] sending billions to counteract those ideals. [49:12] Could you speak to that? [49:13] You can quickly answer. [49:15] We have to move on. [49:15] I've spoken to many African officials, for example. [49:19] When they're meeting with Mr. Blinken, they were ready to talk counter-genocide. [49:23] Instead, they got to social re-engineering. [49:25] I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. [49:30] Better not kill it. [49:32] Congress has a role to play. [49:33] Thank you. [49:36] Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony. [49:38] Again, Mr. Unger, I apologize. [49:41] We can also confirm the World Program posted that the recent pause concerning in-kind food [49:48] assistance to WFP has been rescinded. [49:52] This allows for resumption of food purchases and deliveries. [49:55] Madam Chair? [49:56] The U.S.A.I.D. [49:57] Madam Chair, are we going member to member, or do you get to make a speech in between each [50:02] witness? [50:03] If you're going to offer evidence or testimony, it should be in the clock. [50:08] You're not recognized. [50:09] It's my time. [50:10] Here I am. [50:12] I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions. [50:16] And this committee, based on this hearing and witness testimonies, will consider recommending [50:22] investigations and criminal referrals. [50:24] When Joe Biden was president, his son Hunter was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company [50:31] called Burisma. [50:33] The prosecutor general of Ukraine at the time, Viktor Shokin, was investigating Burisma for [50:38] corruption. [50:39] Biden threatened, and is on video, to withhold one billion of USAID grant to Ukraine if Shokin [50:46] wasn't fired. [50:47] Mr. Primarek, is USAID supposed to be used as leverage by a president to protect his son? [50:54] No, we call that corruption. [51:02] Mr. Primarek, in your estimation, roughly what percentage of USAID funding is doled out [51:07] to bad actors or to efforts that don't have the best interests of Americans in mind? [51:13] I think what troubles me most is learning, I believe, last year, following the hard work [51:19] of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senator Joni Ernst, that USAID has been paying out [51:26] over 50 percent to overhead charges. [51:30] The Office of Inspector General of USAID criticized the agency for not knowing the overhead charges [51:38] being handed out to all of these actors for $142 billion of disbursements. [51:45] That is extremely troubling. [51:47] Yes. [51:48] Mr. Primarek, Samantha Power, Biden's USAID administrator, openly spoke about her agency's efforts to [51:55] promote democracy around the world. [51:57] In your estimation, Mr. Primarek, is that what she was doing? [52:01] If not, what was USAID doing during the Biden administration? [52:08] Let me cite the Holy Father, Pope Francis, who accused USAID and other donors of promoting [52:14] ideological colonization, pushing a radical ideology onto the developing world that is anti-family [52:22] and anti-life. [52:23] It has been asserted that USAID spent tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars to promote [52:30] propaganda in Brazil in the lead-up to the Bolsonaro-Lula election in 2022. [52:37] It has been claimed that this funding was used to pass censorship laws and silence Bolsonaro's [52:43] online presence and even bar him from running for office in the future. [52:47] Mr. Primarek, can you offer any insight into these allegations or at least comment on whether [52:52] the U.S. should play a role in toppling democratic processes around the world? [52:56] I think what we saw was USAID weaponized by the Biden administration and by Samantha Power [53:02] to attack any party that was conservative. [53:06] It just didn't happen in Brazil. [53:08] It also happened, for instance, in very pro-America, Poland and Hungary as well. [53:12] One of the most extensive examples of regime change operations fueled by USAID is that of [53:20] their role in the Syrian civil war aimed at toppling Bashar al-Assad. [53:25] Reports from Didi Geopolitics and other sources estimate that USAID funneled over $15 billion [53:30] into Syria over a decade, covertly funding opposition groups, mercenaries, and anti-government [53:36] networks under the cover of humanitarian aid. [53:40] This included support for militant factions and propaganda efforts, often in collaboration [53:46] with the National Endowment for Democracy. [53:49] The operation culminated in Assad's overthrow in 2024 by Western-backed groups. [53:55] With USAID's financial trails documented in congressional budget reports and criticized by Syrian officials [54:02] as interference masses assistance. [54:04] Mr. Roman, do these kinds of activities carried out by an American agency make Americans safer [54:10] at home, or do they risk embroiling us in more deadly and costly foreign conflicts? [54:16] When the agency is doing it according to the way in which represents American national security [54:20] interests, it's correct. [54:21] But when it's abused for political purposes, ideological umbrage, and sponsoring Islamism, [54:26] which is inherently anti-American, it is the worst exhaustion of American taxpayer money [54:31] that can be thought of, especially when it leads to the loss and danger to American lives. [54:35] In 2014, during the Euromaiden uprising in Ukraine, which led to the ousting of President [54:42] Viktor Yanenkovich, USAID is estimated to have spent billions of dollars on civil society [54:49] initiatives that were allegedly designed to destabilize the pro-Russian government. [54:54] USAID specifically funded NGOs and media outlets that amplified the anti-Yenukovic sentiment. [55:00] In an effort to align Ukraine more closely with the West. [55:05] We also know that nine out of 10 of Ukraine's major media outlets receive funding from USAID. [55:12] Mr. Roman, should Americans' tax dollars be funding propaganda? [55:16] When it's pro-American propaganda, yes. [55:19] But if it's supporting another regime which is inherently anti-American, no, it should have [55:22] no involvement with that, which is the pattern we've seen under the Biden and Obama administrations. [55:27] Thank you. [55:28] I now recognize the ranking member for five minutes. [55:33] All right. [55:34] Well, Chair now recognizes Ms. Luna from Florida. [55:38] Mayor Wu, does the Boston Trust Act restrict communication with federal immigration authorities [55:42] regarding individuals' immigration status? [55:45] Yes or no? [55:46] We do not collect immigration status in law enforcement. [55:49] I'd just like to point out, and Mr. Chairman, if I could enter the Boston Trust Act into the record. [55:56] Mr. Chairman? [55:57] Without objection. [55:57] The question's ordered. [55:58] Thank you. [55:59] On page, or let's see, Section 4A, a law enforcement official and employment of the City Department [56:06] agency or commission shall not, and then A, inquire of an individual on his or her immigration status. [56:12] Under Title 8, U.S. Code subsection 1373 stipulates that local governments cannot prohibit or restrict [56:19] communication with federal immigration authorities regarding individuals' immigration status, [56:24] so your enforcement of this act is in direct violation of that statute. [56:28] Can you please confirm? [56:29] That is not the truth. [56:30] Thank you, ma'am. [56:31] That's the U.S. Code. [56:32] I don't know about you, but U.S. Code does not lie. [56:34] We do not ask about immigration status, and that is what makes us safe in the city. [56:37] Mayor Johnston, you said in your testimony that the first step you took after illegal aliens [56:42] arrived was to provide them with housing. [56:44] Is that correct? [56:44] Yes or no? [56:46] Folks that were on the streets freezing to death, we gave access to shelter. [56:49] Yes, we did. [56:49] Thank you. [56:51] Not to be rude here, but you have a good understanding of what the definition of harboring is, correct? [56:56] I do. [56:57] Okay. [56:57] For those that might not, harboring means to knowingly or recklessly provide shelter or place [57:03] to stay for an illegal alien, and according to Title 8 of U.S. Code subsection 1324, that [57:08] is also a federal crime. [57:10] Just to be clear, did you also say that you would be willing to go to jail to stop deportation [57:16] efforts? [57:18] I did say that I'd be willing to stand up for all of our residents, and the context [57:23] was that was the point at which the administration was threatening to deploy the U.S. military [57:26] to streets of our cities to pull kids out of schools and churches, so