Madam Chairwoman (09:57):
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.2, H.R.8312, H.R.8464, and H.Res.1335.
(10:20)
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 hardworking Americans.
(10:38)
The American people are rightfully incensed whenever fraud in these programs is exposed. They're incensed that things have gotten to the point where deference for their tax dollars is virtually non-existent.
(10:52)
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.
(11:12)
A recent report from GAO found that across 15 federal agencies last fiscal year, $186 billion worth of improper payments were made across 64 separate programs. And over the span of more than 20 years, improper payments across the federal government have totaled roughly $3 trillion.
(11:37)
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 this 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.
(11:59)
Now, let's turn to S.2, 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 a customs and border protection through 2029.
(12:19)
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.
(12:33)
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.
(12:55)
They avoid talking about the millions of illegal aliens that their own policies allowed into the country, but they're quick to admonish the Trump administration for apprehending and deporting said illegal aliens.
(13:09)
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 peculiar position to take. Seriously, how odd.
(13:31)
I'll make a prediction that I know will come true in the Rules Committee this afternoon. Our Democrat colleagues will dust off their primetime performative antics routine that we've seen time and again, like a return of a show on television.
(13:46)
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.
(14:13)
Speaking of facts, since their creation in 2003, 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 legislation is because of Democrats' reckless extremism in completely defunding our ability to secure our nation's border. That's a clear cut fact.
(14:45)
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.
(15:06)
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.
Ms. Scanlon (15:25):
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I just want to note that I'm filling in for Mr. McGovern while he is returning from services for our former member, Barney Frank, who passed away, former member from Massachusetts. So he should be here soon. I'm sure he doesn't want to miss the fun. I'm also sure that, like me, he'd rather be part of group therapy than a member of a cult.
(15:50)
So with that, today House Republicans are bringing forward another partisan reconciliation bill to provide an additional $ 70 billion to ICE and Customs and Border Patrol, on top of the roughly $140 billion they handed to those agencies last year. So I think it's a little hard to say that border security has been defunded when they actually have more funding than most armies around the world.
(16:19)
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 healthcare 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.
(16:48)
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.
(17:10)
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.
(17:35)
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.
(17:54)
Democrats proposed reforms and oversight measures. We demanded accountability after the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. 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.
(18:24)
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.
(18:50)
An administration that has already demonstrated that it can't be trusted with the extraordinary powers it already possesses. An administration, that with this legislation, Republicans are rewarding with yet another blank check. And where exactly is all this money going to?
(19:07)
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 70 billion. Americans have every reason to be skeptical, especially given the corruption surrounding this administration's spending and contracting practices.
(19:33)
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 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.
(20:20)
Gas prices are pushing $5 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 inflation. The war that's already cost over $100 billion has no clear end in sight, particularly after hostilities this weekend.
(20:43)
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 $70 billion could do if Republicans were interested in solving real problems instead of manufacturing fear.
(21:06)
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 $200 million they cut from WIC last week.
(21:32)
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 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.
Madam Chairwoman (22:05):
Thank you very much, Ms. Scanlon. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record.
(22:16)
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.
(22:37)
Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Arrington, I welcome your testimony.
Chairman Arrington (22:46):
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 going to do it this morning. And I'm going to veer off a little bit from the reconciliation, because I heard Ms. Scanlon talk about tax cuts for the rich.
(23:03)
Washington Post gave Democrats four Pinocchios on that tired rhetoric that is just completely and utterly false. The new filings were analyzed recently, and 70% of the new tax cuts went to low-and-middle-class families.
(23:19)
So, if she's talking about the people that make an earning on tips as rich people, or people making a living off of their overtime that got a tax break, or the doubled standard deduction, which, Ms. Chairman, 92% of all Americans take, I don't think those folks are rich people. But they're going to keep recycling this rhetoric, but it won't land because people have more money in their pockets.
(23:47)
By the way, wages have gone up $3,000, and that is about as much as it went down during the Biden administration. It's just policies have consequences. And yes, yes, Ms. Ranking Member Scanlon, this is an all-Republican exercise, as was making sure we didn't put a 22% tax hike on working families.
(24:11)
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's growing, business investment's up. And again, more refunds, less withholdings, more money in people's pockets.
(24:27)
Now, look, I can talk about this issue, Madam Chair, 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 shutdown prior to this over a COVID-era fraud-ridden tax or subsidy expansion.
(24:55)
So this was 76 days that the American people had to have a Homeland Security service and apparatus go dark. We didn't have our Coast Guardsmen to defend our ports against terrorist attacks. 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 posts so that our critical infrastructure wasn't hacked.
(25:21)
We can say that this is Republicans' attempt to make good 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.
(25:43)
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.
(26:01)
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.
(26:25)
And what's happened is you have rogue cities and states that refuse to work 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 that the American people expect us to do up here for them, of all parties, across the board.
(26:54)
So yes, you're right. It is an all-Republican exercise, because I can't find a Democrat that would stave off a 22% 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, like the people who came into this country illegally by the millions, and actually rid our great country of those threats. I can't find it.
(27:26)
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 Waltz, that says, "ICE officers are threat to the public. Modern day Gestapo." Governor Pritzker says that, "ICE is turning the country into Nazi Germany." And, "They are they reign of terror," John Hickenlooper. Chuck Schumer said, "ICE doesn't belong in our neighborhoods."
(27:47)
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 streets of our cities because of what's happened over the last four years under the Biden administration and Democrat control.
(28:08)
So, it's been impossible, and 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 insulting to have these labels attached to our brave men and women who risk their lives to enforce the laws.
(28:32)
We're going to give them the resources they need. And listen, what we're also going to do is do it for three years so that Democrats can't use them as leverage, Homeland Security as leverage, and the American people's security as leverage in a shutdown again. And I rest my case, and I yield back what may be remaining of my time. Thanks for your indulgence, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (28:56):
Thank you, Mr. Arrington. Representative Escobar, you're recognized.
Representative Escobar (29:00):
Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Ranking Member. Let's bring some facts back into this room. I want to begin by saying it's a privilege for me to serve on both the House Budget and Appropriations Committee. I serve on the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which is where we should be talking about appropriations. But unfortunately, Congress is helping the president take away our obligation and duty to fund the government through this reconciliation bill.
(29:37)
I want to remind everyone here, and everyone watching, that the One Big Beautiful Bill provided $140 billion, billion with a B, for CBP and ICE. It increased our deficit by 4.7 trillion, trillion with a T, and the Department of Homeland Security still has $100 billion left. $100 billion. There is money in the bank and Republicans want the American taxpayer to give them $70 billion more in order to blow up the deficit even further.
(30:22)
I want to talk about also what this money, what the One Big Beautiful Bill money has unleashed in our country. I want to begin by saying I live on the US-Mexico border. I am 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.
(31:04)
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, 170 US citizens were arrested and 2 were killed on the streets of Minneapolis.
(31:42)
60 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.
(32:14)
I want to 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 5,000 human beings. It is a $1.24 billion facility. I've had conversations with my constituents about what that $1.24 billion could do to help them improve their lives.
(32:46)
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 used by DHS to purchase three warehouses. Warehouses that were created to hold pecans from our agricultural industry, purchased by DHS in my district for $122 million.
(33:22)
ICE is now going to spend probably hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit these warehouses so that they can hold 8,500 immigrants. That should shock the conscience of everyone. There's not even the water capacity or wastewater capacity to hold that many people, but this money has emboldened and empowered ICE to do this. And I will say, it is shocking that instead of using the $100 billion still available, this 70...
Representative Escobar (34:00):
... billion dollars still available. This $70 billion that's being added will really further empower ICE to do more of the same. 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 $1.8 billion slush fund that Donald Trump wants to use to pay off insurrectionists who beat cops on January 6th. So please do not lecture us about not supporting law enforcement. And if we want to talk waste, fraud, and abuse, let's not forget that Kristi Noem used reconciliation money for a luxury jet. Was it one or was it two? I can't... 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 $70 billion more? Budgets certainly are a statement of our values. I can't imagine what Democrats would do with the $70 billion that Republicans are asking for.
(35:27)
So what could that $70 billion actually buy? It could build more than 280,000 new affordable housing units in America. It could cover almost 9 million people on Medicaid for a full year. It could feed nearly 10 million families on SNAP for a full year. It could fix more than 70,000 miles of highway. It could provide mental healthcare to more than 9 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 healthcare 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.
(36:32)
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Virginia Foxx (36:35):
Thank you very much. Chairman Garbarino, you're recognized.
Andrew Garbarino (36:41):
Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and ranking member and the members of the rules committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you all this morning, this afternoon, whenever this is. 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 76-day shutdown that left critical components operating under significant pressure. The Democrats accomplished by shutting down DHS was creating uncertainty and hardship with 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. I remain deeply concerned about the precedent Democrats set throughout the funding process.
(37:34)
The House and Senate previously reached a bipartisan bicameral agreement to finalize all fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills, including funding for DHS. The House acted expeditiously to pass these bills, marking historic progress, the appropriations process and a return to regular order. Yet after helping negotiate the deal, Senate Democrats walked away from the agreement and insisted on withholding funding from US Border Patrol and immigrations and custom 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 fundamental duty to safeguard our nation and support the men and women charged with enforcing our laws. What makes the Democrats' decision even more troubling is that the original bipartisan agreement included substantial funding that imposed new transparency and accountability requirements for CBP and ICE, including deescalation training, the procurement and deployment of body cameras, and increased funding for DHS's Office of Inspector General.
(38:35)
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 through reconciliation is not the preferred path. Republicans could not sit by and let the rest of the department go unfunded while Democrats refuse 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 $64 billion to hire, train, equip, and retain border patrol agents, ice enforcement and removal operations officers, Homeland Security investigations agents, and mission support staff, ensuring frontline personnel have the resources to carry out their mission effectively and safely.
(39:37)
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 3.5 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 using funding as a political bargaining chip must come to an end. The American people deserve a government willing to confront these challenges directly and decisively. We have an opportunity to make the country safer and more secure. I look forward to your questions and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx (40:30):
Thank you, Mr. Garbarino. Mr. Walkinshaw, you're recognized.
James Walkinshaw (40:34):
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 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 Chairman Arrington didn't mention that in that bill, the top 1% got a $50,000 tax cut. They are living large with 50,000 extra dollars in their bank accounts, whereas the bottom 20% hardworking folks in Virginia and Georgia have 7% 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.
(41:29)
We've seen what DHS has done with the money so far. As my colleague mentioned, they use some of the money to buy top of the line luxury private jet for the secretary. Just ask Secretary Mullin, who confirmed that in testimony before our committee last week, he rides the Gulfstream G700 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 Mullin is soaring high above them enjoying the leather seats on the Gulfstream G700. But DHS has done far worse with those dollars. Masked agents have broken into homes without warrants, locked up nonviolent protestors, 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.
(42:38)
And now, even though $100 billion is still available floating around, Republicans want more another $70 billion 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 protestors, 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.
(43:45)
Gulfstreams in ballrooms, that's what you get from this president and this Congress. Trump administration's also trying to give $1.8 billion to January 6th 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 going to 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 American's financial situation." Maybe that's why this bill doesn't help even a little bit Americans to make ends meet.
(44:46)
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 between a government that works for them and one that works for Donald Trump. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Virginia Foxx (45:05):
Thank you, Mr. Walkinshaw. Chairman Jordan, you're recognized.
Jim Jordan (45:08):
Thank you, Madam Chair. Step one, let in 10 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 10 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, 31.5% of the country lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction. 18 cities, 11 states, 3 counties in the District of Columbia, all sanctuary jurisdictions. Where again, the political class says don't work with federal law enforcement when you've got an illegal migrant who commits another crime who has a detainer filed with them at the local detention center. Don't work with them.
(46:09)
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 in the judiciary committee. Local prosecutors are now saying we're not going to prosecute, or at least not to the same degree we would prosecute American citizens. We're not going to prosecute someone because we're going to take into account their deportation immigration status. Right over here in Fairfax County, Virginia. Mr. 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 42 days in the fall, 70 some days this spring where they said, "We're not going to fund Homeland Security. We're not going to fund TSA, FEMA, US Coast Guard." And now they're saying, "We're never going to fund ICE." In fact, the mayor of their largest city, Mr. Mamdani yesterday said we should abolish ICE. They're all saying that. That's the Democrats plan.
(47:03)
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 salaries. It funds ICE transportation and facilities resources. The bill funds additional 287(G) agreements. And 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 US 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.
Virginia Foxx (47:54):
Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Mr. Raskin, you're recognized.
Jamie Raskin (47:59):
Chairman Fox, thank you very much, and Representative Scanlon, distinguished members of the committee. Last month, the president stated the major theme of his administration when he said, "I don't think about American's financial situation, not even a little bit." Hey, no kidding. Gas is now over $4.25 a gallon. It's up by 38%. Young people can't afford to get their own apartments. Millions of people can't afford healthcare and have to choose between paying for utilities and groceries. But our president, who has made more than $5 billion 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, guilding the oval office and building his golden arc to Trump.
(49:00)
He's got all the time 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 Blanche's assurance that the anti-weaponization fund is dead in the face of massive public opposition, the president said he still wants to take $1.8 billion from taxpayer funds to cut million dollar checks for the convicted criminals and cop beaters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, 2021 and other lucky political operators in the mega hemisphere.
