Stopping Fraudulent Payments, Fraud Prevention, Condemning Fraud, Secure America

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today the rules committee is convening to consider four separate measures, S two, H R eighty-three, twelve, hr eighty four sixty four and hres thirteen thirty five before we turn to the reconciliation measure i'll offer a few thoughts on the three measures from the oversight committee fraud continues to corrode federal programs and siphon away the tax dollars of hard-working americans the american people are right rightfully incensed whenever fraud in these programs is They're in sense that things have gotten to the point where deference for their tax dollars is virtually non-existent. We have a mandate to root out fraud and disembowel it. And the fact of the matter is that fraud is not a partisan issue. Fraud can affect anyone and everyone, and when it's allowed to grow by leaps and bounds, the consequences compound. A recent report from GAO found that a across fifteen federal agencies last fiscal year, a hundred and eighty-six billion dollars worth of improper payments were made across sixty-four separate programs. And over the span of more than twenty years, improper payments across the federal government have totaled roughly three trillion dollars. And let's be crystal clear here. This is an issue that's persisted across different majorities and different presidents. We've made significant progress as Congress in addressing fraud and with the three additional measures we're considering today we can make even more headway. I look forward to that forthcoming testimony. Now let's turn to S two, the Secure America Act. This targeted and narrowed reconciliation bill is the vehicle through which we will fully fund immigration and customs enforcement, as well as customs and border pr- protection through twenty twenty nine. Our Democrat colleagues have shown us and the American people time and again over the past year that they simply cannot help but scratch the itch that is voting against law enforcement and voting against protecting our homeland. I cannot say we're surprised by their behavior. old habits really do die hard, I suppose. But what's particularly intriguing is how Democrats have developed this tap-dance-like rhetorical routine when it comes to articulating their position on border security and immigration enforcement. They avoid talking about the millions of illegal aliens that their own policies allowed in the country, but they're quick to admonish the Trump administration apprehending and deporting sadly illegal aliens. They shy away when confronted about criminal illegal aliens who've committed unspeakable violent acts against Americans but are quick to hoot and holler about the men and women of ICE and CBP for stopping criminality in its tracks. What a pu- peculiar position to take. Seriously, how odd. I'll make a prediction that I know will come true in the rules committee Our Democrat colleagues will dust off their prime-time performative ancestry team that we've seen time and again like a return of a show on television. They'll recite headline after headline of their preferred media outlets, rant about the president, bring up topics that have no relation whatsoever to the issue at hand, and air their grievances one after another. as if they're holding a group therapy session. But Republicans will remain focused on the task at hand, like we always are, and will focus on the facts. Speaking of facts, since their creation in two thousand and three, neither ICE nor CBP has ever gone an entire fiscal year without congressional funding through the regular appropriations process. The only reason we're here right now with this reconciliation is because of Democrats' reckless extremism in completely defunding our ability to secure our nation's border. That's a clear-cut fact. The takeaway from all of this is that Republicans are the ones who stand for the men and women who are working night and day to protect the homeland. That support is reflected in the reconciliation bill that's before us, and will be reflected even further when it is brought to the floor of the House for full consideration. Our Democrat colleagues are welcome to join us in a warm, welcoming spirit of bipartisanship by supporting this reconciliation bill and the men and women who are working to keep the nation safe. With that, I now yield to Ms. Scanlon for any comments she wishes to make.

Thank you. Uh, Madam Chairwoman, and I just want to note that I'm filling in for Mister McGovern while he is returning from services for our former member Barney Frank who passed away, uh former member from Massachusetts. So he he should be here soon. I'm sure he doesn't wanna miss the fun. Um, I'm also sure that like me, he'd rather be part of group therapy than a member of a cult. So, um, with that, uh, today House Republicans are bringing forward another partisan reconciliation bill to provide an additional seventy billion dollars to ice and customs and border patrol on top of the roughly hundred and forty billion dollars they handed to those agencies last year so i think it's a little hard to say that uh border security has been defunded when they actually have more funding than most armies around the world um republicans are preparing to spend nearly a quarter trillion dollars between last year's bill and this year's bill in borrowed money. So not to lower costs for American families, not to build housing, not to strengthen schools, not to make health care more affordable, but to expand a massive deportation and detention apparatus that has already spiraled out of control. And they want the American taxpayer to foot that bill. The same Republicans who spent years pretending to care about fiscal responsibility have suddenly decided that deficits don't matter when it comes to tax breaks for billionaires and blank checks for ICE. They've added trillions to the debt between last year's bill and this year's bill with tax giveaways to the wealthy in the big ugly bill, and they want to spend billions more in this bill to fund masked and armed agents making raids in American cities, sprawling detention camps, to house people who are not criminals, mass surveillance of citizens who oppose Trump's dangerous and divisive agenda, and unconstitutional abuses against Americans and immigrants alike. What makes this especially outrageous is that Republicans are pursuing this legislation through the partisan reconciliation process. They have to do it that way because they have refused every opportunity to negotiate a responsible bipartisan funding package through the normal appropriations process. Democrats proposed reforms and oversight measures. We demanded accountability after the killings of Rene Good and Alex Prettig. We proposed guardrails to prevent the abuses Americans have witnessed over the last year and a half, abuses involving those masked and armed agents on our streets, fear and intimidation tactics. warrantless searches of people's homes, and the detention of lawful residents and even citizens. Republicans have rejected every effort to require ICE and CBP to meet the same public safety and civil rights standards as every other responsible law enforcement agency in this country and that tells you everything you need to know. This isn't about responsibly funding border security. It's about giving this administration more money and more power with fewer constraints and less oversight. An administration that has already demonstrated that it can't be trusted with the extraordinary powers it already pr- possesses. An administration that with this legislation, Republicans are rewarding with yet another blank check. And where exactly is all this money going to? That's a serious question because by all accounts, ICE and CBP are already struggling to spend the billions of dollars. that they were given last year by our Republican colleagues. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe these agencies urgently need another seventy billion. Americans have every reason to be skeptical, especially given the corruption surrounding this administration's spending and con- contracting practices. As Republicans lecture the country about waste, fraud and abuse, including with the package of so-called anti-fraud bills that they're putting forward today, This administration has turned DHS's contracting into an open-air patronage system. Companies that spent years por- pouring money into Republican campaigns and Trump-aligned political operations stand poised to make billions more from this legislation. Politically connected contractors and allies of former Secretary Noem have already cashed in. How many well-connected consultants and contractors are going to get rich off this bill? While all this corruption and fraud happens, in broad daylight, Republicans continue to ignore the actual problems facing the American people. Gas prices are pushing five dollars a gallon because of this administration's reckless and unconstitutional war in Iran. Families are struggling with high housing costs, unaffordable health insurance plans, and record in uh record inflation. The war that's already cost over a hundred billion dollars has no clear end in sight, particularly after hostilities this weekend, Americans were promised no foreign wars, lower costs and economic stability. Instead, we've got another foreign forever war, more inflation and another massive bill for taxpayers to finance. Imagine what seventy billion dollars could do if Republicans were interested in solving real problems, instead of manufacturing fear. Congress could make a historic investment in affordable housing, strengthen our public schools, expand community health centers, fund legal services, lower prescription drug costs, or even begin reducing the deficit, which is the justification that our Republican colleagues give every time they cut vital services for Americans, like the two hundred million dollars they cut from WIC last week. But that's not where their priorities lie. This legislation makes clear once again that today's Republican Party is perfectly comfortable using the power of the federal government to punish vulnerable people, to enrich politically connected allies, and to consolidate e- executive power, all the while claiming there's somehow never enough money to help ordinary Americans. Americans are fed up. They deserve better than this, and I urge my colleagues to reject these measures, and I yield back.

Thank you very much. Miss Gillen. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our panel, Chairman Arrington and Representative Escobar from the House Budget Committee, Chairman Garbarino and Representative Walkinshaw from the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Raskin from the house committee on the judiciary. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Arrington, I welcome your testimony.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just a sucker for listening to something that isn't true and having to make comments about it. It's just who I am, and I'm gonna do it this morning, and I'm gonna veer off a little bit from the reconciliation, because I heard Miss Scanlon talk about tax cuts for the rich washington post gave democrats four pinocchios on that tired rhetoric that is just completely and utterly false the new filings were uh uh uh analyzed recently and seventy percent of the new tax cuts went to low and middle class families so if she's talking about the uh people that make uh an earning on tips as rich people or people making a living off of their overtime they got a tax break or the doubled standard deduction which, Miss Chairman, ninety-two percent of all Americans take, I don't think those folks are rich people. But they're gonna keep recycling this rhetoric, but it won't land because people have more money in their pockets. By the way, wages have gone up three thousand dollars. And that is about as much as it went down during the Biden administration. It's just policies have consequences. So, Uh, and we, and yes, yes, um, Miss Ranking Member Scanlon, uh, this is an all-Republican exercise, as was making sure we didn't put a twenty-two percent tax hike on working families. That's how much the tax hike would have been had we allowed the tax cuts to expire. You all weren't willing to do it. We were. And Americans are better off, the economy is growing, business investment's up, and again, more refunds less withholdings more money in people's pockets now i look i can talk about this issue madam chair uh in the context of we had a deal with democrats democrats reneged on funding the government they had the longest shutdown ever second to only the the uh the shutdown prior to this over a a a a covid era fraud ridden uh uh uh tax uh or or subsidy expansion Um, so this was seventy-six days that the American people had to have a homeland security, uh, service and apparatus go dark. We didn't have our, uh, Coast Guardsmen to defend our ports against terrorist attacks. We we couldn't enforce immigration laws and protect our border from drugs and people being trafficked into this country. We didn't have CISA agents being able to man their post so that our critical infrastructure wasn't hacked. We can say that this is, uh, republicans attempt to make good um on our good faith negotiation the first time and to make sure that our brave law enforcement have the tools they need to do the job that joe biden and the democrats when they had total control of this town absolutely didn't do they just not just they abdicated the first and most important job of the federal government which is to provide for the common defense they didn't secure our border they didn't enforce our laws and we had record deluge of drugs, people, crime, gangs, people on the terrorist watch list, people from countries of interest, record, record, record, record, record, record, and it was destroying, it was destroying the fabric of this country and it was putting at great risk every neighborhood and every community and every city and state in this nation. And this president, Donald J. Trump, was elected every swing state, popular, and electoral vote to clean up this mess. And what's happened is you have rogue cities and states that refuse to work with our - with our law enforcement to actually enforce the law. They would rather break the law and harbor people who have broken the law to come to this country, rather than work to identify the most hardened criminals so that we can deport them and we can get back to rule of law, regular order, peace, tranquility, the things the American people expect us to do up here for them, of all parties across the board. So, yes, you're right, it is an all-Republican exercise because I c- I can't find a Democrat that would stave off a twenty-two percent tax hike and I can't find one that's willing to enforce the law as it relates to immigration secure the border, and actually take the criminal elements that have come into this country um, like the people who came into this country illegally by the millions and actually uh uh rid our great country of those threats. I can't find a, if we could, we wouldn't be here. And all you have to do is listen to all the litany of statements that have been made. Governor Tim Walz uh says ICE officers are a threat to the public. Modern day Gestapo. Governor Pritzker says that that ICE is turning the country into Nazi Germany. And I mean there are the reign of terror, John Hickenlooper. Chuck Schumer said ICE doesn't belong in our neighborhoods. I mean, think about the incendiary rhetoric. Think about the seeds that have been sown of obstruction and resistance that have made it nearly impossible to do the job of cleaning up the city, the streets of our cities because of what's happened over the last, you know, four years under the Biden administration and Democrat control. So it's, it's been, it's been impossible. And, and, and Um, we're working better together because we're talking and coordinating, and that's what Texas does, that's what Florida and other states, we never had any of the problems of Minnesota. But I think it's reckless and irresponsible and it's i- and it's insulting to have these labels attached to our brave men and women who risk their lives to enforce the laws. We're gonna give them the resources they need and, and listen, what we're also gonna do is do it for three years so that Democrats can't use them as leverage homeland security as leverage and the american people security as leverage in a shutdown again and i i i rest my case and i yield back uh what what may be remaining of my time thanks for your indulgence madam chair

huh thank you mr. errington representative eskebar you're recognized

thank you madam chair and madam ranking member let's bring some facts back into this room um i wanna begin by saying it's a privilege for the House Budget and Appropriations Committee. I serve on the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee which is where we should be talking about uh appropriations. But unfortunately Congress is helping the President take away our obligation and duty to fund the government through this reconciliation bill. I want to remind everyone here and everyone watching that the one big beautiful bill provided a hundred and forty billion dollars billion with a B for CBP and ICE. It increased our deficit by four point seven trillion, trillion with a T. And the Department of Homeland Security still has one hundred billion dollars left, a hundred billion dollars. There is money in the bank, and Republicans want the American taxpayer to give them seventy billion dollars more

Ooh.

in order to blow up the deficit even further. I wanna talk about also what this money, what the one big beautiful bill, money, has unleashed in our country. And I wanna begin by by saying I live on the US-Mexico border. I am uh, one of a handful of members of Congress that actually live on the border. No one wants a safe, secure border more than those of us who live there, those of us who raised our families there, those of us who go home every weekend. But what the reconciliation dollars are doing is not creating a safer or more secure country. In fact, This money has unleashed abuses that US citizens are offended by. If you look at President Trump's polling numbers, you will see that American voters, American people do not like the way this administration is unleashing those dollars against our very own fellow citizens. In fact, as a result of this money, A hundred and seventy US citizens were arrested, and two were killed on the streets of Minneapolis. Sixty people have died in ICE custody. This is a historic, shocking number, and that includes a homicide that occurred inside the detention facility in my district at Camp East Montana. This money has unleashed abuses and violations of law and violations of the constitution, and there have been attempts after attempts after attempts to limit our oversight of this money. I wanna tell you about Camp East Montana in my district, which is funded with the one big beautiful bill dollars that Republicans approved. That facility can hold up to five thousand human beings. It is a one point two four billion dollar facility. I I've I've had conversations with my constituents about what that one point two four billion dollars could do to help them improve their lives. Instead it's going into a tent city that is run by a private contractor who has prioritized profits over meeting federal standards. And that's not all. This money has also been by DHS to purchase three warehouses warehouses that were created to hold pecans from our agricultural industry purchased by DHS in my district for a hundred and twenty-two million dollars ICE is now going to spend probably hundreds of million millions of dollars to retrofit these warehouses so that they can hold eighty-five hundred immigrants. It is, that should shock the conscience of everyone. There's not even the water capacity or waste water capacity to hold that many people. But this money has emboldened and empowered ICE to do this.

Mm.

And I will say, instead of, it's, it is shocking that instead of using the hundred billion dollars still available. This seventy billion dollars that's being added will really further empower ICE to do more of the same. And, and we all do support law enforcement. I take great offense to Republicans claiming we do not support law enforcement. This is why Democrats uniformly are opposed to the one point eight billion dollar slush fund that Donald Trump wants to use to pay off insurrectionists who beat cops on January sixth. So please do not lecture us about not supporting law enforcement. And if we wanna talk waste, fraud and abuse, let's not forget that Christy Noem used reconciliation money for a luxury jet. Was it one or was it two? I can't remember. Two, three. Three luxury jets. Also, her bizarre commercial that cost more than most Hollywood films cost. There's some waste, fraud and abuse there for sure. And Republicans want seventy billion dollars more? Budgets certainly are a statement of our values. And if we, I, I can imagine what Democrats would do with the, with the seventy billion dollars that Republicans are asking for. So what what could that seventy billion dollars actually buy? It could build more than two hundred and eighty thousand new affordable housing units in America. It could cover almost nine million people on Medicaid for a full year. It could feed nearly ten million families on SNAP for a full year. It could fix more than seventy thousand miles of highway. It could provide mental health care. to more than nine million veterans for a full year. But instead of doing that, at a moment when American families are hurting because of Trump's tariffs, because of Trump's illegal war in Iran, families are seeing increased grocery prices, increased gasoline prices, increased utility prices, and health care and nutrition programs that have been cut This is what Republicans are doing. I strongly oppose this bill and I encourage everyone here to do the same. I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Um, Chairman Garbarino, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and ranking member, I and the members of the Rules Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you all this morning, this afternoon, whenever this is. Uh, funding the government is a constitutional imperative. We have a responsibility to fund departments and agencies through regular order and provide the certainty they need to carry out their missions. Since becoming Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have witnessed the consequences of repeated DHS shutdowns. This Congress, the department has endured two major lapses in funding, including a record seventy-six day shutdown that left critical components operating under significant pressure. The Democrats' accomplishment by shutting down DHS was creating uncertainty and hardship for the dedicated workforce. forcing thousands of employees to worry about how they would pay for their mortgage, cover their rent, or provide for their families. They remain deeply concerned about the precedent Democrats set throughout the funding process. The House and Senate previously reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to finalize all fiscal year twenty twenty-six appropriations bills, including funding for DHS. The House acted expeditiously to pass these bills, marking historic progress to the appropriations process and a return to regular order. Yet after ha- helping negotiate the deal, Senate Democrats walked away from the agreement and insisted on withholding funding from US Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Excluding funding for these two critical law enforcement components is reckless and unprecedented. By singling out specific law enforcement agencies, the Democrats chose to undermine Congress's Congress's fundamental duty to safeguard our nation and support the men and women charged with enforcing our laws. What makes the Democrats' decision even more even more troubling is that the original bipartisan agreement included substantial funding that imposed new transparency and accountability requirements for CBP and ICE including de-escalation training, the procurement and deployment of body cameras, and increased funding for DHS's Office of Inspector General. While Democrats went back on the deal they agreed to, House Republicans stayed true to their word and included these provisions in the final appropriations bill that funded the majority of the department. Providing annual funding to reconciliation is not the preferred path. Republicans could not sit by and let the rest of the department go unfunded, while Democrats refused to negotiate. Congress has the responsibility to provide the funding and resources necessary to secure the homeland. If we fail to provide DHS with the tools it needs to secure our borders and uphold the rule of law we are failing in one of our most fundamental responsibilities to the American people. This is why the Secure America Act is critical to delivering much needed resources to CBP and ICE. First, and most importantly, this bill provides over sixty-four billion dollars to hire, train, equip and retain Border Patrol agents, ice enforcement and removal operations officers, homeland security investigations agents, and mission support staff, ensuring front-line personnel have the resources to carry out their mission effectively and safely. Secondly, this bill enhances the ability of our agents and officers to achieve their mission by supplementing their work with technology. This section provides an additional investment of nearly three point five billion, to modernize and enhance border security technologies, surveillance systems, and inspection equipment. These investments will strengthen the US government's ability to detect and disrupt human smuggling operations, interdict fentanyl and other dangerous illicit narcotics, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations engaged in human trafficking, weapon smuggling, and illicit finance. As threats to the homeland continue to evolve, Congress cannot afford inaction. The cycle of abandoning regular order and

Thank you, Mr. Garbarino. Mr. Walkinshaw, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I I stand with my democratic colleagues in strong opposition to this bill. It's another attempt by extreme MAGA Republicans to give billions of dollars to an unaccountable trump administration that has proven itself violent, lawless and unbound by the constitution. In last year's big ugly bill, republicans ripped food from the tables of working families and stripped healthcare from millions of americans. And uh chairman errington didn't mention that in that bill the top one percent got a fifty thousand dollar tax cut. They are living large with fifty thousand extra dollars in their bank accounts, whereas the bottom twenty percent hardworking folks in Virginia and Georgia have seven percent less today because you smacked them in the face with a massive tariff that drove up their costs. Why did they pass that big ugly bill? To give those massive tax cuts to the wealthy and to give DHS billions of dollars with no guardrails. We've seen what DHS has done with the money so far. As my colleague mentioned, they used some of the money to buy top-of-the-line luxury private jet for the secretary. Just ask Secretary Mullen, who confirmed that in testimony before our committee last week. He rides the Gulfstream G seven hundred home to Oklahoma regularly, the most expensive Gulfstream you can buy. If Americans are upset about high gas prices, maybe not being able to afford to take a vacation this summer, at least they can rest easy knowing that Secretary Mullen is soaring high above them enjoying the leather seats on Gulfstream G seven hundred. But DHS has done far worse with those dollars. Masked agents have broken into homes without warrants, locked up violent, nonviolent protesters, deported sick children with cancer, killed two American citizens who were lawfully exercising their First and Second Amendment rights. Instead of going after the worst of the worst, nearly three out of four people booked into ICE custody have no criminal convictions whatsoever. And now, even though a hundred billion dollars is still available floating around, Republicans want more, another seventy billion dollar DHS slush fund. This bill, just like the last one, doesn't prohibit agents from wearing masks, doesn't require officers to get judicial warrants to smash down the doors of people's homes, it doesn't prohibit racial profiling or surveillance databases of lawful protesters, doesn't stop raids at schools, churches, or hospitals. It opposes no accountability measures. Instead, it gives President Trump a blank check to execute more of his out-of-control, unaccountable crackdowns for the rest of his term. In the midst of an affordability crisis, the last thing Americans want is to superfund the agencies that have been terrorizing communities across the country. Yet, at a moment, when Americans can't afford gas, groceries, or rent. Republicans also tried to give the President a billion dollars for his golden ballroom, so he can host parties for his billionaire buddies. Golf streams and ballrooms, that's what you get from this President and this Congress. Trump administration's also trying to give one point eight billion dollars to January sixth insurrectionists and other cronies. This bill doesn't prevent the Justice Department from creating a slush fund to pay violent rioters who assaulted police officers and desecrated this very building five years ago. It's outrageous. Americans are stretching paychecks that cannot stretch any further. They're skipping prescriptions, putting off car repairs, wondering how they're gonna put food on the table for their kids, and with all those problems that they are facing. This bill provides not one penny, not one cent, to make life more affordable. But we shouldn't be surprised. President Trump told us he does not think, quote, " even a little bit" about Americans' financial situation. Maybe that's why this bill doesn't help, even a little bit, Americans to make ends meet. The president's more interested in getting billions for his ballroom, a slush fund for his cop-beating buddies, and Gulfstream jets for his cabinet. The American people, though, know the difference

thank you mister walkinshaw chairman jordan you're recognized

thank you madam chair step one let in ten million illegal migrants that's what they did during the biden administration step two make it difficult to remove those illegal migrants by creating sanctuary jurisdictions where even when they commit another crime you can't remove them step three don't pay the guys who do the removing Don't pay ICE. That's the deal the Democrats are pushing. That's their systematic plan. Let in ten million illegal migrants, which is what happened during Joe Biden's administration. Create sanctuary jurisdictions, which again, understand what that is. That's where local political class tells local law enforcement not to work with federal law enforcement when you enforce federal law. That's what they've done. And by the way, thirty-one and a half percent of the country lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction. Eighteen cities, eleven states, ten counties. and, or excuse me, three counties and the District of Columbia, all sanctuary jurisdictions. Where again, the political class says, don't work with federal law enforcement when you got an illegal migrant who commits another crime who's has a detainer filed with them at the local detention center. Don't work with them. Step three, don't pay the guys. Don't fund ICE. And actually it's gotten worse. There's a fourth step. There's a fourth step. We had a hearing on it just a few weeks ago on the Judiciary Committee. Local prosecutors are now saying we're not gonna prosecute or at least not to the same degree we would prosecute American citizens, we're not gonna prosecute someone because we're gonna take into account their deportation immigration status. Right over here in Fairfax County, Virginia, Mister Descano testified, that's his policy, testified in front of our committee. So that's the Democrats' four-part plan. And they're so committed to that plan, they shut down the government for forty-two days in the fall, seventy some days this spring, where they said, we're not gonna fund homeland security, we're not gonna fund TSA, FEMA, US Coast Guard. And now they're saying we're never gonna fund ICE. In fact, the mayor of the largest city, Mister Mamdani, yesterday said we should abolish ICE. They're all saying that. That's the Democrats' plan. So we had to do this route, reconciliation, to fund the guys who enforced the law. Democrats four part plan not to enforce immigration law. We have to use reconciliation to fund ICE, to enforce the law that Congress passed. So this bill does a couple things. It funds ICE and CBP personnel personnel salaries. It funds ICE transportation and facilities resources. The bill funds additional two eighty-seven G agreements. Now these are the good agreements where local law enforcement says we will work with federal law enforcement. And the bill also funds ICE attorneys to represent the U S government, so aliens have their due process in immigration court. What it doesn't do is implement the crazy plan of the left, the four-part plan of the Democrats. I would urge a yes vote and hopefully we get this thing passed. And actually, fund the good people who are doing the work that the law requires. I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Jordan. Mister Raskin, you're recognized.