we were worried [57:29] about that. [57:29] Thank you, Mr. Johnson. [57:30] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record an article from CBS. [57:35] Without objection, so ordered. [57:36] Thank you. [57:37] In this, it says, Johnson said earlier this week that he's willing to use civil disobedience [57:41] and, if necessary, going to jail to stop deportations. [57:45] My final question would be for you, Mr. Mayor Johnson. [57:49] Do you believe that Chicago's welcoming city ordinance encourages illegal aliens to enter [57:54] the United States specifically into Chicago? [57:56] Yes or no? [57:59] No. [58:00] Okay. [58:00] So you don't believe that banning the transfer of individuals into ICE custody for the purpose [58:05] of civil immigration enforcement encourages illegal immigration into Chicago? [58:10] Or how about agencies, sorry, one second, or agents not being able to stop, arrest, or [58:14] detain individuals based solely on their immigration status or administrative warrants? [58:19] So we comply with all laws, local, state, and federal? [58:21] To me, after this line of questioning, it's very clear that these policies that you have [58:27] all implicated are active and alive and well in your cities are in direct violation with [58:33] U.S. Title VIII code subsection 1324 and is a federal offense. [58:38] But you all speak about a broken immigration system, and yet here you guys are aiding and [58:43] abetting in that entire process. [58:45] So I want to be very clear about something, open border policies, which is something that [58:49] you guys are talking about, hurts people on both sides, meaning the people that are coming [58:53] here illegally and then American citizens as well. [58:56] I do not think you guys are bad people, but I think that you are ideologically misled, [59:01] which is why, unfortunately, based on your responses, I'm all going to be criminally referring [59:06] you to the Department of Justice for investigation. [59:09] And as soon as I leave here, these will be going over to Pam Bondi. [59:13] I'm not doing that in an effort to bully you guys, but I do believe that your policies are [59:18] hurting the American people, and you can make that known with the evidence that you can present [59:22] to the Department of Justice. [59:24] But if you guys continue doing what you're doing, you're not going to help anyone. [59:27] You're going to hurt more people, and that's exactly why I'm tired of it, the American [59:30] people are tired of it, and Chairman, I yield like that. [59:33] Would you yield your last minute? [59:35] Yes, sir. [59:36] Mayor Adams, you were one of the first mayors in what the media refers to as a blue city, [59:44] typically, that came out and raised concerns about the influx of illegals pouring into the [59:52] city of New York. [59:53] Could you answer the question, what that did to New York City from a budgetary standpoint? [1:00:01] Let's not even talk about crime or anything. [1:00:04] Let's just talk about from a budgetary, the burden on the citizens of New York City. [1:00:10] As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, we spent $6.9 billion. [1:00:16] The long-term impact of that is extremely significant. [1:00:19] After COVID, we had a large number of children who was chronically absent. [1:00:23] We could have taken $200 million of that and dealt with that. [1:00:27] We have a real mental health crisis in our city. [1:00:30] We could have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on that. [1:00:32] And so the long-term impact of spending $6.9 billion is going to have serious ramification [1:00:39] on the future of New York City. [1:00:41] It's more than just what happened last year or this year. [1:00:45] It is what is going to impact us long-term. [1:00:48] I think that's one of the purposes of this hearing, to talk about the consequences from cities [1:00:56] that have huge illegal alien populations. [1:01:01] So, Chair now recognizes Mr. Jordan from Ohio. [1:01:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:01:05] Mayor Johnston, who's Abraham Gonzalez? [1:01:08] Thank you, Congressman. [1:01:12] He is an individual that was released from the county jail on Friday in the city and county [1:01:18] of Denver. [1:01:19] That's all you know about him? [1:01:21] I do know that he was facing charges that the- [1:01:25] Venezuelan gang member arrested by Border Patrol on September 20, 2023, released into the country [1:01:32] by the Biden administration. [1:01:33] A few months later, he's arrested in your city, charged with aggravated assault. [1:01:37] On March 11, 2024, he's charged with motor vehicle theft, stole a car. [1:01:44] And then on March 20, 2024, Mr. Gonzalez is charged with felony menacing. [1:01:49] Six days after that last charge, I send you a detainer, which includes an administrative warrant. [1:01:56] Basically, it says, if you're going to release this bad guy, this gang member who allegedly [1:02:00] stole a car, menaced people, and assaulted people, give us a 48-hour heads-up. [1:02:05] Is that right? [1:02:07] Does that refresh your memory? [1:02:09] I do know about the detainer request. [1:02:10] I do know that we provided a notification of release to the- [1:02:13] What kind of notice did you give ICE when you released him? [1:02:16] We gave him notification. [1:02:17] I'm not sure how many, how long in advance it was. [1:02:19] One hour. [1:02:20] One hour. [1:02:21] I do know that there were six- [1:02:22] One hour notice, and you released him five days ago, right? [1:02:26] Why not give him more heads-up? [1:02:27] Actually, let's put the slide up. [1:02:29] Let's see what it says here, but let's put the slide up. [1:02:30] This is what the Denver Sheriff's Department, it's kind of hard to see, so I'll read it [1:02:34] says, Denver Sheriff's Department ICE notification being released to the streets. [1:02:41] I simply said, we want- just release him to us. [1:02:43] You release him to the streets. [1:02:44] Why not release him to ICE? [1:02:45] Thank you. [1:02:47] What we've done, and we do this regularly, we've done 1,226 of these, is we notify- [1:02:52] I'm asking about one. [1:02:53] I'm not asking about the 1,200. [1:02:54] I understand. [1:02:55] Mr. Abraham Gonzalez, who's a gang member from Venezuela, stole a car, assaulted someone. [1:03:02] You had him in your custody for how long? [1:03:04] I know that we released him- [1:03:06] 345 days you had him in custody. [1:03:09] And I said, hey, can you give us 48 hours heads-up? [1:03:11] I don't know- [1:03:13] You gave him one hour notice. [1:03:15] Mr. Congressman, we notified him to release. [1:03:17] There were six ICE agents present when he was released, so they had enough time to respond [1:03:22] and to be present- [1:03:23] Respond where? [1:03:24] To the jail where we released him from. [1:03:26] So we released him to- we notified them of the release time. [1:03:28] When we notified them of release, they come to the jail facility to pick them up. [1:03:31] They're still on- [1:03:32] Why didn't you say that? [1:03:33] That's not what you said. [1:03:34] You said you released him to the streets. [1:03:35] Did you release him to the streets? [1:03:36] Did you release him to ICE? [1:03:37] What we do, sir, is we release him from our county jail, and we coordinate with ICE on [1:03:42] that release time and release date so that ICE can come and pick them up from that location. [1:03:46] They were- [1:03:47] Pick them up where? [1:03:48] In the parking lot? [1:03:49] Yes, sir. [1:03:50] They're on the facility property- [1:03:51] Guess what happened in the parking lot? [1:03:52] I know, sir. [1:03:53] I've reviewed the video. [1:03:54] So I looked at it. [1:03:55] I've already- [1:03:56] One of the ICE officers got assaulted, didn't he? [1:03:57] I've reviewed the video, sir. [1:03:58] They had to tase the guy, didn't they? [1:03:59] Would you like me to answer, sir? [1:04:00] No, I'd like you to answer. [1:04:01] Did they tase him? [1:04:02] I know that there were six officers that had multiple tasers. [1:04:05] I saw the- [1:04:06] So they had six officers? [1:04:07] If you keep him in the facility and they come in the facility and get him, does it [1:04:11] take six officers? [1:04:12] Probably takes two, doesn't it? [1:04:14] So we've had- we've been doing these, as I mentioned, 1224 times, 1226 times. [1:04:17] This is the first time I've been made aware of there's been an incident like this. [1:04:21] So I reached out to ICE after I saw the video. [1:04:23] I've coordinated with their team and offered to sit down and see if there are procedures [1:04:26] we can change- [1:04:27] It's