(49:41)
Working through Todd Blanche, Trump has given himself his family and his businesses an amazing and totally unprecedented superpardon 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 superpardon or to address our affordability crisis for the peasants, who the president ignores the rest of us, or to shut down the $1.8 billion slush fund for all of the king's men and soldiers.
(50:45)
Today's bill would give $70 billion 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 $140 billion 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 and four flat screen TVs. It's passed out hundreds of millions of dollars in no bid contracts to MAGA donors, political insiders and friends for everything from a lavish $220 million 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 agents are arresting kindergartners, daycare teachers and parents and dragging old men into the street in their underwear.
(51:52)
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 56-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, farmhands, 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, Renee Goode, Alex Pretti, and Ruben Ray Martinez without any rational justification at all.
(52:55)
Today, the majority whose leader has already added $10 trillion to the national debt wants to pour $70 billion more into ICE and CBP on top of the 140 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 150 countries. It has over 80,000 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 $70 billion now when they still have $100 billion in the bank from last year would implicate all of us in the escalating corruption and shameful actions of this department.
(54:05)
If you're going to go ahead and vote on this, you must pass several amendments, one of them to block permanently the $1.8 billion taxpayer funded mega slush fund. Two, instead establish the January 6th Law Enforcement Heroes Compensation Fund to provide compensation to the law enforcement officers who actually defended the US Capitol in 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 J6-er who was convicted, pardoned, and then subsequently convicted of another crime. And there are 97 of them, including one guy who was pardoned one day by Donald Trump and several weeks later went and sexually molested a 12-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl. None of those people should get any money and it's up to this committee to make sure.
(55:03)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Virginia Foxx (55:06):
Thank you, Ranking Member Raskin. Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized.
Michelle Fischbach (55:13):
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the efforts that you've taken to get it to get this bill to this far. We thought we had it done. We thought we were able to fund both of those, or I guess it's three, those departments and make sure that our public safety was well funded and taken care of. And 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 I'm concerned because... Well, I shouldn't be concerned. I'm not concerned because I appreciate that the reforms and oversight that the Democrats talk about is not in here because all that is, that's about... 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 hired to do.
(56:11)
And so I appreciate that this bill doesn't have those and that we are going to go ahead and pass this, but there is a lot to enhance public safety here. And Chairman Garbarino, doesn't the bill include $108.5 million to hire, and equip, and train more investigators to fight child exploitation?
Andrew Garbarino (56:33):
Thank you for the question, Ms. Fischbach. Yes, specifically under Title I, this bill does specifically says 108.5 million of this amount shall be used to hire, pay, and equip additional child exploitation investigators and forensic analysts at the Victim Identification Laboratory of Child Exploitation Investigation Unit.
Michelle Fischbach (57:00):
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.
Andrew Garbarino (57:13):
A vote against this bill means you're voting against funding these additional officers that fight against child exploitation.
Michelle Fischbach (57:19):
And thank you very much. And I just appreciate, I think that we need to take a look and say 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 so I thank you for bringing it forward. I thank you for your answer and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx (57:38):
Thank you. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (57:41):
Thank you. 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 higher gas costs. If you look at the spread that 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 not make up the idea that everybody's benefiting from last year's tax atrocity. 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 Homeland Security and there had been negotiations about the things that are being mentioned here like better funding for human trafficking defense and improving various facilities along the border.
(58:54)
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 got to 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 last year's bill to Homeland Security, the idea that they're being used to fund border security and public safety just is not being born out by the facts.
(01:00:02)
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 in huge waste of money that are now under investigation. We've heard about record profits and 800% increase in profits by private prison companies like GEO because they are now housing people who are overwhelmingly not criminal. 70%, 80% 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 council, 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.
(01:01:05)
We've also, of course, learned of the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent on an ad campaign by DHS. What was it? $3,400 for hair and makeup for the then secretary, $20,000 to rent a horse. More money was spent on that ad campaign than was cut last week from WIC. $ 200 million cut from WIC. They spent $235,000 on filming Kristi Noem riding around on a horse. So again, it shows you where the values are here. I guess, first, I'd like to go to Representative Escobar. We're hearing a lot about fraud, waste, and abuse here. Can you talk to us a little bit about the money that 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 ICE custody because he wasn't given appropriate medical treatment.
Representative Escobar (01:02:10):
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. 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 currently have $100 billion unspent, $ 100 billion, just a reminder to everyone. But the One Big Beautiful Bill so called funded Camp East Montana, a $1.24 billion tent city. And the American taxpayer is allegedly paying for medical care that detainees are not getting, 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 want to give you an example of the horrific cases we've seen. I'll give you a couple of quick ones. First, there was a gentleman who entered the country legally, mind you, because the vast majority of the folks I've met have no criminal record and entered the country legally.
(01:03:27)
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 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.
(01:04:04)
His broken arm had never been set. He was given aspirin to deal with the pain. Clearly after weeks of that kind of break, his bones were fusing in a way that he would very likely need surgery. There are other examples. One of our colleagues, Angie Craig, flew to El Paso to visit one of her constituents who was detained and arrested the week she was supposed to have surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. I flew her to El Paso to Camp East Montana, held her for four months, refused to 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 have to clean their own what are called pods.
(01:05:16)
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. There are just not horrific abuses happening inside these facilities, but there's massive fraud. Meanwhile, the private corporations who won these contracts, by the way, with no bid contract. So there was no competitive bidding that took place. The company that was hired to run Camp East Montana had never run immigration detention ever before, but were supposed to care for 5,000 people per day.
(01:06:17)
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.
Ms. Scanlon (01:06:59):
Thank you. Mr. Raskin, I have a couple questions for you. The first is one of the major objections Democrats have had to this bill moving forward is the need to have some guardrails 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?
Jamie Raskin (01:07:28):
None of them.
Ms. Scanlon (01:07:30):
And I understand you have some amendments we may consider later regarding those?
Jamie Raskin (01:07:35):
Yes.
Ms. Scanlon (01:07:35):
Okay.
Jamie Raskin (01:07:37):
I mean, there are no guardrails. There are no reforms. There was no democratic input. 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. 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 ICE and Homeland Security. I mean-
Jamie Raskin (01:08:00):
... name of ICE and Homeland Security. I mean, Renee Goode was an American citizen, a mother of three. Alex Pretty worked at the VA as a nurse at the VA. We've got American citizens who are getting beaten up by officers who think they're totally beyond the reach of the law. And as Ms. Escobar says, it's a money-making operation.
(01:08:25)
There are totally unqualified businesses making hundreds of millions of dollars off of this and they've got a hundred billion and they just want us to shovel them another $70 billion. Where are the fiscal hawks on the Republican side? Are my friends only libertarians and skeptical of the government when a Democrat is president? Can't we have some universal skepticism of what's taking place with our money and our name?
Ms. Scanlon (01:08:52):
Well, I think that is one of the things 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 by the lack of care and the lack of oversight. So that is offensive enough, but it's being done with US taxpayer dollars. And as you said, the party of fiscal responsibility appears to have blinked on this one.
Jamie Raskin (01:09:19):
I have a constituent, a US citizen who spent 25 days in ICE custody, a US citizen, 25 days before she could get out.
Ms. Scanlon (01:09:27):
Well, and as Representative Escobar pointed out, many of these people are present, have been present 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 were... It's rejected by their own data and it's crazy. I wanted to raise with you, Mr. Raskin, one other issue.
(01:09:57)
We have seen that Republicans in the Senate actually objected to moving this bill forward for a couple of weeks. Once the president tried to impose his $1.8 billion slush fund, basically using taxpayer dollars instead of monopoly money and claiming that it came from his fraudulent case against his own government. Can you talk about that and what the issue is with not having restrictions in this bill to prevent that abuse of taxpayer dollars?
Jamie Raskin (01:10:32):
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 it's an attempt to set up an operation totally outside of our constitutional order. And all of it was based on an actual violation that took place by an independent third party contractor, Charles Littlejohn, who leaked thousands of people's tax returns, including Donald Trump's.
(01:11:08)
Now, the president had said he was going to 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 violated his privacy by releasing 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.
(01:11:41)
Todd Blanche didn't even argue that. He made up a completely different position for Donald Trump and then settled the case in a completely collusive settlement under this collusive litigation. So if we want to change the law to say, if a third party contractor leaks your information, you can get $50,000 or $100,000. I'm very willing to look at that. But to give just Donald Trump one guy, 1,776 billion, and I spell out the numbers because of course it's organized around 1,776 which just goes to show it's not related to any particular case. They just made that number up. It happens to come to just over a million dollars for each insurrectionist, proud boy and oath keeper. It's all playing who wants to be a mega-millionaire today and leaving over another $150 million for Donald Trump to give away.
(01:12:29)
But the whole thing is a scandal and everybody recognizes it, then let's put it to bed right now because Todd Blanche went over there and said, "It's dead. Don't worry about it. It's okay." The next day, Donald Trump said he still wanted to resurrect it. Let's exercise our powers as the Article I branch of government to say, "That's not how we're doing business. We're not going to violate 10 different parts of the Constitution to let them set up this political slush fund for their political foot soldiers."
Ms. Scanlon (01:12:58):
Yeah. I mean, there's so much self- dealing here 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, was a private lawyer.
Jamie Raskin (01:13:16):
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.
Ms. Scanlon (01:13:28):
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 the slush fund.
Jamie Raskin (01:13:35):
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. And also, 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.
Ms. Scanlon (01:14:03):
I think it's a kleptocracy is what's been proposed.
Jamie Raskin (01:14:07):
And most monarchies are. Yeah.
Ms. Scanlon (01:14:08):
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 prosecuted for tax violations in the future.
Jamie Raskin (01:14:28):
No, not just tax violations, any violations, 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.
Ms. Scanlon (01:14:38):
Okay. So that's something we should also work on. Mr. Walkinshaw, one of the concerns that we've repeatedly raised is that enormous amounts of money are being funneled through agencies that now have a record of corrupt contracting practices. Can you discuss some of those recent controversies involving DHS contracts and politically connected contractors?
James Walkinshaw (01:15:01):
Well, we know that under Secretary Nome, she established a new and novel policy never seen before in the federal government that every contract over $100,000 had to be approved by her/her office. 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 $100,000 or more was Corey Lewandowski.
Ms. Scanlon (01:15:51):
The secretary's boyfriend?
James Walkinshaw (01:15:53):
I don't know. Perhaps.
Ms. Scanlon (01:15:58):
Okay.
James Walkinshaw (01:15:58):
And something I've never seen before, and 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. I haven't seen it from this Congress.
Ms. Scanlon (01:16:32):
Well, we heard earlier that a lot of these contracts are being issued with 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 president's political funds by GEO, by core civic, 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. I have a lot more questions, especially since this is the only hearing that is going to happen in Congress on this massive bill, but I know that the chairwoman is getting antsy, so I will yield back.
Chairwoman (01:17:14):
Thank you very much. Mr. Roy, you're recognized.
Mr. Roy (01:17:19):
I thank the chairwoman. I would just note on the pardon situation we can have a pretty long conversation about President Biden's numerous pardons, including prospective pardons, which were rather historic and breaking with precedent, but that's not what this is all about. Look, there are a number of things we're going to discuss here today, and I've got a number of concerns. Some of them fall on party lines, some of them don't.
(01:17:48)
I share the concern that any American citizen ever be targeted without having due process or having what they're afforded and we need aggressive oversight and ensuring that American citizens are protected. I 100% agree with that. But what I would note is why we're here. Chairman Jordan laid that out fairly aggressively here at the beginning of this hearing. 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.
(01:18:24)
So we look at the data and we see what we're dealing with at the moment. To the best of my understanding and what I've seen, we've got an order of magnitude, what I've seen, is of the arrests that have been carried out and the deportations. The numbers I've seen have seen 70% or so, or about 400,000 of the people removed have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges just in the United States. So you had 595,000 illegal immigrants between January 20th and December 11th, according to the 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.
(01:19:07)
My point of bringing that up is when you go through and you look at the examples and you look at Mena Awad, a criminal legal alien from Egypt, ICE detainer lodged against him as of January 30th for charges on raping a 16-year-old girl while she was asleep in her bed in Louisville, Kentucky. So we'll just pause for a second. It's like that one incident. If I'm the father of that 16-year-old girl in Kentucky, I don't give two flying craps about whatever's 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.
(01:19:57)
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. We funded it through the house. We had it ready to go. There are conversations that I know my colleagues on both sides of 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.
(01:20:43)
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 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 the text of what I read in it. It is predominantly, if not entirely about added additional. The language is littered through the One Big Beautiful Bill's funding.
(01:21:27)
Therefore, it is very difficult, if not impossible, not impossible, you can use it some, got to 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 Mena Awad is prosecuted and removed so that this little 16 year old girl in Kentucky raped in her bed asleep that there's justice and that this individual's removed. Or Enrique Vasquez, about a criminal legal alien from Mexico has an ice detainer lodged against him charged with literal lascivious acts with a minor and rape after he allegedly coerced a 14-year-old autistic girl into a back alley where he raped and sodomized her on New Year's Eve in California.