Chairman Fox, thank you very much, and Representative Scanlon, distinguished members of the committee. Uh, last month the president stated the major theme of his administration when he said, "I don't think about Americans' financial situation, not even a little bit." Hey, no kidding. Gas is now over four dollars and twenty-five cents a gallon. it's up by thirty eight percent, young people can't afford to get their own apartments, millions of people can't afford health care and have to choose between paying for utilities and groceries. But our president, who has made more than five billion dollars since his inauguration, on crypto scams, pardon payoffs and the nonstop flow of foreign government emoluments, cannot be bothered to pay any attention to his own campaign promise to lower prices, starting on day one. He now calls affordability a Democrat hoax. But he's focused like a laser beam on getting a billion dollars for his golden ballroom, gilding the Oval Office, and building his golden arc to Trump. He's got all the time to in the world to work on his finances and those of his family and their businesses and to focus on the financial security of his street-fighting foot soldiers Yesterday at the White House, contrary to Todd Blanch's assurance, that the anti-weaponization fund is dead in the face of massive public opposition, the president said he still wants to take one point eight billion dollars from taxpayer funds to cut million dollar checks for the convicted criminals and cop beaters who stormed the capital on january sixth, twenty twenty one and other lucky political operators in the mega hemisphere. Working through todd blanch trump has given himself his family and his businesses an amazing and totally unprecedented super pardon that puts all of them above and out of the reach of the law, guaranteeing they will never, ever, forever, in all caps, be investigated, audited, sued, or prosecuted by any agency of the federal government for any violation of federal law, not just for tax fraud by the IRS, but for any civil, criminal, or administrative violation, whether insider trading, bribery, embezzlement, human trafficking, securities violations, antitrust, conspiracies, what have you. Any violation of any law, whether presently known or unknown, in the words of our Attorney General. Well, today's bill does absolutely nothing to nullify this outrageous super pardon or to address our affordability crisis for the peasants, who the President ignores, the rest of us, or to shut down the one point eight billion dollar slush fund for all of the king's men and soldiers. Today's bill would give seventy billion dollars more to the Department of Homeland Security an agency that already rivals the Department of Justice in corruption, incompetence and authoritarianism. Last year, MAGA gave DHS a hundred and forty billion dollars to deport the worst of the worst. Since then, DHS purchased not one but two private jets for the secretary's use, including one with a bedroom, a full deluxe serving bar, four flat screen TV_s. It's passed out hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts to mega donors, political insiders, and friends for everything from a lavish two hundred and twenty million dollar TV ad campaign for Pam Bondi who they even had to get rid of to ridiculously overpriced industrial warehouses for holding immigrants like livestock, under ghastly conditions. Deporting the worst of the worst means that DHS, DHS agents are arresting kindergartners, daycare teachers and parents, and dragging old men into the street in their underwear. Federal officials are abducting children from their beds in the middle of the night, and using them as bait in order to arrest their frantic parents. They detained a fifty-six year old nearly blind Rohingya legal refugee and without notifying his family or attorney, dropped him in a parking lot several miles away from his home in the freezing cold of a buffalo winter and he was found dead five days later. DHS is rounding up workers with lawful status, working at small businesses as roofers, plumbers, farm hands, landscapers and nurses. Agents are arresting refugees who went through stringent vetting and targeting immigrants who are following the law and showing up at their court hearings, ICE check-ins and green card interviews. The whole world has watched in horror as DHS agents attack US citizens, arrest them on false charges, and shot dead American citizens, Rene Good, Alex Prettie and Ruben Ray Martinez without any rational justification at all. Today the majority, whose leader has already added ten trillion dollars to the national debt, wants to pour seventy billion dollars more into ICE and CBP on top of the hundred and forty billion they voted to give it last summer by slashing funds for Medicaid, children's health insurance and rural hospitals. The Department of Homeland Security has a payroll today of a quarter of a million employees a budget larger than that of a hundred and fifty countries. It has over eighty thousand sworn law enforcement officers, more than the number of sworn police officers in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Washington DC, Las Vegas and Dallas. combined. And yet despite this massive cash infusion and a vast army of immigration officers, turning our communities upside down, ICE and CBP are poised to receive another staggering jackpot payment today. To give these rogue agencies another seventy billion dollars now, when they still have a hundred billion dollars in the bank, from last year, would implicate all of us in the escalating corruption and shameful actions of this department. If you're going to go ahead and vote on this. You must pass several amendments, one of them to block permanently the one point eight billion dollar taxpayer funded mega slush fund two, instead establish the January sixth Law Enforcement Heroes compensation fund to provide compensation to the law enforcement officers who actually defended the US Capitol and the Congress of the United States, and the Vice President from a rampaging mob chanting " hang Mike Pence". We must pass. an amendment to make sure that no money goes to anybody who is convicted of assaulting a police officer, and no money for any J sixer who was convicted, pardoned, and then subsequently convicted of another crime. And there are ninety-seven of them, including one guy who was pardoned one day by Donald Trump and several weeks later went and sexually molested a twelve-year-old boy and a twelve-year-old girl. None of those people should get any money and it's up to this committee to make sure. Thank you, Madam Chair.

thank you ranking member raskin miss fischbach you're recognized

thank you madam chair and um you know i i appreciate the efforts um that you've taken to get it to get this bill to this far we thought we you know had it done um we thought we were able to uh fund both of those uh or of i guess it's three um those departments and make sure that our public safety was was uh well funded and taken care of and and you know this this bill really is about and i know that the democrats can say whatever they want but what it's about is public safety what it's about is keeping americans safe and um and and i'm concerned because well i shouldn't be concerned i'm not concerned because i'm appreciate that the reforms and oversight that the democrats talk about is not in here because all that is that's about uh simply it's about the anti-law enforcement agenda that they have and trying to prevent the law enforcement from doing the job that they have been uh hired to do. And uh so I appreciate that uh that this bill doesn't have those and that we are gonna go ahead and pass this. Um and but there is a lot to enhance public safety here and Chairman Garbarino um doesn't the bill include a hundred and eight point five million dollars to hire and equip and train? more investigators to fight child explo exploitation.

Thank you for the question, Miss uh Miss. Yes, um, specifically under title one, uh, this bill does, specifically says a hundred and eight uh point five million of this amount shall be used to hire, pay, and equip additional child expectation investigators and forensic analysts at analyst analysts at the Victim Identification Laboratory of Child Expectation investigation unit.

So this, so it truly is about public safety. It's about preventing child exploitation. And so if you vote against this bill, that's a vote for not enforcing child exploitation laws.

Yeah, a vote a vote against this bill does means you're voting against funding these additional officers that fight against child exploitation.

And thank you very much. And and I I just appreciate, I think that we need to take a look and say this is, this is truly an important piece of legislation because we have got to get these guys funded so they can continue to keep American citizens safe. And um and so I thank you for bringing it forward, I thank you for your answer, and I yield back.

Thank you. Miss Galin, you're recognized.

Thank you. Um, we're hearing a lot of false narratives floating around today, starting with the idea that the big ugly bill passed last year has been a win for Americans, while the wealthiest in our country have received huge permanent tax breaks that's not true for everyone and many of the tax breaks that everyday americans receive have been eaten up by tariff taxes and by a higher gas costs if you look at the spread that uh bill has actually increased income inequality and will continue to do so for decades in addition to adding trillions to the national debt so let's let's not make up uh the idea that everybody is benefiting from last year's um, tax atrocity. Um, the second idea that I've heard from probably every one of our Republican colleagues is that Democrats reneged on a deal to fund the Department of Hum- Homeland Security. And there had been negotiations about the things that are being mentioned here, like better funding for human trafficking, uh, defense, and improving, um, uh, various facilities along the border, there was broad-based agreement on that. But what happened? In January of this year, masked and armed agents of ICE and CBP shot and killed American citizens in Minneapolis. And if that's not a reason to stop and say what is going wrong in those agencies, and don't we need to do something differently? Well then, clearly we're on different pages here. So it wasn't just a whim that Democrats said, " Wait a minute, We gotta put the pump the brakes on this, and in fact, Democrats agreed to fund the rest of DHS while we attempted to get some guardrails put on agencies that are out of control and are being used for un-American, unconstitutional, and unlawful processes. And the third myth that we're hearing today is that these billions and billions of dollars that were funneled in in last year's bill to homeland security the idea that they're being used to form to fund border security and public safety just is not being borne out by the facts. In fact, we're seeing that that money has been used millions and millions of dollars has been used to purchase warehouses, not capable of housing people, um, in huge wastes of money that are now under investigation. We've heard about, um, record profits, an eight hundred percent increase in profits by pri- private prison companies like Gio because they are now housing people who are overwhelmingly not criminal. Seventy, eighty percent of the people they are housing are not criminals, and they are doing so in ways that are incredibly inhumane, without adequate medical care, without adequate food, without access to counsel, access to their families. I mean, there has been in the past bipartisan agreement in this country that it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to house people who are not, to imprison people who are not a threat to the American public. And that is exactly what is being done with these DHS dollars and these detention camps. Um, we've also of course learned of the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent on an ad campaign by DHS. Uh, what was it, thirty-four hundred dollars for hair and makeup. for the then secretary, twenty thousand dollars to rent a horse. Um, more money was spent on that ad campaign than was cut last last week from WIC. Two hundred million dollars cut from WIC, they spent two hundred and thirty five thousand dollars on filming Christy Noem riding around on a damn horse. So, again, it shows you where the values are here. Um, I guess first I'd like to go to Representative Escobar. Um, we're hearing a lot about fraud, waste, and abuse here. Um, can you talk to us a little bit about the money that, um, ICE and CBP have and what is happening with that money, particularly in your district? I know in my district we've had a lot of concerns. We've had a constituent die in, uh, ICE custody because he wasn't given appropriate medical treatment.

Thank you, Miss Ganlin. Uh, I'll be glad to detail for this committee. what my team and I have seen inside these facilities in my district in El Paso. And again, just as a reminder, CBP and I s- currently have one hundred billion dollars unspent, a hundred billion dollars, just a reminder to everyone. But the one big beautiful bill, so-called, um, funded Camp East Montana, a one point two four billion dollar tent city And the American taxpayer is allegedly paying for medical care that detainees are not getting, uh, cleaning services that are not happening, laundry services that are not happening, but the private corporations running these facilities are still getting their money. I wanna give you an example of the horrific cases we've seen. I'll give you a couple of quick ones. Um, first, There was a gentleman who entered the country legally, mind you, because the vast majority of the folks I've met I've met have no criminal record and entered the country legally. Um, I sat and I spoke with him and he told me about an injury he sustained in Minneapolis, when he was arrested by ICE in in Minneapolis. He was arrested so violently by the ICE agents that they broke his arm. He was then flown to El Paso, to Camp East Montana, and he was wearing a brace when I met him. He had been in the facility for a few weeks. I asked him how his arm was doing. He took off his brace. I could literally see the break in his forearm. His arm, his broken arm had never been set. He was given aspirin to deal with the pain. clearly after weeks of that kind of break, um, his bones were fusing in a way that he would very likely need surgery. There are other examples. One of our colleagues, uh, Angie Craig, flew to El Paso to visit one of her constituents who was arrested, detained and arrested the week she was supposed to have surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. I s- flew her to El Paso, to Camp East, Montana, held her for four months, refused to l- let her get her surgery. She was finally released on humanitarian parole. It took Senate intervention. She may not ever be able to have children because she was prevented from getting the medical care she needed. I have met dozens and dozens and dozens of detainees who've told me they are, they have to clean their own what are called pods. Now, some people might rejoice in that, but the company is getting paid to clean these pods. And they're forcing detainees to do it instead. When I have visited, I've seen clothes hanging up inside their pods on their beds. because they don't have access to laundry services. Yet Congress is paying a private company to do this. So there is not just there are just not horrific Mm-hmm. abuses happening inside these facilities, but there's massive fraud. Meanwhile, the private corporations who won these contracts, by the way, with no bid contracts, so there was no competitive bidding that took place, the company that that uh was hired to run Camp East Montana had never run immigration detention ever before but were supposed to care for five thousand people per day. There was a homicide inside of Camp East Montana. And I still have yet to get information on what the consequences were for the private detention employee who committed the homicide. But the medical examiner in El Paso ruled it a homicide, and guess what? After that, they no longer use the services of the medical examiner. So this money is being used to perpetrate fraud, perpetrate waste, and for inhumanitarian purposes, and many of the folks inside those facilities should not be held in detention at all.

Thank you. Um, Mr. Raskin, I have a couple questions for you. I mean, uh, the first is one of the major objections Democrats have had to this bill moving forward is the need to have some guardrails and and those have been proposed by Democrats guardrails including stronger oversight transparency requirements officer identification other accountability measures. Did any of those measures get included in this bill?

N- none of them.

And I understand you have some amendments we may consider later regarding

Yes.

those, OK.

I mean, the- there're there're no guardrails, there are no reforms, there was no democratic input. Um, so it's just a steamroller operation and it's a shame because they're acting as if they're completely indifferent to these savage offenses against civil liberties and civil rights I mean maybe you don't care about what's being done to the undocumented people, But at least you should care about what's being done to US citizens in the name of uh ICE and Homeland Security.

Mm-hmm.

I mean, you know, Renee Goode was an American citizen, a mother of three. Alex Prede w- works at the VA as a nurse at the VA. Um, you know, we've got American citizens who are beat, who are getting beaten up

Mm-hmm.

by officers who think they're totally beyond the reach of the law.

Mm-hmm.

And um, you know, as Ms. Escobar says, it's a money-making operation. There are totally unqualified businesses making million hundreds of millions of dollars off of this and they've got a hundred billion and they just want us to shovel them another seventy billion dollars where are the fiscal hawks

billions

on the republican side i mean and uh you know are my friends only libertarians and skeptical of the government when a democrat is president like can't we have some universal skepticism of what's taking place with our money and our name

well i think that is one of the things that that is so offensive about this I mean as you said civil rights human rights are being violated on a daily basis by these rogue agents and and by the lack of care and the lack of oversight so that is offensive enough but um it's being done with US taxpayer dollars and and as you said the party of fiscal responsibility appears to have uh blinked on this one

I I have a a constituent a US citizen who spent twenty five days in ice custody a US citizen twenty five days before she could get out.

Well, and as Representative Escobar pointed out, many of these people are present, have been present in this in our country legally. They didn't arrive illegally. They came under a visa. They came as refugees. My constituent, who died in ICE custody, came here legally. So, I mean, this idea that these are all criminals who are it's it's rejected by their own data, and it it's Crazy. I wanted to raise with you, Mister Raskin, one other issue. Um, we have seen uh that Republicans in the Senate actually objected to moving this bill forward for a couple weeks, once the President tried to impose his one point eight billion dollar slush fund, you know, basically using taxpayer dollars instead of monopoly money, and claiming that it came from his fraudulent case against his own government. Um, can you Talk about that and and what the issue is with not having restrictions in this bill to prevent that abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Well, we need to act. Everybody seems to agree that this political slush fund is a fraud on the taxpayers, it's a violation of our power to appropriate money, that belongs to Congress, not to the President, not to the Attorney General, nor do they decide cases and controversies that takes place in court. So that's an attempt to set up an operation totally outside of our constitutional order and all of it was based on uh an actual uh violation that took place by an independent third party contractor, Charles Littlejohn, who leaked thousands of people's tax returns, including Donald Trump's. Now, uh the president had said he was gonna release his tax returns, he promised he would do it like the other presidents, he didn't and he had a right not to, so he didn't, this guy uh violated his privacy by releasing uh his tax returns but it happened to lots of other people and those people sued the government and the government and the courts found and the department of justice strenuously advocated that you can't sue the government for damages if it's a third party business that leaked your returns and they won on that uh todd blanchett didn't even argue that he he made up a completely

mmm

different position for donald trump and then settled the case in a completely collusive settlement under this collusive litigation so if we wanna change the law to say if a third party contractor leaks your information you can get fifty thousand dollars or a hundred thousand you know i'm very willing to look at that but to give just donald trump one guy one point seven seven six billion and i spell out the numbers because of course it's organized around seventeen seventy six which just goes to show it's not related to any particular case they just made that number up it happens to come to

mmm

just over a million dollars for each insurrectionist proud boy and oath keeper they it's all you know playing who wants to be a mega millionaire today and leaving over uh you know another hundred fifty million dollars for donald trump to give away but the whole thing is a scandal and everybody recognizes it then let's put it to bed right now because todd lynch went over there and said it's dead don't worry about it it's ok the next day donald trump said he still wanted to resurrect it let's exercise our powers as the article one branch of government to say that's not how we're doing business we're not gonna violate ten different parts of the constitution to let them set up this political slush fund for their political foot soldiers

mmm yeah i mean there is so much self dealing here it it's and so much misdirection it's the president sued his own government for something that happened when he was president the first time and when the current attorney acting attorney general whatever um, was a private lawyer.

And he was and he was way outside of the statute of limitations. The IRS lawyers said, not only is it completely wrong on the merits and we can beat them, but he came in several months late when they knew about it years ago.

Right. Right. Well, it was a case that was about to be thrown out of court when they entered into this fake settlement to set up this slush fund. So

Right. And two different courts have now enjoined it and frozen it. But we need to exercise some responsibility. We've got the power over appropriations. and we should just say no money can go for this purpose.

Mm-hmm.

And also, um, they should not be allowed to proceed with this super pardon that's never existed before in American history, where the president and his family and their businesses can't be prosecuted for any crimes they've committed up until now. I mean, are we a democracy or are we a monarchy? That's the issue here.

I think it's a kleptocracy is what's been uh been proposed to that.

And most monarchies are, yes.

Well, and you're talking about the fact that part of this settlement of this fake case, this case that was meritless and was filed after the statute of limitations had run. Now the president's former personal lawyer has said that the president and his friends and families can't be um prosecuted for tax violations in the future.

No, not just tax violations, any violations,

OK.

criminal or civil, for any crimes or civil infractions that may have been committed up until this point. And they put forever in all block caps.

OK, so that's something we should also work on. Mister Walkinshaw, Um, one of the concerns that we've repeatedly erased is that enormous amounts of money are being funneled through agencies that now have a record of corrupt contracting practices. Um, can you discuss some of those recent controversies involving DHS contracts and politically connected contractors?

Well, we know that under Secretary Noem, she established a new and novel policy, never seen before in the federal government, that every contract over a hundred thousand dollars had to be approved by her slash her office. Uh, now that policy in and of itself creates the conditions for massive corruption because it circumvents the entire procurement system that is designed painstakingly to prevent corruption. And based on ample reporting one of the individuals a key individual maybe the key individual involved in approving those contracts hundred thousand dollars or more was corey lewandowski

the secretary's boyfriend

and uh i i don't know uh perhaps

ok

in something i've never seen before and you know i represent a lot of government contractors in northern virginia you had not one not two but three contractors come forward to the media and say that Corey Lewandowski shook us down. If we wanted a DHS contract, it was made very clear to us we would have to line his pockets. Now, I would hope there would be bipartisan interest in investigating that.

Mm-hmm.

I haven't seen it from this Congress.

Mm-hmm. Well, we we heard earlier that a lot of these contracts are being issued with no bid no bid, not competitive contracts. I think to the contrary, we've actually seen a fair amount of bidding, and that bidding has taken the form of donations to the presidents, political funds by GEO, by CoreCivic, by the folks who are benefiting by billions and billions of dollars from the slush fund that our Republican colleagues set up last summer and the one they're trying to ram through again today. Um, I have a lot more questions, especially since this is the only hearing that is going to happen in Congress on on this massive bill um but i know that the chairwoman is getting antsy so i will yield back

thank you very much mr. roy you're recognized

thank you chairwoman um i would i would just note on the on the pardon situation we could have a pretty long conversation about president biden's numerous pardons um including prospective pardons uh which were rather uh historic and breaking with precedent but that's not what this is all about um look uh there are number of things we're gonna discuss here today and look and i've got a number of concerns some of them fall on party lines some of them don't um i share the concern that any american citizen ever citizen ever be targeted uh at at without having due process or having uh what what they're afforded and we need uh aggressive oversight in ensuring that that american citizens are protected I a hundred percent agree with that. But what I would note is why we're here. Uh, Chairman Jordan laid that out fairly aggressively here at the beginning of of this hearing. Um, we are here because of the choices made by the previous administration to allow wide open borders to undermine the safety and security of the American people. So, we look at the data and we see what we're dealing with at the moment. But the best of my understanding and what I've seen uh we've got um order of magnitude what i have seen is of the uh arrests that have been carried out and the uh deportations the numbers i have seen have seen seventy percent or so or about four hundred thousand uh of the of the uh people removed uh have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges just in the united states so you had five hundred and ninety-five thousand illegal immigrants between january twentieth and According to Department of Homeland Security. So that's the data through last December. I don't have the data right now for the last six months. My point of bringing that up is when you go through and you look at the examples, and you look at uh Mena Awad, a criminal legal alien from Egypt, ice detainer lodged against him as of January thirtieth for charges on raping a sixteen year old girl while she is, was asleep in her bed in Louisville, Kentucky. So we'll just like pause for a second. It's like that one incident. Like, if I'm the father of that sixteen year old girl in Kentucky, I don't give two flying craps about whatever is being said here other than, I want that to stop in my country. That's the reason we're here. And the reason that we cannot have, I think, the degree of full oversight through the appropriations process, which we should have, this is a failure, to be clear. It is a failure that we're having to go through this way to fund the basic operations of our government. It is a failure. But it is a failure built upon the fact that we cannot have remotely sane conversations with our colleagues about appropriating the dollars necessary for ice and border patrol. Like, we funded it through the House. We had it ready to go. There are conversations that I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were willing and able to want to have about the operations of ICE and Border Patrol, body cameras, things that you can do to ensure that we've got protections, conversations about warrants and entering homes that were being had, a hundred percent things we ought to be having. I totally agree with. But we're basically told, no, we're not going to appropriate ICE and Border Patrol. And we talk about, well, we've got this slush fund from last year. Well, first of all, most of that, whether you love that funding or not, talks about hiring additional, additional support to try to deal with the unwinding of the damage of the previous four years. That's my understanding. Happy to be corrected, but that's, that's the text of what I read in it. It is predominantly, if not entirely, about added. Additional. The language is littered through the through the uh one big beautiful bill's funding therefore it is very difficult if not impossible not impossible you can use that sum gotta move it around to use that money to do the core functions of ice and border patrol that's my understanding so here we are and we need to make sure that maina awad is prosecuted and removed so that this little sixteen year old girl in kentucky raped in her bed asleep that there's justice and that this individual's removed. Or Enrique Vasquez, a violent criminal, illegal alien from Mexico has an ice detainer lodged against him, charged with literal lascivious acts with a minor in rape after he allegedly coerced a fourteen year old autistic girl into a back alley where he raped, and sodomized her on New Year's Eve in California. There are dozens of these examples, dozens. A little girl's skull being fractured. um, a, uh, you know, filming child porn in Stafford, Virginia, obscene material reminder, I mean, I could, I could just go list after list after list of people who were released into the United States, into our communities, into our streets, and that's what we're dealing with. That's the concern. Uh, uh, Chairman, my good friend from Texas, Chairman Errington, can you s- stipulate whether you agree with me or not that this is not the ideal way to figure out how to fund our preeminent law enforcement border entities, ISA and border patrol. Do you agree with me on that?

I agree. Not ideal, but the only practical way to fund the important law enforcement and immigration.

Why?

Because we can't get bipartisan support for regular order and regular funding of the federal government. We had a deal, it was reneged on, and and homeland went dark. It went dark. and i've got my the homeland went dark and uh the only choice we had after seventy six days of no protection at our ports no protection at our borders critical infrastructure was to move unilaterally this way not ideal but the only tool that we have to do this uh

to to the chairman of homeland and judiciary this gentleman here am i correct about the existing funds through the reconciliation one last summer being restricted in terms of or at least mostly restricted in terms of how they can go to function for the normal carrying on of the funding of existing personnel and the operations of ice and border patrol is that why we're being asked to find funding and why we're back let's just i'm gonna state i'll use my words backdooring into this so using reconciliation to fund ice and border patrol

yes um absolutely uh the the department's limited what it can use the old the you know uh one big beautiful bill of money for this what we are doing today is practically appropriations to reconciliation in the next three years German

yeah in simple terms reconciliation one uh that that first bill was to address the chaos created by the fact you let in ten million illegal migrants in an administration this bill is to fund the day-to-day operations of ice and cvp that's that's the distinction here you wanna fund the day-to-day operations of the the the lawyers the the the uh the salaries of the personnel That's what this bill's about. The first one was like dealing with the chaos created by the Biden administration.

And the reason I think that is important is of course we should be having the conversations necessary and appropriations to deal with it. And I hope we will and are through the DHS funding for this year. I would love nothing more for us to come up with figuring out DHS appropriations by September thirtieth that is holistic to all of the Department of Homeland Security. But here, knowing what's going on, this is dollars being set aside specifically for those operations. Um, I would I would ask just one more thing to make sure I'm clear about this, because he a concern I have as a fiscal conservative, right, is in fact oversight of this money and how we can conduct it. And I just assume I just I I assume the gentleman here and we'd of course, it need uh Jamie and oversight committee and others, we are going to conduct the necessary hearings on this funding as well as last year's sub- funding to make sure it's being used appropriately I assume the gentlemen all agree with that.

Absolutely, yeah.

So, I, one point that I think merits um articulation for people that are frustrated that I represent. Everything we're talking about here is trying to achieve status quo ante. At best. Every, this whole debate, trying to come up with money to fund operations we're supposed to fund through appropriations, We're we're doing that through reconciliation in order to undo damage of people released into our communities and frankly still only partially do so. So, literally this whole thing is trying to prevent future crimes and harms, unwind part but not all of the damage in order to fund an entity we should have funded six months ago. Literally, that's all this folder, all we're doing is is achieving. That's it. The question then becomes, when there is a future Biden-Maiorca administration, twenty nine, thirty three, thirty seven, sometime. Have we done anything yet to date besides potentially the Sue Act and the Lake and Raleigh Act and those improvements to codify and stop a future abuse of asylum, parole, catch or release, or otherwise? Have we have we yet done that? Have we codified hr two from the previous congress we've not done that in this congress yet correct

yeah

i just i stipulate for that for the record this for the average viewer out there just to know everything we're doing is running into a buzzsaw of resistance failing to achieve sixty votes in the senate to pass the save america act failing to be able to achieve any kind of permanence or codification of any reforms that would allow us to actually believe that our border would be secure from a future administration that abused our country

well as the gentleman knows it's not for us uh for lack of trying to do hr two we've been wanting to bring that up for frankly i've been wanting to bring it up for a year since we passed the one big beautiful bill i've been wanting to do it but i i i share uh part of this concern i think more specifically if we don't pass the sanctuary

yes

uh jurisdiction shutdown act of twenty twenty six this this is this is real important that we do this i'm all for it but remember a third of the country is in a jurisdiction where they won't work with ice in fact in those jurisdictions that's where you find them doxing tracking harassing spitting on them swearing at them assaulting them that's what's going on so if we don't fix that i think i think that's the next step let's get this passed and let's pass this sanctuary jurisdiction shutdown and stop the craziness that's going on in almost a third of the country

I know, I know the, the, the chair wants us to move on and I will. I would just say I could sit here for another twenty minutes reading the names. I would, well I'm still shy of the, my friend the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee, but I, look, I, I'll, I'll, res- wrap up here in the next twenty seconds. I could sit here for another twenty minutes, I'm scrolling, reading the names of individuals that ICE has apprehended to remove who violently assaulted Americans here at home in the last several years or have been found in the last year by ICE. That this is what the American people want us to address. So to the extent that we have concerns about an executive branch not being checked by Congress, I do, I do. We must be able to have the oversight to ensure that when you have ICE empowered to go do this which i want them to do i wanna be clear on the record i want them to go get these bad actors and remove them from our streets then we've gotta have an ability to work to be able to have that oversight and when my colleagues other side of the aisle just shut down and say no funding well then this is what we're gonna get we're gonna use reconciliation to get the funding so that ice and border patrol can do its job cause it's basically the effective equivalent of triage Like, we have to act.