a simple question. [1:04:28] To make sure this works smoothly. [1:04:29] It's a simple question. [1:04:30] You can release him in the parking lot, give ICE one hour notice, and they've got to send [1:04:34] six officers to arrest this guy. [1:04:36] Or you can say, hey, what? [1:04:38] Here's what we're going to do. [1:04:39] We're going to hold him. [1:04:40] You come in and bring two officers in and you turn him over there. [1:04:42] Why not do it that way? [1:04:43] We have a city ordinance- [1:04:44] You know why you don't do it that way? [1:04:45] We have a city ordinance that governs- [1:04:46] Because you're a sanctuary city. [1:04:47] This is the whole point. [1:04:48] No, sir, I disagree with you. [1:04:50] Oh, okay. [1:04:51] Because I'll tell you why. [1:04:53] If you talk about sanctuary as a definition of shielding people from law enforcement, we [1:04:56] do not do that. [1:04:57] What we do do is provide services. [1:04:58] In this context, what we did is we coordinated the release- [1:05:01] An officer got assaulted because of your policy which says we're going to release him [1:05:05] to, in your words, not mine, to the streets. [1:05:07] They have to arrest him in the parking lot. [1:05:09] They bring six officers when they could have had one or two just come in your facility [1:05:14] in the jail and take the guy there. [1:05:16] But you won't do it that way. [1:05:17] I've seen the video. [1:05:18] I've reached out to ICE. [1:05:19] I've offered to sit down and coordinate on strategies. [1:05:21] If we need to make adjustments to what we do on releases, we'll do that. [1:05:25] This is the first time in the 1226 releases I've heard an expert. [1:05:28] You know, I read your written testimony last night. [1:05:31] I read your written testimony last night. [1:05:32] Four and a half pages. [1:05:34] And you used the word safe, safer, or safety 13 times. [1:05:40] Talking about my job is to protect the safety of the people in Denver. [1:05:44] We prioritizing making sure everyone in our community is safe. [1:05:47] That's a lie. [1:05:48] Because it was not safer for the ICE agents who are part of your community. [1:05:52] No way was it safer. [1:05:53] The safest thing to do is to say, ICE, we got him in custody. [1:05:57] Come here, we're releasing. [1:05:58] We held him 345 days. [1:05:59] We can't hold him a second longer. [1:06:01] We can't wait for you to come inside the building. [1:06:02] We got to let him go so you have to arrest him in the parking lot. [1:06:05] That is how stupid sanctuary policies are and what they mean to the community that you put [1:06:10] at risk and to the ICE officers, the ICE officer who was assaulted. [1:06:14] And they had to use a taser. [1:06:15] It's not good. [1:06:16] Mr. Chairman. [1:06:17] Time. [1:06:18] Mr. Chairman. [1:06:19] Five minutes is up. [1:06:20] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:06:23] All of the mayors here today are actively working to harm the American people you represent. [1:06:29] You all have blood on your hands. [1:06:32] I'm going to ask a series of yes or no questions today. [1:06:36] And I would like to remind all of you, you are under oath. [1:06:39] I only want a yes or a no to my questions. [1:06:43] My first question, do you acknowledge breaking into our country as a crime? [1:06:47] Mayor Adams, yes or no? [1:06:51] Do you acknowledge breaking into our country as a crime? [1:06:54] I acknowledge. [1:06:55] Yes or no? [1:06:56] I acknowledge. [1:06:57] Okay. [1:06:58] Honorable Johnson. [1:06:59] He's not going to answer the question. [1:07:00] Yes or no? [1:07:01] Is breaking into our country against the law? [1:07:02] Yes or no? [1:07:03] Depends how you cross the border. [1:07:04] Okay. [1:07:05] Mayor Johnson. [1:07:07] Yes or no? [1:07:08] Comprehensive immigration reform policies are what's necessary in this moment. [1:07:11] Mayor Wu, do you have a better answer than these gentlemen before you? [1:07:14] Yes or no? [1:07:15] Yes. [1:07:17] Okay. [1:07:18] Do you believe it's acceptable for illegals who commit heinous crimes be released back [1:07:21] into the public instead of being detained and deported? [1:07:24] Mayor Adams, yes or no? [1:07:25] Anyone break a crime? [1:07:27] Yes or no? [1:07:28] This is not hard. [1:07:29] Yes or no? [1:07:30] Anyone that breaks a crime should be detained. [1:07:32] Okay. [1:07:33] Mayor. [1:07:34] Yes or no? [1:07:35] They should be deported. [1:07:36] Okay. [1:07:37] Mayor. [1:07:38] Any individual that causes harm and breaks the law should be held accountable. [1:07:41] Okay. [1:07:42] Mayor Wu, this is why you have 6% approval rating because you suck at answering questions. [1:07:45] Mayor Wu, yes or no? [1:07:47] Thank you. [1:07:48] Anyone who's a public safety threat should be prosecuted. [1:07:49] All right. [1:07:50] I have my next question. [1:07:52] When an illegal alien rapes a woman, do you believe you're on the right side of history? [1:07:58] Mayor Adams, yes or no? [1:07:59] Can we say that question? [1:08:01] Okay. [1:08:02] Mayor Johnston. [1:08:03] When an illegal alien rapes a woman, do you believe you're on the right side of history? [1:08:06] Yes or no? [1:08:07] I will charge and prosecute them. [1:08:08] Yes or no? [1:08:09] Okay. [1:08:10] Well, okay. [1:08:11] You said you would go to jail, didn't you? [1:08:12] I will charge and prosecute anyone. [1:08:13] For harboring illegal aliens or something? [1:08:14] Mayor Johnson. [1:08:15] Could you repeat your question, please? [1:08:16] When an illegal alien rapes a woman, do you believe you're on the right side of history? [1:08:20] Could you clarify that question? [1:08:22] Okay. [1:08:23] Mayor Wu, yes or no? [1:08:24] No. [1:08:25] Rape is obviously horrible. [1:08:26] Why are you letting rapists back out onto the streets of Boston? [1:08:28] That is not true. [1:08:29] Okay. [1:08:30] That is not what's happening in Boston. [1:08:31] When an illegal alien molests a kid, molests an underage kid, do you pat yourself on the [1:08:36] back for being compassionate? [1:08:38] Mayor Adams. [1:08:40] It's despicable and he should be arrested. [1:08:42] Mayor Johnson. [1:08:43] I prosecute folks that commit crimes like that. [1:08:45] You guys let him out on the streets. [1:08:46] Mayor Johnson. [1:08:47] We arrest violent criminals in the city of Chicago. [1:08:49] Mayor Wu. [1:08:50] We investigate, arrest, and prosecute. [1:08:53] You guys don't sound very confident today. [1:08:57] Would your city honor an ICE detainer on an illegal alien who rapes kids if one was issued [1:09:06] today? [1:09:07] Mayor Adams, yes or no? [1:09:09] In conformance with law, we will honor detainers. [1:09:12] Mayor Johnson. [1:09:14] If there's a criminal warrant, we'll help them pick them up. [1:09:17] If there's no criminal warrant, we'll honor a notification request. [1:09:20] Mayor Johnson. [1:09:21] Criminal warrants, we always cooperate with federal agents with a criminal warrant. [1:09:25] Mayor Wu. [1:09:26] Get a criminal warrant, we will enforce. [1:09:28] I'm talking about an ICE detainer on an individual who's here illegally who rapes kids. [1:09:35] Do you all hate Donald Trump more than you love your country? [1:09:38] Mayor Adams. [1:09:41] I respect my president. [1:09:42] I respect my country. [1:09:43] Yes or no. [1:09:44] You're having the hardest time today. [1:09:45] Mayor Johnson. [1:09:46] I love my country. [1:09:47] Yes or no. [1:09:48] I love my country. [1:09:49] Mayor Johnson. [1:09:50] As a son of a pastor, I love everyone. [1:09:54] And this country. [1:09:56] Mayor Wu. [1:09:57] I love my country and my city. [1:09:58] Do you all, are you all willing to go to jail for violating federal law? [1:10:04] Mayor Adams. [1:10:05] I'm not going to violate federal law, so I don't have to worry about that. [1:10:09] Mayor Johnston. [1:10:10] We don't violate federal law either. [1:10:11] You don't violate federal law. [1:10:12] We do not violate federal law. [1:10:13] Is it violating federal law if you don't honor detainer requests from ICE? [1:10:18] Absolutely not. [1:10:19] In fact, the statute Congressman Biggs shared we explicitly follow. [1:10:23] The statute says you cannot prohibit city employees from sharing information about someone's status with the government. [1:10:28] We do not prohibit that. [1:10:29] Do you love illegal aliens more than you love your fellow countrymen? [1:10:32] I love all the residents of the city and county. [1:10:34] Mayor Johnston. [1:10:35] Are you willing to go to jail for violating federal law? [1:10:40] The city of Chicago complies with all laws. [1:10:42] Oh, I highly doubt that. [1:10:44] Mayor