(01:22:15)
There are dozens of these examples, dozens. A little girl's skull being fractured. Filming child porn in Stafford, Virginia. Obscene, material, minor. I mean, I 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. My good friend from Texas, Chairman Harrington, can you 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, ICE and Border Patrol? Do you agree with me on that?
Chairman Arrington (01:22:58):
I agree. Not ideal, but the only practical way to fund the important law enforcement and [inaudible 01:23:06] people.
Mr. Roy (01:23:05):
Why?
Chairman Arrington (01:23:06):
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 Homeland went dark. It went dark. And I've got my... The homeland went dark and the only choice we had after 76 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-
Mr. Roy (01:23:41):
To the chairman of Homeland and Judiciary, the 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 out 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, I'm going to state, I'll use my words, backdooring into this. So using reconciliation to fund ICE and border patrol.
Andrew Garbarino (01:24:14):
Yes, absolutely. The department's limited what it could use the old one big, beautiful bill of money for. This, what we're doing today is practically appropriations to reconciliation in the next three years.
Jim Jordan (01:24:27):
Chairman, in simple terms, reconciliation one, that first bill was to address the chaos created by the fact you let in 10 million illegal migrants in an administration. This bill is to fund the day-to-day operations of ICE and CVP. That's the distinction here. You want to fund the day-to-day operations, the lawyers, the salaries of the personnel, that's what this bill's about. The first one was dealing with the chaos created by the Biden administration.
Mr. Roy (01:24:52):
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 30th 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.
(01:25:19)
I would ask just one more thing to make sure I'm clear about this because a concern I have as a fiscal conservative is in fact, oversight of this money and how we can conduct it. I assume the gentleman here, and we of course, need Jamie and oversight committee and others, we are going to conduct the necessary hearings on this funding as well as last year's funding to make sure it's being used appropriately. I assume the gentlemen all agree with that.
Jim Jordan (01:25:47):
Absolutely.
Mr. Roy (01:25:49):
So one point that I think merits articulation for people that are frustrated that I represent, everything we're talking about here is trying to achieve status quo ant at best. This whole debate, trying to come up with money to fund operations we're supposed to fund through appropriations, we're doing that through reconciliation in order to undo damage of people released into our communities and frankly still only partially do so.
(01:26:28)
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 fault or all we're doing is achieving. That's it. The question then becomes when there is a future Biden, Mayorkas administration, '29, '33, '37, sometime, have we done anything yet to date besides potentially the SU Act and the Lakin Rally Act and those improvements to codify and stop a future abuse of asylum parole catch and release or otherwise? Have we yet done that? Have we codified HR2 from the previous Congress? We've not done that in this Congress yet, correct?
(01:27:18)
I stipulate that for the record, this is for the average viewer out there just to know everything we're doing is running into a buzz solve resistance, failing to achieve 60 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 the way the previous administration did. Am I wrong?
Jim Jordan (01:27:49):
Well, as a gentleman knows, it's not for us for lack of trying to do HR2. 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 share part of this concern, I think more specifically if we don't pass the sanctuary jurisdiction shutdown act of 2026, this is real important that we do this. I'm all for it, but remember, a third of the country's in a jurisdiction where they won't work with ICE.
(01:28:19)
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 that's the next step. Let's get this passed and then let's pass this sanctuary jurisdiction shutdown and stop the craziness that's going on in almost a third of the country.
Mr. Roy (01:28:40):
I know that the chair wants us to move on and I will. I would just say I could sit here for another 20 minutes reading the names. Well, I'm still shy of my friend, the ranking member of the Constitutional Subcommittee, but look, I'll wrap up here in the next 20 seconds. I could sit here for another 20 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.
(01:29:22)
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 want to be clear on the record. I want them to go get these bad actors and remove them from our streets. Then we've got to have an ability to work to be able to have that oversight. And when my colleagues on other side of the aisle just shut down and say, "No funding." Well, then this is what we're going to get. We're going to use reconciliation to get the funding so that ICE and Border Patrol can do its job because it's basically the effective equivalent of triage.
(01:30:05)
We have to act. We literally have to act because I'm not going to 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 going to allow people to get dumped into our country and then we were going to be told we can't fund the very people necessary to try to stop them 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 got to have support from the other side of the aisle to even go down that road. I yield back.
Chairwoman (01:30:45):
Thank you. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.
Ms. Fernandez (01:30:50):
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And following up on Representative Chip Roy's questioning about sexual abuse, Chairman Garbarino, do you think it is appropriate to release back into the public somebody who has sexually abused a 12-year-old?
Andrew Garbarino (01:31:12):
No.
Ms. Fernandez (01:31:14):
Do you know that President Trump pardoned a January 6th insurrectionist and do you know what he did? Do you know his name?
Andrew Garbarino (01:31:25):
No.
Ms. Fernandez (01:31:26):
Are you aware of the case?
Andrew Garbarino (01:31:29):
No.
Ms. Fernandez (01:31:30):
You are not aware of the case of the fact that 97 of the January 6th insurrectionists have gone on to commit additional crimes. Did you ever criticize the pardoning of the January 6th insurrectionist?
Andrew Garbarino (01:31:47):
I'm prepared to talk about this bill that's in front of us today.
Ms. Fernandez (01:31:53):
Oh, you didn't seem to object to... 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 of 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 experience on January 6th?
Andrew Garbarino (01:32:26):
As I said, I'm here to talk about the bill in front of us today and I believe you were referring to Mr. Roy's question about ICE enforcement and removal operations against-
Ms. Fernandez (01:32:37):
Well, let me ask you about the bill today.
Andrew Garbarino (01:32:39):
Yes, if you'd like to.
Ms. Fernandez (01:32:40):
Let me ask you about the bill today. So right now, do you know how many women are pregnant and detained by ICE, pregnant women?
Andrew Garbarino (01:32:52):
I do not.
Ms. Fernandez (01:32:53):
Don't you think that it would be appropriate to make sure that before you come in and ask for $72 billion in additional funding for an agency that already has a $100 billion to say, "What are they engaged in now?" I need to tell you, I can walk through the fact that there are 14 cases of sexual abuse at the ICE facilities right now. Do you think that's appropriate?
Andrew Garbarino (01:33:24):
I think it's appropriate to know the difference between what the hundred million can be used on and what we're asking this 72 million to be used on today. This 72 million that's being requested today is for normal ICE and CBP operations, which should be done, which the appropriate thing to do is do it through appropriations, but unfortunately, we could not get Democrats on board to fund these HSI officers, our CBP officers, our ICE officers. Do you know what HSI investigators do? They go after and investigate child exploitation crimes. They investigate human rights violation crimes. They investigate narcotics smuggling. They investigate human trafficking, human smuggling, transnational gangs. They're not funded right now.
Ms. Fernandez (01:34:11):
Right now, there is adequate funding at these agencies to be able to use for these operations. And I think that Representative Walkinshaw wants to address that issue.
James Walkinshaw (01:34:23):
Yeah. I was glad earlier that Mrs. Fishback brought up the funding for child exploitation and I appreciate all of my colleagues' interest in that. I guess my question for you is, were you interested in 2025 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 "easier" for exploiters and traffickers to get away with their crimes." He described the Trump administration's policy as impunity for traffickers.
(01:35:36)
And now we hear today celebration of $100 million for child exploitation, $100 million in a $70 billion bill, 0.14% 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.
Ms. Fernandez (01:36:04):
And I want to get to a lot of other questions. So quickly, did you want to address it because you have seen this, Representative Escobar, you have seen the mistreatment of women in ICE detention facilities and we can read some of the stories. Pregnant women shackled, pregnant women miscarrying, almost bleeding to death. And there is nothing in this bill that addresses guardrails so this doesn't continue to happen. I have a lot of questions to get to, but I know you want to add something to that.
Representative Escobar (01:36:44):
Thank you so much, Ms. Leger 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.
(01:37:16)
And so 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. I want to also address something Mr. 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 said because we're going to go after all of the bad people. That's not true. That's never been true.
(01:38:08)
This is about funding Stephen Miller's mass deportation fantasy, rewarding 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 Impellment Control Act over and over and over again. So did Doge violated that Act over and over and over again. But 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.
Ms. Fernandez (01:39:03):
So, Chairman Garbarino, I want to go back to there was the pointed out about the slush fund and the fact that these J6ers and Mr. Johnson, who I'm surprised you don't know about him, actually said that he tried to silence his victims by saying, "I will pay you some money from the money I'm going to get from the slush fund." So I'm going to ask you again because in this bill, we have the ability to amend it to say none of this money may be used to pay off the January 6th insurrectionist. So will you support that amendment?
Andrew Garbarino (01:39:50):
I'm here to talk about getting this bill passed and funding HSI, funding CBP and funding the officers that are going... And you want to talk about child exploitation, which you brought up before. There are still 300,000 kids missing that were lost under the Biden administration. HSI is doing that right now-
Ms. Fernandez (01:40:08):
I asked you a question about whether you would support the J6, whether you support-
Andrew Garbarino (01:40:13):
It's about an amendment that has nothing to do with this bill.
Ms. Fernandez (01:40:15):
[inaudible 01:40:15] Trump, he cannot use these funds to pay off J6ers. So just to get clear, you were saying, "I'm not going to answer that question," because you clearly don't think the American people or your voters deserve to know where you stand on the slush fund.
Andrew Garbarino (01:40:31):
My voters know where I stand. I took-
Ms. Fernandez (01:40:33):
Where is it? Where do you stand on the slush fund?
Andrew Garbarino (01:40:34):
I don't need to say it because it doesn't matter with this bill. My voters know where I stand. My local paper ran an article about what I said. You want to know what I said? You can go look it up. I'm talking about the 300,000 kids that are missing under Joe Biden's position.
Ms. Fernandez (01:40:48):
We could amend this bill so it can contain here.
Andrew Garbarino (01:40:51):
It's not even in this bill. We need to make sure-
Ms. Fernandez (01:40:53):
It could be amended because that's an issue. We have the power to do that. We have the power to adopt a resolution. I'm going to go on because this is $72 billion that we want to 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.
(01:41:28)
And I want to go to Chairman Arrington, you and I share a border. And if you went to the ranchers in your district and you asked them if you could give me a single word, what is the most important thing that they're concerned about today? Today. One word.
Chairman Arrington (01:41:50):
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 board and protect our citizens.
Ms. Fernandez (01:42:00):
So you're saying that your ranchers care most-
Jodey Arrington (01:42:03):
... our citizens.
Ms. Fernandez (01:42:00):
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 your ranchers are probably very concerned about? One, the cost of diesel because that's what my ranchers are about. We share a border and I know that your ranchers are also concerned about the screwworm. If we start talking about priorities, these are priorities that our rural America is concerned about is how expensive it is to fill up their truck because diesel is through the woof. And that is an issue that you voted no on because you did not support our war powers resolution, which would've brought down the cost of diesel.
(01:42:44)
And right now, the USDA has screwed up the issue with the screwworm because we fired, we released, we pushed out 25% of the people who would've made sure and tracked and helped us control the infestation of screwworm. And it is terrifying because you have a case in your district that actually came from New Mexico. Do you know you have a case in your district already?
Jodey Arrington (01:43:15):
I know we have cases in Texas.
Ms. Fernandez (01:43:18):
Are you aware of the case you have that's been reported in your district?
Jodey Arrington (01:43:21):
I know we have cases in Texas. I know about the screwworm threat. And I promise you that every-
Ms. Fernandez (01:43:28):
You are not aware that there is a reported case of screwworm in-
Jodey Arrington (01:43:29):
... cowboy and plowboy in your district and mine care more about the safety of their families than they actually do the screwworm. That is a fact. My producers and your producers care more-
Ms. Fernandez (01:43:39):
Wow, okay, well, just so that you know there has been a reported case in your district-
Jodey Arrington (01:43:41):
I'd love to debate-
Ms. Fernandez (01:43:43):
... there are several others. There are quarantines going on and this is an issue about priorities because Democrats are for. In fact, we have here one of the proponents of immigration reform, and we are for 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 are not supportive of the cruelty and the corruption that is going on.
(01:44:12)
And I want to go back to an issue that was raised earlier about the corruption, right? Because I wrote it down here, it's so amazing that when we talk about those warehouses, it's like more than 50%. In Salt Lake City, I don't know, this is about this bill, Mr. Garbarino. Are you aware of how much more we are paying for these warehouses than what they've actually been appraised at? In Salt Lake City, the administration sought a warehouse for immigration detention. It was assessed at $97 million. Do you know how much the administration paid for that building?
Andrew Garbarino (01:45:00):
I'm not familiar with the building.
Ms. Fernandez (01:45:03):
$145 million. In Roxbury, New Jersey, warehouse was assessed at $62 million. Do you know how much the administration paid for that building?
Andrew Garbarino (01:45:12):
I'm not aware of the building.
Ms. Fernandez (01:45:16):
$129 million. In Georgia, they purchased a property valued at $26 million. Do you know how much they paid for that one?
Andrew Garbarino (01:45:24):
Not aware.
Ms. Fernandez (01:45:25):
$129 million, 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. Chip Roy's always talking about, "We got to bring the deficit down," but this is deficit spending.
(01:45:58)
Last week, Republicans cut $200 million for funding for women, infant and children. $200 million for women, infant, and children. Mr. Garbarino, do you think it's important that we actually provide funding for women, infant, and children who might need it because they're hungry and they need good nutrition?