Mm.

We literally have to act because I'm not gonna sit and wait and watch for another person I represent or another Texan or another little girl to get raped in her bed because we decided that we were gonna allow people to get dumped into our country and then we were gonna be told we can't fund the very people necessary to try to stop 'em, and then go through all of the microscopic looking at what they're doing when they're trying to get the bad actors. Yes, we need to make sure that we're having oversight. But we gotta have support from the other side of the aisle to even go down that road. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.

Thank you very much, uh, Madam Chairman. Um, and following up on, uh, uh, Representative Chip Roy's questioning about sexual abuse, uh, Chairman Garbarino Do you think it is appropriate, do you think it is appropriate to release back into the public somebody who has sexually abused a twelve year old?

No.

Do you know that President Trump, President Trump pardoned a January sixth insurrectionist, and do you know what he did, do you know his name?

No.

Are you aware of the case?

No.

You are not aware of the case of the fact that ninety seven ninety seven of the January six insurrectionists have gone on to commit additional crimes. Have you have you did did you ever criticize the pardoning of the January six insurrectionists?

I'm prepared to talk about uh this bill that's in front of us today.

Oh, you didn't seem to object to You you're not willing to talk about the issues around sexual abuse that happens when you release into the public people who have been committed to violent offenses of the people who walk by you. And you walk by them every day. Have you ever asked any of the Capitol Police if they were there and talked to them about their their experience on January sixth?

as i said i'm here to talk about the bill in front of us today and i believe you're referring to mister roy's question about ice enforcement of uh uh removal operations against uh the laborers uh well if you wanna yes if you'd like to ask me i can

well let me ask you about the bill today then let me ask you about the bill today so um right now uh do you know how many uh women are pregnant and detained by ice pregnant women

i do not

don't you think that it would be appropriate to make sure that before you come in and ask for seventy-two billion dollars in additional funding for an agency that already has a hundred billion dollars, to say, " What are they engaged in now?" I need to tell you, I can walk through the fact that there are fourteen cases of sexual abuse at the ICE facilities right now. Do you think that's appropriate?

I think it's appropriate to know the difference between what the hundred million can be used on and what we're asking the seventy-two million to be used on today. The seventy-two million is being, that's being requested today is for normal uh ICE and CBP operations, uh which should be done, which the appropriate thing to do is do it through uh appropriations, but unfortunately uh we could not get Democrats on board to fund these HSI officers or CBP officers our ice officers do you know what hsi investigators do they they go after and investigate child exploitation crimes they they investigate human rights violation crimes

well

they they investigate narcotic smuggling they investigate human trafficking human smuggling transnational gangs they're not funded right now because

right now there is an is there is adequate funding at these agencies to be able to use for these operations and i think that

that is not the that is not true

representative walter shell wants to uh address that

yeah i was glad earlier that mrs. fishback brought up the uh funding for child exploitation i appreciate all my colleagues interest in that, I guess my question for you is were you interested in twenty twenty five when the trump administration diverted resources and investigators from sex trafficking, child exploitation transnational crime into removal So they took the investigators, the trained experts, who were tracking down the bad guys, who were trying to hurt our kids, and they sent them to Home Depot parking lots to harass roofers and landscapers. And you don't have to take my word for it. HSI agents said that supervisors have waved agents off new cases so they have more time to make immigration enforcement arrests. Direct quote, " No drug cases, no human trafficking, no child exploitation." John Tobin, retired, as the Assistant Director countering transnational organized crime. And he said diverting those HSI agents away from major crimes makes it, quote, " easier for exploiters and traffickers to get away with their crimes." He described the Trump administration's policy as impunity for traffickers. And now we hear today celebration of a hundred million dollars for child exploitation, a hundred million dollars in a seventy billion dollar bill. zero point one four percent for child exploitation and i read the bill carefully there's nothing in this bill to prevent the trump administration from continuing to divert investigators away from child exploitation investigations

and i wanna get to a lot of other questions so quickly uh did you wanna address uh uh because you have seen this you uh representative uh escobar you have seen the mistreatment of women in ICE detention facilities. And we can read some of the stories. Pregnant women shackled.

Yeah.

Pregnant women miscarrying. Almost bleeding to death.

Yeah.

And there is nothing in this bill that addresses guardrails so this doesn't continue to happen. So I have a lot of questions to get to, but I know you want to add something to that.

Thank you so much, Miss Ledger Fernandez. You hit the nail on the head. There are zero guardrails in this bill, and that is, I believe, by design and why Republicans have chosen to use reconciliation instead of the normal appropriations process. Through reconciliation, there are very strict rules, one of them, the bird rule, so it's very difficult to add in policy on the Senate side. My colleagues, my Republican colleagues here in the House know that. And so, the, this essentially creates a slush fund for Donald Trump to continue to reward his cronies with no-bid government contracts, and also to create conditions that should be unacceptable to all of us. Uh, I, I want to also address something Mister Roy said about how this somehow corrects what happened during the Biden years. A number of the individuals I have met in immigration detention have been here for decades. And to again point out something I mentioned in my testimony, many of the folks I have met entered the country legally. So when Donald Trump says we're gonna go after all of the the bad people, that's not true. That's never been true. This is about funding Stephen Miller's mass deportation fantasy, rewarding, uh, contractors who essentially are engaged in a pay-to-play situation. And with regard to the other claim that the existing hundred billion dollars cannot be used to pay for CBP operations and personnel, he's been doing that. The president has been using that money, and in fact, even during his first administration, he violated the Impoundment Control Act over and over and over again. So did Doge violated that act over and over and over again. But they're they want to tell us that he can't use a hundred billion dollars in the DHS fund to pay for operations? I don't believe that for a minute.

So, Chairman, uh, uh, Gabarito, uh, I want to go back to there was the pointing out about the slush fund uh and the fact that these j sixers uh and mister johnson who i'm surprised you don't know about him uh actually said that he would he tried to silence his victims by saying i will pay you some money from the from the money i'm gonna get from the slush fund so i'm gonna ask you again because in this bill we have the ability to amend it to say there none of this money may be used to pay off the January sixth insurrectionists. So will you support that amendment?

I'm here to talk about getting this bill passed and funding HSI, funding CBP, and funding the officers that are going. And you wanna talk about child exploitation, which you brought up before. There are still three hundred thousand

so so if i asked you a question hsi hsi is doing that right now i asked you a question about whether you would support the j six whether you would support you asked you asked about it and they asked you asked about an amendment that has nothing to do with this bill telling trump he cannot use these funds

i'm talking

to pay off j sixers and you are so just to get clear you are saying i'm not gonna answer

no

that question because you clearly don't think the american people or your voters deserve to know where you stand on the slush fund my voters my voters know where i stand

i i took a statement my local it's a no i don't need to i don't need to say because it doesn't matter with this bill

where is it where do you stand on the slush fund

my voters know i said my local paper ran an article about what i said you wanna know what i said you can go look it up i'm talking about the three hundred thousand kids that are missing under joe bryan's decision

we could we could we could amend this bill so it could it can contain here i'm gonna vote it

it's not even in this bill i we need to make sure we protect

but it could be amended i mean that cause that's an issue we have the power to do that we have the power to adopt a a resolution I'm gonna go on, I mean, cuz this is seventy two billion dollars that we wanna go back to is not paid for. This is money that our taxpayers are funding, anybody watching this, and actually people do watch the Rules Committee for some reason, and it's important that they watch because I think it's important that the American people know, Republicans, what are Republicans' priorities? Republicans' priorities are funding an agency that is engaged in this corruption and this cruelty. And and I wanna go to uh uh Chairman E- Errington. Um, you and I share a border, right? And if you went to the ranchers in your district and you asked them, if you could give me what a single word, what is the most important thing that they are concerned about today? Today, one word.

It's hard to say it in one word, but they're concerned about the future of their country more than they are their next crop. And at the top of that issue is making sure we secure our sovereign border and protect our citizens.

So you're saying that your ranchers care most about this bill, what we're doing today, than they do about anything else. You know what I think they're your your con ranchers are probably very concerned about, one, the cost of diesel, because that's what my ranchers are about. We share a border.

Yeah.

And I know that your ranchers are also concerned about the screw room. If we start talking about priorities, Like these are priorities that our world America is concerned about, is how expensive it is to fill up their truck because diesel is through the roof, and that is an issue that you voted no on because you did not support our War Powers resolution, which would have brought down the cost of diesel. And right now, right now, the USDA has screwed up the issue with the screw-up because we fired, we released, we pushed out twenty five percent of the people who would have made sure and tracked and helped us control the infestation of screw-up. And it is terrifying, cuz you have a case in your district that actually came from New Mexico. Do you know you have a case in your district already?

I know we have cases in Texas.

Do you know you have a are you aware of the case you have that's been reported in your district?

I know we have cases in Texas. I know about

you are not aware that there is a reported case of screw worm in

and i promise you that every cowboy and plowboy in your district and mine care more about the safety of their families than than they actually do the screw worm that is a fact

wow ok well just so you know

my my producers and your producers care more

just so you know there has been a reported case in this district there are like there

i'd love to debate

are there are several others there are quarantines going on and this is an issue about priorities because democrats or four in fact we have here one of the proponents of immigration reform and we are we are four and very supportive some of us have different ideas of what it should look like we're supportive of border security we're supportive of using technology we're not supportive of the cruelty and the corruption that is going on and i wanna go back to an issue that was raised earlier about the corruption right uh we had cause i wrote it down here it's so amazing that when we talk about those warehouses, it's like more than fifty percent. In Salt Lake City, uh, I don't know, this is about this bill, m- uh, Mister Gabber, we know. Are you aware of how much more, uh, we are paying for these warehouses than what they've actually been, um, than what they've actually been appraised at? In Salt Lake City, uh, the administration sought a warehouse uh for immigration detention. uh it was assessed at ninety seven million dollars do you know how much uh uh the administration paid for that building

i i'm not aware of the building

a hundred and forty five million dollars in walkerburg new jersey a warehouse was vested at sixty two million dollars do you know how much the administration paid for that building

i'm not aware of the building

a hundred and twenty nine million dollars in georgia they purchased a property valued at twenty six million dollars do you know how much they paid for that one

not aware

a hundred and twenty nine million dollars five times its value so when we are talking about the importance of actually putting in the kinds of controls so we don't see the corruption that leads to three jets being purchased by homeland security that leads to the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars that are not paid for this is this is i mean chip we always talk about we gotta bring the deficit down but this is deficit spending and last week last week republicans cut two hundred million dollars for funding for women infant and children two hundred million dollars for women infant and children mister gabarino do you think it's important that we actually provide funding for women infant and children who might need it cause they're hungry and they need good nutrition

i do do you have any questions about actually

the about the about their bill yeah but the

do you know any of the nine eleven terrorist names i mean you're asking me about whole bunch of names can you name one of the nine eleven terrorists

this so

i mean uh that's why the committee of homeland security was created was because of what happened on nine eleven you're asking about all other names

well no but this is this is precisely related to your bill this is precisely related to your bill cause just

can you name one of the nine i don't think you can because it's very upsetting it's

just with what we have overspent in though uh uh for for these warehouses by ICE, we could have funded the cuts that Republicans made to women, infant, and children funding. Those are the points that we are making. It's about priorities. And and and Republicans are here. Uh, you know, the chairwoman brought us la in last week, 'cause there was an emergency. Right? It was an emergency. Even though there's a hundred billion dollars sitting at these agencies, Uh, but we have other emergencies like the screw-er. Like how expensive diesel is. Like the fact that we're going into a season, uh, of hurricanes and and and all these other things. And the Trump administration is pulling up, is pulling up the science that we need to track this. Those are emergencies. And I'm right now, I mean, I think we're gonna have continued discussion, but uh, I know you wanted to address something, uh, ranking member um uh ranking member raskin uh on this issue if you may

um well i wanted to address many things i i don't know which one uh you had in mind uh you know i'll i'll just say that um you know seventy billion dollars is a lot of money especially when you're sitting on a hundred billion dollars right now the whole country and i'm talking right to left everybody thinks that the slaying of american citizens for exercising their is unacceptable and i just i i i think it's amazing that our colleagues would bring forward a blank check essentially for seventy billion dollars without any strings attached in terms of correcting this misconduct and misbehavior going forward and uh i think we will find that here as with so many parts of this administration it's a money making operation and it's corrupt from head to toe and we're getting looted and ripped off um in the process we can we can secure our border, we can conduct meaningful, reasonable law enforcement operations, we can respect constitutional rights without plundering the government and the taxpayers.

So I had some last questions for Chair Jordan. Chair Jordan, I know that you often talk about the importance of um what used to be republican values but trumpican values don't seem to follow that. But uh do you believe I s- should be arresting United States citizens?

No, they don't.

Do you know how many

They're not supposed to do that at all. Then so that's against law.

Do you do you know how many United States citizens they've arrested and put in

I don't. I don't know that number offhand, but that is not their charge. They're not supposed to do that. That is not allowed under the law.

There was a hundred and seventy United States citizens arrested and put in detention. Now, is there anything in this bill that helps uh train officers better and that demands that there be accountability so that you do not continue to arrest United States citizens?

well there's there's training requirements in the bill for new ice agents when they when they're brought in and my understanding that's actually uh been increased because of the need to hire more agents so that is happening but i don't know what those cause i don't know what those specific requirements are

dude actually the training

um but i know there is there are training requirements

they're in but and you know that the training requirements have gone down by forty percent so now ice agents are not as trained as they used to be for and they are arresting I would wonder if I have a I have a I have an amendment,

I don't think that's accurate. I don't think that's accurate.

mister Jordan uh Chairman Jordan, that would uh provide training so that Native Americans would not get arrested. Uh, you would acknowledge that Native Americans, being the first Americans

I'm for adequate training for ICE. My understanding is what, that they are getting that.

Would you support my amendment?

Um, what I think the focus of this bill is, as I said earlier, when you allow ten million illegal migrants to enter the country in a four year time span, you've created a chaotic situation that's what the first reconciliation bill was designed to do it is working on that situation now we're trying to fund the day-to-day operations of ice and cbp because you guys won't do the normal appropriations process plain and simple

uh did you need some time uh i'd like to yell some time to representative scanlon

um mr boston uh are are you aware of the recording of this thing that like the administration coming in um

are you aware of the reporting about the administration trying to have um immigrants declared legally dead in order to force them out of the country there was a whistleblower report that came out last week i'm just concerned that the funding here could be used for other similar illegal efforts by

no no i'm not

this administration because they're on guard

i i've not seen that one but the the money the treasury there at dhs vast

Mm-hmm.

and, you know, so huge that it's been deployed for all kinds of unlawful purposes, including the the arrest of citizens and the the killing of US citizens and the,

Mm-hmm.

it, you know, the clamp down on freedom of speech.

Mm-hmm. Well, I think, uh, you know, obviously, as every democrat here has has said, we are in favor of border security, we are in favor of law enforcement. The problem is that our colleagues are only interested in throwing billions more dollars at these agencies without being willing, either in this bill or in any other bill, to put restrictions and guardrails around those folks. So, um, I think we're gonna continue to have this problem until they come to the table and do what Americans want them to do, which is to make sure that ICE and CBP have to file this, follow the same civil rights and liberties and common sense policing pro- um, uh, policies as every other uh law enforcement agency in this country and i thank the general lady for the time and i yield back to her

uh thank you very much uh rep uh senate for those questions cause i think it really is uh important to point out how this administration continues to violate the basic civil liberties of citizens

mmm

of residents the idea that they're going into social security those are your social that's your privacy it is outrageous and with that madam chair i yield back

Mr. Don, you're welcome to go.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I will uh not take as long as I'd like to be out of here before the Democrats in California stop counting all the ballots they stuffed into the boxes up there in the last few days. You know, if you don't think they cheat, just look at that. I mean, you know, Florida is in multiple time zones, they get all their ballots counted within a couple of hours, and I I do hope that the court will step in. and uh make sure that california is no longer able to continue to do and commit the fraud that they've been committing in the election jester

there is no evidence of fraud being committed in california

well how many days ago was the election have you all counted the ballot shot out there

it's very different when you have to hand count ballots when you have to verify

mmm

that the ballots are actually being cast legally which is what's happening

yeah well

there is no evidence if you can find some evidence please bring it to us because we would love to see it

let let let me let me just show you every reasonable person thinks the ballot should have already been counted uh but that's ok uh mister raskin do you remember the accusations that you made of a doctor of maine in erwin county georgia

was that when president trump said just find me eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty votes was that the incident i i'm not sure which incident you're referring to

you didn't hear my question

i i just heard your question i

you made a lot of accusations of a doctor in my district a few years ago a doctor i mean um you said that he was engaged in mass hysterectomies and sterilization projects and you remember that

oh oh oh this was uh this was in a detention center correct

it was not no there are no search for procedures done in in the detention center There all of the search procedures were done in the hospital. I just w- I just want you to know, I wanna make sure you know this,

Yeah.

uh, the court found that he had actually performed two hysterectomies. Both were deemed to be medically necessary after peer review, just just for the record.

But I'm I'm glad to hear that. I'm remembering the incident you were talking about where there

Yep.

were allegations that people were being coerced into hysterectomies.

Yes, you all you all just fell hook, line, and sinker. W- what's the what

Well, you just made an allegation that there was fraud in the

What what what

election in California without a single iota of evidence.

well i think most people

most people i know someone else who uses that phrase uh i gonna need something a little more concrete than that

well well in a way you you you uh doctor remain an apology for all the accusations man i just want you know the court found

it send me the stuff i'm very happy i i asked a series of questions

the court found the the court found that there were two histam hysterectomies

i asked a series of questions but

performing y'all just felt hopeless and secure for what a uh

yeah

for what some whistleblower said

well i take the fact seriously and so

first first of all i'm i'm gonna reclaim my time i'm not gonna listen

uh-huh

let's um The reason we're here, the reason we're here, is because the Democrats decided that they wanted to shut down customs and border protection, customs and border protection, which is what has secured our border, and to take away our ability to deport people that were illegal in the country illegally in the country. The bill needs to pass. I look forward to its passage. I look forward to President Trump continuing to keep our border secure. i look forward to us having secure elections in this country and with that madam chair i yield the remainder of my time

thank you very much mr. griffiths you're recognized

no questions

thank you i appreciate our panel members being here and you are excused

thank you madam chair

thank you Without objection, I have um a piece from November tw- thirteen, twenty twenty five called " Operation Dirtbag", ice arrest over a hundred and fifty criminal, illegal aliens, six predators in Florida, crackdown for the record.

madam madam chair i'd like to enter some uh items for the record as well

ma without objection

madam chair i'd like to enter into uh the record ice's detention of pregnant individuals dated october twenty second twenty twenty five which details an excruciating and painful um uh stories uh some of the uh pregnancies the miscarriages the bleeding to death that i referenced earlier

Without objection.

Madam uh Chair, I'd like to enter into the record the article dated June eighth, twenty twenty six, uh, d uh stated in Texas cattle country, ranchers question if USDA can contain flesh eating screw worm and details how ranchers in Texas are very concerned about uh the failure of the Trump

Without objection.

administration to address the screw worm um Madam Chair,

Without objection.

I'd like to enter into the record. Uh, oops. Uh, anyway, uh Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record with regards to the corruption we spoke about earlier, um, uh, dated, uh, uh, June sixth, twenty twenty six, the alligator alligator Alcatraz boondoggle, which sets out the, uh, corruption with regards to the accidental facility in Alcatraz,

Without objection.

which we discussed earlier. Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record the article, uh, um titled " Granting clemency by Trump", scores of January six rioters have accused of new crimes at least ninety-seven of those who were charged in connection with the capital have re-offended in the years since the attack.

Without objection.

Um thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Madam Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record the uh FTA conditional approval of the first drug for prevention and treatment of neural screw screw worm which the which the Trump administration did september thirtieth of twenty twenty five to be on

however you want to

without objection we have any panels

oh madam chair did we did we not do a little bit of action so far oh did we ok Yes, I'd like to enter into the record another article uh uh uh addressing the issue of the parasite uh and it is dated June fifth, twenty twenty six. A horrific parasite is back and Elon Musk's doge could be partly to blame. Uh, this address is not just the fact that we cut twenty five percent of the AFIS but we also cut the or we didn't cut, Republicans and their big beautiful bill and Doge's forcing out uh cut the uh detection uh funding necessary through the Americas and with that uh Madam Chair thank you.

Action. I now welcome our panel, Chairman Komer and Representative Walkinshaw from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Your full statements will be submitted For the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes, we also ask that you address all legislation in your committee's jurisdiction in your five minutes. Chairman Komar, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you, Chairman Fox. We're facing a national emergency of fraud in federal programs that is impacting all Americans. According to the Government Accountability Office, the federal government is estimated to lose between two hundred thirty-three million and five hundred and twenty one billion annually to fraud across all federal programs and operations. That means the average American tax filer spends between one thousand and three thousand dollars annually just online in the pockets of fraudsters and criminals while vulnerable Americans are robbed of the benefits these programs were designed to provide. Investigations conducted by the Oversight Committee and the Minnesota Social Services programs uncovered nine billion dollars that was potentially stolen by fraudsters. Our investigation exposed how senior state officials, including Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, were aware of widespread fraud in federally funded social services programs for years. These officials possessed the legal and procedural authority to stop fraudulent payments, but repeatedly failed to act. And we see that the same lack of care for federal funds in other states as well. Whether it is widespread fraud in California's hospice system, or fraud in Medicaid waiver programs for home personal care services in Ohio or New York, it is clear that fraudsters will continue to work to steal taxpayer funds with without strong oversight measures in place. The Trump administration has taken decisive action to combat fraud, waste, and abuse by establishing the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud. Since March, the task force has uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fraud just in the state of California, including through suspected fraudulent government contracts, child nutrition program, and federal student aid application. House Resolution thirteen fifty-five, sponsored by Representative Pat Fallin, emphasizes that these schemes across the country harm American taxpayers and the vulnerable recipients who these programs were designed to help. This resolution underscores the urgent need for stronger fraud prevention reforms to safeguard taxpayer dollars, particularly by preventing fraud before it occurs and thus ending the unsuccessful pay-in-chase model in federally funded programs. While the Department of Justice's efforts to hold these fraudsters accountable and recover taxpayer dollars are commendable, taxpayers deserve a demand that we put a stop to fraud before it happens. That is why we have also brought two bills before rules committing. The Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act adds critical safeguards to the processing of federal payments to ensure they are made in the right amounts and to the right recipient before an agency awards funds or requests a payment be dispersed. H. R. eighty-four sixty-four addresses the status quo of pay and chase by requiring agencies to conduct fraud prevention and verification activities prior to issuing payment requests. The bill authorizes U. S. Treasury to return payments to agencies that are flagged for elevated fraud risk and specific indicators of fraud for further review and corrective action before a payment is issued. This bill will also help agencies and the American public understand when a legitimate recipient's identity is being stolen and used for fraudulent activities by criminals, which we see happening more and more every day. The Fraud Prevention Accountability Act dramatically enhances how agencies prevent fraud especially during any future national emergency. It also ensures the government-wide data analytic resources established initially to investigate pandemic era fraud are permanently preserved. Experienced fraudsters understand that when the government responds to a crisis, agencies often let their guard down. GAO estimates that hundreds of billions of dollars were potentially lost to fraud during the COVID-nineteen pandemic and I think that numbers conservative. The Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, or the PRAC, built a data analytics capability on the fly as pandemic relief funds were already being expended by agencies. It is estimated that if the PRAC were established prior to the pandemic, as much as seventy-nine billion dollars in fraudulent payments could have been prevented on the front-end. H. R. eighty-three twelve was drafted based on years of diligent oversight work under the leadership of Government Operations Subcommittee, Chairman Pete Sessions, the sponsor of the bill. His legislation ensures there's a permanent government-wide anti-fraud analytics function to assist agency inspectors general with their fraud work. It ensures a permanent inspector general office for fraud, accountability and recovery, utilizing the valuable proven resources built by the project over recent years. This eliminates a need to start from scratch in the inevitable event of a new national emergency. I want to emphasize that these bills should be considered in the broader can context of the committee's legislative work on fraud prevention and financial integrity reforms, the vast majority of which have bipartisan support. Just today we're also advancing eight bipartisan fraud and program integrity reform bills that will safeguard taxpayer dollars from fraudsters and cheats we must continue to advance bold reforms that meaningfully address fraud in these bills and the resolution before you today. Madam Chair, I ask that the Rules Committee grant

Thank you, Chairman Komer. Mister Wall Control, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Fighting in preventing fraud is or should be a bipartisan issue, and preventing the misuse of government funds is a priority shared by Democrats and Republicans alike in this body. When fraudsters successfully target government dollars, they steal from taxpayers, deprive our most vulnerable neighbors of lifesaving services, and We know that it's difficult to fight fraud and certainly difficult, if not impossible, to claw back payments after they've been delivered to a fraudster. And there's no doubt that the government and this Congress should do more to address this problem. That's why oversight committee Democrats have supported numerous anti-fraud measures including the Pre-payment Fraud Prevention and Treasury Data Access Act which seeks to add additional payment verification before checks are sent out the door and I appreciate the chairman's bipartisan work on legislation like that. And committee Democrats and our Democratic colleagues across the House will continue to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government. However, the bills before us today are flawed and do not constitute good faith efforts to detect and prevent fraud. H. R. eighty-four sixty-four, the stopping fraudulent payments act, would give the Trump administration a blank check to stop entitlements and other grants to entities it disfavors for any reason. H R eighty-three twelve, the Fraud Prevention and Accountability Act, is a a disguised attack, I fear, on Inspectors General, independent inspectors general, the chief independent federal watchdogs tasked with rooting out waste fraud and abuse at government agencies. And H res thirteen thirty-five is a partisan attack that completely ignores President Trump's pardons of convicted fraudsters. I was Interested to hear the White House has established a task force to eliminate fraud, some days it seems as if the White House itself is a task force to commit fraud. H. R. eighty-four sixty-four would give President Trump's Treasury Department authority to stop federal assistance, payments to any individuals, nonprofits, communities, or states that they unilaterally decide has a risk of fraud. That authority would extend to university grants, for research in R and D, grants for transportation funding, Pell grants, NIH grants, and even grants from FEMA. It would expand this and any future administration's authority to play politics with programs that millions of Americans our constituents rely on. Uh, this administration unfortunately has proved it cannot be trusted with that kind of power. It's targeted states led by Democrats on spurious grounds and it's blatantly abused its power at times to advance the president's political agenda. H R eighty-three twelve uses the a facade of fraud prevention to undermine an ecosystem intended to hold the executive branch accountable. It purports to make permanent resources for the highly successful and the chairman and I agree on this highly successful PRAC, but in reality it would weaken the council of the inspectors general on integrity and efficiency or SIGI the oversight body that serves as the backbone for PRAC and provides its own oversight of our IGs. CIGI was created by Congress to provide a way for the IG community to coordinate, share resources, set audit and investigative standards, learn from one another, and ensure accountability within the community itself. The danger this bill presents is a continuation of President Trump's war on that independent IG community. President Trump has shown he's afraid of CIGI because one of its function is to investigate IGs who are accused of wrongdoing. a function that disrupts his efforts over the last year and a half to illegally fire independent IGs and replace them with allies who he believes will engage in covering up the waste, fraud and abuse perpetrated by his own administration. To this end, he illegally withheld Siggy's congressionally provided funding last fall, and all of us Democrats and Republicans should be outraged by this, cuz we approved the funding, caused Siggy to abruptly cease functioning. The website's housing thousands of audit reports went off-line, and investigators and law enforcement officers across the IG community were left without access to essential training. You can't say you wanna fright- fight fraud when you literally shut down the fraud fighters. Taking the prac out of CIGI and moving it to a third new treasury IG, a new IG by the way, is just another attempt to weaken the case for funding CIGI and to further dismantle what remains of a community already weakened by the President's efforts to purge and replace IGs with cronies. Any renewed cuts to Stege's funding would again result in a massive loss of capacity for the community. The bill's expansion of Treasury's do-not-pay system could also threaten the privacy of millions of Americans especially given the administration's really heinous track record on information privacy. That's why I filed an amendment to the bill that would walk back some of the more dangerous changes in what it's Instead simply make the successful functions of the PRAC permanent. I have a old-fashioned view, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We all agree that the PRAC has worked. Let's extend it and let it continue to work. Finally, H. Res. thirteen thirty-five reportedly condemns actors seeking to defraud the US government. It is a blatantly partisan attack that ignores the grievous actions and fraud committed by the Trump administration and makes false claims about fraud in Minnesota and California and completely ignores fraud In Republican-led states, coincidentally, I guess, Trump and his administration are not serious about good faith efforts to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. They've gutted IGs. They've pardoned more than twenty-five fraudsters, including those who committed wire fraud, security fraud, tax fraud, bank fraud, health care fraud. And this is the most corrupt administration in American history. Trump and his family have made billions, uh, through a whole series of corrupt schemes, and this resolution ignores those facts. I go back, Madam Chairman.