Wu. [1:10:45] We are not violating federal law. [1:10:46] Mayor Wu, I have a last couple questions for you. [1:10:48] Do you believe that ICE arresting a child rapist, quote, threatens everyone's safety, end quote? [1:10:55] Yes or no? [1:10:57] No. [1:10:58] Does ICE arresting a murderous MS-13 member threaten everyone's safety, yes or no? [1:11:05] No. [1:11:06] I would like to hold up this quote of you where you say, [1:11:09] ICE's efforts actually threaten the safety of everyone, end quote. [1:11:14] Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. [1:11:17] You're a hypocrite. [1:11:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:19] And I yield back. [1:11:20] Arnold from Florida. [1:11:21] Thank you, Chairman. [1:11:24] This is my third term on the Oversight Committee. [1:11:26] We have been talking about illegal immigration and oversight the entire time. [1:11:31] I remember we had a group of this committee that went down to the El Paso section of the border. [1:11:37] This was back in February, March of 2021. [1:11:43] And during that time period, we were at one of the holding centers and there were these buses that were coming to the detention facility and they were picking up 30 kids, 50 kids at random walking out of the facility. [1:11:56] And when I went over to question the bus driver that was transporting these kids, border agents told me as a member of Congress that you're not allowed to question the bus driver. [1:12:08] And of course, people knowing me, I didn't take no for an answer. [1:12:11] And I repeated the question and I was told that this bus of children was leaving El Paso and going to San Diego. [1:12:17] And so what was occurring under the Biden administration is that they were busing unaccompanied minors all across the United States for one reason and one reason only. [1:12:27] And that was because they did not want the press to see the pictures of kids in cages. [1:12:34] They did not want to see our borders being overrun. [1:12:37] They wanted to disperse that problem all through the United States. [1:12:42] That is the reckless history of illegal immigration under Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. [1:12:48] Mayor Johnston of Denver, you lamented earlier that there were 10 to 11 buses coming per day to your city. [1:12:56] Did you ever talk to Joe Biden about why this was happening to your community? [1:13:00] Thank you, Congressman. [1:13:01] I both reached out to Governor Abbott from Texas. [1:13:04] He didn't respond. [1:13:05] And I did. [1:13:06] Why would you reach out to Governor Abbott of Texas when it is Joe Biden, the former commander in chief, that opened up our borders? [1:13:11] Why didn't you talk to him? [1:13:12] Well, our buses directly were being sent from Governor Abbott in Texas. [1:13:15] So that was why we reached out to say we're happy to collaborate on a coordinated entry system. [1:13:19] We understand no one state or no one city should bear the entire brunt of this. [1:13:22] But let's collaborate. [1:13:23] But I did. [1:13:24] So I'm glad you I'm glad you said that because that brings me to my next point. [1:13:27] Governor Abbott and Governor DeSantis, when they started moving illegal aliens out of their states who were bearing the brunt of what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were doing. [1:13:38] And they've sent them to Denver. [1:13:40] They sent them to Chicago. [1:13:41] They sent them to New York. [1:13:43] They sent them to Martha's Vineyard. [1:13:45] The reason why they did that is because you four could hide hide behind the realities of illegal immigration on border towns all through our country and on cities and states who did not want to see illegal immigration, but did not have the political representation to go to the White House. [1:14:05] And only when it showed up on your doorstep did you get upset. [1:14:09] Mayor Johnson, coming back to you. [1:14:11] How much did your city spend on illegal immigration? [1:14:14] Do you have a round number? [1:14:15] Over the last couple of years on all newcomers, whatever their status was, it's around 79 million since 2022. [1:14:21] 79 million. [1:14:22] Mayor Johnson, Chicago. [1:14:24] How much has the city of Chicago spent on illegal immigration? [1:14:26] If you refer into the 2022 up to 2024 of the buses coming from Texas, roughly the same percentage of the state of Texas, about 1% of our overall budget. [1:14:38] What is that? [1:14:39] Because we don't have the city's budget in front of me. [1:14:41] Numbers. [1:14:42] It's 1%. [1:14:43] And if you want the actual calculation, we can make sure someone. [1:14:45] You're the mayor. [1:14:46] You don't have the math in front of you. [1:14:47] It's 1% of the overall budget over the last four years, which is the same number that was sent from us from the state of Texas. [1:14:54] How much did the city of New York actually spend on illegal immigration? [1:14:55] Mayor Johnson, I already asked you. [1:14:56] You don't have a hard number. [1:14:57] And if you don't have a hard number, you're not running your city well. [1:15:00] Mayor Adams, how much did the city of New York actually spend on illegal immigration? [1:15:03] 6.9 billion of taxpayer dollars. [1:15:06] 6.9 billion dollars of taxpayer money on a problem that was fostered on the American people. [1:15:14] Mayor Wu, in the city of Boston, how much did you spend? [1:15:17] We don't ask about immigration status and delivering city services. [1:15:19] You don't ask about how much money the city of Boston has spent on illegal immigration? [1:15:24] Are you out of your mind? [1:15:25] We don't distinguish between immigration status as part of our city policies. [1:15:27] Do you manage your budget or not, Mayor Wu? [1:15:28] That is how we keep our city safe. [1:15:29] Mayor Wu, do you manage your budget or not? [1:15:31] We have the numbers to prove it. [1:15:32] I manage my budget. [1:15:33] I have a triple-A bond rating dating back 10 years to the city of Boston budget. [1:15:36] So to the city of Boston, just understand that your mayor does not care how much of [1:15:40] your resources she has spent on people who are not citizens of the city of Boston. [1:15:44] The city of Boston is sick of having people outside Boston telling us what we need. [1:15:48] Mr. Bear, I have a question for you because I understand Cato's perspective when it comes [1:15:51] to illegal immigration. [1:15:52] I understand that the Cato Institute for a long time has had a standard of actually having [1:15:57] open immigration into the United States. [1:16:00] Generally speaking, I don't want to get into specifics. [1:16:02] We support legal immigration. [1:16:03] We want immigration to be legal. [1:16:05] Well, let me ask you this question. [1:16:07] Because one of the great libertarians of the modern era, Milton Friedman, famously said, [1:16:12] you can either have open borders or a welfare state, but you have to choose. [1:16:16] Mr. Bear, what do you choose? [1:16:18] Milton Friedman said he wanted to allow illegal immigration to continue. [1:16:22] I disagree with Milton Friedman's position on that. [1:16:25] We should have legal immigration and build a wall around the welfare state, not around the country. [1:16:30] That's in the best interest of taxpayers. [1:16:32] And I would argue that under the current system where you have sanctuary cities popping up, [1:16:37] it is not possible to build that wall. [1:16:39] So America has to choose. [1:16:40] Mr. Bear, you're done. [1:16:41] America has to choose between securing our nation or protecting the taxpayer. [1:16:46] I choose secure the nation. [1:16:47] I yield back. [1:16:48] The Chair would now like to recognize Mr. Burchett for five minutes. [1:16:52] Thank you, Chair Lady. [1:16:53] Dr. Curtis, what happened when the Warren Commission called you to testify about what you knew about the JFK wounds? [1:17:00] Dr. Curtis? [1:17:02] Yes, sir. [1:17:06] I'm sorry. [1:17:07] I've got hearing aids too, so don't worry about it, brother. [1:17:09] What happened when the Warren Commission called you to testify about what you knew about JFK's wounds? [1:17:16] Well, the Warren Commission hasn't called me to testify at all. [1:17:26] Not at all? [1:17:28] Uh-uh. [1:17:29] Okay. [1:17:30] I didn't use up all my time, and I'd like to make some additional comments regarding... [1:17:36] Sir, you have the time that you need, so please proceed. [1:17:40] Okay. [1:17:41] Well, let me know when I can do it. [1:17:43] Well, now, sir, I believe Mr. Burchett has a line of questions for you, so you're free to talk to Mr. Burchett. [1:17:50] Yes, sir. [1:17:52] Can you explain what