Andrew Garbarino (01:46:27):
I do. Do you have any questions about... actually-
Ms. Fernandez (01:46:27):
About that bill? Yeah, but-
Andrew Garbarino (01:46:27):
... do you know any of the 9/11 terrorist names?
Ms. Fernandez (01:46:31):
It's-
Andrew Garbarino (01:46:31):
You're asking me about a whole bunch of names. Can you name one of the 9/11 terrorists?
Ms. Fernandez (01:46:34):
So-
Andrew Garbarino (01:46:34):
That's why the committee of Homeland Security was created was because of what happened on 9/11. You're asking about all other names. Can you name one of the 9/11? I don't think you can, very upsetting. It-
Ms. Fernandez (01:46:43):
Well, no, but this is precisely related to your bill. This is precisely related to your bill because just with what we have overspent 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.
(01:47:05)
And Republicans are here. The chairwoman brought us in last week because there was an emergency, right? It was an emergency, even though there's a hundred billion dollars sitting at these agencies, but we have other emergencies like the screwworm, like how expensive diesel is, like the fact that we're going into a season of hurricanes and all these other things. And the Trump administration is pulling up the science that we need to track this. Those are emergencies.
(01:47:41)
And right now, I think we're going to have continued discussion, but I know you wanted to address something Ranking Member Raskin on this issue, if you may?
Jamie Raskin (01:47:56):
Well, I wanted to address many things. I don't know which one you had in mind. I'll just say that $70 billion 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 First Amendment rights is unacceptable.
(01:48:20)
And I think it's amazing that our colleagues would bring forward a blank check essentially for $70 billion without any strings attached in terms of correcting this misconduct and misbehavior going forward. And 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 in the process.
(01:48:47)
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.
Ms. Fernandez (01:48:59):
So I had some last questions for Chair Jordan. Chair Jordan, I know that you often talk about the importance of what used to be Republican values, but Trumpican values don't seem to follow that. But do you believe ICE should be arresting United States citizens?
Jim Jordan (01:49:17):
No, I don't.
Ms. Fernandez (01:49:18):
Do you know how many-
Jim Jordan (01:49:18):
They're not supposed to do that at all then, so that's against the law.
Ms. Fernandez (01:49:20):
Do you know how many United States citizens they've arrested and put-
Jim Jordan (01:49:23):
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.
Ms. Fernandez (01:49:28):
There was 170 United States citizens arrested and put in detention. Now, is there anything in this bill that helps train officers better and that demands that there be accountability so that you do not continue to arrest United States citizens?
Jim Jordan (01:49:46):
Well, there's training requirements in the Bill for new ICE agents when they're brought in. And my understanding that's actually been increased because of the need to hire more agents. So that is happening, but I don't-
Ms. Fernandez (01:49:56):
Do you... actually, the training-
Jim Jordan (01:49:57):
... know what those specific requirements are-
Ms. Fernandez (01:50:01):
There aren't any.
Jim Jordan (01:50:01):
... but I know there are training requirements.
Ms. Fernandez (01:50:02):
And you know that the training requirements have gone down by 40%? So now ICE agents are not as trained as they used to before and they are arresting.
Jim Jordan (01:50:13):
I don't think that's accurate though. I don't think that's accurate.
Ms. Fernandez (01:50:15):
I have an amendment, Chairman Jordan, that would provide training so that Native Americans would not get arrested. You would acknowledge that Native Americans being the first Americans-
Jim Jordan (01:50:29):
I'm for adequate training for ICE minus any is what-
Ms. Fernandez (01:50:31):
Would you support my amendment?
Jim Jordan (01:50:32):
... that they are getting that. What I think the focus of this bill is, as I said earlier, when you allow 10 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.
Ms. Fernandez (01:50:58):
Did you need some time? I'd like to yield some time to Represent Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon (01:51:03):
Mr. Raskin, are you aware of the reporting about the administration trying to have 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-
Jamie Raskin (01:51:28):
No, I'm not.
Ms. Scanlon (01:51:29):
... that the funding here could be used for other similar illegal efforts by this administration because there aren't [inaudible 01:51:36].
Jamie Raskin (01:51:36):
I've not seen that one, but the money, the treasury there at DHS is so vast and so huge that it's been deployed for all kinds of unlawful purposes, including the arrest of citizens and the killing of US citizens and the clamp down on freedom of speech.
Ms. Scanlon (01:51:55):
Mm-hmm. Well, I think obviously as every Democrat here 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.
(01:52:18)
So I think we're going to 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 follow the same civil rights and liberties and common sense policing policies as every other law enforcement agency in this country. And I thank the general lady for the time and I yield back to her.
Ms. Fernandez (01:52:44):
Thank you very much, Representative Scanlon for those questions, because I think it really is important to point out how this administration continues to violate the basic civil liberties of citizens, of residents, the idea that they're going into social security. Those are your social security. That's your privacy. It is outrageous. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman (01:53:09):
Thank you, Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
Austin Scott (01:53:12):
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I will 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 out there over the last few days. If you don't think they cheat, just look at that. Florida is in multiple time zones. They get all their ballots counted within a couple of hours and I do hope that the court will step in-
Speaker 1 (01:53:37):
It's because they don't count them.
Austin Scott (01:53:38):
... and make sure that California is no longer able to continue to do and commit the fraud that they've been committing in elections out there.
Ms. Scanlon (01:53:46):
There is no evidence of fraud being committed in California.
Austin Scott (01:53:51):
How many days ago was the election? Have y'all counted the ballots yet out there?
Ms. Scanlon (01:53:57):
It's very different when you have to hand count ballots when you have to verify that the ballots are actually being cast legally, which is what's happening.
Austin Scott (01:54:05):
Well-
Ms. Scanlon (01:54:05):
There is no evidence. If you can find some evidence, please bring it to us because we would love to see it.
Austin Scott (01:54:09):
Let me just assure you, every reasonable person thinks the ballot should have already been counted, but that's okay. Mr. Raskin, do you remember the accusations that you made of a Dr. Amin in Irwin County, Georgia?
Jamie Raskin (01:54:27):
Was that when President Trump said, "Just find me 11,780 votes?" Was that the incident? I'm not sure which incident you're referring to.
Austin Scott (01:54:35):
You didn't hear my question?
Jamie Raskin (01:54:36):
I just heard your question, I-
Austin Scott (01:54:38):
You made a lot of accusations of a doctor in my district a few years ago, a Dr. Amin. You said that he was engaged in mass hysterectomies and sterilization projects, and you remember that?
Jamie Raskin (01:54:52):
Oh, this was in a detention center, correct?
Austin Scott (01:54:57):
It was not. No, there are no surgical procedures done in the detention center. All of the surgical procedures were done at the hospital. I just want you to know, I want to make sure you know this. The court found that he had actually performed two hysterectomies. Both were deemed to be medically necessary after peer review, just for the record.
Jamie Raskin (01:55:17):
But I'm glad to hear that. I'm remembering the incident you're talking about, where there were allegations that people were being coerced into hysterectomies?
Austin Scott (01:55:24):
Yes. Y'all just fell hook, line, and sinker for them, what's... but what will-
Jamie Raskin (01:55:27):
Well, you just made an allegation that there was fraud in the election in California without a single iota of evidence.
Austin Scott (01:55:32):
Well, I think most people, mm-hmm.
Jamie Raskin (01:55:33):
Most people? I know someone else who uses that phrase.
Austin Scott (01:55:36):
Well, either way, you owe-
Jamie Raskin (01:55:37):
I'm going to need something a little more concrete than that.
Austin Scott (01:55:39):
... Dr. Amin, an apology for all the accusations for him. I just don't want you in the court now-
Jamie Raskin (01:55:42):
If you send me this stuff, I'm very happy. I asked a series of questions. I asked a series of questions about him.
Austin Scott (01:55:47):
The court found that there were two hysterectomies performed. Y'all just fell hook, line and sinker for what some whistleblower said.
Jamie Raskin (01:55:54):
Well, I take the facts seriously, and so-
Austin Scott (01:55:56):
First of all, I'm going to reclaim my time. I'm not going to... Listen, 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 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.
Madam Chairwoman (01:56:39):
Thank you very much. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.
Howard Morgan Griffith (01:56:41):
No questions.
Madam Chairwoman (01:56:43):
Thank you. I appreciate our panel members being here and you are excused.
Jamie Raskin (01:56:51):
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (01:57:04):
Thank you. Without objection, I have a piece from November 13, 2025 called Operation Dirt Bag. ICE arrest over 150 criminal illegal alien sex predators in Florida cracked down, for the record.
Ms. Fernandez (01:57:28):
Madam Chair, I'd like to enter some items for the record as well.
Madam Chairwoman (01:57:32):
Without objection.
Ms. Fernandez (01:57:33):
Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record ICE's detention of pregnant individuals dated October 22nd, 2025, which details in excruciating and painful stories, some of the pregnancies, the miscarriages, the bleeding to death that I referenced earlier.
Madam Chairwoman (01:57:58):
Without objection.
Ms. Fernandez (01:57:59):
Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record the article dated June 8th, 2026 stated, "In Texas cattle country, ranchers question if USDA can contain flesh-eating screwworm," and details how ranchers in Texas are very concerned about the failure-
Madam Chairwoman (01:58:20):
Without objection. Without-§
Ms. Fernandez (01:58:20):
... the Trump administration address the screwworm.
(01:58:23)
Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record. Oops. Anyway, Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record with regards to the corruption we spoke about earlier dated June 6th, 2026, the Alligator Alcatraz Boondoggle, which sets out the corruption with regards to-
Madam Chairwoman (01:58:48):
Without objection.
Ms. Fernandez (01:58:48):
... the ICE detention facility in Alcatraz, which we discussed earlier.
(01:58:52)
Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record the article titled Grant and Clemency by Trump. Scores of January six rioters have accused of new crimes at least 97 of those who were charged in connection with the Capitol who have re-offended in the years since the attack.
Madam Chairwoman (01:59:11):
Without objection.
Ms. Fernandez (01:59:14):
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (01:59:15):
Thank you.
Austin Scott (01:59:15):
Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record the FDA conditional approval of the first drug for prevention and treatment of New World Screwworm, which the Trump administration did September 30th of 2025.
Madam Chairwoman (01:59:28):
Without objection. Do we have any panel here?
Speaker 2 (01:59:31):
[inaudible 01:59:32].
Ms. Fernandez (02:00:19):
Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (02:00:20):
[inaudible 02:00:21].
Ms. Fernandez (02:00:21):
Oh, did we? Okay, then.
(02:00:59)
Yes. I'd like to enter into the record another article addressing the issue of the parasite and it is dated June 5th, 2026, a horrific parasite is back and Elon Musk's DOGE could be partly to blame. This addresses not just the fact that we cut 25% of the AFIS, but we also cut the... Or we didn't cut, Republicans in their big beautiful bill and DOGE's forcing out cut the detection funding necessary through the Americas. And with that, Madam Chair, thank you.
Madam Chairwoman (02:01:39):
I now welcome our panel, Chairman Comer 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 Comer, I welcome your testimony.
James Comer (02:02:03):
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 233 million and 521 billion annually to fraud across all federal programs and operations. That means the average American tax filer spends between 1,000 and $3,000 annually just on lining the pockets of fraudsters and criminals while vulnerable Americans are robbed of the benefits these programs were designed to provide.
(02:02:40)
Investigations conducted by the Oversight Committee into Minnesota Social Services programs uncovered $9 billion 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.
(02:03:11)
And we see 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 without strong oversight measures in place.
(02:03:33)
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.
(02:03:56)
House Resolution 1355 sponsored by Representative Pat Fallon 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 and chase model in federally funded programs.
(02:04:29)
While the Department of Justice's efforts to hold these fraudsters accountable to recover taxpayer dollars are commendable, taxpayers deserve and demand that we put a stop to fraud before it happens. That is why we have also brought two bills before a rules' committee. 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.
(02:04:58)
HR 8464 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 the US 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.
(02:05:22)
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.
(02:05:51)
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-19 pandemic, and I think that number's 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.
(02:06:16)
It is estimated that if the PRAC were established prior to the pandemic, as much as $79 billion in fraudulent payments could have been prevented on the front end. HR 8312 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 that there is a permanent government-wide anti-fraud analytics function to assist agency inspectors general with their fraud work.
(02:06:43)
It ensures a permanent inspector general office for fraud, accountability, and recovery utilizing the valuable proven resources built by the PRAC over recent years. This eliminates the need to start from scratch in the inevitable event of a new national emergency.
(02:06:59)
I want to emphasize that these bills should be considered in the broader context of the committee's legislative work on fraud prevention and financial integrity reforms. The vast majority of which have bipartisan support.
(02:07:11)
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.
(02:07:27)
Madam Chair, I ask that the rules' committee grant a prompt rule for the House's consideration of this legislation. I welcome the committee's questions.
Madam Chairwoman (02:07:35):
Thank you, Chairman Comer. Mr. Walkinshaw, you're recognized.
James Walkinshaw (02:07:39):
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Fighting and 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.
(02:07:51)
When fraudsters successfully target government dollars, they steal from taxpayers, deprive our most vulnerable neighbors of life-saving services and undermine the public's trust in government. 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.