I just wanna say thank you to the people that are exposing the fraud. I wish that it were being prosecuted at the level that it needs to be. Um, and I would uh encourage anybody who gets a text message, encouraging them to put something in a crypto ATM to recognize that that is

Thank you. Miss Scanlon, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you, I'm glad to hear that is a priority because most of the FBI and DOJ folks who work on that have been pulled off to do immigration work. But, um, I think it is abundantly clear to anyone who's paying attention that the number one source of fraud, waste and abuse in our federal government today is the Trump administration. Whether it's shady crypto investments, insider trading on the stock market and prediction markets, or massive pay-to-play schemes for pardons and dropped enforcement cases, the Trump administration has ushered in blatant and open corruption in this White House. The president, his family and many of his business associates have made billions of dollars. Since coming into office, they've abused every opportunity to enrich themselves. Trump's businesses have received billions in investments from foreign countries and businesses seeking government favors. His campaign funds have received millions more from people looking for pardons. Trump's own stock investments are showing signs of insider trading as they are more numerous and profitable than ever before. And the federal government has awarded billions of dollars in contracts to companies with close ties to the president's family and friends. Major media companies have settled frivolous cases, filed by the president against them, as those companies have sought government approval of deals and and business opportunities. Trump has now pardoned over twenty people convicted of defrauding government health care programs. And in many of those cases, the pardon freed those people from liability to pay back the victims of their crimes or the taxpayers. It's no secret that the Republican obsession with fraud, waste and abuse has become nothing more than a pretext to gut vital safety net programs and target political opponents. Just minutes ago we were talking about the fact that our Republican colleagues last week voted to cut two hundred million dollars from the WIC program that provides nutrition for women infant and children's. But in this bill, providing billions more dollars in funding to, in the the bill that's being considered in this rule, to provide seventy billion dollars more to ICE and CBP, they will not look at any of the fraud, waste and abuse that has occurred in that agency, including over two hundred million dollars that was used to, uh, put out commercials promoting Christy Noem's horseback riding skills. Um, this week's fraud bills are just more of this theater saying, oh we care about fraud, waste and abuse, but they don't really care about fraud. If they did, they'd be going after the businesses and the white-collar criminals who every year defraud Medicare and Medicaid of billions of dollars shady medical device companies that exploit Medicare billing practices hospitals and medical providers that inflate reimbursement claims or the widespread and well-documented fraud that's occurring through Medicare Advantage. But Republicans never go after this fraud because to do so, they'd have to go after the companies that back their campaigns. And as the saying goes, they don't bite the hand that feeds them. Their tired claims are even more disingenuous when juxtaposed to their lack of interest in President Trump's purge of the government's inspector generals, who for decades have done the hard work of actually investigating and remedying Fraud, waste and abuse. Um, the tools that they need, as Mister Jordan said, step one, you in appoint honest inspectors general. Step two, you give them political independence and reasonable funding, and step three, every dollar you spend fighting Medicare fraud returns about thirteen dollars in improper payments. Inspectors general save taxpayers billions of dollars every year. So there is a lot we could be doing on a bipartisan basis to fight fraud and improper payments throughout the entire federal government. But until Republicans get serious about preventing fraud, starting at the top, instead of protecting their allies, that work isn't happening. Um, remember, uh, Representative Walkinshaw, could you just tell us a little bit more about the Inspector General system? Because my understanding is Inspector Generals were set up to be independent, um, inspectors who can do the work necessary to root out fraud and corruption when it impacts taxpayer dollars in the federal government, but they've been sidelined, they've been fired, and now they're being defunded.

Yeah, that's right. I mean, they they are the the individuals, the teams, really, who have time after time after time uncovered instances of waste, fraud and abuse, by the way, across multiple administrations. And one of the things that is really key is that we have permanent IGs in place in every agency because permanent IGs have legal protections. They are legally protected from being fired because they anger an administration. And what President Trump has done in illegally firing those permanent IGs and replacing them with acting i g s is taking away those legal protections so we can no longer have confidence that those acting i g s who now could be fired if they step out a line, if the administration thinks they've stepped out a line, we can no longer have confidence that they are willing and able to uncover and reveal those instances of waste, fraud and abuse and in the fy twenty-seven budget proposal, the president's budget, proposes a thirty percent cut for igs across the board. So we're gonna slash the funding for the folks who are out there looking to identify the waste fraud and abuse and we're gonna give the treasury secretary the unilateral absolute authority on his own to look at any dollar going out of the door and just say, I think that could that could be fraud. I don't think that's gonna lead to catching and preventing more fraud.

I I think this is why it's been a priority for senators and and members of Congress over decades to have an independent professional uh group of people who were skilled in this I mean obviously with a federal government that uh spends a lot of money, there are always going to be bad actors looking for ways to profit off those dollars when they're not entitled to it. Um, but it is really, really concerning that that independence has been undermined. Um, I think it's fair to say that the President's ire was raised because in multiple circumstances Inspectors General have uh criticized uh the actions of his administration and that's precisely why uh their independence is so necessary so thank you for your testimony and I would look forward to partnering with our our Republican colleagues to re-establish the independence and funding for the inspectors general who've done such great work for the country, for our taxpayers, for decades until they've been sidelined by this administration. So thank you, I yield back.

Thank you very much, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Do you have any questions?

Um, yeah, I I mean I think that uh there is a concern um nobody wants fraud interviews, that's that's taxpayer dollars that are going to waste but we are very concerned uh about the uh apparent lack of thought and selling of pardons uh and thank you for pointing that out uh you know i i noticed that there was with regards to this ballroom this gilded ballroom that was originally gonna be paid for by others uh and then they came and asked us to pay a billion dollars and there was an uproar about that

hmm

Um, but the recent reporting that there was fifty billion dollars of contracts awarded to those corporations that donated money to Trump's problem. And and I think that you talked in an earlier panel about the problem of no-bid contracts, the problem of having everything go through a a single person because then it is so much easier to manipulate and uh basically steal the money outright right they are like what's amazing is they are stealing the money American's taxpayer dollars in public view uh could you speak to that a little bit more about why we should we be concerned about what's happening here with these bills given what we've seen in other agencies

Yeah, I think we've seen throughout this Trump administration, the most charitable way to describe it is unorthodox contracting practices. And we've seen it, uh, directly at the White House. We've seen it at the Department of Homeland Security we were discussing earlier, where Secretary Noem spent more than two hundred million taxpayer dollars on an advertising campaign. The money, a hundred and forty million dollars of it, went to a newly established secretive Delaware shell company and made its way into the bank accounts of a conservative political advertising firm that she had steered money to previously when she was governor of South Dakota. Why was she, how was she able to do that? How was her office able to do that? She said it was an emergency. Uh, it was an emergency, so she needed to bypass the normal procurement process. And we have the far, which is thousands of pages long, which dictates precisely, in some cases perhaps more precisely than is necessary, how a contract should be awarded. She bypassed it completely because she said it was an emergency. She had to get her face on TV to the tune of two hundred million dollars and had to funnel the money to her political allies. And we've seen that kind of, whether it's corruption or it's waste or it's fraud or it's abuse or it's all for, uh, it certainly isn't a good deal for the American uh taxpayers. And this this bill, these bills wouldn't do anything to address that. I think the way to get at that level of fraud when it's coming from the top is for Congress to take its oversight responsibilities seriously. And for either the Homeland Security Committee or the Oversight Committee to investigate some of these contracting practices taking place in these agencies at the very top.

So, Chair Komar, uh, there was a subpoena for the now former secretary uh and uh she did not testify under oath or in a committee hearing where everybody could see what it was and now that was about the epstein files i think and you allowed her to testify not actually testify

who who are you talking about now who are you talking about now i thought you were talking about christy noel

well well i i think i was gonna go to the fact that we need to have you had any oversight of some of these contracts that's appear to be quite fraudulent and doing it in a way that would allow the American public to see uh what the answers are and and and I I I think it is relevant because whether or not you're complying with uh congressional law and the Epstein transparency act is congressional law and you allow her to testify

what what what are we talking about fraud what are we talking about I don't

yeah I think

think you understand what we're talking about here we're talking about fraud

I'm talking about oversight I'm talking about oversight

oversight of fraud we're talking about taxpayer dollars We're talking about fraud. This bill has to do with fraud. This is something that's a foreign concept to Democrats. You just wanna keep spending more money. It's actually not a foreign concept to get cred. You don't care about the poor hard-working Americans who spend forty percent of their paycheck on taxes and are sick and tired of their money being wasted by fraudsters that's what this bill's about. But And you talk about inspectors general, my God, where have the inspectors general been on all this fraud? They got fired.

They

This fraud's been happening for a, fire on the I would fire them all and and hire new ones that are gonna use AI technology to get fraud. All you all do is kiss the butts of the federal employees. You don't wanna fire anybody. Christy Norman, I agree with what you're saying. We fired, he, she got fired. She should have gotten fired. And and anybody that defrauds a taxpayer should get fired. You all never fired anybody. And you're talking about the the the pardons, the last president who we investigated. Pardon his whole family. And you all didn't say a word. You giggle all you want. The American people are fed up. You're gonna be in for a shock, I think, when you see how angry the people are at fraud and the Democrats' lack of of doing nothing. I mean, it's just, it's, it's, this is, these are, should be bipartisan bills to detect fraud, and all you're concerned about is hiring more federal employees that have not been detecting fraud.

But I think what Democrats are concerned about is the ongoing fraud of this Amer- uh of of our taxpayer dollars inflicted on the American people, and we are seeing it over and over again. And, you know, we just saw that this administration, Trump, wanted a slush fund, which was basically a fraud on the taxpayers so he could give it to the Janu- six January six insurrectionists, ninety-seven of whom have already been convicted of new crimes. We have seen that fraud in the terms of the way he is giving out pardons, selling pardons, and then and and then pardoning,

The last your your president,

pardoning, pardoning,

your beloved president,

he is pardoning,

Biden pardoned his whole family for fraud.

he is pardoning, he is being this,

Pardoned his whole family on the way out the door.

this

Hey,

is pardoning,

stop, stop talking over each other.

I am speaking, I am, I have not asked you a question, and and and I think that this is it. There is a concept uh that that this administration and the trump publicans are really working on, which is that that they try to say well let's take let's talk about fraud because it is so rampant among with this administration, so they think that if they bring a resolution to talk about fraud that we will not pay attention but the american people know, the american people know that they are suffering They are suffering high gas prices, high diesel prices, in my district it's diesel, right? They are suffering from the fact that you do not pay attention to what is important. You are you have dismantled, this administration has dismantled the Consumer Protection Bureau that used to protect consumers from fraud. You have dismantled that. So every step around the way, this administration and Republicans side with the biggest corporation and not with the working families or the consumers in fact it's working class that democrats are constantly standing for and what we're seeing is republicans are constantly standing with the corrupt class it's working class versus corrupt class i know where i stand i don't know if there's anything else that you wanted to add to this but uh representative uh if you wanted

may i respond

to uh uh add to the debate on this did you need some time OK.

Uh, no, I'm not well, let me let me actually enter into record uh ask unanimous consent Madam Chairwoman, enter into the record a report from the Center on Budget and Policy priorities. A House bill, eighty four sixty four, to make blocking federal funds easier would take away help people need to afford rising costs.

Without objection.

Thank you.

And and I think thank you very much, Representative Alkinshaw, because uh last week uh we discussed uh a bill and the fact that they wanted to go after fraud but they were unwilling they were unwilling to go after the corporations who committed that fraud uh and i think that we see that over and over again and i just wanna correct the record in the sense that uh trump did not fire a gnome he created something called the special envoy for the shield of the americas and i would like to yield some time to representative uh Scanlon.

Yeah, I I just wanted to, um, introduce, uh, seek unanimous consent to introduce an article from the Washington Post from last week, June four, ballroom donors won fifty billion dollars in contracts after giving to Trump project, according to a Watchdog press.

Without objection.

Thank you. I yield back to

Thank you very much. And I think it's actually close to, uh, is it close to four billion dollars? It's, is it over, it's over four billion dollars that the Trump and his uh,

Trump family itself.

misery his family made, yeah.

Yeah, it's certainly, it's certainly in the billions when you add up the, the digital schemes, the foreign real estate deals. And, look, uh, you know, Chairman Comer said he thinks Democrats are in for a shock when we learn how angry people are. I think respectfully, Mister Chairman, you and your colleagues might be in for a shock when you learn that American folks across the country were struggling to make ends meet, buy groceries, put gas in the tank, are wondering why the heck the Trump family is profiting, why the hell the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is flying in a seventy million dollar G seven hundred golf stream, the most luxurious golf stream that exists, everyone in this town is feathering their nests while our constituents are struggling to get by, I think you and your colleagues might be in for a shock in a few months about that.

Thank you very much, and Madam Chair, you're back.

Thank you, Miss Elijah Fernandez, Mister Jack.

Mister Chairman, thank you very much for testifying. It's an honor to serve on your committee and I would welcome, um, for this committee you sharing with us, you know, you know I come from a political background and,

Right.

um, running on the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse was one of the core campaign promises many of us made in twenty twenty four when the Americans sent us and the President of the White House, and us the Republican majority. How do these bills we're considering today help us achieve that campaign promise?

Yeah, absolutely. And and this these bills catch fraud before the money. They prevent the money from going out the door. That's the problem. So much of this fraud is happening from foreign fraudsters. Once you figure out, oh my gosh, we just the government just wired money to this fraudster where they're in China that money's gone. You'll never get it again. That happens every day in the federal government. That's what these bills do. prevent fraud before the money goes out the door to the fraudsters because so many of them again are foreign, you'll never get them back. And I have to add, we just published a report today where we uh did a very deep dive in the Minnesota fraud, where we brought in nine career government employees, almost all of whom were registered Democrats, not that that matters, but they were registered Democrat. They blew the whistle on the fact that Governor Walz and Attorney General Ellison knew about the fraud, yet did nothing about it. And our fraud report also showed, I want you to listen to this, Mrs. Scanlon, that the USDA Inspector General was not responding to clear signals that fraud was rampant. So I guess you wanna give them a promotion and a pat on the back, and and probably a pay raise, and let them keep working from home. But this is happening every day in this government. We gotta do something about it. And the people, people are mad, and their sandwich party is serious about fraud. I just had a primary last week, I got over eighty eight percent of the vote and I saw the poll and you're losing your primary, sir, so, uh, we'll we'll let the voters speak.

Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you very much.

Ma- ma- Madam Chair, ma- may I ask

Would you like to s- report, put the report in the record?

Yeah, may I ask you to ask and sit and enter into the record. The oversight committee minor- the majority staff report titled " The Cost of Doing Nothing", how tim walts and keith ellison fueled minnesota's fraud explosion

without objection thank you gentlemen for coming we appreciate your being here and

thank you

no further questions you're excused

right that's also where you're at a primary or you're on the sales team that's oh ok we may be

you can give it to me ok thank you

thank you sorry to interrupt i just need to

you can give it to me

just pass the ok

just

sorry

yeah over there there you go you already get that would you mind getting that please

oh yeah

thank you

sorry

ok this is a test members of congress um

hello

we have eight seats sitting up here just take it we'll miss randall miss talib hello mister uh correa miss garcia miss jia paul

oh yeah one sec i think that's better oh she's running with a cat though

if you we have a hard time getting people to sit down in the right if we have other the reason i was trying to do that is if we

that's right

have other members come in we'll seat them over here okay

alright no worries

okay

that is not a problem

thank you very much um you know the drill we welcome your written statements for the

i know they are

record but we ask you to keep your comments to five minutes miss randall you're recognized

yes ma'am thank you chair fox um and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on s two i'm deeply concerned about senate republican the senate republican's bill which gives seventy billion to ice and c b p funding those agencies through the end of trump's term without any reforms to immigration enforcement my first amendment would prohibit ice c b p and other federal agencies from conducting immigration enforcement at active disaster and emergency response locations.

Mm.

May seem unnecessary, but it isn't. This includes evacuation routes, emergency shelters and supply distribution sites, disaster assistant registration sites, and family reunification centers. This uh these are places that we need the work to continue happening smoothly, not to be interrupted by unnecessary and sometimes vindictive immigration Last summer, CBP agents detained firefighters battling the Bear Gulch wildfire on the Olympic Peninsula. This is the biggest wildfire in our region in its history. The arrest of crew members risking their lives to protect our communities was not just wrong it was dangerous wildland firefighting is one of the most dangerous and critical public safety duties and this is especially true during what was Washington's largest active fire a fire that burned for nearly a year. The arrest of brave, hard-working crew members who put their lives on the line to perform life-saving duties does not make our communities safer. Our firefighters, paramedics, and emergency personnel run towards danger when others are running away, and they deserve protection, not persecution. The Bear Gulch fire burned through twenty thousand acres from July to November before it was finally extinguished only this April. And fire season is already here again. The entire Olympic Peninsula faces above normal wildland fire risks for July and August twenty twenty six. And from closing fifty seven to sev- out of seventy-seven US forest service research labs including two in Washington State to losing six thousand forest service workers, through doge cuts and other factors, my neighbors and I are concerned that the priorities and actions of this administration are continuing to put us at risk. This is not a time for thoughtless and cruel immigration enforcement that detains and arrests firefighters who are risking their lives to protect our communities when disaster strikes, our priority has to be community safety, not advancing political agendas. I urge you to include this common sense reform measure in any ICE CBP funding bill, and I urge you to work with my democratic colleagues on the inclusion of other reform measures that are so greatly needed at DHS. My second amendment would improve conditions and detention for people detained in ICE facilities, and these recommended changes come from my work on the oversight committee, and in visiting the ICE detention facility in my district many, many, many times. From access to legal counsel, to access to basic human necessities, the changes represent the minimum that ICE owes people in its detention facilities. And, you know, respectfully, we have been asking for reforms in the Department of Homeland Security for months and months and months. And I, I am hopeful that you will hear not only your democratic colleagues' demands, but also the demands of the American people that are loud and clear that they want not a cent more to ICE and CBP until there are meaningful reforms. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Randall. Miss Talib, you're recognized.

Um, Madam Chair, I have five amendments before the committee. Um, all five amendments are targeting the most appalling abuses that we've seen already from ICE and Border Patrol uh, that are destroying many of our neighbors and our communities. Um, our neighborhoods feel very much, uh, targeted and under attack. Um, instead, um, you know, of us spending the money and resources to make our country more affordable to live in, uh, addressing housing crisis in my community, the clean water crisis, the the fact that we need access to clean water is something they want us to prioritize, but allowing, uh, this unhinged agency to target communities and people that look like me. Um, amendment, one of my amendments would codify my bill. ban the warehouse detention act. Madam Chair and all the members, you should know the for-profit scheme that is within our detention centers in these ice cages are real. We already know that core group has already made over two hundred and forty million dollars in profits, are complaining that that's not enough. Uh, this uh prevents DHS from caging our immigrant neighbors in these horrific new warehouse detention camps, like the one that they're trying to open in Romulus. This can't, this ice detention center this ice cage that they wanna build in romulus michigan was supposed to be a manufacturing center and instead they're gonna cage and house human beings there ice detention is already extremely cruel subjecting our loved ones to unsanitary and dangerous conditions that have led to record high number of deaths in custody i already know of a nineteen year old team who got a hold of a glass from a cellphone and uh began um attacking his arms trying to take his life because the conditions were so unbearable and he was feeling very much dehumanized and criminalized. Warehouse detention camps only make things worse. So I ask my colleagues to please uh support our local communities and all of us across the country that are rising against these massive prison camps. We cannot allow them to continue to open and we cannot allow core civic and all the other groups uh to make money off of this inhumane um uh policy. The next amendment would prohibit uh homeland security from closing the office of civil rights and civil liberties. This is so incredibly important. When I was a Michigan State Representative, this is where many of our parents came and said that, you know, ICE was operating at sensitive locations like places of worship, child care uh facilities, elementary schools. And Madam Chair, you should know one of my elementary schools saw this overwhelming share of fear that came through the community. That's why we had to actually put policies in place to force ICE not to not only in front of sensitive locations like schools, clinics, uh churches mosques you name it uh but also at funerals because they actually don't understand um the human humanity of doing it like that way so the office of civil rights and civil liberties holds ice and homeland security folks uh um accountable and since trump uh took office we know dhs has been systematically dismantling that office of civil rights and civil liberties opened the door of more abuses without any meaningful oversight uh so we must restore uh that office The next amendment, amendment ninety-one, requires ICE and CPP to maintain accurate on-line detain detainee locator system. Again, this is based on a family of five who for twelve days I could not find them. So when you hear residents say they've been kidnapped, that's why. We can't find them. Um, and Border Patrol says, well, sorry, we're not the ones who control the system, the locator. We don't put their information in there unless ICE comes and gets them, Madam Chair. And so we have to change that. If they're in custody of the federal government, they need to be put in the locator. families know exactly where their family members are so they have access to legal counsel, and to make sure that they have access to due process. Members of our communities have been unable again to locate our loved ones held in CPP. Uh, for days lawyers also have been notified me that they're unable to find their clients, and families were unable to again to find uh their loved ones and to make sure that they're safe. Uh, my an amendment mandates that Homeland Security maintain an accurate detailed online detain detainee locator system so families in legal counsel can quickly and reliably find their loved ones and clients to better fight for their freedom and their rights. Uh, the last amendments that I have, amendment one O one would prohibit ICE and CPP from transferring detained individuals out of state. This has been egregious. Uh, within hours they will move, uh, family members out of state without any loc- uh, any notification of legal counsel or their family members. In twenty twenty five, ICE transferred nearly forty one thousand seven hundred people to another state within twenty four hours. That's unacceptable. Uh, we saw this in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who was illegally kidnapped by ICE and transferred to New York, all the way from New York all the way to Louisiana. Lastly, my amendment, uh, one thirty-five would require ICE and CPB to report deaths of recently detained individuals who die within thirty days of their release from DHS custody. This is incredibly important. Um, Madam Chair, I can't explain why that would be impossible to do. Uh, this is information and transparency that we need. Last week we know ICE sent out a memo announcing this change. So now ICE and CPP can assault torture and brutalize detainees and neglect their health and well-being until, again, until they are at that store. As long as they release them before they die, they won't have to report it, and that's unacceptable. Uh, I still remember the, um, case of Noral, who n- was, um, nearly blind, who died after Border Patrol agents released him into the streets of Buffalo, New York, and near freezing temperatures in February. He was tossed out in the cold, nowhere to go, and he died as a result. His death was ruled a homicide. My amendment would make it necessary to prevent DHS from ignoring or lie lying about post-release deaths like this. Thank you to the committee and this opportunity to testify in support of our amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Woman. Before you today, before this rule of committee, you're considering a proposal to give an additional seventy billion to the Department of Homeland Security on top of the already hundred and seventy billion given to DHS last year. I've submitted three common sense amendments today for your consideration to assure that DHS does not harm our public safety or targets those contributing contributing members of our society. My first amendment, amendment number five. All gave some and some made the ultimate sacrifice. As we approach America's two hundred and fiftyth birthday, let's remember those who have fought for our freedom. Today there are approximately forty-five thousand immigrants actively serving in our U S armed forces. Even before this administration, ICE has often failed to consider a veteran service record when deporting them, even though they're supposed to. This amendment will prevent the detention and removal of veterans from immigration enforcement unless they are convicted of extreme offenses that actually harm public safety. The VA today estimates that between eleven and thirty percent of veterans have some form of PTSD. Individuals suffering from this terrible disease are sixty percent more likely to become entangled in our criminal justice system. My second amendment, amendment number eight. has a similar goal. When people in my community come to report a crime or are victims of crimes themselves, they should not be targeted for immigration deportation. My amendment would prevent fronts from this bill from being used for two eighty-seven G agreements, to arrest or detain individuals who are reporting a crime, assisting in prosecution of a crime, or investigation, or serving as a witness in a criminal proceeding. My last amendment, amendment number eleven, is targeting uh to tempting to protect people who have contributed to communities in this country, like where I live in Orange County. My amendment would prohibit the deportation of Vietnamese refugees who came to the United States before nineteen ninety-five before the relations between Vietnam and the US were normalized. We need to make sure that we protect those refugees, many who fought alongside Americans during the Vietnam War. Returning these refugees to Vietnam would pose a threat to their lives, liberty and security. They have earned the right to be Amer- in in America, and they should not be forced to return to a country they left behind, more than fifty years ago. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Correa. Miss Garcia, you're recognized.