condition... [1:17:56] When President Kennedy arrived in the emergency room, what was his condition at that point? [1:18:01] He had already died. [1:18:02] Okay. [1:18:03] How many wounds did you observe on President Kennedy? [1:18:06] How many wounds? [1:18:08] President Kennedy had a wound to, of course, the big wound to his head. [1:18:13] Right. [1:18:14] But he also had a wound to his throat, and I've got a little diagram here. [1:18:20] I can point that out, how that worked, if you'd like me to. [1:18:22] And that wouldn't have been a single bullet wound, though, right? [1:18:25] They talk about this magical bullet that traveled. [1:18:27] That would have been more than one bullet, you think? [1:18:29] The magic bullet didn't strike the President at all. [1:18:33] Okay. [1:18:34] Yeah, that was a clean bullet. [1:18:35] I saw the picture. [1:18:36] Yeah. [1:18:37] Given... [1:18:38] Do what? [1:18:39] What? [1:18:42] Oh, yeah. [1:18:43] Please show the diagram. [1:18:44] Okay. [1:18:46] The bullets that were fired, the blue bullet was the bullet that arrived first. [1:18:56] And you can see it started from, probably, from the railroad trestle, which is to the southwest, [1:19:04] and came up and first struck President Kennedy before he got out from under the tree that prevented [1:19:13] the window shooter from shooting. [1:19:16] And we know that because the Zapruder film showed President Kennedy holding his throat in real distress [1:19:27] when the Zapruder film started. [1:19:30] And he had already been shot, and that wound to his throat would have killed him. [1:19:37] It did kill him because we know from the tracheostomy that we had to do that the bullet to his throat [1:19:48] obstructed the trachea, and so he had taken his last breath before that. [1:19:54] Also, the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the temple killed him also because it just removed about a third of his brain. [1:20:08] And the part of the brain that it removed was in the posterior part of the brain, and that is the area of the brain [1:20:17] that controls the parasympathematic and the automatic nervous system. [1:20:26] And so the two bullets that came from the window, one struck Conley, and it's the only thing that it did. [1:20:41] It went in Conley's shoulder, went through his chest, came out of his chest, into his left wrist, into his left leg. [1:20:50] And that indicates that the bullet was coming from the north going southeast, southwest. [1:20:59] And that bullet was only for Governor Conley. [1:21:04] The other bullet that came out was this other one here. [1:21:10] That would have been the magic bullet. [1:21:15] That's the one that went in the president's back. [1:21:19] And the Warren Commission then wanted to choose that bullet to be the magic bullet which went through the top of his head. [1:21:32] Now, that's essentially what I wanted to say. [1:21:40] Okay. [1:21:41] And that was, how many bullets did you say? [1:21:43] Three or four? [1:21:45] That were fired? [1:21:46] Yes, sir. [1:21:47] Four. [1:21:48] Okay. [1:21:50] And that was a bolt action, Italian carving. [1:21:51] Well, two of the bullets came from the front. [1:21:53] Yes, sir. [1:21:54] Yes, sir. [1:21:55] I know, but they were trying to tell us if Lee Harvey Oswald was the same. [1:21:58] The only bullets that came from the window were two bullets, and three bullets came from the window. [1:22:04] One hit the curb, the other hit Conley, and the other one went in the president's back. [1:22:09] And that's well-documented. [1:22:13] Yes, sir. [1:22:14] Thank you. [1:22:15] And I yield no time. [1:22:17] Thank you. [1:22:18] The chair would like to now recognize Mr. Burns. [1:22:20] Well, we might have to bring you back out of retirement, what you're currently doing, and have you help go through it with that. [1:22:24] I'd like to now recognize Mr. Horne for an opening statement. [1:22:27] Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Garcia, and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear and testify today. [1:22:38] I served on the staff of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board for the final three years of its four-year lifespan from August of 1995 through September of 1998. [1:22:52] I was hired as a senior analyst on the military records team and was promoted early in 1997 to head the military records team, [1:23:02] serving as chief analyst for military records until the ARRB shutdown on September 30, 1998. [1:23:10] During my time on the staff, in addition to securing the declassification and public release of military records related to Cuba and Vietnam policy, [1:23:21] I was privileged to work extensively in the medical evidence arena and to serve as the review board's point man on issues related to the Zapruder film of President Kennedy's assassination. [1:23:33] Although the review board was not empowered to reinvestigate the assassination or generate conclusions or findings of fact, [1:23:42] the board did choose to attempt to clarify the record of certain aspects of the assassination by taking the depositions of ten persons who participated in or who were present at the autopsy on President John F. Kennedy, [1:23:58] and by later taking one additional joint deposition of five of the Dallas treating physicians. [1:24:04] I served as the principal research assistant to the review board's general counsel, Jeremy Gunn, [1:24:11] in preparing for and conducting our ten depositions of the participants and witnesses to JFK's autopsy and was present at all ten of those depositions. [1:24:21] The sworn testimony of our ten deponents, as well as numerous written interview reports, [1:24:28] of additional unsworn medical witnesses were all deposited in the National Archives in the JFK records collection without comment or endorsement. [1:24:38] In subsequent years, I wrote a five-volume memoir about my own personal conclusions regarding the medical evidence [1:24:46] and explained the substantial ways in which the work of the ARRB staff significantly enhanced the totality of the medical evidence [1:24:55] and our understanding of how President Kennedy was killed. [1:24:59] Some outstanding questions were resolved, but many other questions were raised by the information we gathered. [1:25:05] Questions that remain unresolved today. [1:25:09] And this is the heart of my oral testimony here. [1:25:13] Many Americans remain troubled today by the many conflicts within the JFK medical evidence and what they might mean. [1:25:22] And they remain unsatisfied with the official conclusions offered up by both the Warren Commission in 1964 and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1979. [1:25:36] Based on my work as an analyst at the ARRB and as an independent researcher, I have concluded that there are ample reasons for the disquiet of so many of the American people to wit. [1:25:50] First, eight different sets of photographs known with confidence to have been taken during the autopsy on JFK are not in the official collection today and never have been. [1:26:04] Some autopsy photos in the official collection at the National Archives are in gross disagreement with the head and neck wounds universally observed on November 22, 1963 by the treating physicians at Parkland Hospital, [1:26:20] which they recorded in precise detail in their treatment notes that day and in their subsequent 1964 testimony. [1:26:28] At least two and possibly three JFK skull x-rays exposed at Bethesda Naval Hospital are missing today and have never been in the official collection. [1:26:40] The science of optical densitometry reveals that all three surviving skull x-rays are not originals, but rather are altered copy films. [1:26:52] Two highly qualified and respected MDs who were granted repeated access by the Kennedy family to the autopsy photographs and x-rays in the deed of gift collection at the archives, both agree that the extant JFK skull x-rays reveal unambiguous and clear evidence of two headshots fired from in front of the president, contrary to the findings of the Warren Commission and the HSCA. [1:27:23] The JFK skull x-rays actually reveal a total of three headshots, one from behind and two from the front. [1:27:32] The so-called Harper fragment of skull bone, a crucial item of evidence signed for by the president's military physician and photographed and x-rayed by the FBI, has been missing since late in 1963. [1:27:49] Many bullet fragments known to have been removed from President Kennedy's body at Bethesda Naval Hospital were never placed into the official record and are missing today. [1:28:03] The remains of President Kennedy's brain following its examination were placed