(02:08:15)
That's why oversight committee Democrats have supported numerous anti-fraud measures, including the Prepayment 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.
(02:08:32)
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.
(02:08:48)
HR 8464, 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. HR 8312, the Fraud Prevention and Accountability Act is 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 HRes 1335 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.
(02:09:37)
HR 8464 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 and R&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.
(02:10:11)
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.
(02:10:25)
HR 8312 uses the facade of fraud prevention to undermine an ecosystem intended to hold the executive branch accountable. It purports to make permanent resources for the, 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 CIGIE, the oversight body that serves as the backbone for PRAC and provides its own oversight of our IGs.
(02:10:54)
CIGIE 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.
(02:11:15)
President Trump has shown he's afraid of CIGIE 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.
(02:11:37)
To this end, he illegally withheld CIGIE's congressionally provided funding last fall and all of us, Democrats and Republicans, should be outraged by this because we approved the funding, caused CIGIE to abruptly cease functioning. The websites housing thousands of audit reports went offline, and investigators and law enforcement officers across the IG community were left without access to essential training. You can't say you want to fight fraud when you literally shut down the fraud fighters.
(02:12:06)
Taking the PRAC out of CIGIE 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 CIGIE and to further dismantle what remains of a community already weakened by the president's efforts to purge and replace IGs with cronies.
(02:12:25)
Any renewed cuts to CIGIE'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.
(02:12:42)
That's why I filed an amendment to the Bill that would walk back some of the more dangerous changes and would instead simply make the successful functions of the PRAC permanent. I have an 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.
(02:12:58)
Finally, HRes 1335 purportedly 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.
(02:13:20)
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 25 fraudsters, including those who committed wire fraud, security fraud, tax fraud, bank fraud, healthcare fraud. And this is the most corrupt administration in American history. Trump and his family have made billions through a whole series of corrupt schemes and this resolution ignores those facts. I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chairwoman (02:13:47):
Thank you very much. Mr. Scott, do you have anything to say? Okay.
Austin Scott (02:13:53):
I just want to 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. And I would encourage anybody who gets a text message encouraging them to put something in a crypto ATM to recognize that that is fraud. I am baffled at how much of that is going on in my district and our senior citizens being taken advantage of. I'm thankful that Donald Trump is making it a priority to stop this fraud that is being perpetuated throughout this country. With that, I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman (02:14:26):
Thank you. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (02:14:30):
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 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.
(02:14:49)
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.
(02:15:17)
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.
(02:15:47)
Major media companies have settled frivolous cases filed by the president against them as those companies have sought government approval of deals and business opportunities.
(02:15:59)
Trump has now pardoned over 20 people convicted of defrauding government healthcare-
Ms. Scanlon (02:16:00):
... pardoned over 20 people convicted of defrauding government healthcare 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 $200 million from the WIC program that provides nutrition for women, infant, and children's, but in this bill providing billions more dollars in funding in the bill that's being considered in this rule to provide $70 billion 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 $200 million that was used to put out commercials promoting Kristi Noem's horseback riding skills.
(02:17:03)
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.
(02:17:34)
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. The tools that they need, as Mr. Jordan said, step one, you 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 $13 in improper payments.
(02:18:25)
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. Member 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 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.
James Walkinshaw (02:19:13):
Yeah, that's right. I mean, they are 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're legally protected from being fired because they anger an administration.
(02:19:48)
And what President Trump has done in illegally firing those permanent IGs and replacing them with acting IGs is taking away those legal protections so that we can no longer have confidence that those acting IGs who now could be fired if they step out of line, if the administration thinks they've stepped out of line, we can no longer have confidence that they are willing and able to uncover and reveal those instances of waste fraud and abuse.
(02:20:22)
And in the FY27 budget proposal, the president's budget proposes a 30% cut for IGs across the board. So we're going to slash the funding for the folks who are out there looking to identify the waste, fraud and abuse and we're going to 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 be fraud." I don't think that's going to lead to catching and preventing more fraud.
Ms. Scanlon (02:20:55):
I think this is why it's been a priority for senators and members of Congress over decades to have an independent professional group of people who were skilled in this. I mean, obviously with a federal government that 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, but it is really, really concerning that that independence has been undermined.
(02:21:24)
I think it's fair to say that the president's ire was raised because in multiple circumstances, inspectors general have criticized the actions of his administration and that's precisely why their independence is so necessary. So thank you for your testimony and I would look forward to partnering with our Republican colleagues to reestablish 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.
(02:21:58)
So thank you. I yield back.
Chair Foxx (02:22:01):
Thank you very much. Ms. Leger Fernandez, do you have any questions?
Ms. Fernandez (02:22:09):
Yeah. I mean, I think that there is a concern. Nobody wants fraud interviews, that's taxpayer dollars that are going to waste, but we are very concerned about the apparent lack of fraud and selling of pardons and thank you for pointing that out. I noticed that there was, with regards to this ballroom, the gilded ballroom that was originally going to be paid for by others and then they came and asked us to pay a billion dollars and there was an uproar about that. But the recent reporting that there was $50 billion of contracts awarded to those corporations that donated money to Trump's ballroom.
(02:23:01)
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 single person, because then it is so much easier to manipulate and basically steal the money outright, right? What's amazing is they are stealing the money, Americans' taxpayer dollars, in public view. 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?
James Walkinshaw (02:23:44):
Yeah. I think we've seen throughout this Trump administration, I think the most charitable way to describe it is unorthodox contracting practices and we've seen it 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 200 million taxpayer dollars on an advertising campaign. The money, $140 million 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.
(02:24:26)
How was she able to do that? How was her office able to do that? She said it was an emergency. It was an emergency so she need 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 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 $200 million and had to funnel the money to her political allies.
(02:24:59)
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 four, it certainly isn't a good deal for the American taxpayers. 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.
Ms. Fernandez (02:25:36):
So, Chair Comer, there was a subpoena for the now former secretary and she did not testify under oath or in a committee hearing where everybody could see what it was, now that was about the Epstein files, I think, and you allowed her to testify but she hasn't actually testified.
James Comer (02:25:56):
Who are you talking about now? I thought you were talking about Kristi Noem.
Ms. Fernandez (02:25:57):
Well, I think I was going to go to the fact that, have you had any oversight of some of these contracts that appear to be quite fraudulent and doing it in a way that would allow the American public to see what the answers are. And I think it is relevant because whether or not you're complying with congressional law and the Epstein Transparency Act is congressional law, and you allowed her to testify...
James Comer (02:26:27):
Are we talking about fraud? What are we talking about? I don't think you understand what we're talking about here. We're talking about fraud.
Ms. Fernandez (02:26:32):
I'm talking about oversight. I'm talking about oversight.
James Comer (02:26:34):
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 want to keep spending more money. You don't care about the poor hardworking Americans who spend 40% of their paycheck on taxes and are sick and tired of their money being wasted by fraudsters. That's what this bill's about. You talk about inspectors general, my God, where have the inspectors general been on all this fraud?
Ms. Fernandez (02:27:02):
They got fired.
James Comer (02:27:04):
They got fired. This fraud's been [inaudible 02:27:05] firing the ... I would fire them all and hire new ones that are going to use AI technology to get fraud. All you all do is kiss the butts of the federal employees. You don't want to fire anybody. Kristi Noem, I agree with what you're saying, she got fired. She should have gotten fired. Anybody that defrauds the taxpayers should get fired. You all never fired anybody.
(02:27:28)
We're talking about the last president who we investigated, pardoned his whole family and you all didn't say a word. Giggle all you want. The American people are fed up. You're going to be in for a shock I think when you see how angry the people are at fraud and the Democrats' lack of doing nothing. I mean, these should be bipartisan bills to detect fraud and all you're concerned about is hiring more federal employees that have not been detecting fraud.
Ms. Fernandez (02:28:04):
I think what Democrats are concerned about is the ongoing fraud of our taxpayer dollars inflicted on the American people and we are seeing it over and over again. 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 January 6th insurrectionists, 97 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 pardoning [inaudible 02:28:44].
James Comer (02:28:43):
Your president, your beloved President Biden, pardoned his whole family for fraud. Pardoned his whole family on the way out the door.
Chair Foxx (02:28:52):
Stop talking over each other.
Ms. Fernandez (02:28:53):
I have not asked you a question and I think that this is it. There is a concept that this administration and the Trumpublicans are really working on, which is that they try to say, "Well, let's talk about fraud," because it is so rampant 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.
(02:29:23)
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're suffering from the fact that you do not pay attention to what is important. 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.
(02:30:02)
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, Representative Walkinshaw, if you wanted to add to the debate on this. Did you need some time? Okay.
James Walkinshaw (02:30:26):
No, I'm not. Well, let me actually enter into the record, ask unanimous consent, Madam Chairwoman, enter into the record a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. House Bill 8464 to make blocking federal funds easier would take away help people need to afford rising costs.
Chair Foxx (02:30:44):
Without objection.
James Walkinshaw (02:30:46):
Thank you.
Ms. Fernandez (02:30:47):
I think thank you very much, Representative Walkinshaw, because last week we discussed 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. And I think that we see that over and over again. And I just want to correct the record in the sense that Trump did not fire Noem, he created something called the Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas. And I would like to yield some time to Representative Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon (02:31:22):
Yeah. I just wanted to seek unanimous consent to introduce an article from the Washington Post from last week, June 4, ballroom donors won $50 billion in contracts after giving to Trump project according to a watchdog.
Chair Foxx (02:31:37):
Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon (02:31:39):
Thank you. I yield back to you.
Ms. Fernandez (02:31:40):
Thank you very much. And I think it's actually close to, is it close to $4 billion? It's over $4 billion that the Trump and his [inaudible 02:31:50] made.
James Walkinshaw (02:31:50):
Trump family itself.
Ms. Fernandez (02:31:51):
Yeah.
James Walkinshaw (02:31:52):
Yeah. It's certainly in the billions when you add up the digital schemes, the foreign real estate deals. And look, Chairman Comer said he thinks Democrats are in for a shock when we learn how angry people are. I think respectfully, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues might be in for a shock when you learn that American folks across the country who are 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 $70 million G700 Gulfstream, the most luxurious Gulfstream 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.
Ms. Fernandez (02:32:45):
Thank you very much. And Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chair Foxx (02:32:48):
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Jack.
Brian Jack (02:32:51):
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for testifying. It's an honor to serve on your committee and I would welcome for this committee you sharing with us. I come from a political background and running on the elimination of waste fraud on abuse was one of the core campaign promises many of us made in 2024. The Americans sent us, the presidents, the White House and us, the Republican majority. How do these bills we're considering today help us achieve that campaign promise?
James Comer (02:33:17):
Yeah, absolutely. And 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, the government just wired money to this fraudster, they're in China, that money's gone. You'll never get it again. That happens every day in the federal government.
(02:33:41)
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. We just published a report today where we 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 Democrats, they blew the whistle on the fact that Governor Waltz and Attorney General Ellison knew about the fraud, yet did nothing about it. And our fraud report also showed, and I want you to listen to this, Ms. Scanlon, that the USDA inspector general was not responding to clear signals that fraud was rampant.
(02:34:27)
So I guess you want to give them a promotion and a pat on the back and probably a pay raise and let them keep working from home. But this is happening every day in this government. We got to do something about it and the people are mad and their seeing which party is serious about fraud. I just had a primary last week, I got over 88% of the vote and I saw the poll and you're losing your primary, sir. So we'll let the voters speak.
Brian Jack (02:34:53):
Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Chair Foxx (02:34:54):
Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you very much. Would you like to speak or put the report in the [inaudible 02:35:01].
James Comer (02:35:01):
Yeah. May I ask [inaudible 02:35:02] and enter into the record, the oversight committee majority staff report titled The Cost of Doing Nothing: How Tim Waltz and Keith Ellison Fueled Minnesota's Fraud Explosion.
Chair Foxx (02:35:12):
Without objection. Thank you gentlemen for coming. We appreciate your being here and with no further questions you're excused. Oh, okay. You can give it to me. You can give it to me. Yeah, we're over there. There you go. You want to get that? Would you mind getting that first? Thank you.
(02:36:20)
Okay. This is a test, members of Congress. We have eight seats sitting up here. Just take it. Will, Ms. Randall, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Correa, Ms. Garcia, Ms. Jayapal. We have a hard time getting people to sit down in the right seat. If we have other ... The reason I was trying to do that is we have other members come in, we'll seat them over here. Okay?
Emily Randall (02:37:12):
That is not a problem.
Chair Foxx (02:37:16):
Thank you very much. You know the drill. We welcome your written statements for the record, but we ask you to keep your comments to five minutes. Ms. Randall, you're recognized.
Emily Randall (02:37:30):
Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chair Foxx and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on S2. I'm deeply concerned about the Senate Republicans bill, which gives 70 billion to ICE and CBP, funding those agencies through the end of Trump's term without any reforms to immigration enforcement. My first amendment would prohibit ICE CBP and other federal agencies from conducting immigration enforcement at active disaster and emergency response locations. May seem unnecessary, but it isn't.
(02:38:08)
This includes evacuation routes, emergency shelters, and supply distribution sites, disaster assistant registration sites, and family reunification centers. These are places that we need the work to continue happening smoothly, not to be interrupted by unnecessary and sometimes vindictive immigration enforcement. 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.