issues immigrants, it's about cruelty. It funds more raids, detentions and deportations while refusing to require the reforms this moment demands. No judicial warrants, no ban on masking, no independent investigations where federal agents kill or seriously injure someone, no clear identification requirements, no real accountability for abuse. That is not public safety, it is power without accountability. and it's hurting Americans. Recent economic research found that for every six American workers removed one American worker lost their job. In Houston, we're already seeing the consequences. Our local paper, the Houston Chronicle, did an analysis and found ICE arrests in Houston area more than doubled under this administration. But the share of people arrested with criminal convictions fell from seventy three percent to forty four percent. way less than half. So do not tell us this is about the worst of the worst. It's mass enforcement, it's cruelty. Last year was the deadliest year for ICE in more than two decades. This year already it's on pace to be the worst. We have seen two Americans shot and killed by federal immigration agents. And still, this administration does not hide the cruelty. They promote it. They brag about it. They turn fear into social media content. It's cruelty dressed up as policy. That is why I'm offering ten amendments to put basic limits, oversight and human dignity back into this bill. My amendments would stop taxpayer dollars from fueling enforcement and field offices. They would include my restoring community trust act because police officers should not be forced to serve as immigration agents. When immigrant families are afraid to report crimes that go to court, everyone is less safe. My amendments would fund processing instead of chaos. This money would go to U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and CBP processing coordinators. DACA recipients are already facing processing delays. They should not lose their jobs or protections because Congress chose more raids over timely processing. My amendments would also require transparency. Officers carrying out immigration enforcement should wear standardized uniforms. ICE and CBP should respond to congressional inquiries within thirty days, including those raised during oversight visits. Finally, my amendments protect basic human dignity in detention centers. I have visited the Dealey Detention Center in Texas multiple times, and it's not getting better, it's getting worse at every visit. Taxpayers are paying more than one thousand dollars per person per day, per per detainee. We could put them up in a Hilton. Yet, multiple women told me they have to pay for tampons. Twenty dollars for eighteen. You can buy double that at your local Walmart or your local H E B. Women who needed sanitary pads had to ask for dates in advance before they could get them. Others told me they could not see a doctor when they needed one. Women get little to nothing to reduce administration pain. That is why my amendments matter. Children should not be detained. Children should not be denied education. Pregnant women should not be shackled. Women should not be denied basic hygiene products. And no one, no one should be denied timely medical care. These are not radical ideas. This is just about human basic disen decency. If Congress is going to pour billions more into ICE and CBP, it must require basic standards. ICE is always saying no and they deny everything. There's no there's no uh problems at the Delaney. There's no problems at at at anywhere that we encounter. I represent Houston. I represent immigrant families, dreamers and mixed status families, terrified by what this administration is doing. They're asking Congress not to bankroll cruelty without limits. I strongly urge this committee to make my amendments in order and I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Garcia. Miss Jayapal, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member and members of the committee. This Republican bill really should be called the Endless ICE Slush Fund Act. Or maybe we should call it the More Funding for Rogue Agencies instead of Americans' Healthcare Act. There are so many outrageous things about this bill, first and foremost, that it does not fund the priorities of the American people. Instead of helping Americans address the rising cost of gas, house housing and health care, republicans are giving another seventy billion dollars in funding to c b p and ice, even though these agencies still have a hundred billion dollars left from the hundred and forty billion dollar slush fund that republicans gave them last year second this bill has absolutely no prohibition on donald trump resurrecting his one point eight billion dollar cop beaters slush fund, which he said yesterday was a quote " very good idea". Third, it does nothing to nullify the fact that Trump and his family are being given a get-out-of-jail-free card for any past or future tax violations, a deal that his apparently personal lawyer, Todd Blanch, negotiated for him that is the height of corruption. And finally, this bill does absolutely nothing to actually reform the abuses of ICE and CBP. The American people have been very clear They do not want DHS agents killing US citizens in the streets. They do not want masked men kidnapping and disappearing people from their communities. They don't want masked deportations in private for-profit prisons that hold tens of thousands of their neighbors every single night in horrific conditions. They do not want an ICE and CBP that act in contravention of basic due process and the law. The American people want us to ensure basic accountability and put common sense guardrails on immigration enforcement agencies. And once again, Republicans seem to want to give ICE and CBP even more money with no oversight or constraints. My amendments would at least insert some badly needed fixes into this monstrosity of a bill. My first amendment prohibits funds in this bill from being used by ICE to detain or deport US citizens. We should all agree US citizens should never be detained, by any agency conducting civil immigration enforcement, and they certainly should not be deported. This is about protecting the most basic constitutional rights of US citizens. ICE has zero authority to even detain US citizens. And yet, since Trump's inauguration, a clear pattern has emerged, with US citizens being detained for days and even weeks by immigration authorities. The administration denies this, but over and over they've been proven wrong. Just last week it came out that ICE detained US citizen Dulce Consuelo Diaz Morales for twenty-five days. When I tweeted about this, DHS's Tricia McLaughlin attacked me and said I was wrong about Dulce's citizenship. But last week she quietly deleted that tweet.

Mm.

My amendment ends all of this, and it ensures that ICE cannot use funds to detain US citizens. My second amendment ensures that no money in this bill goes towards detaining people, in private for-profit immigration detention centers. These private immigration prisons are taking taxpayer dollars and funneling them into their own pockets and into the campaigns of their Republican supporters. Not only is this a total waste of taxpayer dollars that should be spent on lowering costs for the American people it has led to absolutely inhumane conditions. In the interest of their own profits, these immigrant detention centers have completely violated Existing detention center standards requirements. Reports abound of appalling conditions, overcrowding, medical neglect, and inedible food. In geo-groups Delaney Hall in New Jersey, the only medical care available for people with cancer is Tylenol. Guards are beating and pepper spraying immigrants who dare to request better conditions. Fifty people have died in detention just since Trump came back into office. a stunning and unprecedented number that is more than all the deaths in detention in the previous five years combined. Border Czar Tom Holman and Acting ICE Director David Venturella both used to work for the GEO group so it's no surprise that they want to keep money flowing to them. My amendment would stop that shameful process. My third amendment would stop ICE and CBP from arresting anyone for an immigration violation without a warrant that is signed by an immigration or a magistrate ICE and CBP are racially profiling anyone they think might be an immigrant. My amendment brings accountability to their practices by requiring a warrant and ensuring that they target their resources on folks who actually pose a danger to public safety, as opposed to a dad who is picking up his kid or a teacher on his way to school. My last amendment would prevent funding from being used to hire any person into the federal government who is convicted for participating in the January sixth insurrection. Trying to overthrow our democracy should be disqualifying for federal service. And yet Trump recently hired a convicted January sixth rioter to work in the Pentagon. It is simply outrageous to have an insurrectionist working in the department tasked with our national security. This is a bad bill, but with my amendments it could at least address some of the most glaring issues in immigration enforcement and protecting democracy under this administration. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Chiappone, Miss Stansbury, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this reconciliation package and the amendments we have in front of the committee today. At a time when families across New Mexico and this country are struggling to put food on the table or roof over their heads and to keep the lights on, this reconciliation bill hands nearly seventy billion dollars in taxpayer dollars over to ice and border patrol for three years with little to no oversight just a blank check bypassing the normal congressional appropriations process and i think we all have to ask why because obviously you wouldn't be able to pass this package if you went through the normal appropriations process And just like the blank check that you gave ICE last year, totaling a hundred and forty billion dollars, you are bypassing the normal appropriations process for the remainder of the Trump administration by passing this bill through reconciliation for three years because the American people have made it clear that they do not support the cruel, inhumane, and unconstitutional violations of civil rights and human indignities that we have watched over the last year and a half under this administration. Terrorizing communities, deploying troops to American cities, Americans who have been shot point blank in the face by ICE agents with no accountability, families torn apart, children detained in private prisons, dozens dead in private detention centers with no oversight, and millions of family Families in this country living in fear. Grandparents who are afraid to go to doctor's appointments and to go grocery shopping. Children who are afraid to go to school right now. And countless others who are uncertain of their futures. In New Mexico, our communities are living in fear. Just a couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine who has lived in this country for over forty years, a legal resident and the primary caretaker of his aging wife and grand was called into an ICE appointment and was uncertain if he would return and what would happen to his family. Dozens of cases pending in my office. Uh, professionals, doctors, nurses, and scientists who don't know if their work visas are going to be renewed, DACA recipients who are hearing that they could have their status revoked even though they've never known another home, and New Mexicans in detention centers without access to counsel or their families. And a death by suicide in a private for-profit detention center in my district, in Torrance County, just a few years ago, that was settled just months ago after years of reports of violations of basic human rights and dignities in that detention center. And all of that is happening on this Congress's watch, as the White House has refused basic oversight, has dismantled internal government watchdogs, and given billions of dollars in taxpayer money to private prisons just like that one in my district. And now today, you all want to give them seventy billion dollars more and a blank check with no oversight for the rest of this administration. And that is why I am offering a package of amendments and helping to support the other amendments that you've heard here today. This package includes banning sole source contracting to immigration detention facilities, eliminating detention bed quotas that have created mass detention and incarceration at private for-profit prisons. Investigation by GAO of growing allegations of hundreds of cases of sexual assault and violence in detention centers of women and children. Let me repeat that. Hundreds of cases of sexual assault of women and children in government-run detention centers. Protecting our communities from racial profiling, including our tribal communities in New Mexico, as there have been reports within our Mescalero, Dine, and Pueblo communities of racial profiling by ICE and DHS agents. Our nation's first peoples being racially profiled by federal agents. I'm also a cosponsor of amendments to end construction and warehousing of detainees. and legislation to end the detention of children at detention centers. These are matters of basic human rights and moral dignity. And we have one question I feel to answer with this bill. Will we be a country that upholds the human and civil rights of our people? Or allow a lawless administration to give a blank check to continue cruel abuses of our own people. That is the question before us. And I believe that Congress must end these policies and put an end to private for-profit detention facilities once and for all. And in New Mexico we have answered that question. We have passed legislation to stop these policies. And so I urge my colleagues to refuse to vote for this bill, to adopt our amendments, and to stand up in this moment with a loud voice on behalf of our people, and the basic human dignity of all Americans. This is a moral moment for our country, and history will remember. I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Krishnamoorthy. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I find an additional seventy billion for ICE and CBP to be absolutely outrageous. As an immigrant, I am not reconciled to this bill which has been misnamed the Secure Ameri-A- America Act because it would lead immigrants and all Americans to feel more insecure not less. Today I come to present two amendments for your consideration. First, I come to speak in support of my amendment one hundred twenty to make it clear that the declaration of a national emergency shall not be considered an authorization to deploy federal law enforcement, including ICE, to any location at which a general or special election is held, or where the votes are being tallied, or where the results are being certified. Last month, President Trump was asked whether he would send ICE or National Guard members to polling locations during the midterm elections and he responded quote, "I would do anything necessary to make sure we have quote honest elections." Let me be clear, it is currently illegal to deploy federal troops or um armed federal law enforcement to any polling place. And yet, reports indicate that the Trump administration may attempt to declare a national emergency to justify sending federal forces like ICE to polling places in upcoming elections. Doing so would be pure intimidation and it would be against the law. I am submitting Amendment one twenty today to make clear that a national emergency does not allow any deployment of federal law enforcement including ICE or CBP to election locations. I'd now like to speak about my next amendment, one hundred forty-five, co-led by Congressman Peters, Scott Peters, to include the text of the stop excessive force in immigration act which i co-lead this amendment establishes clear and necessary guardrails on the use of force in immigration enforcement by aligning it with existing department of justice standards it requires that any force used by ice and cbp be proportional de-escalatory and employed only as a last resort it also prohibits the use of masks and tear gas by these agents and mandates the use of body and vehicle cameras and reinforces constitutional protections, especially critical at a time when we have seen troubling incidents, including the deaths of Nicole Goode, Alex Preti, and Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez in my own city of Chicago. I urge support of these amendments and I yield back. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back, now recognizes Ms. Zansari.

Thank you, uh, Chairman and Ranking Member McGovern. It is absolutely horrifying that Republicans and Donald Trump wanna send seventy billion dollars and more taxpayer dollars to ICE, which is already the most well-funded law enforcement agency in the United States, receiving more funding than many national militaries around the world. This is an agency that has ripped parents apart from children, deported asylum seekers and green card holders, terrorize communities and hid their faces from the public while doing it. One of the most disturbing aspects of the entire Trump mass deportation agenda has been the corruption and the profit that companies are raking in by brutalizing immigrants and destroying our communities. These for-profit companies, like CoreCivic and GeoGroup, literally make billions of dollars to lock people in cages, deprive them of food and water, and subject them to medical neglect. It is appalling, it is grotesque, and it is shameful. It's also staggeringly corrupt, with a few companies and their top executives making billions of dollars at the expense of the legal rights and liberty of human beings. Frankly, it is absurd that Donald Trump and Republicans are shoveling billions in contracts to their friends and allies, while regular Americans cannot afford health care, they cannot afford groceries or their electric bills. My amendments would place an outright ban on these for-profit private detention centers, making sure that these companies no longer have incentive or opportunity to lock up as many people as possible with hardly any meaningful oversight or accountability. The things that I've personally seen in detention centers like Eloy and Florence in Arizona as well as an ice holding facility at a Phoenix area airport are truly shocking. People packed into cells like animals, begging for water, and medical attention. I've witnessed people vomiting blood. I have a constituent named Yadi who has leukemia, who has been in an ICE facility for over a year and has lost seventy pounds because of the neglect she has faced. I've spoken to legal residents who were snatched up by ICE without any due process whatsoever. And it's all being done in service of profit, corruption and a vile system of deportation quotas. These are the same companies that promised their shareholders a Donald Trump presidency would be a golden opportunity for their bottom line. We need to outlaw these private detention centers, demand accountability, and pass my rain and ice package of legislation to eliminate inhumane conditions in ICE facilities. My other amendments would include a requirement for a nationwide internet-accessible reporting system for each instance of disease, injury, or health concern in a detention facility. We saw just last week that Acting Director of ICE, David Venturella, amazingly a former top executive at GeoGroup, direct his agency to eliminate a requirement to report the death of detainees in ICE detention that occur within thirty days of release. People are literally dying in ICE's care, and instead of addressing the problem, they'd rather just pretend it doesn't exist and cover it up like so many other aspects of the Trump regime. We cannot allow ICE and these for-profit detention contractors to continue to abuse human beings and block all accountability. I urge House Republicans to join Democrats for once to stop a completely out of control president and his authoritarian pa- paramilitary force. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back, and now that concludes the testimony of the uh witnesses. We'll now open it up for questions and um Mr. Langworthy, did you have any questions?

I don't have any.

Mister McGovern.

Yeah, uh, well, first of all, I wanna, um, thank uh, Miss Scanlon and Miss Ledger Fernandez for kinda holding the fort down. Um, be, uh, cuz I w- I was in uh Boston at uh our co- our former colleague Barney Frank's, uh, memorial service. And uh, as you all know, Barney Frank, uh, was never shy about expressing his point of view. Um, and he was a fierce fighter. uh taking on bullies and bigots uh wherever they may exist uh he he despised cruelty um and um and he felt that um we were not living up to our responsibilities as a government when hunger continues to grow in this country homelessness continues to grow in this country healthcare costs are through the roof i mean the price of gas is you know people can't afford to go anywhere anymore and um you know and i think when all is said and done I mean, this whole debate here, and I'm, I'm, I've I heard most of you here, I mean, this is really about our values. And I don't, I'm not sure we share the same set of values. Um, and um, and I'm really sad about that because there was a time when I think Democrats, Republicans did. I don't think that's the case anymore. Uh, and that's just a harsh reality. I mean, we're we're we're we're told that um, you know, that a hundred and seventy billion, close to two hundred billion dollars can go to ICE and CBP. I mean, I mean, that's more than the the the some countries spend on their entire militaries, right? I mean, we have two hundred billion dollars to put, uh, to continue this policy of cruelty, uh, to reward agencies that have behaved unlawfully. But just last week, we voted on an agricultural appropriation bill to cut WIC by two hundred million dollars. Um, I mean, you know, I mean, you said we don't have the money. Well, the cost of fully fund work is like one tenth of a trillion dollars

mmm

we have the money for this but we don't have the money for that and you know we're we're about to spend one point five trillion dollars on a defense budget that is so over the top that i think even doctor strange love would be impressed with with the with how big it is um and i and you you know we all talk about fraud and waste which some of the other panels were talking about and nobody dares to go uh looking uh into the uh pentagon budget for fraud and waste for fraud and waste and yet you know we're you know we we cut snap by two hundred billion dollars we cut medicaid by a trillion dollars um and so really at the end of the day this really is about values um and you know we'll see what happens come november um but i think more people think like us on this stuff than think like my republican friends uh and you know and i worry i'm like what what what how can you possibly man a hundred seventy billion dollars like how they gonna spend it all and i do worry um as you pointed out i do worry like you know what what is going on in trump's brain um because i watched that interview he did with christin welker um i'm gonna tell my republican colleagues you need to call somebody at the white house he needs he needs help he needs he needs to get professional help that's just not normal that's just not normal and then i was thinking well you know is it possible that he may be looking at this money as a way to interfere in the midterm elections you know i mean it you know is he gonna send ice and cbp to the polling places is he gonna have pete hexeth uh deploy you know our service members at at at polling places i just don't trust this guy at all i mean it is alarming what's going on um and i'm you know and i'm i i really think that that my friends on the republican side need to need to understand that this is a this moment is a moment of concern um it doesn't matter what your party ideology is everybody should be concerned about what's happening in this country um and the stories that we have heard i visited ice detention facilities in massachusetts we went to one in dilly texas i mean i i we we have heard the stories uh i'm ashamed that our government is funding this stuff and i think most of our constituents i don't care what their politics may be can and cannot are ashamed about what what's going on the cruelty i mean you know i i and again we're we're not talking about hardened criminals i mean we're talking about mothers and fathers and children um and so this this just this just has to stop and so i i you know i i appreciate everybody being here um because i think it's important because i think it's important the american people know we're fighting back um and that we have a different opinion and a different set of values when it comes to these matters Uh, but, uh, you know, I'm tell you, hi- you know, this is history is unfolding. And, um, and I'll, people who are silent, people who go along to get along are complicit. And, uh, I don't wanna be complicit. I know you don't either. So, um, I thank you for being here and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize, uh, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack. Did you have any

No questions.

No questions. And now recognize Miss Scanlon, Pennsylvania.

Thank you, and I wanna thank everyone who came with their amendments and their testimony, because I think it provided a much needed counterbalance to some of the lectures we got from our Republican colleagues about there being some violation of our duty to fund the government because our duty yes is to fund the government, but not to fund an unlawful, abusive, inhumane, unconstitutional, corrupt government. And that's what we saw with the billions of dollars that were sent to ICE and CBP last summer, and that's what we're seeing with this this attempt to inject another seventy billion dollars into a system that has not been accountable to the American public, to the world. I mean, as we've as we've seen, you know, American citizens killed on American streets, as the whole world saw that, crickets from our Republican colleagues. They will not step up. They will not bring legislation to the floor. As we've heard growing reports of assaults in these detention centers, of food that is inedible inedible, of people who are not getting the medical treatment that they need, crickets from our Republican colleagues, they will not do their jobs, they will not make sure that American taxpayer dollars are not being spent in ways that should make all of us ashamed. So I thank you for um the amendments that would protect sensitive locations and jobs. that immigrants are doing in our country, whether it's churches and schools and courthouses and people who are veterans and are firefighters. And thank you for the attention to the fact that this has become a massive, corrupt way to funnel billions of dollars into private contractors' pockets, folks who are making bank off holding humans in inhumane conditions and are getting richer the more people they hold the longer that they hold. Thank you for the amend amendments that have to do with excessive force, not allowing people who are armed out on our streets to be unaccountable because you don't know who they are. In fact, in Philadelphia we've had a couple incidents where people who were not ICE agents, dressed up as them in order to terrorize other folks. So, I mean, none of this, what is happening, it is not making Americans safer, and I really appreciate the amendments that have been offered by folks here. I think we need all of them and at a minimum we should get a vote on them and see where our Republican colleagues stand. Because if they're not gonna bring these bills up on their own, then we should get the opportunity to vote on them and see whether they're in favor of armed and masked agents on our streets, of corporations like Gio making eight hundred percent increase in their profits, of whether it's okay to um abduct and hold American citizens for weeks and months at a time with impunity, because that's what they're funding and that's what this bill is gonna go for. So thank you for your amendments. I hope that all of them are made in order, but I suspect none of them will be. And we just have to fight another day. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Uh, uh, Ms. Leger-Fernandez.

Thank you very much, and I too, uh, thank you for bringing amendments and, uh, making sure that the American people know why we find this legislation to give seventy two billion dollars that is not paid for that is your children and grandchildren are gonna pay for this because they won't give two hundred million dollars to help women and children

mmm

uh afford uh healthy food and nutrition two hundred million dollars but they'll give seventy two billion dollars to these contractors and i i'm a i mean almost almost every single one of you pointed out the issue of the private prisons and how much money they're making. And I I wanted to bring out the fact that those private prisons, um, and the aviation services have also it's a pay to play. Right? It's a pay to play. They have contributed to Trump, MAGA and Republicans, and they've gotten money back. um and so i i thought maybe i'd just ask uh a couple of you is is this a concern like should americans be concerned that we are giving so much money billions upon billions upon billions uh as a return on investment on campaign contributions i'll just go down the line uh uh uh represent i'm sorry we'll just go down like what are your concerns if you could just give us like a sentence or two about the fact that they are getting so much money back for the campaign contributions.

I mean, I think we know this is the most corrupt administration in American history, but this particular corruption story with these private prison companies, the airlines, et cetera, making so much money, literally to keep people for arbitrary amounts of time, um, to, you know, we're, we know these quotas that the Trump administration wants to meet. All of this is to make these companies more money, and that's very,

Mm-hmm.

very clear. because we know that the vast majority of people in detention have no criminal record whatsoever.

Thank you, Representative, and I was holding up a report, and uh this report from Open Secrets actually lists what the contracts are, and then how much has been given to Trump and MAGA Inc., and it's uh ranging from like uh uh uh hundreds of millions of dollars to several hundred thousand dollars, but over and over the corporations that are giving the biggest and I'll enter it into the record in a bit, the chairman representative

so i'm from illinois and this would make governor former governor rod blagojevich blush um i think this is golden as he would say this is exactly the definition of pay-to-play and it's yet another reason why it's so objectionable this uh so-called reconciliation package

representative stansberry

thank you congresswoman you know as a new mexican It not only hurts my heart, it offends my sense of justice. That, for example, the ICE contract for Torrance County alone, in our home state, is two point four million dollars a month. And that is not to detain criminals. That's to detain families and children. And that's not money going to our families, that's not fam- that's not money going to employees. That's two point four million dollars a month going to a private prison contractor who's not even based out in New Mexico. And they're making that money off of the backs of detaining New Mexicans in a for-profit prison. That is disgusting.

Representative Jarrett Paul.

Thank you for the question. Um, this is so corrupt on so many levels. Number one, these three for-profit private private prison companies decided, made a distinct decision to contribute millions of dollars to the Trump campaign and to Republican candidates across the country you can look at that open secrets report you're you're showing to really demonstrate how much of that is. Number two, that was because they knew that then people here in this body would make sure they got that back by the by the multiples, which is exactly what's happened. A hundred and seventy billion plus this seventy billion, on top of the regular appropriations process. So, this is a remarkable amount of money that could be spent on so many other priorities. Number three, think about what this money is being spent on and how you could use alternatives to detention that cost cents on the dollar for the people that do need to be detained seventy percent of the people that have been detained don't even have a serious criminal conviction. And so, not only are we detaining people that don't need to be detained, but even the people who are being detained for some reason could be detained through could be um utilizing alternatives to detention that go don't cost any money. But that of course would mean no money into the pockets of these private for-profit prison companies and it would mean no contributions to Donald Trump and Republicans who are supporting this bill.

And the contributions, uh, the GeoGroup PAC, uh, employee-funded, uh, They contributed a million dollars to approach Trump's super PAC, make America great again in twenty twenty four, a group in each, donated five hundred thousand to the twenty five inaugural committee and the the line goes on representative Garcia, a couple of sentences.

they get paid monthly no matter what your capacity is

it's green No matter what capacity. So when we visited Dilley, I think they were like one third of the number of detainees. But it doesn't matter. They're going to get their monthly fee. I mean, what kind of sweetheart deal is that? How many business people would love it that whether you make ten widgets or a thousand widgets, you're still going to get paid the whole monthly retainer.

And then charge the women for, when you told me that, that, that's outrageous,

Well.

that you know that they're getting paid.

Twenty, twenty dollars for eighteen tampons and

They're getting paid and they're charging the women for basic

You and I are probably beyond the need to use tampons, but we can find it cheaper. And if we go through a whole week, we probably need more than eighteen. Sort of all the money, and then they get a separate medical medical care, but they're not providing it. So that's just money in their pocket. And there's no accountability. You know, this president has gone after Jerome Powell about his contract. What if we look at all of these contracts? And let's find the fraud, waste and abuse in all these contracts. and shut them down because they are just making profits, uh, uh, uh, from, um, on people's back. And they're not they have no incentive to get anyone released because the more people that are sleeping there, the more money in their own pockets. It it is just simply disgusting.