in a stainless steel container in 1963, but the brain is missing today, as many people know already. [1:28:16] That stainless steel container and an original signed autopsy report were among materials transferred from the Secret Service to Senator Robert F. Kennedy in April of 1965. [1:28:30] Those materials and others were not among the materials returned to the U.S. government by RFK on October 31, 1966 via a deed of gift to the National Archives. [1:28:44] The Kennedy family attorney Burke Marshall told the HSCA that Robert F. Kennedy had made those materials permanently inaccessible without providing details. [1:28:57] The 14 brain photographs in the National Archives today cannot be and are not photographs of John F. Kennedy's brain. [1:29:09] They have been impugned by the official photographer at the brain examination and by one of the FBI agents present at JFK's autopsy. [1:29:19] The chain of custody of President Kennedy's body prior to the start of the autopsy, shortly after 8 p.m. on November 22, 1963, clearly appears to have been broken, [1:29:32] casting even more doubt upon the reliability of the official autopsy report. [1:29:39] And finally, Navy pathologists arrived at four sets of differing conclusions about President Kennedy's wounds and how he died within the two weeks after his death. [1:29:52] The official autopsy report that is now in the National Archives represents only the fourth and final set of conclusions. [1:30:00] This fact, perhaps more than any of the others above, is patently unacceptable in the nation that prides itself as the world's greatest democracy. [1:30:10] Moving on to a new subject. The existing deed of gift, dated October 29, 1966, that sets severe restrictions upon who can view the JFK autopsy materials and how they can be used, needs to be reexamined and lifted. [1:30:27] It has resulted in de facto suppression of these materials. Only by having free and unlimited access to the autopsy photographs and skull x-rays can troubling and persistent questions about their authenticity be definitively and finally resolved by qualified experts. [1:30:49] In my concluding paragraph, I wish to make a short statement about the Zapruder film of the assassination. [1:30:58] Studies in Hollywood of the individual film frames, that is, state-of-the-art digital scans of extremely high resolution, appear to show the use of visual effects, that is, animation or artwork, to crudely and blatantly alter the image content in some key frames. [1:31:15] To state the problem simply, the digitized Zapruder film, studied by professionals in Hollywood, does not show the massive exit wound in the rear of the head, seen at Parkland Hospital, and by many witnesses at Bethesda during the autopsy, because it has been blacked out. [1:31:33] And yet the film does appear to show head wounds not seen at Parkland Hospital. [1:31:38] We now know that rather than spending the entire weekend following the assassination in Chicago at the Life Printing Plant, as was originally claimed, the Zapruder film actually spent most of the weekend in the custody of the CIA in Washington, D.C. [1:31:55] and at Kodak's main research and development laboratory in Rochester, New York. [1:32:00] The attitude of one National Archives official, expressed in writing circa 2009, was that they, quote, do not ever intend to take the film out of the freezer again, end quote. [1:32:14] This decision, excuse me, this decision should be overturned, and the so-called purported original film should be made available for appropriate inspection by qualified film professionals from the motion picture industry and academia, and by that I mean film schools, so that questions of authenticity can be definitively resolved. [1:32:40] I've provided many additional details in my written testimony, and I request that they be included in the congressional record. [1:32:48] Thank you very much. [1:32:49] Thank you, Mr. Horne, and they will. [1:32:51] Ms. Coe, if you can please provide an opening statement. [1:32:54] Thank you. [1:32:56] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:32:57] Thank you, Ranking Member Garcia. [1:32:59] It's an honor to address the committee today. [1:33:03] I'm here or commit crimes here. [1:33:05] That is my number one job. [1:33:06] But what is happening is on America. [1:33:08] Chair recognize Mr. Timmons from South Carolina. [1:33:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:33:11] Governor Hochul, the difference is that the millions of Americans that came through Ellis Island did so legally. [1:33:16] I'll yield to my friend from Georgia, Ms. Green. [1:33:21] Thank you. [1:33:22] Governor Hochul, are you a Democrat? [1:33:25] Yes or no? [1:33:26] I'm a proud registered Democrat, yes. [1:33:28] Did you support Joe Biden for president? [1:33:31] Yes or no? [1:33:32] Yes, I did. [1:33:35] Did you support the Biden administration's policies for the past four years? [1:33:38] I raised my concerns in many meetings. [1:33:40] That's a yes or no question. [1:33:41] I have a lot of conversations about how the border was being enforced. [1:33:44] And so I raised concerns. [1:33:45] So you just stated, I'll reclaim my time. [1:33:46] You said you're a proud Democrat. [1:33:48] You supported Joe Biden for president. [1:33:51] Clearly, you supported the Biden administration's policies. [1:33:54] I supported many of them. [1:33:55] Governor Hochul, did you swear an oath to faithfully uphold New York's constitution and laws? [1:34:00] I certainly did. [1:34:03] In 2017, New York became a sanctuary state when Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 170. [1:34:10] This states, it directs that no state officers or employees, including law enforcement officers, [1:34:17] shall disclose information to federal immigration authorities for the purpose of federal civil immigration [1:34:23] enforcement unless required by the law. [1:34:26] Do you support this law as governor of New York? [1:34:28] Yes, this pertains to civil enforcement. [1:34:31] So you do enforce sanctuary policies of New York? [1:34:34] I support supporting helping law enforcement and ICE when it comes to- [1:34:38] Thank you. [1:34:39] I reclaim my time. [1:34:40] You support sanctuary policies that have led to the horrific murder of people, Americans. [1:34:47] Fox News got it wrong. [1:34:48] It should say monster. [1:34:50] Arrested in broad daylight rape of a 13-year-old in a New York park. [1:34:57] This girl was raped at knife point in the park near New York Mets stadium. [1:35:03] That's your state, Governor Hochul. [1:35:05] New York Post also got it wrong and called him a migrant. [1:35:07] That's a monster. [1:35:08] Busted in brutal beating of New York PD cops in Times Square are members of bloodthirsty Trenday [1:35:15] Aragua gangs. [1:35:17] That's your state where you support your sanctuary state laws. [1:35:22] Also, Governor Hochul, do you recognize this image where a homeless woman was burned alive [1:35:28] by an illegal alien monster where you uphold the laws to protect these monsters in your state? [1:35:36] And then you force the New York citizens that pay taxes to pay for these people. [1:35:41] This is the result of your sick and disgusting treasonous laws that you uphold as governor. [1:35:49] New York is not a sanctuary state for criminals. [1:35:51] Miss Hochul, this is my time. [1:35:52] Do you know the name Lakin Riley? [1:35:55] Do you know the name Lakin Riley? [1:35:57] Yes, I do. [1:35:58] Oh, you do. [1:35:59] Jose Ibarra murdered 22-year-old Lakin Riley. [1:36:03] He's an illegal alien monster from Venezuela convicted of 10 charges. [1:36:08] He was first arrested by the Biden administration that you stated that you support. [1:36:13] Joe Biden for president, right? [1:36:15] Proud Democrat, Governor Hochul. [1:36:17] First arrested at the border and released by the Democrats that you support. [1:36:22] Then, guess what? [1:36:24] He made it to New York because the Biden administration flew illegals all over the country [1:36:31] and your state was one that accepted them. [1:36:33] He lived at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Queens. [1:36:36] An upscale hotel that was turned into an illegal alien shelter at the taxpayers' expense. [1:36:42] Two million a month went to this hotel. [1:36:46] The second time he was arrested was in the state of New York for endangering a child. [1:36:51] But he was released quickly before ICE could even issue a detainer. [1:36:56] Because you support those laws, Governor Hochul. [1:36:59] Then, he flew. [1:37:01] Look at this. [1:37:02] This is shocking. [1:37:03] He flew from the state of New York to my home state in