(02:38:44)
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, hardworking crew members who put their lives on the line to perform lifesaving 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.
(02:39:13)
The Bear Gulch fire burned through 20,000 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 2026. And from closing 57 out of 77 US Forest Service research labs, including two in Washington State, to losing 6,000 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.
(02:39:50)
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.
(02:40:17)
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 respectfully, we have been asking for reforms in the Department of Homeland Security for months and months and months, and I am hopeful that you will hear not only your Democratic colleagues' demands, but also the demands of the American people that are allowed and clear that they want not a cent more to ICE and CBP until there are meaningful reforms. I yield back.
Chair Foxx (02:41:05):
Thank you, Ms. Randall. Ms. Tlaib, you're recognized.
Rashida Tlaib (02:41:08):
Madam Chair, I have five amendments before the committee. All five amendments are targeting the most appalling abuses that we've seen already from ICE and border patrol that are destroying many of our neighbors and our communities. Our neighborhoods feel very much targeted and under attack instead of us spending the money and resources to make our country more affordable to live in. Addressing housing crisis, in my community, the clean water crisis, the fact that we need access to clean water, is something they want us to prioritize, but allowing this unhinged agency to target communities and people that look like me.
(02:41:49)
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 $240 million in profits are complaining that that's not enough. This 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.
(02:42:17)
This ICE detention center, this ICE cage, that they want to build in Romulus, Michigan, was supposed to be a manufacturing center and instead they're going to 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 and custody. I already know of a 19-year-old teen who got ahold of a glass from a cell phone and began attacking his arms trying to take his life because the conditions were so unbearable and he was feeling very much dehumanized and criminalized.
(02:42:52)
Warehouse detention camps only make things worse so I ask my colleagues to please 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 CoreCivic and all the other groups to make money off of this inhumane policy.
(02:43:13)
The next amendment would prohibit 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 ICE was operating at sensitive locations like places of worship, childcare 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, churches, mosques, you name it, but also at funerals because they actually don't understand the inhumanity of doing it that way.
(02:43:55)
So the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties holds ICE and Homeland Security folks accountable, and since Trump took office, we know DHS has been systematically dismantling that Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, opening the door of more abuses without any meaningful oversight. So we must restore that office.
(02:44:16)
The next amendment, amendment 91, requires ICE and CBP to maintain accurate online detainee locator system. Again, this is based on a family of five who for 12 days I could not find them. So when you hear residents say they've been kidnapped, that's why. We can't find them. 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 so 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.
(02:44:52)
Members of our communities have been unable, again, to locate our loved ones held in CBP. For days, lawyers also have been notifying me that they're unable to find their clients and families are unable to again to find their loved ones and to make sure that they're safe. My amendment mandates that Homeland Security maintain an accurate detailed online detainee locator system so families and legal counsel can quickly and reliably find their loved ones and clients to better fight for their freedom and their rights.
(02:45:19)
The last amendments that I have, amendment 101 would prohibit ICE and CBP from transferring detained individuals out of state. This has been egregious. Within hours, they will move family members out of state without any notification of legal counsel or their family members. In 2025, ICE transferred nearly 41,700 people to another state within 24 hours. That's unacceptable. We saw this in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who was illegally kidnapped by ICE and transferred all the way from New York all the way to Louisiana.
(02:45:53)
Lastly, my amendment 135 would require ICE and CBP to report deaths of recently detained individuals who die within 30 days of their release from DHS custody. This is incredibly important. Madam Chair, I can't explain why that would be impossible to do. This is information and transparency that we need. Last week, we know ICE sent out a memo announcing this change so now ICE and CBP can assault, torture and brutalize detainees and neglect their health and wellbeing until they are at death's door. As long as they release them before they die, they won't have to report it and that's unacceptable.
(02:46:25)
I still remember the case of Nurul, who was nearly blind, who died after Border Patrol agents released him into the streets of Buffalo, New York in 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 lying about post-release deaths like this. Thank you to the committee and this opportunity to testify in support of our amendments.
Lou Correa (02:46:59):
Thank you, Madam Chair and ranking woman. Before you today, before this rule committee, you're considering a proposal to give an additional 70 billion to the Department of Homeland Security on top of the orderly 170 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 members of our society.
(02:47:28)
My first amendment, amendment number five, all gave some and some made the ultimate sacrifice. As we approach America's 250th birthday, let's remember those who have fought for our freedom. Today, there are approximately 45,000 immigrants actively serving in our US 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 11 and 30% of veterans have some form of PTSD. Individuals suffering from this terrible disease are 60% more likely to become entangled in our criminal justice system.
(02:48:27)
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 from this bill from being used for 287(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.
(02:49:04)
My last amendment, amendment number 11, is attempting 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 1995 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 in America and they should not be forced to return to a country they left behind more than 50 years ago. Madam Chair.
Chair Foxx (02:49:52):
Thank you, Mr. Correa. Ms. Garcia, you're recognized.
Sylvia Garcia (02:50:27):
... [inaudible 02:50:27] 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 killed or seriously injured 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.
(02:50:56)
Recent economic research found that for every six immigrant 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 73% to 44%, 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.
(02:51:55)
That is why I'm offering 10 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 to go to court, everyone is less safe. My amendments would fund processing instead of chaos. This money would go to US 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 30 days, including those raised during oversight visits.
(02:52:55)
Finally, my amendments protect basic human dignity in detention centers. I have visited the Dilley Detention Center in Texas multiple times and it's not getting better, it's getting worse at every visit. Taxpayers are paying more than $1,000 per person per day per detainee. We could put them up in a Hilton. Yet, multiple women told me they have to pay for tampons, $20 for 18. 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 menstruation pain.
(02:53:41)
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 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 problems at the Delaney, there's no problems 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.
Virginia Foxx (02:54:40):
Thank you, Ms. Garcia. Ms. Jayapal, you're recognized.
Pramila Jayapal (02:54:44):
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 groceries, gas, housing, and healthcare, Republicans are giving another $70 billion in funding to CBP and ICE, even though these agencies still have $100 billion left from the $140 billion slush fund that Republicans gave them last year.
(02:55:28)
Second, this bill has absolutely no prohibition on Donald Trump resurrecting his $1.8 billion cop beater slush fund, which he said yesterday was a "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 Blanche, 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.
(02:56:04)
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 mass deportations and 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.
(02:56:48)
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 25 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. My amendment ends all of this, and it ensures that ICE cannot use funds to detain US citizens.
(02:57:58)
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.
(02:58:34)
Reports abound of appalling conditions, overcrowding, medical neglect, and inedible food. In GEO Group's 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. 50 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 Homan 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.
(02:59:19)
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 judge. 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's picking up his kid or a teacher on his way to school.
(02:59:51)
My last amendment would prevent funding from being used to hire any person into the federal government who was convicted for participating in the January 6th insurrection. Trying to overthrow our democracy should be disqualifying for federal service, and yet Trump recently hired a convicted January 6th 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.
Virginia Foxx (03:00:29):
Thank you, Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Stansbury, you're recognized.
Melanie Stansbury (03:00:34):
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, a roof over their heads, and to keep the lights on, this reconciliation bill hands nearly $70 billion 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 $140 billion, you are bypassing the normal appropriations process for the remainder of the Trump administration by passing this bill through reconciliation for three years.
(03:01:44)
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 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.
(03:02:41)
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 40 years, a legal resident and the primary caretaker of his aging wife and grandchildren, 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 of 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.
(03:03:44)
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 $70 billion more in a blank check with no oversight for the rest of this administration.
(03:04:11)
And that is why I'm 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, Dene, and Pueblo communities of racial profiling by ICE and DHS agents. Our nation's first peoples being racially profiled by federal agents.
(03:05:19)
I'm also a co-sponsor 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.
Virginia Foxx (03:06:42):
Thank you. Mr. Krishnamoorthi, you're recognized.
Raja Krishnamoorthi (03:06:47):
Thank you, Madam Chair. I find an additional $70 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 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.
(03:07:15)
First, I come to speak in support of my Amendment 120 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, "I would do anything necessary to make sure we have 'honest elections'." Let me be clear, it is currently illegal to deploy federal troops or unarmed 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 120 today to make clear that a national emergency does not allow any deployment of federal law enforcement, including ICE or CBP, to election locations.
(03:08:35)
I'd now like to speak about my next amendment, 145, 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 Pretti, and Silverio Villegas Gonzalez in my own city of Chicago. I urge support of these amendments and I yield back. Thank you.
Morgan Griffith (03:09:38):
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Ms. Ansari.
Yassamin Ansari (03:09:43):
Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member McGovern. It is absolutely horrifying that Republicans and Donald Trump want to send $70 billion in 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, terrorized communities, and hid their faces from the public while doing it.
(03:10:17)
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 GEO Group, 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 healthcare, they cannot afford groceries or their electric bills.
(03:11:08)
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 Yari who has leukemia, who has been in an ICE facility for over a year and has lost 70 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 Rein In ICE package of legislation to eliminate inhumane conditions in ICE facilities.
(03:12:27)
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 GEO Group, direct his agency to eliminate a requirement to report the death of detainees in ICE detention that occur within 30 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 paramilitary force. I yield back.
Morgan Griffith (03:13:26):
Gentlelady yields back, and now that concludes the testimony of the witnesses. We'll now open it up for questions. And Mr. Langworthy, did you have any questions?
Nick Langworthy (03:13:36):
[inaudible 03:13:37].
Morgan Griffith (03:13:38):
Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (03:13:39):
Yeah. Well, first of all, I want to thank Ms. Scanlon and Ms. Leger Fernandez for kind of holding the fort down because I was in Boston at our former colleague Barney Frank's memorial service. And as you all know, Barney Frank was never shy about expressing his point of view, and he was a fierce fighter, taking on bullies and bigots wherever they may exist. He despised cruelty, and he felt that 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, price of gas is... People can't afford to go anywhere anymore.
(03:14:29)
And I think when all is said and done, I mean this whole debate here, and I heard most of you here, this is really about our values, and I'm not sure we share the same set of values. And I'm really sad about that, because there was a time when I think Democrats and Republicans did. I don't think that's the case anymore and that's just a harsh reality. We're told that $170 billion, close to $200 billion, can go to ICE and CBP. That's more than some countries spend on their entire militaries, right? We have $200 billion to continue this policy of cruelty, to reward agencies that have behaved unlawfully. But just last week, we voted on an agriculture appropriation bill to cut WIC by $200 million. I mean, you said we don't have the money. Well, the cost to fully fund WIC is like one tenth of a trillion dollars. We have the money for this, but we don't have the money for that.
(03:15:37)
And we're about to spend $1.5 trillion on a defense budget that is so over the top that I think even Dr. Strangelove would be impressed with how big it is. And we all talk about fraud and waste, which some of the other panels were talking about, and nobody dares to go looking into the Pentagon budget for fraud and waste, and yet we cut SNAP by $200 billion, you cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars. And so really at the end of the day, this really is about values, and we'll see what happens come November, but I think more people think like us on this stuff than think like my Republican friends.
(03:16:23)
And I worry, I'm like, "How can you possibly spend $170 billion? How are they going to spend it all?" And I do worry, as you pointed out, I do worry what is going on in Trump's brain, because I watched that interview he did with Kristen Welker. I'm going to tell my Republican colleagues, you need to call somebody at the White House. He needs help. He needs to get professional help. That's just not normal. That's just not normal. And then I'm thinking, well, is it possible that he may be looking at this money as a way to interfere in the midterm elections? I mean, is he going to send ICE and CBP to the polling places? Is he going to have Pete Hegseth deploy our service members at polling places? I just don't trust this guy at all. I mean, it is alarming, what's going on.
(03:17:16)
And I really think that my friends on the Republican side need to understand that this moment is a moment of concern. It doesn't matter what your party ideology is, everybody should be concerned about what's happening in this country. And the stories that we have heard, I've visited ICE detention facilities in Massachusetts, we went to one in Dilley, Texas. I mean, we've heard the stories. 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, are ashamed about what's going on, the cruelty. And again, we're not talking about hardened criminals. I mean, we're talking about mothers and fathers and children. And so this just has to stop.
(03:18:09)
And so I appreciate everybody being here, because I think it's important, because I think it's important the American people know we're fighting back, and that we have a different opinion and a different set of values when it comes to these matters. But I'll tell you, history is unfolding. And people who are silent, people who go along to get along, are complicit. And I don't want to be complicit. I know you don't either. So, I thank you for being here, and I yield back.
Morgan Griffith (03:18:43):
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack, did you have any-
Brian Jack (03:18:48):
No questions.
Morgan Griffith (03:18:49):
No questions. I now recognize Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania.
Ms. Scanlon (03:18:52):
Thank you. And I want to 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.
(03:19:16)
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 attempt to inject another $70 billion into a system that has not been accountable to the American public, to the world. I mean, as we've seen 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 sexual assaults in these detention centers, of food that is 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.
(03:20:09)
So, I thank you for 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 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.
(03:21:05)
So, 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 going to 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 GEO making 800% increase in their profits, of whether it's okay to 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 going to 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.