So, Representative Correa, and I I want to point out, uh, to the American public that in the discussions we have had here today where we have had republicans sitting here saying we need this money, we see it now, it's the most important thing possible. They have all also received political campaign contributions from geo group that it calls Chip Roy, uh, representative Arrington, representative Gabarino, representative Jim Jordan. All of them are receiving campaign contributions, turning around and granting billions back. Representative Cordaya.

Thank you ma'am, I just wanted to emphasize what Mister McGovern said a minute ago. Hundred and seventy billion from last year, seventy billion more. Two hundred and fifty, almost two hundred and fifty billion dollars. What purpose? I'm out of Orange County, California. We have a history of pole guards. But we've never had pole guards with a federal badge and a federal gun keeping people from voting. I need America to wake up to this. This is serious stuff. This is our democracy hanging, and our president has made it clear he's gonna do everything he can to win in November.

And thank you, and thank you for also bringing um the amendments about our veterans, right? These are veterans who were promised, who were promised that if they would put their lives on the line for America, America would stand for them. And what have we done?

They took a note to this country. Lot of them made the ultimate sacrifice.

Representative Tlaib.

I think it's important I just wanna read uh from an article. This was from an investor call, so this is literally they're talking about human beings here, and then uh the investor call where somebody from a core civic said, quote, one of the big questions has been the pace of detention by ICE, that it's been below what investors thought it was going to be, one caller said. I think people thought we'd be at least at a hundred thousand level. We are a little over seventy thousand, again, talking about it in numbers, not a human being impact. This is again CoreCivic and um, GEO group who have some of the biggest complaints in regards to medical care access. Congresswoman, uh, uh, the meals, um, I mean, the people that we've talked to and our uh, the attorneys that represent them continue to tell us that they are all number driven and profit driven. They're not about care and they don't care. And ninety-seven percent of the people that are in these companies' facilities

Thank you.

don't have any criminal record.

Thank you, and if you can just give us a two a couple of sentence and close it out.

Thank you so much, uh, congresswoman. I'm worried like my colleagues about the no-bid contracts and the corruption that we are seeing running rampant centered at and driven from sixteen hundred, Pennsylvania Avenue. Our constituents want their taxpayer dollars to be used respectfully and responsibly and in service of health care and housing and affordability. we hear it over and over and over folks are struggling while these companies these trump donors are getting richer by warehousing human beings and that's absolutely abhorrent

it's all about choices uh and and what we prioritize and i thank you very much and mister chair i yield back

Jen Leith yields back that concludes this panel i will remind panelists that uh even if it gets dull and boring that uh when you come you are expected to stay for the question period as well and this panel is released and will recognize the next panel in just a second

mmm

And on our next panel we're expecting Ms. Hoyle and Ms. Ramirez.

Sure.

All right. I will uh recognize you all in just a minute but just do wanna reiterate sometimes with the permission of the chair folks may have to leave early but uh once we start the process and we start getting into questions uh please stay until the question period for your panel is concluded and i appreciate that thank you alright i'll first recognize uh miss hoyle

um thank you mr. chair and thanking member McGovern um for the opportunity to in favor of my amendment for senate bill two my amendment would prevent a partisan reconciliation process from being used to fund military action in iran now and in the future unless congress has authorized such hostilities through a declaration of war or specific authorization of military force congress created the reconciliation process under the congressional budget act more than fifty years ago so the house and senate could quickly resolve issues within the budget. Reconciliation was never meant to replace the bipartisan appropriations process, and yet we've seen the Republican majority use this process over and over again, denying the kind of public process and representation that nearly half the citizens of this United States voted for. Using this process to fund ICE and CBP shuts the door on the negotiations needed to reform those agencies. not for nothing. These agencies are already funded through twenty twenty nine while we're taking food away from pregnant women and children. We cannot normalize using reconciliation as the vehicle for every party line priority. As we consider this resolution, we cannot ignore what might come next. The administration has already requested three hundred and fifty billion in mandatory defense spending and another reconciliation package could be the vehicle moving that uh for that funding in the future, all while tearing health care and food away from our most vulnerable citizens. I wanna make sure that reconciliation does not become a blank check for spending billions of taxpayer dollars all while putting American lives on the line, a decision this serious requires open debate, transparency for the American people, and members of both parties being forced to take a vote. The American people deserve to be able to see a transparent discussion and a deliberate decision-making when we are putting American lives on the line and spending billions of taxpayer dollars. This should be an easy vote because it's in the interest of our constituents that we follow the oath that we took to uphold uphold the constitution and take back our authority to declare war and be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. I know my constituents Across the political spectrum, I represent very progressive areas and very conservative areas. They believe we should be investing in America first and not wasting money on agencies like ICE and CBP that have plenty of money. They're funded through twenty twenty nine while they're committing human rights abuses and unconstitutional detainment of both legal, and undocumented immigrants and citizens. who look like immigrants. You wanna stop waste, fraud and abuse? Let's start with ICE, CBP and the Department of Defense, and I'm happy to work with anyone on those things. Thank you very much. I yield.

Jen Liddy yields back now, recognises Mr. Ramirez for her uh her time. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Chairman. Well, good afternoon and and it's good to also see ranking member McGovern. I wanna thank you both for the opportunity to testify today. As I've said before, DHS, ICE and CBP they're not really rogue. Congress designed DHS a little bit over twenty years ago under the pretense of securing our safety and protecting us from domestic terrorism to have the rights and the authority that you see now and how they violate it. So it's hard for me and many Americans to believe that S two, the secure America act, a bill that would give another seventy billion dollars for DHS's mass deportation campaign does what the title actually suggest. Frankly, I think it's the opposite. You know how I know that? Because for over a year we've seen what DHS can do with its unlimited resources and its unchecked power. Our communities have witnessed abductions, kidnappings, the militarization of our cities, murder of our neighbors, the persecution of dissent, and the rise of fascism in our nation, facilitated by DHS immigration enforcement. So let me be clear with you. Reforms are not enough. DHS needs to be dismantled and I think we need something new. And while we work to that end, we have to do everything in our power to address the harms that are happening right now, all over the country. And that starts by legislating to address the harm that DHS is causing today. Just in my district, we've watched parents get separated from their children, toddlers to high school age. Children were living and dying with cancer, not once but twice. constituents with protections like DACA and U visa applicants who have been illegally detained, eighth graders with autism who have been held in Dilley for months, and constituents who have been pepper sprayed outside of their schools, all in my district. None of these actions protect us. In fact, let's be frank, it makes all of our communities less safe. The administration is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to execute its reckless mass deportation plan, run irresponsible publicity campaigns, and unconstitutionally remove immigrants to foreign prisons in third countries without due process all while their private prison donors profit from our pain my amendments address DHS's worst abuses of power my amendments number fifteen sixteen seventeen and eighteen explicitly address trump and DHS's cruel removal and deportation policies my amendments nineteen and twenty directly address DHS's explicit pattern violating the rule of law, disregarding resident's civil rights, and intentionally recruiting ICE agents through these white nationalist propaganda agendas. My amendments number twenty-two and twenty-five directly address the over-inflated budget of this bill which infuses taxpayer-funded resources into further abuse of our own rights. And my amendments number twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-six, and twenty-seven, yes, I have a lot of amendments, because we have a lot of work to do, explicitly address how DHS's operated without a legal requirement to establish and abide by basic policies, basic policies that both sides of the aisle should support, like the use of force policies. Senate Republicans have avoided all transparency and accountability. They voted on every democratic amendment to protect our communities and rein in Trump's corruption and so I urge my colleagues to recognize that our civil rights and our liberties they're literally on the line right now and as a ranking member of the Committee for Homeland Security i can tell you that the safety and security of our communities is on the line we must amend s two and vote in favor of common sense policies that protect our communities americans are demanding more than some watered-down reforms or more of their money being spent on terrorizing communities without intervention dhs will continue to be a weapon that can be pointed at anyone the government considers a public enemy and you and i both know fascism always requires a public enemy it's a matter of time before you are that public enemy we have to change course and i hope the members of this committee will vote on these amendments with that i yield back chairman

this is really uh in a

well thank you

sorry sorry mr. morgan i i messed up uh it's ok so uh

the general may need to start over so that it's properly recorded

yes you could you're fair enough thank you uh thank you mr. chair i i'm stunned by the amount of money that

that would be

congress and the president want and expect the taxpayers to spend on ice on detention deportation uh it is now two hundred and forty billion dollars in the two reconciliation packets so packages so in the first reconciliation you all spent uh i i believe a hundred and forty billion dollars on this and now we're gonna spend another seventy billion dollars that's two hundred and forty billion dollars and to put it into context uh i looked up the the amount of money each country spends on defense this is more money than every country spends on defense with the exception of the united states and china russia spends less hundred and ninety billion dollars they're at war germany one fourteen india ninety-two uh ukraine eighty four billion dollars uh that pales in comparison to the two hundred and forty billion dollars uh that you are gonna spend on uh mass deportation which everyone agreed was logistically impossible constitutionally questionable uh if not wrong and prohibitively expensive yet you're gonna spend two hundred and forty billion dollars on this uh the two amendments give you uh two options in case you wanna change your mind amendment eighty eight uh takes the money and says look uh we need uh police officers and teachers let's go ahead and and and and and spend on both Uh, so the the money reassigns the funding evenly between the Department of Education's grants to states that will help recruit and retain teachers and the Department of Justice's community-oriented police uh policing services or the COPS grant program that helps people hire and retain police officers if that is insufficient amendment one fifty-seven reassigns funding uh ten billion dollars for COPS ten billion dollars for roads and bridges ten billion dollars for teachers ten billion dollars for food assistance ten billion dollars for utility assistance and twenty billion dollars towards paying down the national debt which has uh ballooned ballooned uh in this reconciliation process uh it's almost forty billion uh trillion dollars uh with that mister chair i i yield

gentleman yields and We now have Mister McGarvey who's joined us. No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Gotta wait for questions and answers. Sorry, we'll have questions uh session as soon as we finish the panel. Mister McGarvey.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I've just got three simple amendments I wanna propose today. Uh, let's look at this. In this budget, the Republicans have given ICE another seventy billion dollars, I say another seventy billion dollars because it is on top of the one hundred and seventy billion dollars they have already done. That is two hundred and forty billion dollars. way more than they ever gave during the entirety of Trump's first presidency. But two hundred and forty billion dollars for ICE and CBP, what does that mean? Right, this is a quarter of a trillion dollars. This is more than every country on earth spends on national defense except for the United States and China. We are giving that money to ICE. We are giving more money to ICE than to what every state, city, county and the federal government spends on detention right now, and they are giving it to ICE. I don't understand this at all when we look at the problems that are going on in this country. I mean, we're talking about a quarter of a trillion dollars, yet in this country the words homeless and veterans still go together. They should never go together. Take the seventy billion dollars that's in this reconciliation bill right now, this is what this amendment does, and give it towards veteran housing. This would make sure that every veteran in the United States of America has a roof over their head. period in fact seventy billion dollars would probably end homelessness altogether so that's what we should use it for instead of I mean two hundred forty billion dollars this is more than Russia spent on its defense this year and they are currently in a war got another amendment I wanna propose as well um this is an amendment that talks about what's going on with the ballroom here we're talking about a budget here uh this budget this is ridiculous you're talking about two hundred and forty billion dollars for ice we don't have enough money for veterans we don't have enough money for kids for for food for medicine we have so many problems in this country yet the president destroys the white house and says let me put a billion dollars in for a ballroom in in the gilded age this is not serious um so we need to make sure that not a penny of taxpayer money goes towards this ballroom my third amendment that i wanna propose today this is the last one this is about the uh slush fund that the president has created one point eight billion dollars now this is a president who we have seen lie on multiple occasions said he was gonna release the epstein files he didn't do it um he said that he wasn't going to use a single dollar of taxpayer funding for the ballroom of course he's trying to do that that's why i have that other amendment um go down the list he says on this on his one point eight billion dollar slush fund for people who attack the capital and assaulted police officers in an act of domestic terrorism he says i kinda like this idea Let's stop it now. Let's make sure that no money goes to the President and his allies who were involved on January sixth. We can put this amendment in, we can stop it, because going back to my time in the in the legislature in Kentucky, I have said that the budget is the ultimate policy document. You you, politicians can say whatever they want, the budget is where they literally put their money where their mouth is. But more than that, a budget is a moral document. This budget falls short by what it does we can correct a few of the mistakes with these amendments. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. That concludes this panel of uh witnesses on amendments. I will now recognize uh gentlelady uh Miss Fischbach for

I have no questions.

questions. Alright, Mister McGovern.

Uh, I wanna thank you for for being here, I we s- obviously support all your amendments, I think they w- uh if people don't wanna vote for them then they should can vote no on the House floor. Uh, but I also wanna promote this notion that you know there's a lot of talk by my republican friends about we need this for national security right i think we need a definition of national security in this country one that includes things like the quality of education we provide our kids uh the purity of our environment uh whether people can afford healthcare whether people can afford groceries and food so we don't have people going hungry whether people can afford housing uh you know the time when we see the number of people living on the street going up and up and up because they just can't afford housing um it has to include other things right i mean um the integrity of our government i mean and um and and again uh you know close to two hundred billion dollars when last week this majority cut wick by two hundred million dollars i'm not i'm not even getting into the two hundred billion cuts in snap or the trillion dollar cuts in in medicaid i mean like like like you know what are we what are we doing here well i mean why why i thought we're supposed to be about helping people um and it seems like we're not only hurting people we're we're really screwing people over big time with this and i i don't know i i i i don't know uh you know maybe it's different in republican districts but i do a town hall i mean if i were to say i'm cutting wick i'm cutting snapper i'm cutting healthcare i'm cutting everything else cutting money for education but hey i'm gonna send close to two hundred billion dollars to ice and cbp uh even though they already have over a hundred billion dollars they haven't even that hasn't been drawn down yet i i think i'd be booed out of the hall um so i thank you for your amendments and i look forward to supporting them i yield back

sorry gentleman has no questions now recognises miss scanlon

i just wanna thank everyone for bringing your testimony and your amendments and addressing the morality or rather the immorality of this seventy billion dollar deficit spending slush fund for corporate donors to the president. Um, really appreciate you pointing out the corruption that is inherent in all of it and trying to do the work of the people. I yield back.

Now he yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Scott. Mister Scott has no questions. Now I recognize Miss Elijah Fernandez.

Thank you. Each of these amendments are so essential in your testimony. and especially pointing out the contrast like when we think about what we could be spending the money on or how we're spending more money on ice and cvp than countries that are at war on the defense wow right and you are absolutely right representative we have a lot of work to do and it is just unfortunate that republicans refuse to do the work to protect basic constitutional principles that all people in the united states are entitled to what we're talking about is comply with whatever the law enforcement does uh it's just amazing but i'm so grateful for your testimony and your amendments and thank you for coming and staying for christians

thank you all so much we appreciate your testimony and the fact that you stayed for christians and uh you all are are released to go and will now take a minute and then we're welcome in the third panel

oh yeah that's that's last ever

It's all ten bucks.

What's that?

Well, they all take the same time. Well, they all take the same time.

Oh, OK.

They all take the same time. Twenty twenty two.

Ah, class of twenty twenty two, alright. Thank you all. You all have a nice evening. They're not here, but I was thinking they're not here. Yeah, there's a couple of 'em. Now recognize panel number three. We have um Miss Clark, Democratic whip, Mister Jeffries, the Democratic leader, and Mister Aguilar, chair of the House Democratic caucus, uh, to testify on amendments. And I don't know what the protocol is here. It says uh says I'm supposed to recognize Miss Clark first. Oh, yeah. Is that right? I recognize Miss Clark then.

thank you mr. chair

did you turn your lights up if you're here

is your light on

oh no it was not alright

there you go

thank you mr. chairman ranking member McGovern members of the committee thank you for having me and i'm here today to offer yet another chance to our republican colleagues to change course we are five hundred days into the trump economy and what are the american people facing inflation is at a three-year high gas is over four dollars household debt is up to seven hundred and sixty billion dollars the cost of bread is up fruits and vegetables ground beef is up twenty-one percent and that's before this administration screwed up on screw worms and now because of those costs because of trump's tariffs and war and broken economy one out of three families are having a hard time putting enough food on the table. We are the richest nation in the history of the world, and a third of our families are facing the pain, the indignity, and injustice of hunger. So what have Republicans done about it? Families have been kicked off of SNAP, the last line of defense between children and hunger. Every single Republican on this committee voted for it. And we may disagree on plenty of policies and issues, but I don't think a single one of you came to Congress to cut food programs that feed hungry children and seniors and veterans. ICE's budget is getting eight times bigger than it was a year ago. And under this latest bill, it'll be twelve times bigger. And what are we getting for that money? Terror among law-abiding immigrant families, protesters beaten up, doors broken down without a warrant, and the murders of Rene Good and Alex Preddy. Seventy billion is seven times the annual budget of the FBI. It's a hundred times what we give the Office on Violence against Women. Or put another way, you could feed thirty million children with seventy billion dollars. You could feed thirty million children a year. So let's do something better for our American children. I'm offering a straightforward amendment. Instead of spending billions on terrorizing our communities, let's reverse your snap cuts, let's fulfill our most basic moral obligation, and keep our country's children fed. Widespread hunger is not inevitable, it's a choice. And I'm offering you the choice to do something about it. I urge you to take it. I yield back.

Thank the gentlelady, and gentlelady yields back. Now recognize uh the Democratic Leader, Mister Jeffries, for his uh statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, let me also thank uh Representative McGovern, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, and all of the members of the Rules Committee, for this opportunity to present this amendment. I'm offering an amendment that will reverse all of the harmful Medicaid cuts that republicans included in the one big ugly bill that have resulted in hospitals nursing homes and community-based health centers all across america particularly in rural parts of the country from closing the medicaid cut in the one big ugly bill is the largest cut to medicaid in american history threatening to rip healthcare away from more than fourteen million Americans at a time when healthcare costs are already skyrocketing out of control. This amendment gives House Republicans the opportunity to help President Donald Trump keep his word. Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one, But costs haven't gone down, costs have gone up. Because of direct actions that President Trump has taken, including the Trump tariffs. Which have increased costs on everyday Americans by thousands of dollars per year. Donald Trump promised that immigration enforcement under his presidency would target the worst of the worst. And violent felons who are here illegally. But that's not what has happened. Taxpayer dollars are being used by ICE to brutalize and in some cases kill American citizens, including Alex Pratty and Renee Nicole Good and to violently target law abiding immigrant families. President Trump said one thing and has done the exact opposite. President Donald Trump promised to love and cherish Medicaid. Those were his words. And instead, as a result of the Republican one big ugly bill, Medicaid has been slashed, ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans. This amendment gives Republicans in the House an opportunity to help Donald Trump keep his word, which he has repeatedly broken to the American people. The reconciliation bill that Republicans are now trying to jam down the throats of the American people represents a seventy billion dollar blank check to ICE, which we know is out of control. Immigration enforcement in this country should be fair, just, and humane. That's not what's happening right now. And one of the things that Republicans can do to help reverse engineer the damage that Republicans have already done to the American people, is to adopt this amendment, reverse the Medicaid cuts, and begin to actually move our country toward a place where health care is not simply a privilege available only to the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected. Health care should be a right. available to every single american i yield back

gentleman yields back now recognize mr. aguilar chair of the house democratic caucus voting statement or statement

thank you mr. chairman uh i'm reigning member of mcgovern and members of the committee uh my amendment would transfer the seventy billion dollars that republicans are proposing for ice to reinstate the affordable care act enhance premium tax credits for over two years. Last year, Republican leadership allowed that tax allowed these tax credits which millions of people relied on to expire. Back in January of this year, this chamber took the extraordinary step, a bipartisan step, to pass a discharge petition to extend these tax credits. However, this legislation has continued to languish in the Republican-led Senate. In the months since, I know all of us have heard directly, from our constituents who are now forced to pay thousands of dollars more each year for healthcare. In my district alone, thousands of Californians in the Inland Empire have lost care altogether, because Republican leadership let this lifeline expire. On top of the skyrocketing costs of gas and groceries, utilities and housing, Republicans are now forcing Americans in red, blue and purple districts alike to spend more on healthcare. yet another expense they simply can't afford. These credits are not a handout. As one of my constituents, Doctor Cameo-Carter put it, those relying on the tax credit, these are her words, they make too much to qualify for assistance, but too little to afford the soaring premiums of traditional insurance plans. These credits help keep families insured. That's why I'm here, Mister Chairman, to offer this common sense amendment that will help tackle the cost of living crisis that President Trump and Republicans have created. Rather than giving billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars with no strings attached to an agency that has a long record of brutalizing communities, detaining children and pregnant mothers, and even killing US citizens, I believe we should be using these tax dollars to lower Americans' costs. Health care is a top expense for far too many families, but it doesn't have to be this way. We have the opportunity right here and right now to bring down one of the largest bills families pay each month. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to put America's health care and financial well-being over Trump's mass deportation machine. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Um, uh, this is General Lady, Miss Fischbach, I have, No questions, no problem. uh, no questions, uh, Mister McGovern.

Um, yeah, I do, uh, because, uh, i i think what's happening here is outrageous and i would like to hear some justification from my republican friends as to why they're so indifferent about all this um uh i mean we you know we're we're giving we're we're giving an additional seventy billion dollars to give isis ebp up to two hundred billion dollars last week we cut uh wick by two hundred million dollars i mean a slight adjustment i mean we could fully fund wick and it wouldn't make really no difference in terms of the large s that you're giving to these two unlawful agencies um and then we could be talking about ending like making sure that that pregnant women and their infants and young children don't go hungry now or you can be focused on forward funding ice and cbp well into the future i just like uh what are we what is everyone thinking here leader jefferies what impact do we expect to see going forward uh if congress doesn't take steps to mitigate the big ugly bill.

You know, the one big ugly bill is a disaster for hardworking American taxpayers, and it's extraordinary to me that Republicans decided to enact the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, ripping healthcare away from millions of everyday Americans, and creating a situation where hospitals, nursing homes, and community-based health clinics all across America, including in your districts, are on the brink of closure. And it's shocking to me that our Republican colleagues are proceeding as if it's just business as usual. It is not. Everyday Americans in this country should be able to afford to go see a doctor when they need one. And in order to ensure that happens, we have to reverse the damage that Republicans have done in your one big ugly bill." At the same period of time, what should shock the American people is that in that toxic piece of legislation, as Mister McGovern has pointed out, Republicans enacted the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history. Literally. Republicans have ripped away food from hungry children, seniors, and veterans. And all of this was done in part to provide ICE and Donald Trump's violent mass deportation machine in the one big ugly bill, part one, a hundred and forty billion dollars to brutalize and kill American citizens. And now Republicans are doubling and tripling down on that cruelty Without any explanation, all three of us are here, the House Democratic leadership, not a single peep from my Republican colleagues. Defend your position. You're cutting Medicaid, ripping it away from the American people. Feel free to defend your position. Ask us any questions about our policy differences, but instead we're confronted with silence. And the American people deserve better.

So, Mr. Leader, you recently went to went in person to do oversight at Delaney Hall Immigration Detention Center facility in New Jersey. Can you tell us what you saw there about the inhumane and une unacceptable conditions?

Delaney Hall is a privately run facility, fully funded by ICE, and the conditions there should shock the conscience. of every single American. The taxpayer funded abuse that is occurring in this facility is un-American, is unpatriotic, and is unacceptable. It includes the fact that there is woefully inadequate health care being provided. including to some individuals who are on the verge of dying because they have stage three or stage four cancer. And by the way, every single one of these individuals that we interacted with at Delaney Hall, these are law-abiding, nonviolent, in many cases, tax paying entrepreneurs who have small businesses and pending court cases to establish their lawful right to remain in the United States of America. But to the Trump administration it doesn't matter. There was an eighteen year old teenage girl who's been in Delaney Hall now for months, just short of her graduation, who had a pending case to establish her lawful right to remain in this country along with her two US citizen younger siblings for being held in conditions that are unsanitary, unsafe, with a lack of adequate food and nutrition. That's why we've collectively called for Delaney Hall to be shut down, not funded, as Republicans are trying to do in this one big ugly bill, part two.

You know, I have, uh, repeatedly said in this committee and on the House floor that, uh, this is administration is the most corrupt administration in recent history. I've amended my statement. I've removed removed the word " recent". Um, I mean, it is so obvious to me, uh, that, you know, the the the the corruption is blatant. It's just, I mean, I mean, the pardoning of people guilty of Medicare fraud, the the the sweetheart deals his family is making to enrich themselves. He's gotten richer, uh, by billions of dollars since he's become president. I mean, like, I I I I don't understand like why there is a tolerance for this kind of behavior when I can't think of a previous president, Democrat or Republican, maybe w- not even Richard Nixon. Barry Goldwater went to Rich Richard Nixon and said, " You gotta go." Um, because of his corruption. Um, but I don't know if you wanna comment on that.

Trump cartel, in my view, has run the largest pay-to-play scheme in the history of the country and one of the other problems with this Republican budget reconciliation bill is the fact that it doesn't contain an outright prohibition on the one point eight billion dollar corrupt slush fund that Donald Trump is trying to jam down the throat to the American people to pay off and compensate people who violently attack this capital on January sixth and brutally beat police officers why in the world would we not outright prohibit the one point eight billion dollar slush fund is it because my republican colleagues support this type of corruption in real time explain yourselves Because I'm confused. Make it make sense.

Webb Clark, let me just ask you a couple of questions. Um, I mean, you travel all over the country. Um, you know, with all that's going on right now domestically, grocery prices up, gas prices up, inflation up, cost of housing up, I mean, uh, you know, have have you met anybody, has has one person come up to you and told you that Congress should focus on forward funding ICE and CBP? Uh, for several more years rather than addressing those immediate economic concerns that people are facing i'm i mean have you ever heard anybody suggest that

not alone

well you know

not alone

yeah

and uh i wanna thank you uh my member in the government for your work and i also wanna thank you for it was good to be with you when we were at the detention center and able to um to see for ourselves the children that were there, children that we saw that were being denied the medical care that they get. And we know from these cuts seven hundred thousand children have lost food benefits and that's only data from twelve states.