Georgia. [1:37:08] And you all paid for it. [1:37:10] Because, why? [1:37:11] Because it was re-ticketing. [1:37:13] And that was the little gift that you were giving my state by sending monsters there. [1:37:19] Cost the state of New York five to ten million dollars a day to feed and housing. [1:37:24] Are you smiling at me about this? [1:37:25] No, I'm not. [1:37:26] You look like you got quite a smile on your face. [1:37:28] No. [1:37:29] Because I can tell you. [1:37:30] General Lady will not. [1:37:31] This is my time. [1:37:32] Reclaiming my time. [1:37:33] I'm thinking about. [1:37:34] Don't attack the witness. [1:37:35] Don't you dare smile about the murder of Lake and Riley. [1:37:38] I'm thinking about her parents. [1:37:39] The third time. [1:37:40] Don't question how I look. [1:37:41] My heart is breaking for her parents. [1:37:43] My time, Governor Hochul. [1:37:44] The third time he was arrested was in the sanctuary city of Athens. [1:37:48] Another Democrat policy. [1:37:50] And then he went on and attempted to rape Lake and Riley and murdered her. [1:37:58] He murdered her. [1:37:59] Let me explain something to you. [1:38:01] Let me explain something to you. [1:38:02] This little girl right here, she would be alive today if you weren't such a treasonous [1:38:10] governor supporting sanctuary laws in the state of New York. [1:38:15] This little girl would be alive today. [1:38:18] And her mother very much would like for her to be alive. [1:38:22] This is outrageous for anybody, anybody in this country, to support for non-citizens to [1:38:35] be able to come in our country, be able to travel wherever they want, and then make taxpayers [1:38:42] pay to house them, feed them, and then give them a plane ticket after they had been arrested [1:38:48] in their state. [1:38:49] That's what you did. [1:38:50] You are responsible for the murder of this little girl, Lake and Riley. [1:38:55] And the Department of Justice should prosecute you for her murder. [1:39:01] Objection. [1:39:02] Objection. [1:39:03] I don't care how much you object. [1:39:04] Objection. [1:39:05] And if you support it too, you're responsible for her murder. [1:39:08] All right. [1:39:09] I yield to you, Mr. Chairman. [1:39:10] On a point of order. [1:39:11] On a point of order. [1:39:12] On a point of order. [1:39:13] On a point of order. [1:39:14] On a point of order. [1:39:15] On a point of order. [1:39:16] Mr. Chairman, these witnesses have been here for over four hours. [1:39:17] They've all voluntarily have been engaging with our members with respect. [1:39:22] They've all treated our members with respect. [1:39:24] Lake and Riley is dead forever. [1:39:26] Our rules of decorum. [1:39:27] Forever. [1:39:28] They can sit there all day. [1:39:30] Reclaiming my time. [1:39:31] Hold on. [1:39:32] No, wait. [1:39:33] State your point. [1:39:34] I'm trying to. [1:39:35] State your point. [1:39:36] No, no. [1:39:37] It's a point of inquiry, not a debate. [1:39:38] You've had your time. [1:39:39] Our rules, if you would let me speak, our rules of decorum dictate that our witnesses [1:39:45] should be treated with respect. [1:39:46] And I ask you to enforce decorum and remind committee members to treat our witnesses with [1:39:52] respect. [1:39:53] Our members are treating the witnesses with respect. [1:39:56] This is not a courtroom. [1:39:58] We engage with the witnesses, and I think everybody's acting within the realm. [1:40:03] We haven't cried and screamed when you all are criticizing the current president, even [1:40:08] that's in the rules. [1:40:09] It's not criticizing. [1:40:10] All right. [1:40:11] And how they look. [1:40:12] All right. [1:40:13] Mr. Chairman. [1:40:14] If you win the chairmanship, if you all flip the house, you win the chairmanship, then [1:40:18] you can do what Ms. Crockett says she's going to do and try to impeach Trump again or whatever [1:40:24] you all. [1:40:25] Mr. Chairman, is there any chance you would yield me 30 seconds to just respond that we are [1:40:29] heartbroken what happened to her family? [1:40:31] Lake and Riley should be alive today. [1:40:33] And I'm so sorry for what happened to her. [1:40:35] I truly am what happened. [1:40:36] But this has nothing to do with our civil enforcement of the laws. [1:40:40] We are always cooperating with criminal investigations, always have, always will. [1:40:44] So misstating our policies is not serving the purpose of making sure we have meaningful [1:40:49] policies that will actually move the dime. [1:40:51] Why aren't we working together to come up with meaningful immigration forms, secure our [1:40:56] borders? [1:40:57] Do vetting at the border. [1:40:58] We're going to go back. [1:40:59] We're going to go back. [1:41:00] Okay. [1:41:01] Governor, with all due respect, there was no, the policy of the previous administration [1:41:09] was an open border. [1:41:10] It was an open border. [1:41:11] You all supported that. [1:41:12] Now you're saying we need. [1:41:13] Point of order. [1:41:14] Who's time is it? [1:41:15] No, I mean, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, I will recognize you because I like you. [1:41:19] Thank you. [1:41:20] Thank you. [1:41:21] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. [1:41:23] I appreciate that. [1:41:24] Here's the, the border has, was open and you all said nothing, right? [1:41:30] Now you said we had to pass legislation. [1:41:32] We didn't have to pass legislation. [1:41:33] Donald Trump secured the border on the first day. [1:41:36] Now there's no question you all have been obstructing and criticizing and failing to work [1:41:44] with this administration in trying to apprehend the criminal illegals. [1:41:47] That's what this hearing is about. [1:41:48] It's not about theater. [1:41:50] It's about trying to get a consensus on working with this administration to deport the criminal [1:41:57] illegals. [1:41:58] We do it every day of the week, Mr. Chairman. [1:42:00] Not defend all the people who are over here illegally, to deport the criminal illegals. [1:42:05] We do it every day of the week. [1:42:07] I'm going to let Ms. Ocasio-Cortez state her point and then we're going to go to Ro Khanna. [1:42:12] Oh, we can, we can continue. [1:42:13] I was just curious whose time it was, but we can proceed. [1:42:15] Thank you. [1:42:16] Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. [1:42:18] Okay. [1:42:19] I'd like to seek unanimous consent to enter into the record. [1:42:22] This tweet just happened. [1:42:24] Stunning. [1:42:25] Senator Alex Padilla from California was just forcibly removed from the news conference. [1:42:30] Being held by DHS. [1:42:31] Without objections ordered. [1:42:32] You just have to state the title. [1:42:34] Go ahead. [1:42:35] This is the title. [1:42:36] Mr. Lynch. [1:42:37] All right. [1:42:38] Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. [1:42:41] This is from MSN. [1:42:43] MSN. [1:42:44] Unquestionably in violation. [1:42:46] Judge says U.S. government didn't follow court orders on deportation. [1:42:48] Without objection to order. [1:42:50] The next one is from Rolling Stone. [1:42:53] Trump has now deported multiple U.S. citizens, children with cancer. [1:42:58] Without objection to order. [1:43:00] This is New York Times, L.A. deployments of the military to cost $134 million. [1:43:06] Without objection to order. [1:43:07] In the last three days. [1:43:08] And lastly, Secretary Hegseth will not commit to obeying the court's order on Marines. [1:43:17] What he does is Mr. Jordan from Ohio. [1:43:20] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:43:21] Governor Hochul, third paragraph, second sentence in your written testimony. [1:43:24] You said New York State cooperates with U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement in criminal cases. [1:43:29] Governor, who's Jesus Romero Hernandez? [1:43:33] Thank you. [1:43:36] I want to reaffirm that we do cooperate in cases where. [1:43:39] That wasn't a question. [1:43:40] I just read your statement. [1:43:41] I can read your statement. [1:43:42] Who is Jesus Romero Hernandez? [1:43:44] I don't have the details on every single person in a state of 20 million people. [1:43:48] I understand. [1:43:49] But this guy is a citizen of Mexico. [1:43:51] Deported seven times. [1:43:52] Came to your state. [1:43:53] Assaulted one of your residents with a machete. [1:43:55] Choked a police officer. [1:43:56] Then, when he was in custody, assaulted a corrections officer. [1:43:59] ICE finds out this guy is in your state's custody. [1:44:03] And they send you a detainer. [1:44:04] You're familiar with a detainer, right? [1:44:06] Yes, I