Morgan Griffith (03:21:54):
Gentlelady yields back. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Fernandez (03:22:00):
Thank you very much. And I too thank you for bringing amendments and making sure that the American people know why we find this legislation to give $72 billion, that is not paid for, that is your children and grandchildren are going to pay for this, because they won't give $200 million to help women and children afford healthy food and nutrition, $200 million, but they give $72 billion to these contractors. And almost every single one of you pointed out the issue of the private prisons and how much money they're making. And I wanted to bring out the fact that those private prisons 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.
(03:23:08)
And so I thought maybe I'd just ask a couple of you, is this a concern? Should Americans be concerned that we are giving so much money, billions upon billions upon billions, as a return on investment on campaign contributions? I'll just go down the line, Representative Ansari, and we'll just go down, 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 their campaign contributions?
Yassamin Ansari (03:23:40):
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 to... 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, very clear.
Speaker 6 (03:24:00):
... to me. All of this is to make these companies more money. And that's very, very clear because we know that the vast majority of people in detention have no criminal record whatsoever.
Ms. Fernandez (03:24:10):
Thank you, Representative. And I was holding up a report and 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 ranging from hundreds of millions of dollars to several hundred thousand dollars. But over and over, the corporations are getting the biggest. And I'll enter it into the record in a bit, Mr. Chairman. Representative.
Speaker 3 (03:24:36):
So I'm from Illinois and this would make former Governor Rod Blagojevich blush. 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 so called reconciliation package.
Ms. Fernandez (03:24:55):
Representative Stansbury.
Representative Stansbury (03:24:57):
Thank you, Congresswoman. 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 $2.4 million 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 money going to employees. That's $2.4 million a month going to a private prison contractor who's not even based out of New Mexico. And they're making that money off of the backs of detaining New Mexicans in a for-profit prison. That is disgusting.
Ms. Fernandez (03:25:45):
Representative [inaudible 03:25:47].
Pramila Jayapal (03:25:47):
Thank you for the question. This is so corrupt on so many levels. Number one, these three for-profit 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 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 multiples, which is exactly what's happened. 170 billion plus this 70 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.
(03:26:34)
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. 70% 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 utilizing alternatives to detention that 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.
Ms. Fernandez (03:27:17):
And the contributions, the GEO Group PAC employee funded, they contributed a million dollars to approach Trump Super PAC, make America Great Again in 2024, GEO Group and CoreCivic each donated 500,000 to the 25 inaugural committee and the line goes on. Representative Garcia, a couple of sentences.
Representative Garcia (03:27:35):
Well, it's hard to add too much more, other than to say this, it's [inaudible 03:27:43] in broad daylight. But there is no daylight because there is no accountability. So it's corruption at its worst and they're getting away with it. And I'd say the thing that struck me the most is that every contract is no-bid, meaning 38 months with no competition. I mean, how does the average person feel about that, that they get to pick and choose who they want? Secondly, they get paid monthly, no matter what their capacity is. It's green. No matter what capacity. So when we visited Dilley, I think there 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 10 widgets or a thousand widgets, you're still going to get paid the whole monthly retainer?
Ms. Fernandez (03:28:36):
And then charge the women... When you told me that, that's outrageous that you know that they're getting paid.
Representative Garcia (03:28:43):
$20 for 18 tampons.
Ms. Fernandez (03:28:45):
They're getting paid and they're charging the women for basic [inaudible 03:28:47].
Representative Garcia (03:28:46):
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 18. So all the money... And then they get a separate medical care, but they're not providing it. So that's just money in their pocket, and there's no accountability. This president has gone after Jerome Powell about his contract. Why don't we look at all of these contracts and let's find the fraud, waste and abuse in all of these contracts and shut them down. Because they are just making profits on people's back and they have no incentive to get anyone released because the more people that are sleeping there, the more money in their own pockets. It is just simply disgusting.
Ms. Fernandez (03:29:35):
So Representative Correa... And I want to point out 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 need it now. It's the most important thing possible," they have all also received political campaign contributions from GEO Group, that includes Chip Roy, Representative Arrington, Representative Garbarino, Representative Jim Jordan. All of them are receiving campaign contributions, turning around and granting billions back. Representative Correa.
Lou Correa (03:30:08):
Thank you, ma'am. I just wanted to emphasize what Mr. McGovern said a minute ago. 170 billion from last year, 70 billion more, almost $250 billion. What purpose? I'm out of Orange County, California. We have a history of poll guards, but we've never had poll 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 going to do everything he can to win in November.
Ms. Fernandez (03:30:50):
Thank you. And thank you for also bringing the amendments about our veterans. These are veterans who were promised, who were promised that they would put their lives on the line for America, America would stand for them and what have we done?
Lou Correa (03:31:07):
They took an oath to this country. A lot of them made the ultimate sacrifice.
Ms. Fernandez (03:31:14):
Representative Tlaib.
Rashida Tlaib (03:31:15):
I think it's important. I just want to read from an article. This was from an investor call. So this is literally they're talking about human beings here. And then the investor call where somebody from a core civic said, "One of the big questions has been the pace of detention by ICE, that it's been below what investors thought was going to be," one caller said. "I think people thought we'd be at least at 100,000 level. We are a little over 70,000." Again, talking about it in numbers, not a human being impact. This is, again, CoreCivic and GEO Group who have some of the biggest complaints in regards to medical care access, Congresswoman, the meals.
(03:31:55)
I mean, the people that we've talked to and 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 97% of the people that are in these companies' facilities don't have any criminal record.
Ms. Fernandez (03:32:09):
Thank you. And if you can just give us a couple of sentence and close it out.
Emily Randall (03:32:14):
Thank you so much, 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 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Our constituents want their taxpayer dollars to be used respectfully and responsibly and in service of healthcare 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.
Ms. Fernandez (03:32:47):
It's all about choices and what we prioritize. I thank you very much and Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Morgan Griffith (03:32:53):
Gentlelady, yield's back. That concludes this panel. I will remind panelists that even if it gets dull and boring, that when you come, you are expected to stay for the question period as well. And this panel is released and we'll recognize the next panel in just a second. And on our next panel, we're expecting Ms. Hoyle and Ms. Ramirez. All right. I will recognize you all in just a minute, but just do want to reiterate sometimes with the permission of the chair folks may have to leave early. But once we start the process and we start getting into questions, please stay until the question period for your panel is concluded. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right. I'll first recognize Ms. Hoyle.
Representative Hoyle (03:34:22):
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member McGovern, for the opportunity to testify in favor of my amendment for Senate Bill 2. 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 50 years ago so the House and Senate could quickly resolve issues within the budget.
(03:34:57)
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 2029 while we're taking food away from pregnant women and children. We cannot normalize using reconciliation as the vehicle for every party line priority.
(03:35:40)
As we consider this resolution, we cannot ignore what might come next. The administration has already requested 350 billion in mandatory defense spending and another reconciliation package could be the vehicle moving for that funding in the future while tearing healthcare and food away from our most vulnerable citizens. I want to 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.
(03:36:23)
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 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.
(03:37:07)
They're funded through 2029 while they're committing human rights abuses and unconstitutional detainment of both legal and undocumented immigrants and citizens who look like immigrants. You want to 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.
Morgan Griffith (03:37:32):
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize Ms. Ramirez for her time. Yes, ma'am.
Representative Ramirez (03:37:38):
Thank you, Chairman. Well, good afternoon and it's good to also see Ranking Member McGovern. I want to 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 20 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 to many Americans to believe that as to the Secure America Act, a bill that would give another $70 billion for DHS's mass deportation campaign, does what the title actually suggests. Frankly, I think it's the opposite.
(03:38:20)
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.
(03:38:58)
Just in my district, we've watched parents get separated from their children, toddlers to high school age, children who are living and dying with cancer, not once but twice. Constituents with protections like DACA and new visa applicants who've 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.
(03:39:31)
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 and 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 numbered 15, 16, 17, and 18, explicitly address Trump and DHS's cruel removal and deportation policies.
(03:40:03)
My amendments 19 and 20 directly address DHS's explicit pattern of violating the rule of law, disregarding residents' civil rights, and intentionally recruiting ICE agents through these white nationalist propaganda agendas. My amendments number 22 and 25 directly address the overinflated budget of this bill, which infuses taxpayer funded resources into further abuse of our own rights. And my amendments number 23, 24, 26, and 27, yes, I have a lot of amendments because we have a lot of work to do, explicitly address how DHS has 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.
(03:40:47)
Senate Republicans have avoided all transparency and accountability. They've voted down every Democratic amendment to protect our communities and reign 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 S2 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.
(03:41:21)
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 that members of this committee will vote on these amendments. With that, I yield back, chairman.
Speaker 5 (03:41:54):
This is really in the context... Thank you. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Morgan, I messed up. It's okay.
Morgan Griffith (03:42:21):
Gentleman may need to start over so that it's properly recorded.
Speaker 5 (03:42:25):
Yes, [inaudible 03:42:26]. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm stunned by the amount of money that Congress and the president want and expect the taxpayers to spend on ICE, on detention, deportation. It is now $240 billion in the two reconciliation packages. So in the first reconciliation, you all spent, I believe, $140 billion on this and now we're going to spend another $70 billion. It's $240 billion.
(03:42:56)
And to put it into context, I looked up 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, $190 billion. They're at war. Germany 114, India 92, Ukraine, $84 billion. That pales in comparison to the $240 billion that you all are going to spend on mass deportation, which everyone agreed was logistically impossible, constitutionally questionable, if not wrong, and prohibitively expensive yet you're going to spend $240 billion on this.
(03:43:41)
The two amendments give you two options in case you want to change your mind. Amendment 88 takes the money and says, "Look, we need police officers and teachers. Let's go ahead and spend on both." So 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 policing services, or the COPS grant program, that helps people hire and retain police officers.
(03:44:13)
If that is insufficient, amendment 157 reassigns funding. $10 billion for cops, $10 billion for roads and bridges, $10 billion for teachers, $10 billion for food assistance, $10 billion for utility assistance, and $20 billion towards paying down the national debt, which has ballooned, ballooned in this reconciliation process. It's almost $40 trillion. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield.
Morgan Griffith (03:44:50):
Gentleman, yields. And we now have Mr. McGarvey who's joined us. No, whoa, whoa, whoa. Got to wait for questions and answers. Sorry. We'll have questions sessions as soon as we finish the panel. Mr. McGarvey.
Representative McGarvey (03:45:04):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've just got three simple amendments I want to propose today. Let's look at this. In this budget, the Republicans have given ICE another $70 billion. I say another $70 billion because it is on top of the $170 billion they have already done. That is $240 billion, way more than they ever gave during the entirety of Trump's first presidency.
(03:45:27)
But $240 billion for ICE and CBP, what does that mean? 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.
(03:45:55)
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 $70 billion 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, $70 billion would probably end homelessness altogether. So that's what we should use it for instead of... $240 billion, this is more than Russia spent on its defense this year and they are currently in a war.
(03:46:34)
We've got another amendment I want to propose as well. This is an amendment that talks about what's going on with the ballroom. Here we're talking about a budget here. This budget, this is ridiculous. You're talking about $240 billion for ICE. We don't have enough money for veterans. We don't have enough money for kids, 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 the gilded age." This is not serious. So we need to make sure that not a penny of taxpayer money goes towards this ballroom.
(03:47:11)
My third amendment that I want to propose today, this is the last one. This is about the slush fund that the president has created, $1.8 billion. Now, this is a president who we have seen lie on multiple occasions. Said he was going to release the Epstein's files, he didn't do it. 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.
(03:47:34)
Go down the list. He says on this, on his $1.8 billion slush fund for people who attacked the Capitol and assaulted police officers in an act of domestic terrorism, he says, "I kind of 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 6th. We can put this amendment in, we can stop it. Because going back to my time in the legislature in Kentucky, I have said that the budget is the ultimate policy document.
(03:48:03)
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.
Morgan Griffith (03:48:20):
Gentleman yields back. That concludes this panel of witnesses on amendments. I will now recognize gentlelady, Ms. Fischbach for her-
Representative Fischbach (03:48:26):
Have no questions.
Morgan Griffith (03:48:27):
... questions. All right. Mr. McGovern.
Jim McGovern (03:48:31):
I want to thank you for being here. We obviously support all your amendments. I think if people don't want to vote for them, then they can vote no on the House floor. But I also want to promote this notion that there's a lot of talk by my Republican friends about we need this for national security. 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, the purity of our environment, 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, at a 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. It has to include other things, right?
(03:49:13)
I mean, the integrity of our government. And, again, close to $200 billion, when last week this majority cut WIC by $200 million? And I'm not even getting into the 200 billion cuts in SNAP or the trillion dollar cuts in Medicaid. What are we doing here? I mean, I thought we're supposed to be about helping people. And it seems like we're not only hurting people, we're really screwing people over big time with this. And I don't know, maybe it's different in Republican districts, but when I do a town hall, I mean, if I were to say, "I'm cutting WIC, I'm cutting SNAP, I'm cutting healthcare, I'm cutting everything else, cutting money for education, but, hey, I want to send close to $200 billion to ICE and CBP, even though they already have over a hundred billion dollars that hasn't been drawn down yet," I think I'd be booed out of the hall.
(03:50:18)
So I thank you for your amendments and I look forward to supporting them. I yield back.