Right.

So we don't even know how big this is. And the idea that we are taking food away from kids to give it to detention centers to detain children? This is, it is so outrageous and cruel that it's really hard to take in. And what I have heard from, and I'm sure you've heard the same, are dozens of moms in my district who just have this pit of fear in their gut that they are not gonna be able to feed their children because of these cuts. And when they talk about their children eat first because they don't have enough food, they put their kids to bed early so they may not notice that they're hungry.

Right.

These are decisions that American families are making so that we can do what? Twelve times what the ICE budget was? For what? We were told this would be the worst of the worst, and now it is affecting the young and the innocent. And it is, it is an outrage. And we, uh, the fact that we have this bill before us again, with increased funding, is real, it's hard to take in what the choices are this week.

And that's why I appreciate the amendment you're offering to restore the snap cuts. you know i i'm on the agriculture committee too and uh somebody said well uh you know these children who are losing their snap benefits so that's not because of the big ugly bill cause those cuts the big two hundred billion dollars worth of cuts don't come into play till next year

mmm

uh the fact is it is in part because of the new of all the additional paperwork being required and the new work requirements we are already seeing people being thrown off the benefit and i've got people who have you know life life life is complicated sometimes and and you know and and people trying to do everything the right way you know sometimes can't comply with all these new hoops that uh they're being asked to jump through, so people are losing their benefits now. And the figure you gave? Seven hundred thousand kids in twelve states? Um I mean I you know I like I don't know how you justify that. Let me just ask Mr. Aguilar one question here. Can you talk about what the expiration of these tax credits is costing the average American family?

Yeah, in in twenty twenty five, twenty two million people were enrolled in the ACA Marketplace. The average monthly premium has increased, uh, fifty eight percent on average. Deductibles have increased by almost forty percent, or about a thousand dollars per person. That's exactly what, what we're talking about. Uh, in my state alone in California, one in five Marketplace enrollees did not renew their plan, uh, for twenty twenty-six. Uh, already in the first six months of this year we've seen a million Americans lose coverage for lack of enrollment. Uh, if this trend continues, what we're going to have is a sicker country forced to pay more to see a doctor. And that's, uh, in my district as well as in yours. And I would argue, as as many of our colleagues have said, at the ACA Marketplace enrollees, uh, most individuals live in Republican districts. Uh, and, and seventy seven percent of Marketplace enrollees live in States won by President Trump.

Yeah.

Uh, those are the individuals who uh have the most to lose uh by lapsing coverage.

Right. Well, let me just close with this. I I re- I remain astounded by how messed up and out of touch um the priorities are of this President. Um, and and this Republican Congress. Uh, I mean, it it takes my breath away i i i it's so you know over the top uh cruel that i just can't believe that that you know they're they're sticking to it because last week again we took two hundred million dollars from wick and the very next week these guys are giving billions to ice and cbp you're almost doubling what they already got in the big ugly bill and you know we hear about ways fraud and abuse uh but we never we but never at the pentagon an agency on track for one point five trillion dollars in terms of their budget never any concern about waste fraud and abuse at the white house where the president wants to waste taxpayer money on his ballroom and his slush run and for january sixth convicted felons and cop killers it's it's like i you can't make this stuff up it just it's so over the top outrageous i mean and um and i i you know i i you know the president just doubled down on his slush fund over the over the weekend i mean i i i don't i don't get it i mean i i just anyway i as i said at the beginning uh you know i i think this is a this is a a debate about values and i don't think you know we share the same values um and um you know and i regret that very much because i would like to think that when it comes to making sure protecting the welfare and well-being you know of struggling families that we're all on the you know reading off the same sheet of music But clearly we're not. So I I thank you and I yield back.

Generally yields back.

Mister Scott, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, um, I'll be brief, but I I thought I had heard Donald Trump blamed about about everything from the Democratic Party, but now blaming him for the New World Sh-

I I I I blame you as well as Donald Trump.

You blame me? Okay,

Yeah.

okay, well, bl- blaming Donald Trump for the New World Screwworm you know, that is

You're blaming Joe Biden for it.

I'm not blaming anybody for it. It's an insect.

Your your party is. Re-

Well, I'm I'm I'm not blaming Joe Biden for it.

Re- Yeah.

I don't think it's any one person's fault. I mean, but you know, the the fact of the matter is Donald Trump's FDA approved Ectomax all the way back in September of of last year, when when we started seeing the fly work its way up through Mexico, I mean, it's something that you know, instead of pointing the finger at each other, I mean, this is a serious issue for the global food supply. I mean, we're trying to work to resolve it and you and you all are blaming Donald Trump for an inset. I'm I mean, that's

Representative Scott, we're not blaming Donald Trump,

No, no, no, no, no, this is my time, this is

we're saying we're going to do the cutting by twenty-five minutes.

this is my time, this is my time, you're going to get your time. Uh, I I I I I don't think this is the time. I mean, and I just you you know, no, this is my time, this is my time, I know you all want to embrace your leadership, but just You know, a- as we get to the, you know, saying that we kicked kids off SNAP, the fact of the matter is, if you read the law, if you're under eighteen you are exempt from the changes, if you're sixty-five and over you are exempt from the changes, if you are medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment, you are exempt for the changes from the changes. And by the way, the change was to work or volunteer for twenty hours a week. So I support the changes we made, um, and and you know we need to fund immigrations and customs enforcement and we certainly need to fund customs and border protection and for the life of me i don't understand why you all insist on open borders but madam chair i look forward to voting for the rule and i look forward to voting for the bill

thank you miss fallon

uh i'll yield first to mister mcgovern

yeah i i want to ask you in any risk of sense to um insert

can

congressional record, um, I mean to - to the uh - to the - for the record, a article that appeared in the Huffington Post which I'm happy to share with my colleague, Mister Scott, um, a horrific parasite is back and Elon Musk doge could be partly to blame for it. Talking about all the cuts that have been made, uh, that have impacted um, you know, USDA's uh, ability to oversee what's going on, um, and basically people turning their, taking their - taking their eye off the - off the ball here.

It's already been entered into the record.

uh maybe for emphasis we can enter it twice

would without

right like

mis-scanling

Thank you. Um I appreciate the testimony from our leadership, it is really important that we remind folks just how bad last summer's big ugly bill was and how this bill doubles down on the damage um that was done there and we have been talking about the fact that you know last week budget deficits were the um were the rationale for cutting two hundred million dollars And this week, our colleagues are willing to use seventy billion in deficit spending to add to the trillions in deficit spending that they rammed through last year. Um, like you, uh, Ms. Clark, I am so concerned about SNAP and and the impact we're seeing. I think we've lost sixty thousand, uh, SNAP eligible families in, uh, Pennsylvania already. Um, is it that uh these folks are being kicked off because they're not americans or because they're fraudsters or or why are people losing snap

well it's certainly not because they are not americans uh and it is not because of fraud um this is a choice that has been made to fund tax cuts for the extremely wealthy uh at the expense of feeding hungry people in our country. Uh, we can end hunger in this country, and that should be a shared goal. Like I said in my testimony, I don't believe any of you came here to hurt kids, to have them go hungry, whether that's seniors, veterans, or children. And yet, here we are. Over the past year, since the the big ugly law was passed, four million people have dropped off of snap participation. Because when you make a program difficult, a program that has a history of running in a highly efficient and reliable manner, real people get hurt. These are real impacts. And we saw back in the Republican shutdown this fall, we saw a president who was willing to use hunger and SNAP benefits as a cudgel. It was one of the most cynical things I've ever seen. And the fear that lives with people continues on. We have to do better in this country and this bill is a step in the wrong direction.

Yeah, I think what sticks with me is is that people losing their SNAP eligibility and losing their Medicaid eligibility was not only predictable, it was predicted because the states that have implemented this kind of, not work requirements but paperwork requirements have seen the

Right.

reduction in folks being able to prove their eligibility not that they actually weren't eligible so that's that's been really frustrating. Um Leader Jeffries, um on the Medicaid cuts I appreciate your your amendment to reverse reverse those. Um you know we've seen so much data about the impact of those Medicaid cuts and perhaps one of the most um notorious ones is the fact that we have so many rural hospitals that are dependent upon Medicaid and I think there's a list of the three hundred most challenged uh rural hospitals including one in Mister Scott's district that has been unable to meet payroll had its water cut off for failing to pay water bills um what are we seeing around the country as hospitals both in rural and urban areas are not getting the kinds of Medicaid payments that they need to in order to stay alive and be able to help our communities.

Well, thank you so much for the question and for your uh leadership in this area and so many other areas. Rural hospitals throughout America in many instances were already on life support. They were already financially challenged. And the one big ugly bill and the Medicaid cuts being visited upon rural America are likely to pull the plug on rural hospitals and health care for rural communities all across America, and we already are seeing the impact. There are rural hospitals already announcing that they will be unable to remain open and serve the people in their communities if these Medicaid cuts aren't reversed. And that's one of the reasons why we're committed to doing all that is necessary to reversing the damage that Republicans have done in their one big ugly bill. To rural America, to urban America, to the heartland of America, to small town America, and to black and brown communities all across America.

Mm-hmm.

Republicans in their one big ugly bill were equal opportunity offenders. Everyone's getting hurt.

Mm-hmm.

But it certainly is the case that a disproportionate amount of harm is gonna be inflicted on rural hospitals throughout this country.

Thank you. Um, Mister Aguilar, I know your amendment speaks to the failure to extend the ACA tax credits. We've seen that impact in my district as well. I mean, we've been following along with our Affordable Care Act insurance in in Pennsylvania. It's called Penny. And we've met with them several times and they warned us that fewer people were signing up. Um, but then they said we're not gonna see the real impact until March, April, May, which is where we are now, June, where people signed up hoping that things would get better, hoping that Republicans would follow through on and actually pass an extension of the tax credits. And when that hasn't happened, their coverage is being dropped. Can you speak at all to what you're seeing nationally?

yeah what we're seeing uh you know over a million people um have have lapsed that coverage already and that could just be the start uh to your to your broader point uh people are signing up and they're and they're being optimistic and they're mmm looking at uh at hopefully this place working and and receiving um the opportunity to to have those lower premiums uh and uh now what they're going to see is those skyrocketing costs continue to grow mmm with uh the senate just you know turning their back on a on a bipartisan deal or they've got different working groups or so they say but uh they they haven't done anything about it and to the credit of of this body uh not the republican majority though um republicans joined us in a successful discharge in in january uh because everybody here knows the costs are continuing to rise for our constituents And this is one opportunity for us, uh, to try to meet that. And, uh, so, uh, it's just unfortunate, uh, and as I said, this is hitting rural communities, uh, just as you mentioned, uh, earlier, uh, even harder. Uh, and this is, uh, uh, seventy-seven percent, uh, of folks impacted, uh, live in trump states. I mean, this is affecting, uh, every corner of this country. Uh, costs are rising, uh, people aren't going to sign up or they're gonna get less care, uh, in the future. Or the and they're gonna continue to crowd emergency rooms um and in and rural communities that could be you know a death sentence in and of itself.

Yeah it's certainly been an issue in my district which is not a rural community but um so many of our front-line hospitals are dependent on Medicaid and and they're really feeling that challenge as are our federally qualified health centers. Um it's it's a real challenge I just wish our colleagues' passion for limited government would extend to not spending deficit dollars on a massive deportation uh industrial complex, which is what we're seeing instead. Thank you for your testimony. I yield back.

Thank you. Uh, mister Cech, do you have any questions? Okay. Mister DeGouze.

Thank you. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. My first question was going to be to the leader, uh, Democratic leader, about how many points he thinks the knicks will win by tonight but i don't wanna put him on the record so he doesn't it's not required to answer that question i will say to mr. uh unless you'd like to go

no well listen i appreciate you raising that i actually was going to uh inquire of the distinguished chair of the rules committee who she knows i have great respect uh for her we may disagree on a whole host of issues but certainly i have always had great respect for her given her new york city roots will you be rooting madam chair for the knicks tonight

Oh, well, I'm, you know, I'm not gonna participate in this kind of a struggle here. I'm gonna let those of you who are more involved with it take the lead for it, Mister Leader.

I appreciate that diplomatic answer.

Very, very nuanced answer. I was gonna say to Mister Scott's point, I know there's some reporting that President Trump may attend a game tonight, so if they lose, I think we'll know who to blame, but um, in any event, that that is certainly that's certainly how I feel about it. Um. Chairman Aguilar, on a more serious note, uh, you served with distinction on the January sixth select committee. And I take it that experience, I imagine, was a profound one because you were exposed to a review, perhaps more fulsome than most members of this body, on the records of the individuals who were convicted in connection to crimes associated with January sixth. A lot of these people were stone-cold criminals. is that a fair characterization

without a doubt

uh these are people convicted of serious crimes seditious conspiracy assaulting police officers

even before january sixth many of them uh had been convicted of of things domestic assault battery uh these these were some violent individuals uh who came in the capital that day before uh they agreed um uh many of them pled to charges related to january sixth themselves

and is it your understanding that some of these same people since the pardons that they received from president trump have convicted have been convicted of serious crimes

many and including new reporting indicating far more than we thought previously um have gone on to reoffend and some of those charges by the way um battery assault crimes against children um uh and the list goes on and on uh these are individuals who donald trump pardoned uh many of them also uh one of them uh one story that that has been publicized the individual thought he was going to get a payout from the weaponization fund and went to the person that they uh committed crimes against and offered them a portion of a payout um not to not to testify and so the presumption that these individuals had was the weaponization fund is gonna fix all of my all of my issues um, including future potential legal issues, uh, that they would have as well. And so, uh, the the fifteen hundred day one, uh, pardons, uh, that those are the types of people Donald Trump feels comfortable, um, you know, uh, w- feels comfortable around. Those are the people he lifts up.

And given all that you just described, this goes to the point that the leader made, and I believe the ranking member made previously, this bill does nothing to stop that fund from materializing.

Nothing.

Nothing. For all the hand wringing from some Republican senators over the last three weeks and, you know, boasts about their efforts to potentially try to claw this back or to stop the administration from moving forward, the bill does nothing.

And and we've got an interview with the president just hours, hours ago, maybe taped on Saturday and and aired yesterday where he refused to rule this out in the future as well. Um, this is something he feels passionate about not that police officers got beat up uh not that police officers lost their lives um he talked about some of the rioters uh losing jobs uh he didn't mention anything about police officers uh losing their lives um uh getting getting beat up themselves um uh that's just incredibly unfortunate

yeah

well i couldn't have said it any better than you did i think it's shameful And reason alone, reason enough, notwithstanding all of the myriad of reasons that the whip and the leader and yourself all articulated, this in particular is reason enough for every member of this body to reject this bill. It's just shameful. And I would hope my Republican colleagues would join us in coming together to draft some language to stop the Trump administration from giving taxpayer dollars to people who attacked police officers that guard us in this capital today. i just think that should be a red line and i would yield back to the show

thank you very much uh this is leger fernandez uh mister langworthy you have questions

uh i have no questions but would like to share go next

appreciate that moment of bipartisanship

thank you pleasure fernandez

thank you very much um and and thank you very much uh uh bert clark for raising the issue of how the trump administration screwed up the screw room. And the reason why that's really important is, um, I'm from New Mexico, and the screw room is gonna devastate, um, cattle production in Texas, multi-billion dollar industry, and it's gonna increase the costs. Everything Trump does increase the costs for American consumers, for working families. And I think that the contrast is huge between what Democrats are focused on and what Republicans are focused on and each of your amendments did that. And I would point out that um Trump Trumpublicans uh because this is done because Republicans are lock-stuck with Trump Trumpublicans are cutting two dollars, two dollars a meal. That's what Snap provides. uh but they are willing to deport migrants at uh a million dollars, some of the flights. A million dollars a person to deport a migrant, a hundred thousand dollars a day to house them in these warehouses of detention facilities. What does that tell you about where their values are with regards to the needs of the American people?

Uh, thank you for the question, and thank you for your work, it is shocking to me to watch that at every single point, like the one we're at this week with this supplemental budget, the American people don't benefit. They are forgotten. Hard-working families who are telling us they are not making it in this economy are just not being thought of and and having solutions that work for them. And it is direct opposite of why they were told to vote for Donald Trump. He promised them, " I will lower costs on day one. I will not start new wars." I know he's trying to rewrite that script, but the videos are out there. We know what he said. And at every single turn, he has made a decision to benefit himself, the billionaire class, his own family, over hard-working Americans. And now we have sixty percent of American families who are struggling to afford the basics. And today we are being asked to come back and say another seventy billion dollars for ICE. For what? For what? What's the plan? How does this help us secure borders? How does this help us, um, make sure that we are doing right by people in bringing their costs down, whether it's housing or groceries or electric bills? And the cuts that the leader has discussed go exactly against this. You cannot take away the fundamental right of a family to get health care for their children and themselves, and say, we've got you in mind. when we're drafting these budgets. It's all a shell game and the American family is the loser. And we have to get back to rewarding hard work. Well, there's lots of talk about the K economy and unsustainable wealth disparities, but what it all boils down to is we gotta be on the side of American workers and fighting for them. We gotta be on the side of people who are working really hard and not feeling like they can keep their head above water. And this bill is such a cynical betrayal of everything that we supposedly are trying to do. And when you have a bill that invests again in this deportation machine, without a, without a plan, without a strategy, how does this build security? Security for American families? We want national security for them. That is a shared value. But security really starts by knowing you're gonna be able to feed your kids, and take them to the doctor if they need to go, and make sure they have a good school that they can go to, and that you can find and afford child care if you need it. These are the basics. And Democrats have solutions. Why aren't we seeing these on the floor? And this, just this, this cruelty that exists in going forward in continuing to fund ice at the expense of all that the American people are telling us they need, it is hard to understand and it's impossible to justify.

Thank you. And uh Chairman Aguilar, um uh both your amendment and the leaders' amendment really goes to the need to prioritize healthcare. to make sure that people can get can go to a doctor, can get the help, can get the preventive care, can be treated for cancer, that women can get the care they need. And I was on the House floor when Representative Valadao, you raised the issues in California, I was on the House floor when Representative Valadao said, oh, I'm gonna move forward on voting for this bill cuz leadership has, his leadership, the speakers have told me, oh we're gonna take care to make sure that uh people who are in medical right it's on medical won't be hurt uh the you know affordable care act won't be hurt and

yeah

it i i was so aghast when i heard that because i know that in california and especially in representative valadares district as an example and in others that you pointed out these programs are essential i don't know if you can speak to what it's like right now and how people are feeling that when somebody is supposed to be fighting for you and they do the exact opposite of what you need with regards to medical

yeah that

medical and medical funding

i appreciate the question in that district california twenty two the highest utilization of medical um in this in the state of california um and uh so for for hardworking families of the central valley and for hardworking families across the state uh who are beneficiaries of it what they received back was a paper promise right they they had a their member of congress signed a letter saying um don't hurt my constituents and raised their hand and said i'm gonna i'm gonna help protect my constituents and in at the end of the day uh all of them voted for this bill that harms our shared constituents harms people in our state that kicks them off of care that that eliminates their supplemental nutrition eliminates healthcare opportunities forces them to drive further uh, for, uh, worse care, um, we'll add more people to emergency rooms in, in that part of the State of California. Uh, sometimes, uh, you know, it could take you an hour and a half, two hours, uh, three hours, uh, to drive to a doctor to provide care. Uh, that's not the way our country should function. And we're giving the Republican majority an opportunity here to fix that, um, to, to fix that, that wrong that was passed legislatively. And and we'll see what happens, but uh uh it's just incredibly unfortunate, the position that we're in.

Uh and Leader Jefferies, thank you for uh bringing forward the amendments that focused on health that focus on health care and having the discussions about where are your priorities and actually taking a look at the corruption, you know, the rail off. I love how you you you you alliterate, you know, because it's true, right? Their priorities are the rail off and the rail connected. And we had a discussion earlier tonight about the amount of campaign contributions that the uh that are flowing to the Trump administration to run these private prisons, the the Trump campaign to run these private prisons uh to fly uh immigrants around the country at hundreds of thousand dollars or million dollars, and that these are not the priorities uh that the Democrats hold. And so, you know, I'll I'll I'll end with the last question to you of why should we adopt these amendments and how they highlight the difference of putting American families at front and center of what we care about, working families versus the corrupt class, right? Cuz this is corruption at its core in terms of you're giving us money And we are turning around and giving you contracts. Um, leadership.

It's an extraordinary level of corruption and thank you, uh, Teresa, Congresswoman Leja Fernandez, for, you know, your continued leadership on all of these issues, you know, particularly as it relates, of course, to health care and nutritional assistance, and at the same time pushing back against corruption, which we're seeing at an extraordinary level in real time. As House Democrats, our view is that America's too expensive, there're far too many people in this country, working class folks, middle class folks, hard-working American, taxpayers, people who aspire to be part of the middle class, people who are working hard and they're playing by the rules, but they're struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, can't thrive and can barely survive. And life hasn't gotten more affordable for the American people under the Trump administration, life has gotten more expensive. And the one big ugly bill has made things worse. The Trump tariffs has made things worse. Ripping away health care from the American people have made things worse. The reckless and costly war of choice that has skyrocketed gas prices in this country has made things worse. We believe, as Democrats, that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable. But what this Republican budget reconciliation bill represents is a seventy billion dollar blank check to fund Donald Trump's violent mass deportation machine in ways that are inconsistent with the type of immigration enforcement that we should have in this country which should be fair, just, and humane. We support strong, safe, and secure borders. We also support getting ICE under control so that they actually are conducting themselves like every police officer cop and law enforcement agency in the country.

Thank you very much, because all we're asking for is that they follow the same rules, the same constitution as every other law enforcement. Uh, thank you very much for, uh, your proposed amendments. I wish we could vote for them on the floor, cuz I think each one of them would pass. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. Um, is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. Thank you all very much.

Thank you. Yeah.

We we can unlock the door.

Madam Chair, I move that the committee grant H R eight three one two, the Fraud Prevention and Accountability Act, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on oversight in government reform or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule per further provides for consideration of H R eighty-four sixty four the stopping fraudulent payments act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. one three three five condemning actors seeking to defraud the United States government in expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that government-wide fraud and improper payment prevention reforms will meaningfully improve the financial prosperity of the United States, and that federal program eligibility should be verified before payment under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider H res one three three five the rule provides that the resolution shall be considered as read, the rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform or their respective designees the rule further provides for consideration of S two, the secure america act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on the budget or their respective designees. And finally, The rule provides one motion to commit.

Uh, you've heard the motion from the gentleman from New York. Is there um further discussion or amendment to the rule?

Uh, Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number forty-five to S two, offered by ranking member Raskin, which blocks the use of federal funds to create or finance the trump irs settlement slush fund and imposes new restrictions to prevent taxpayer dollars from being funneled from the judgment fund to january sixth's insurrectionists. madam chair the justice department's recent corrupt settlement with president trump establishing a one point eight billion dollar political slush fund in the department of justice is another brazen scam concocted by this president although doj has claimed they aren't moving forward the fund president trump refused to disavow it saying i love it I think it's so important. Proud boy leader Enrique uh Tarrio has already said the quiet part out loud. Even if Trump and Blanche truly scrap the one point eight billion fund, the DOJ can still settle the meritless claims wrought by January six rioters and cut taxpayer funded checks to rioters who beat police directly from the judgment fund unless Congress enacts guardrails. This amendment expressly prohibits the use of the judgment fund to create or finance the slush fund established under trump's irs settlement and it benefits the treasury secretary from establishing or approving payment to similar future funds so to put a stop to this corrupt self dealing scam to pay off uh the president's loyal maga foot soldiers and to reassert congress's control over spending decisions we should adopt this amendment um and at a very minimum the full house should be able to debate it and vote on it and i yield back

Uh, Mister McGov- McGov- back, is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

Aye.

No. In the opinion, sure, the no's have it, the amendment's not agreed to. The Mister McGov- McGov- request a roll call, the clerk will call the roll.

Misses Fischbach,

No.

Misses Fischbach, no, Mister Norman, Mister Roy, Misses Houchin.

No.

Misses Houchin, no, Mister Langworthy.

No.

Mister Langworthy, no, Mister Scott. mister scott no mister griffith mister griffith no mister jack mister jack no mister mcgovern

aye

mister mcgovern aye miss scanlon

aye

miss scanlon aye mister neguse

aye

mister neguse aye miss ledger-fernandez

aye

miss ledger-fernandez aye madam chair

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total

forty eight seven eights

the no's have it the amendment's not agreed to further discussion on the motion

m- m- madam chair i have another amendment to the rule um So you didn't go for the one I just offered, so let's try this one. I move that the committee make an order of amendment number sixty-six to S twelve, offered by represent I rank him a Burr Raskin, which prohibits an individual who is convicted of or pleaded guilty to assaulting a law enforcement officer on January sixth twenty twenty one, from receiving a settlement payment. Uh, Madam Chair, the Trump taxpayer funded slush fund to compensate insurrectionists should not exist. it's disgraceful. I can't even believe we're talking about it. Uh, but no source of federal compensation should be given to those people, um, you know, uh, that I just mentioned. But since my Republican colleagues on the committee seem to disagree on that point and voted down my motion to prevent the slush fund, maybe they will at least accept some restrictions on who can get the money from this fund. Specifically, my motion would provide that no individual who is convicted of or pleaded guilty assaulting a law enforcement officer on January sixth should get compensation. It's that simple. These rioters hit police with bats, with bike racks, fire extinguishers, flag poles. Dozens and dozens of officers were injured. Republicans always claim to support law enforcement. Well, here is your chance to ensure that the people who assault law enforcement officers don't benefit from taxpayer money for doing so. This isn't a radical idea. Um, and this is certainly something that the full house should consider and vote on. And I urge a yes vote.

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Madam Chair.

Mister Griffiths, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I kind of like the amendment. I understand the input in the in the the purpose behind the amendment. I would say, however, that we have numerous cases, uh, i that have happened over the years. Uh, it's why Virginia created, uh, the writ of, uh, actual innocence for after accumulated, uh, evidence. It's why we have projects all over the country that look at people that are falsely convicted or improperly convicted. And then we compensate them. I'm afraid that, that the language may be too broad because if somebody was improperly convicted, this would bar them as well. And I'm not sure that we wanna go there. And I yield back.