am. [1:44:07] Notice of action. [1:44:08] Immigration Detainer to Tompkins County Jail from Syracuse Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [1:44:16] Section one, they check a couple boxes. [1:44:18] The first one they check is a final order of removal against the alien has taken place. [1:44:23] That means a court has said this guy needs to go. [1:44:26] This machete-wielding, cop-choking, corrections officer-assaulting guy needs to go. [1:44:32] Then they also check another box and they say biometric confirmation of who this individual is, this alien's identity. [1:44:38] So they got the right guy and a court has said he needs to go. [1:44:41] Any idea what Tompkins County Jail decided to do with that detainer order? [1:44:47] I will tell you this. [1:44:49] The state of New- [1:44:50] No, no, no. [1:44:51] It's a specific question. [1:44:52] I'm telling you. [1:44:53] What did Tompkins County do? [1:44:55] Those, the descriptions you have put forth are absolutely chilling and disturbing and reprehensible to all of us. [1:45:01] Of course they are. [1:45:02] My job is to protect the people of New York. [1:45:04] Which is why I'm asking the question. [1:45:05] What did Tompkins County do? [1:45:07] What I have responsibility for are state courts, state police. [1:45:09] I will tell you since you're not going to answer. [1:45:10] We cannot and will not hold Mr. Hernandez. [1:45:14] We can't keep the machete guy who had choked the police officer and assaulted the corrections officer. [1:45:19] We can't keep him. [1:45:20] In fact, we have the back and forth from Tompkins County and ICE on January 28th of this year. [1:45:27] 8.56 PM. [1:45:29] Tompkins County tells ICE, we're not going to hold this guy. [1:45:32] 7 minutes later, ICE responds back. [1:45:35] We will be there to take custody this evening. [1:45:38] 24 minutes later, Thompson County reiterates. [1:45:43] We're not going to have him. [1:45:44] We're not going to turn him over. [1:45:46] 10.45. [1:45:47] ICE arrives at the jail. [1:45:50] 1 hour and 18 minutes later, and guess what? [1:45:52] Mr. Hernandez is not there. [1:45:55] They couldn't wait 1 hour and 18 minutes for a guy who assaulted one of your residents with a machete, choked a police officer, [1:46:02] and then went in custody, assaulted corrections officers. [1:46:05] That is sanctuary policy in a nutshell, and that is what your state supports, and so do these other governors. [1:46:11] That is what is so wrong, why the American people hate this concept. [1:46:14] You're conflating what the state of New York does as I control state police and prisons. [1:46:19] We have turned over 1,300 people. [1:46:22] You disagree with it? [1:46:23] We turn over 1,300 people. [1:46:25] Did the sheriff make the wrong call? [1:46:26] Those are local policies that we would not have done in the state of New York. [1:46:30] State of New York, that is a local decision. [1:46:32] So you're saying the sheriff's wrong? [1:46:33] I would say this. [1:46:34] If it happened in a state prison, we have already turned over 1,300 people. [1:46:37] In fact, I want to say this. [1:46:38] Sheriff in Tompkins County, a Democrat or a Republican. [1:46:39] Governor. [1:46:40] I want to say this. [1:46:41] There have been times. [1:46:42] Excuse me. [1:46:43] Is sheriff in Tompkins County a Democrat or a Republican? [1:46:44] Excuse me. [1:46:45] Excuse me. [1:46:46] There have been times. [1:46:47] I ask the questions. [1:46:48] You give the answers. [1:46:49] To see a Democrat or a Republican. [1:46:50] Do you know? [1:46:51] I'm asking for this moment to explain that I'm sometimes waiting for ICE to come pick up people. [1:46:57] I'm asking, is he a Democrat or a Republican, and do you agree with the actions he took? [1:46:59] I believe he's a Democrat. [1:47:00] Do you agree with the actions he took? [1:47:01] How about that question? [1:47:02] They are in conflict with what the state of New York would do. [1:47:05] Well, maybe they're scared. [1:47:07] By the way, he is a Democrat, Democrat sheriff. [1:47:09] Maybe the county guys are a little scared because you said this. [1:47:12] I'm quoting from, it looks like the New York Times. [1:47:15] We all know you can trust them. [1:47:17] This is just, this is, this is last month, May 25th. [1:47:20] You said, we have some counties that are renegade counties and work with ICE. [1:47:25] Maybe they're nervous of being called a renegade county by their governor. [1:47:28] So the Democrat sheriff says, we're not going to keep the machete wielding, cop choking, [1:47:33] corrections officer assaulting guy. [1:47:35] We're not going to keep him here for you to get here. [1:47:37] We can't even wait an hour and 18 minutes. [1:47:39] Oh, you know what else was interesting in this case? [1:47:41] You know what else was interesting? [1:47:43] There was actually an arrest warrant from United States District Court, [1:47:47] Northern District of New York, signed by Judge Wiley-Dank's magistrate from Syracuse. [1:47:54] There was an arrest warrant and they still couldn't keep him. [1:47:56] The state of New York cooperates. [1:47:58] We cooperate in removal of individuals who've served time. [1:48:01] We responded to detention. [1:48:03] You're, you're confusing. [1:48:05] And maybe there's a lesson in civics here that's necessary. [1:48:07] Okay, so would you say on the record right here, I got 12 seconds. [1:48:09] Will you say on the record, was Thompson, Tompkins County wrong in the actions they took on January 25th, 2025, [1:48:17] when they wouldn't hold the guy for one hour and 18 minutes? [1:48:19] Was Tompkins County wrong? [1:48:20] Those are not the policies that we would have in the state of New York. [1:48:22] No, no. [1:48:23] Those are not the policies we would have in a- [1:48:24] Were they wrong? [1:48:25] Because I've already said- [1:48:26] Should they have turned that guy over to ICE? [1:48:27] It's a simple question, Governor. [1:48:28] That was a horrible situation. [1:48:30] The person should not have been out there. [1:48:32] And I'm- [1:48:33] It's a horrible situation, but it's a yes or no question. [1:48:35] It is a response that this is a locality. [1:48:38] Do you agree or disagree? [1:48:39] In the state of New York- [1:48:40] Agree or disagree. [1:48:41] The person should have been held. [1:48:42] Yes or no. [1:48:43] The person should have been held. [1:48:44] And in the state of New York, we would have turned him over. [1:48:45] That is in conflict with what we would do as a state- [1:48:47] I appreciate the- [1:48:48] With respect to prison. [1:48:49] And I want to know why ICE won't come and pick up the individuals who have served time in our state. [1:48:54] I have cases where they have not even shown up. [1:48:56] Governor, a court order and a detainer for a guy who did the things Mr. Hernandez did, [1:49:01] and Tompkins County can't hold him an hour and 18 minutes, and you won't say that's wrong? [1:49:05] I have said we cooperate when there's a criminal case where someone is committed a crime, we turn them over. [1:49:10] This is sanctuary policy. [1:49:11] We turn them over. [1:49:12] This is sanctuary policy in a nutshell. [1:49:13] You won't even condemn something that anyone with common sense knows is ridiculous. [1:49:17] You're mischaracterizing- [1:49:18] I'm sorry, I had the facts here. [1:49:19] Oh, can I do one other thing, Mr. Chairman? [1:49:21] Now he's been rearrested, and guess what? [1:49:24] This guy who's now been rearrested, there is imminent danger that this inmate will do entry to himself and to others, [1:49:30] and presents a safety- [1:49:32] a threat to safety, security, and good order of the facility, so he's not permitted to leave his cell. [1:49:37] So this guy's not even allowed out of his cell, but they let him out on the street a few months ago. [1:49:42] That's how ridiculous this is. [1:49:43] When he does leave his cell, let me go back to his country under our orders- [1:49:46] Chairman Thompson's fired. [1:49:47] Chairman Thompson's fired. [1:49:48] Chairman Thompson's fired. [1:49:49] Chairman Thompson's fired. [1:49:50] Chairman Thompson's fired. [1:49:51] Thank you. [1:49:53] Mr. Chairman, I've got two unanimous consent requests that I hope would not count against my time. [1:49:58] Thank you. [1:49:59] I have a great weekend, so. [1:50:00] Thanks for listening. [1:50:01] Thanks for losing, gentlemen. [1:50:03] I've also got one. [1:50:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman for listening to the recording today. [1:50:05] Please don't fit us on the police. [1:50:06] Thanks for watching. [1:50:08] Thanks for watching. [1:50:09] I'll be right back.