Well,

uh i i i i i i i can i I'm not sure um if you you you you you you you you'll meet once second

is there further discussion

you're good

yeah i'd like to let's go i'd like to be heard on the amendment i'd like to be heard on the amendment

no i'm recognizing

thank you madam chair i want i didn't want to proceed without

with the

the appropriate recognition i would just say my what was the name of the the writ that you just described mister macgrith Mr. Griffin.

that the gentleman will yield?

Yes.

Uh, in Virginia we call it the writ of actual innocence?

And my understanding of the writ of actual innocence is that the Virginia Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of that kind of petition, correct?

That that would be correct under Virginia law, but it but under this we would be prohibiting them from receiving any compensation,

Yes.

and that's what I'm concerned about.

From this fund,

Further, further, there are

I I'll give Robert plenty of my time, Mister Mister McGriffith, just to be very clear, and Mister McGovern can clarify this if this isn't the case. this would bar someone who was convicted of assaulting a police officer on January sixth from recovering money from this particular fund.

Of course.

If someone who was convicted of a federal crime wishes to pursue some recourse under existing federal law in which a district court judge would opine as to that person's innocence, that is a completely different matter. Am I, Mr. Governor, is that

You're correct. You're correct.

not the case? Yeah, so I This has n- there's no corollary to the Virginia State example that you offered. There's a similar example in Colorado that I could provide. I'm unaware of any kind of fund like this in which the judicial branch, the Article Three branch of our government, plays no role whatsoever. Basically, it's just Todd Blanch and Donald Trump deciding what money they'll hand out to these people who were convicted of terrible crimes. That that's it's insane.

I

But

Let let me point something out to the members.

I'll yield to the chairwoman.

Let me point out something to the members. If we make any amendment to this bill, it will have to go back to the Senate.

Good.

And therefore,

That sounds good.

I wanna call my te- call attention to my colleagues on the other side.

So just to con-

I mean, uh, uh, to my colleagues.

Uh, I apologize.

I

Uh, just to conclude my remarks, I will say

That's it. That's right.

Uh, yeah, so just to conclude the point that I was referencing cuz and I appreciate the chairwoman's point, that is a different argument than the argument that the gentleman from Virginia, whom I respect, was making. And so let's just, if we're talking about the merits of this proposal, I just wanna make sure that we're level set on what it does and does not do. Different argument as to whether or not uh, you know, members might not want the bill to go back to the Senate and so on and so forth.

Yeah, but you,

Mr. McGovern?

but yeah, I would just say, I'm a member of the House of Representatives. Uh, and I don't like the idea of always having to concede to the uh to cede to the Senate or whatever they do. I don't like getting jammed by them. I mean, I think, you know, we have, you know, we have the exact same power they do, uh, to influence legislation. And then the final thing I'm gonna say is, you know, if you wanna, I I again, I think, uh, uh, my colleague, uh, Mister DeGuz clarified this, but, uh, again, what we're asking here is that we have a vote on the first floor. That's that's all, a debate and a vote. That it's not just you know, because I'm I'll be honest with you, this is not the first time we've tried to do these kinds of things and and every vehicle, you know, you all block it. And I'm, you know, we're just trying to get have a full debate and a vote. That's it. And so, you know, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I hope you vote yes.

I think the I think the ranking member and I would simply say I recall an example not that long ago, perhaps less than a year ago, in which the chairwoman, to her credit, if i'm recalling this correctly, intervened because of a very pernicious provision that the senate had attempted to include in one a a so-called must-pass bill to create a slush fund for senators to be able to access a payout for supposed violations of their uh civil liberties. You all might recall that. And the chairwoman I know uh intervened and and I suspect got a lot of uh uh perhaps very intense uh a blowback or a comments from her colleagues in the senate or maybe in the house but nonetheless it was important for the house to express its will and i feel the same way in this instance i think it's just important for the house to express its will that those who attack the police officers on january sixth are not going to get a payout simple full stop and i yield back uh to the chair

there further discussion on the amendment

madam chair

uh mr. salvatore

Um.

Mister Scott.

I would like to yield to Mr. Griffith.

Thank you, Mister Scott, I I would just say I I understand and I think this is an area for debate. Uh, Mister Nguest raises some good points about the Virginia uh, actual rid of actual innocence. You have innocence projects all across the country that find out that people were wrongfully accused and convicted and there's court payouts and I think that they're should be some mechanism to recognize that as well. I understand the in- the intent. I'm not sure we get there with this amendment, but I would also say that some of the concerns raised on both sides call for us at some other time in a bill to address the sue and settle process in this country, because it really should be something that is opposed to one party suing. If they have a friendly DOJ for their viewpoint, they get a a big pile of money. and then that organization gets to spend that money, I I think that we need to look at this across the board uh and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to coming up with a a solution that works for all of the American people in all of these situations I don't want to see anybody who's assaulted police officers getting money. At the same time, I'm not sure that there is even a fund that currently exists um for us to be saying no money out of this fund. Because I don't know that that fund currently exists because they they backed off some. And and I'm not a hundred percent sure of where we stand on that. The some people in the administration say they've backed off, others say maybe not or there's some intent. But right now we don't have a finished product in front of us for w- for us to be suddenly laying down something that could be precedent in some other situation, and deny people who might actually be entitled. Not trying to defend anybody who's assaulted police officers, just saying this is not as clear-cut as the amendment might wish to have it be. And with that, I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if the fund is set up, then I think that at that time that would be an appropriate time for us to discuss this amendment and I think that there would be a lot of or legislation,

Or legislation.

I think,

Yeah, right.

that there would be.

Madam Chair.

But the the fund is not set up and I do not expect it to be set up, and with that I yield the remainder of my time.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Ms. Ledger Fernandez.

Uh, Madam Chair, I think that the time is now, so that a fund does not get set up this is the question before this committee and i think that the clearly the direction has gone from republican leadership to the house rules is do not allow any kind of amendment even if it would prevent cause this is a very narrow provision only if you've been convicted of assaulting law enforcement not for breaching the capital grounds, not for any of the essence but actual assault of our law enforcement. Now is the time to do it. And I would uh join you, uh, representative Nguz, and and uh thanking the chairwoman for taking action because now we don't have that, uh, five hundred thousand and up slash fund for senators because the House took action on a bill and we can do the same here. You will be walking by uh some of those law enforcement officers who were beaten, cause some of them still work for Capitol Police. And I think that I'd urge you to think about each one of them as you walk by and walk into the Capitol and walk around, know we are being protected by officers who were beaten and assaulted. And we are trying to prevent money flowing to them In this amendment, it's simple, and now is the time to do it. And if there is nothing else, ranking member, that you need to speak, I will yield back.

Madam Chair,

I

just I I remain appalled at the lengths to which our

just have a word.

Republican colleagues are willing to go to cede the authority of Congress to the administration. Mister Scott says that, you know, we'll see if it gets set up last time i read the constitution every time i've read the constitution it's not a question congress holds the power of the purse congress decides if there is funding and that's not what has happened with this weaponization fund that's not where the authority came from and uh with that mister mcgovern do you need anything

i would just say there is already a judgment fund set up in statue so i mean yeah so any event um i i again Look it, uh, you may not be defending these criminals, um, uh, you may not, you know, well, let me put it this way. Your your vote on this matters. I just want to point out one thing to my Republican friends. You know, this committee, you know, was the primary block for getting the Epstein files released. I mean, we had a gazillion votes up here.

Mm-hmm.

Um, and you all voted every time, no, not to not to force their release. It was, and then we had we adjourned early. We adjourned early. uh for the summer and then it we had a to have a discharge petition you know to get to to force a vote on the floor um and then you know everybody had to go on record uh but i mean the number of votes we had on trying to release the epstein files in this committee uh is you know were is too numerous to mention and we're doing the same thing here so i mean maybe the only way to get some you know um some movement here is going through a discharge petition

mmm

But I mean, the bottom line is this committee should advance some of these ideas to the floor, so we can have the full membership vote on it and send a message to the White House, you know, that this is unacceptable, period. And I urge a yes vote on this, and I thank the General Lady, and you're back.

Thank you, and I would yield to Mister Niguez.

Yeah, uh, I thank the General Manager of Pennsylvania. Just to clarify for my colleague from uh Georgia, just so that we're crystal clear on the existing state of play. The fund exists. The Department of Justice created this fund. They have the resources. A lawsuit was filed to stop the fund from going forward. A judge enjoined the Department of Justice from moving forward. The Trump administration then filed, put in a filing that that they do not intend to pursue the fund at this time, which they could reverse any time they'd like. So the moment, if and when, God forbid, Todd Blanch is confirmed as Attorney General of the United States, they will surely go back to the court and say, " The fund is back on." That's why Donald Trump was defending the fund yesterday on Meet the Press, like twenty hours ago. So I I don't really understand, again, maybe there are folks who wanna defend the merits of the fund, but the notion that we should wait until the fund is created. It's created. And we've seen this movie before. The movie will end with these people who attacked it, cops getting checks. And then us having this debate in the rules committee three months from now, when it's too late, about we should step forward, but you know, of course at this point it's difficult to unwind and all the rest. I I just, there's a reason that there were a handful of Republican senators that voted in the Senate last week, not enough, but a few. who voted to ban the fund from moving forward. They they didn't do that because they thought it was the inappropriate time to do so. They clearly did it because they believed it was really important to do this now, before checks ever get in the mail. And I just I would implore my colleagues to to join us in supporting this amendment. I think it's important.

And I would just say you can't defend this fund. It is defending the indefensible, and I'd suggest why our colleagues won't allow the amendment because they don't want to go on record as supporting the president's slush fund so with that i would yield back

aye

as opposed to no no no and you've been intruded and no is added

no

ask for a roll call maybe

uh the court will call the roll

mrs. fishbaugh mrs. fishbaugh no mr. norman mr. roy mrs. houchin mrs. houchin no mr. langworthy

no no no

mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith

no

mr. griffith no mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i am miss ganlin miss ganlin i am mr. neguse

aye

mr. neguse i am miss ledger fernandez miss ledger fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

clerical reports a total four yeas seven nays um the amendment is not agreed to is there further discussion

yeah

on the motion

uh madam chair i i have an amendment to rule um i move the committee make an order amendment number sixty seven to s two offered by ranking member Raskin which prohibits an individual convicted of an offense committed on january sixth twenty twenty one and who received a pardon from receiving a settlement payment if they subsequently were convicted of a new crime so ok here is where we here is where we are not right my republican colleagues won't eliminate the corrupt slush fund they won't prevent those convicted of assaulting police officers from receiving money from the slush fund so maybe just maybe uh they will vote to prevent the worst of the worst of these people from receiving taxpayer dollars. Those who were convicted or plead guilty for assaulting cops were then pardoned by President Trump and then subsequently went on to commit more crimes. Several r- several recipients of presidential clemency were uh uh arrested in connection with conduct that occurred at least in part subsequent to Trump's freeing them from prison meaning that Trump's clemency order on the first day of his second term may have actively facilitated criminal conduct these include crimes such as child molestation grand larceny and burglary and threatening a person with a gun should these people be eligible for this corrupt slush fund uh compensation of course not so can we at least agree on that you beat cops trump disgracefully pardon you then you went on to commit another crime surely you wouldn't you should not be eligible for taxpayer money from the insurrectionist slush fund so i urge a common sense yes vote on this amendment and i yield back

is there further discussion on the is there further discussion on the amendment hearing now and the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

no

aye

those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion that the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to

as for roll call

clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fischbach Mrs. Fischbach no Mr. Norman Mr. Roy Mrs. Houchin Mrs. Houchin no Mr.

no no

Langworthy Mr. Langworthy no Mr. Scott Mr. Scott no Mr. Griffith Mr.

no no no

Griffith no Mr. Jack Mr. Jack no Mr. McGovern Mr. McGovern aye Miss Ganlin Miss Ganlin aye Mr. Nguyes

no

aye

aye

Mr. Neguse, I am Ms. Leisure Fernandez. Ms. Leisure Fernandez, I am Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

Clerk will record the total.

Four yays, seven nays.

And the um the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to.

Right.

Further discussion or amendment?

I have an amendment to the rule. I move the com- committee make an order, amendment number forty six to S two, offered by Ranking Member Raskin, which nullifies the unprecedented super pardon bestowed by the DOJ upon the Trump family and all of their businesses, forever protecting them from any investigation, any audit, or any any prosecution by any agency of the federal government for any violation of the federal law. This amendment all we we we would do what we all know is right. Um, and that is declare that President Trump's super pardon for himself and his family, contained in his self-dealing legal settlement with the Department of Justice, w- w- null and void. This amendment would specifically prohibit a city president and and the federal government from entering a settlement to recover money damages and require independent judicial review of the circumstances of a settlement agreement between the president and the federal government." Are we really gonna act like this is like normal and this is like OK? The president sued his own administration, settled with his own administration, and as a part of that settlement said he could not be investigated for any crimes up to this date. Uh, this is like a banana republic nonsense. It's a it's a level of self-dealing and corruption perhaps we've never seen before. It should be stopped, and we should have the power to do so. And I urge a yes vote and I yield back.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion share of the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to

ask for a roll call quote membership

clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fishbach Mrs. Fishbach no Mr. Norman Mr. Roy Mrs. Houchin Mrs. Houchin no Mr. Langworthy

no

Mr. Langworthy no Mr. Scott Mr. Scott no Mr. Griffith

no no

Mr. Griffith no Mr. Jack

no

Mr. Jack no Mr. McGovern Mr. McGovern aye Miss Ganlin Miss Ganlin aye Miss Neguse

aye

aye aye

Miss Neguse aye Miss Ledger-Fernandez Miss Ledger-Fernandez aye Madam Chair

fine

no

Madam Chair no

Clerk report the total.

Four yeas, seven nays.

They, no, have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Mister McGovern.

May I'm sure I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number one O three to S two, offered by Democratic Leader Jeffries, which repurposes seventy billion dollars to ICENC BP to restore the one trillion dollar uh house Republicans' cut from Medicaid and the uh and the ACA. Madam Chair, last July, Republicans made the largest cut to healthcare in American history to fund tax breaks for billionaires. As a result, Americans are getting fewer health care benefits and paying more for care. Seven hundred fifty hospitals, clinics, and other providers have shuttered their their doors or are at a serious risk of closure due to the law that Republicans enacted. In total, when the provisions are fully implemented, fifteen million Americans are expected to be kick kicked off of their health care. Uh, and now, Republicans are sending years and years of extra funding to ICE and CBP, instead of addressing the needs of regular Americans. the emergency we need to be focused on is uh the health care crisis facing this country and that's exactly what this amendment does so a vote for this amendment repeals the devastating cuts to health care that my republican friends made and a vote against this amendment um continues to lock in higher health care costs for americans and i yield back

is there a further debate or discussion on the amendment hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye aye

those opposed say no no

no

any opinion share the no's have it Mr. McGovern request a roll call vote

yep

the clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fishbach

no

Mrs. Fishbach, no Mr. Norman, Mr. Roy, Mrs. Houchin Mrs. Houchin, no, Mr. Langworthy Mr. Langworthy, no, Mr. Scott Mr. Scott,

no

no, Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith,

no

no, Mr. Jack

no

Mr. Jack, no, Mr. McGovern

aye

Mr. McGovern, aye Miss Gatlin Miss Gatlin, aye, Mr. Nguz Mr. Nguz,

aye

aye, Miss Ledra Fernandez Is Ledger Fernandez aye, Madam Chair?

No.

Madam Chair, no.

Clerk will report the total.

Forty eight, seven nice.

They uh, notice have it, the amendment is not agreed to.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to rule. I move the committee make an order of amendment number one O seven to S two, offered by Democratic Whip Clark, which repurposes seventy billion dollars uh to ICE and C CBP to restore a portion of the two hundred billion dollars House Republicans got from the SNAP food program. Look at um the bottom line is um hunger is getting worse in this country uh madam chair um and as the uh whip pointed out i mean there is a new report out that only covers twelve states uh that basically indicates that over seven hundred thousand kids these are just kids have already lost snap due to the changes um in the big ugly bill uh and and now we're giving yes tens of billions of dollars more to ice i mean store snap benefits for veterans, kids and seniors. And a vote against this amendment is gonna contribute to the increase of hunger in America and we can do something about it and I urge a yes vote.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Though all those opposed say no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair of the no's have it,

A-

the amendment's now agreed to.

a- ask for a roll call, ma'am.

The clerk will call the roll.

mrs. fishbuck

no

mrs. fishbuck no mr. norman mr. roy mrs. houchin mrs. houchin no mr. langworthy mr. langworthy no mr. scott mr. scott no mr. griffith mr. griffith no mr. jack mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i am a scanlon

aye

scanlon i am mr. neguse mr. neguse i am mr. ledger fernandez

aye

mr. ledger fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total

four yeas seven nays

the no's have it the amendments not agreed to it is mr. mcgovern

ma'am I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order of amendment number one fifty eight to S two, offered by Democratic caucus chair Aguilar, which redirects funds from the bill to offset a two year extension of the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credit. Again, Republicans have rushed to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, um, and forward fund ICE and CBP for years and years while turning their backs on Americans who can't afford their skyrocketing health care costs. Uh, you know, a vote for this amendment, uh, w- brings down health care costs for millions of Americans by restoring the ACA tax credit. Um, and as, uh, uh, Chair Aguilar pointed out, I mean, we forced a vote on this in a discharge petition, and we actually, um, prevailed. Um, so maybe we can put it in this bill and jam the Senate for a change, and do something good for people. Uh, but a vote against this amendment will continue to allow health care costs to skyrocket. I urge a yes vote.

further discussion on the amendment hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor say aye

aye

those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion the chair of the no's have it

we ask for a roll

the clerk will call the roll

mrs. Fischbach

no

mrs. Fischbach, no mr. Norman, mr. Roy, mrs. Houchen, mrs. Houchen, no mr. Langworthy

no

mr. Langworthy, no, mr. Scott

no

mr. Scott, no, mr. Griffith

no

mr. Griffin, no, mr. Jack Mr. Jackin, I'm Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern, I am Miss Ganlin.

Aye.

Miss Ganlin, I am Mr. Nguz. Mr. Nguz, I am Miss Ledger-Fernandez. Miss Ledger-Fernandez, I am Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

Clerk, report the total.

Four yeas, seven nays.

The no's have it, the amendments not agreed to. Miss Ganlin, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment sixty two to senate two, offered by myself, which prohibits the use of funds to conduct a search of the home of a United States citizen, unless that search is lawful under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The reason we need this is that we have seen ICE conduct warrantless searches um to arrest people in the homes of American citizens. There's video evidence of this happening in Minia- Minneapolis when an American citizen was dragged out of his home in Crocs and his underwear in the middle of winter when ICE agents raided his home without a warrant. And why is this important? It's important because about a year ago, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, instructed ICE officers that they were permitted to enter homes without a judicial authorization. But if you have to have judicial authorization, it's what the fourth amendment requires. Um, the first thing the judge asks is, do you have the right house? Do you have the right person? Do you have probable cause? When they go without a judicial warrant, those questions don't get asked. And we've seen American citizens be abused in their homes in violation of the fourth amendment. So clearly we need this. We should not be allowing these billions of dollars to go out the door unchecked. And I urge a yes vote on my amendment.

So further discussion on the amendment from Miss Gannon. Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. No.

No.

In the opinion that's here, the no's have it.

I request a recorded vote, Madam Chair.

Miss Gannon requests a roll call vote the clerk will call the roll

mrs. fishbach

no

mrs. fishbach no mr. norman mr. roy mrs. houchin mrs. houchin no mr. langworthy

no

mr. langworthy no mr. scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith mr. griffith no mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern and i am miss ganlin

aye

miss ganlin i am mr. neguse

aye

mr. neguse i am miss ledger fernandez

aye

miss ledger fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

clerk will record to total

four yays seven nays

The no's have it, the amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion or amendment?

Madam Chair.

Ms. Leslie Fernandez, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the Royal. I move the committee make an in order make in order amendment number ninety five, offered by myself, which creates a private right of action for US citizens who were arrested or detained by an immigration officer without a warrant or without probable cause, and waives qualified immunity for immigration officer. It also rescinds funds for immigration customs enforcement from H. R. One, the one big beautiful bill act. As uh Representative Scanlon just described, United States citizens are getting detained, they're having the doors sort of torn down in their homes, and there are no consequences. And the reality is ICE and DHA's agents don't just get to violate the constitution, including the first and fourth amendments. when they make stops, arrests and detentions. They don't have immunity to trample civil rights. They don't get to detain people without cause, warrants or accountability. These are basic, basic understandings of what United States citizens believe they have. But ICE is acting as if they don't have any accountability. They continue to wrongfully harass and detain individuals, including many US citizens. And oftentimes, as we heard earlier today, Sometimes those citizens are jailed for weeks and weeks, and ICE denies that they have jailed United States citizens, and then we find out that, oh my God, yes, they're a United States citizen. And ICE acts as though there are no consequences. We heard uh Chair uh uh Jordan say, oh that doesn't happen, and acknowledge they they shouldn't be doing it. Well, the way you make sure they don't do it is you create accountability. because these citizens deserve justice and compensation. And so I urge my colleagues to do something about this unlawful, unconstitutional activity and make it very clear that when you violate our United States Constitution and you arrest, detain, harass, tear the doors down of American citizens, that there will be a private right of action. I urge a yes vote on my amendment and I yield back.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair,

No.

the no's have it, the amendment's not agreed to.

Madam Chair, uh, I have an amendment to the rule.

Miss Ledger-Fernandez, you're recognized.

I move the committee make an order, amendment number seven. D two offered by representative davids and myself, which inserts the text of h r eighty seven forty two, which would require the department of homeland service uh services to implement training standards for immigration officers interacting with native americans, and regarding tribal documents and ied's. Days after the inauguration of the second trump administration, immigration officials detained in question members from tribal nations across New Mexico and Arizona. And this was just the beginning of a disturbing pattern of immigration enforcement. Turns out, many Native Americans, uh, they might have darker skin. They might have certain characteristics. And for some reason, ICE agents are arresting them and refusing to acknowledge their tribal ID. I asked Chairman Cole whether he thought there should be better training and whether he thought that we should make sure that ICE is not arresting detaining Native American citizens. Well, the way to do that is to provide more training. Because I'm gonna say, you know, not a lot of people are used to the tribal IDs. Let's train, uh, ICE regarding tribal IDs and Native American identity. And that's what this amendment does, is, uh, insert into the bill, the text of this uh amendment. And with that I urge a yes vote on my amendment to the email back.

Further discussion on the amendment from Miss Ledger-Fernandez. Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. Those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion,

No.

sure, the no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.

You're

Oh, recorded vote, sorry.

rec

i request a recorded vote

you had a recorded vote the clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fishbach

no

Mrs. Fishbach, no Mr. Norman, Mr. Roy, Mrs. Houchin Mrs. Houchin, no Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Langworthy, no, Mr. Scott

no

Mr. Scott, no, Mr. Griffith

no

Mr. Griffith, no, Mr. Jack Mr. Jack, no, Mr. McGovern

hi

Mr. McGovern, aye, Miss Galin Miss Galin, aye, Mr. Nguz

hi

hi

Mr. Nguz, aye, Miss Ledger-Fernandez Miss Ledger-Fernandez, aye, Madam Chair

no

Madam Chair, no

clerk will call report the total

mmm

forty a's seven n's

the um No's have it, the amendment's not agreed to, Miss Ledger-Fernandez.

I have an amendment to the rule, Madam Chair. I move the Committee making in order amendment number four, offered by Representative Kamala Gurdjieff to S two, which would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide essential care and attention to pregnant individuals held in immigration detention you would think that we would actually have to have an amendment to require that pregnant women be treated with the care and dignity that they deserve, and require to make sure that they don't miscarriage uh or that they don't as some instances of what we have uh support uh introduce for the records show that their mistreatment means that they may never be able to have children again uh because of the mistreatment uh in detention and uh in total d h s detained nearly five hundred pregnant postpartum and nursing women between january twenty five and february twenty six we know uh so far, but reporting is not complete, that there were sixteen miscarriages reported in this window alone. Um, let's treat uh the women who are in detention with the same kind of care. You would want your sisters, your wives, your daughters to be treated with, all women should be treated with dignity and respect so that their pregnancies uh can proceed uh and proceed with the kind of health care they need. With that I I yield back.

Further discussion on the amendment. Hearing none, the questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion No. No. opinion sure the no's have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Miss Leisure Fernandez requests a re roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no, Mister Norman. Mister Roy. Mrs. Houchin. mrs. Houcher no mr. langworthy mr. langworthy no mr. scott

yeah no

mr. scott no mr. griffith mr. griffith no mr. jack

no no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

i am

mr. mcgovern i am miss ganlin

i am

miss ganlin i am mr. neguse

i am

mr. neguse i am miss ledger fernandez miss ledger fernandez i am madam chair

i am

no

madam chair no

clerk will report the total

forty eight seven eight

the amendment is not agreed to further discussion or amendment hearing none the question is on the motion from the gentlemen from new york all those in favor please say aye

aye

aye those opposed say no

no no

in the opinion chair the ayes have it

we ask for a roll call though mary jill please

you may ask for a roll call though a roll call has been requested the clerk will call the roll

miss fishbach

yes

miss fishbach i mr. norman mr. roy miss houchin mrs. Hodgkin i Mr. Langworthy mr. Langworthy aye Mr. Scott

aye

Mr. Scott aye Mr. Griffith

aye

Mr. Griffith aye Mr. Jack

aye

Mr. Jack aye Mr. McGovern Mr. McGovern no Miss Scantlin

no no

Miss Scantlin no Mr. Nagus Mr. Nagus no Miss Ledger-Fernandez

i'm sorry i'm sorry

Miss Ledger-Fernandez no Madam Chair

aye

Madam Chair aye

the clerk will report the total

seven seven yes four nays

Um, so the ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Representative Langworthy will be managing the rule for the majority.

And Representative Scanlon will be managing for the Democrats.

And Representative Scanlon for the Democrats. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.