Morgan Griffith (03:50:29):
Sorry. Gentleman has no questions. Now I recognize Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon (03:50:32):
I just want to thank everyone for bringing your testimony and your amendments and addressing the morality or rather the immorality of this $70 billion deficit spending slush fund for corporate donors to the president. 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.
Morgan Griffith (03:50:58):
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott has no questions. Now recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Fernandez (03:51:04):
Thank you. Each of these amendments are so essential. And your testimony, especially pointing out the contrast, when we think about what we could be spending the money on or how we're spending more money on ICE and CBP than countries that are at war on the defense. Wow. And you are absolutely right, Representative Ramirez. 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, as I see, comply with what every other law enforcement does. It's just amazing, but I'm so grateful for your testimony and your amendments and thank you for coming and staying for questions.
Morgan Griffith (03:51:52):
Thank you all so much. We appreciate your testimony and the fact that you stayed for questions and you all are released to go. And we'll now take a minute and then welcome in the third panel.
Speaker 4 (03:52:02):
[inaudible 03:52:08]
Morgan Griffith (03:52:08):
What's that?
Speaker 7 (03:52:08):
[inaudible 03:52:09] class.
Morgan Griffith (03:52:08):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 4 (03:52:08):
2022, is it?
Morgan Griffith (03:52:13):
Ah, class of 2022. All right. Thank you all. Y'all have a nice evening.
Ms. Scanlon (03:52:17):
They're not here. [inaudible 03:52:35] they're not here.
Morgan Griffith (03:52:36):
There's a couple of them. Now recognize panel number three. We have Ms. Clark, Democratic Whip, Mr. Jeffries, the Democratic leader and Mr. Aguilar, chair of the House Democratic Caucus to testify on amendments. And I don't know what the protocol is here. It says I'm supposed to recognize Ms. Clark first. Is that right? I recognize Ms. Clark then.
Representative Clark (03:53:00):
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Morgan Griffith (03:53:04):
Is your light on?
(03:53:04)
Is your light on?
Representative Clark (03:53:05):
Oh no, it was not.
Morgan Griffith (03:53:06):
There you go.
Representative Clark (03:53:08):
All right. 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 500 days into the Trump economy and what are the American people facing? Inflation is at a three-year-high, gas is over $4, household debt is up to $760 billion. The cost of bread is up, fruits and vegetables. Ground beef is up 21%, and that's before this administration screwed up on screwworms. 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.
(03:54:04)
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... 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.
(03:54:52)
ICE's budget is getting eight times bigger than it was a year ago. And under this latest bill it'll be 12 times bigger. And what are we getting for that money? Terror among law-abiding immigrant families, protestors beaten up, doors broken down without a warrant, and the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. 70 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 30 million children with $70 billion. You could feed 30 million children a year.
(03:55:45)
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.
Morgan Griffith (03:56:23):
Thank the gentlelady, and gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the Democratic leader, Mr. Jeffries, for his statement.
Representative Jeffries (03:56:32):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank 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.
(03:57:07)
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 14 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 having 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-
Representative Jeffries (03:58:01):
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 Pretti and Renée 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 and the House an opportunity to help Donald Trump keep his word, which he has repeatedly broken to the American people.
(03:59:09)
The reconciliation bill that Republicans are now trying to jam down the throats of the American people represents a $70 billion 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 healthcare is not simply a privilege available only to the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected. Healthcare should be a right available to every single American. I yield back.
Mr. Chair (04:00:11):
Gentleman yields back, and now recognize Mr. Aguilar, chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Opening statement or statement.
Pete Aguilar (04:00:18):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee. My amendment would transfer the $70 billion that Republicans are proposing for ICE to reinstate the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits for over two years. Last year, Republican leadership 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 cost 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.
(04:01:35)
These credits are not a handout. As one of my constituents, Dr. 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, Mr. 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. Healthcare 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.
(04:02:35)
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and to put American's healthcare and financial wellbeing over Trump's mass deportation machine. I yield back.
Mr. Chair (04:02:45):
Gentleman yields back. Is Gentlelady Ms. Fischbach have-
Michelle Fischbach (04:02:50):
I have no questions.
Mr. Chair (04:02:51):
No question.
(04:02:51)
Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:02:54):
Yeah, I do because I think what's happening here is outrageous. I would like to hear some justification from our Republican friends as to why they're so indifferent about all of this. We're giving an additional $70 billion to give ICE and CBP up to $200 billion. Last week, we cut WIC by $200 million. A slight adjustment, we could fully fund WIC and it would make really no difference in terms of the largesse that you're giving to these two unlawful agencies. We could be talking about ending... Like, making sure that pregnant women and their infants and young children don't go hungry now, or you could be focused on forward-funding ICE and CBP well into the future.
(04:03:42)
I just like, "What is someone thinking here?" Leader Jeffries, what impact do we expect to see going forward if Congress doesn't take steps to mitigate the big ugly bill?
Representative Jeffries (04:03:55):
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 Mr. McGovern has pointed out, Republicans enacted the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history.
(04:05:07)
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 $140 billion 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.
Jim McGovern (04:06:19):
So [inaudible 04:06:20], you recently 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 unacceptable conditions?
Representative Jeffries (04:06:32):
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, it's unpatriotic, and it's unacceptable. It includes the fact that there is woefully inadequate healthcare being provided, including to some individuals who are on the verge of dying because they have stage 3 or stage 4 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.
(04:07:49)
There was an 18-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, were 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.
Jim McGovern (04:08:44):
I have repeatedly said in this committee, and on the House floor, that this administration is the most corrupt administration in recent history. I've amended my statement. I've removed the word recent. It is so obvious to me that the corruption is just blatant. It's just... I mean, the pardoning of people guilty of Medicare fraud, the sweetheart deals his family is making to enrich themselves. He's gotten richer by billions of dollars since he become president. I don't understand why there is a tolerance for this kind of behavior when I can't think of a previous president, Democrat or Republican, maybe... Not even Richard Nixon. Barry Goldwater went to Richard Nixon and said, "You got to go," because of his corruption.
(04:09:38)
But I don't know if you want to comment on that.
Representative Jeffries (04:09:42):
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 $1.8 billion corrupt slush fund that Donald Trump is trying to jam down the throats of the American people to pay off and compensate people who violently attack this capital on January 6th and brutally beat police officers. Why in the world would we not outright prohibit the $1.8 billion 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.
Jim McGovern (04:10:34):
[inaudible 04:10:34] Clark, let me just ask you a couple of questions. You travel all over the country. With all that's going on right now domestically, grocery prices up, gas prices up, inflation up, cost of housing up, have you met anybody? Did one person come up to you and told you that Congress should focus on forward-funding ICE and CBP for several more years rather than addressing those immediate economic concerns that people are facing? Have you ever heard anybody suggest that?
Representative Clark (04:11:07):
Not one. And I want to thank you, Ranking Member McGovern, for your work around ensuring that people have food security in this country. And I also want to thank you for... It was good to be with you when we had Delaney Detention Center and able to see for ourselves that children that were there, children that we saw that were being denied the medical care that they get. And we know from these cuts, 700,000 children have lost food benefits, and that's only data from 12 states. 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? 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 going to be able to feed their children because of these cuts.
(04:12:29)
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.
Representative Jeffries (04:12:42):
Right.
Representative Clark (04:12:42):
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. It is an outrage. The fact that we have this bill before us again with increased funding, it's hard to take in what the choices are this week.
Jim McGovern (04:13:17):
And that's why I appreciate the amendment you're offering to restore the SNAP cuts. I'm on the agriculture committee too, and somebody said, "These children who are losing their SNAP benefits, that's not because of the Big Ugly Bill. Because those cuts, the big $200 billion worth of cuts don't come into play until next year." The fact is, it is in part because 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... Life is complicated sometimes, and people trying to do everything the right way sometimes can't comply with all these new hoops that they're being asked to jump through. So, people are losing their benefits now. And the figure you gave, 700,000 kids in 12 states, I don't know how you justify that.
(04:14:09)
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?
Pete Aguilar (04:14:19):
Yeah. In 2025, 22 million people were enrolled in the ACA Marketplace. The average monthly premium has increased 58% on average. Deductibles have increased by almost 40%, or about $1,000 per person. That's exactly what we're talking about. In my state alone in California, 1 in 5 Marketplace enrollees did not renew their plan for 2026. Already in the first six months of this year, we've seen a million Americans lose coverage for lack of enrollment. 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 in my district as well as in yours.
(04:15:05)
And I would argue, as many of our colleagues have said, the ACA Marketplace enrollees, most individuals live in Republican districts, and 77% of Marketplace enrollees live in states won by President Trump. Those are the individuals who have the most to lose by lapse in coverage.
Jim McGovern (04:15:30):
Let me just close with this. I remain astounded by how messed up and out of touch the priorities are of this president and this Republican Congress. It takes my breath away. It's so over-the-top cruel that I just can't believe that they're sticking to it because last week, again, we took $200 million from WIC. 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. We hear about waste, fraud, and abuse, but never at the Pentagon, an agency on track for $1.5 trillion 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 fund, and for January 6th convicted felons and copkillers. It's like you can't make this stuff up. It's so over-the-top outrageous.
(04:16:40)
The president just doubled down on his slush fund over the weekend. I mean, I don't get it. I just... Anyway, as I said at the beginning, I think this is a debate about values, and I don't think we share the same values. And I regret that very much because I would like to think that when it comes to protecting the welfare and wellbeing of struggling families, that we're all reading off the same sheet of music, but clearly we're not. So, I thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Chair (04:17:13):
Gentleman yields back.
Madam Chairwoman (04:17:18):
Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
Austin Scott (04:17:22):
Madam Chair, I'll be brief, but I thought I had heard Donald Trump blamed for about everything from the Democratic Party, but now blaming him for the new worlds.
Jim McGovern (04:17:32):
I blame you as well Donald Trump.
Austin Scott (04:17:34):
Okay. Blaming Donald Trump for the New World screwworm. That is...
Jim McGovern (04:17:40):
You're blaming Joe Biden for it.
Austin Scott (04:17:42):
I'm not blaming anybody for it. It's an insect.
Jim McGovern (04:17:45):
Your party is. [inaudible 04:17:47]
Austin Scott (04:17:47):
Well, I'm not blaming Joe Biden for it. I don't think it's any one person's fault. But the fact of the matter is Donald Trump's FDA-approved Dectomax all the way back in September of last year when we started seeing the fly work its way up through Mexico. I mean, it's something that instead of pointing the finger at each other, this is a serious issue for the global food supply. We're trying to work to resolve it, and you all are blaming Donald Trump for an insect. I mean, that's-
Speaker 8 (04:18:19):
Representative Scott, we're not blaming [inaudible 04:18:21] by 25%.
Austin Scott (04:18:21):
No, no, no, no, no. This is my time. This is my time. This is my time. You're going to get your time. And I just-
Speaker 8 (04:18:29):
[inaudible 04:18:30]
Austin Scott (04:18:30):
No, this is my time. This is my time. I know you all want to embrace your leadership. But just as we get to the saying that we kicked kids off SNAP, the fact of the matter is, if you read the law, if you're under 18, you're exempt from the changes. If you're 65 and over, you were exempt from the changes. If you're medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment, you're exempt from the changes. And by the way, the change was to work or volunteer for 20 hours a week. So I support the changes we made, and 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.
(04:19:15)
But Madam Chair, I look forward to voting for the rule, and I look forward to voting for the bill.
Madam Chairwoman (04:19:22):
Thank you.
(04:19:22)
Ms. Fallin.
Ms. Scanlon (04:19:27):
I'll yield first to Mr. McGovern.
Jim McGovern (04:19:28):
I want to ask unanimous consent to insert-
Madam Chairwoman (04:19:32):
Stand. I said stand up.
Jim McGovern (04:19:33):
... congressional record. To the record, a article that appeared in the Huffington Post, which I'm happy to share with my colleague, Mr. Scott. "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 that have impacted the USDA's ability to oversee what's going on. And basically, people taking their eye off the ball.
Madam Chairwoman (04:20:00):
It's already been entered into the record.
Jim McGovern (04:20:03):
And maybe for emphasis, we can enter it twice.
Madam Chairwoman (04:20:05):
Without it.
Jim McGovern (04:20:05):
All right. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman (04:20:06):
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon (04:20:07):
Thank you. 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 that was done there. And we have been talking about the fact that last week, budget deficits were the rationale for cutting $200 million from WIC. And this week, our colleagues are willing to use 70 billion in deficit spending to add to the trillions in deficit spending that they ram through last year. Like you, Ms. Clark, I am so concerned about SNAP and the impact we're seeing. I think we've lost 60,000 SNAP eligible families in Pennsylvania already. Is it that these folks are being kicked off because they're not Americans, or because they're fraudsters? Why are people losing SNAP?
Representative Clark (04:21:09):
It's certainly not because they are not Americans, and it is not because of fraud. This is a choice that has been made to fund tax cuts for the extremely wealthy at the expense of feeding hungry people in our country. 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, our children. And yet, here we are. Over the past year, since 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 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.
(04:22:34)
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.
Ms. Scanlon (04:22:45):
I think what sticks with me 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 reduction in folks being able to prove their eligibility, not that they actually weren't eligible. So, that's been really frustrating.
(04:23:11)
Leader Jeffries, on the Medicaid cuts, I appreciate your amendment to reverse those. We've seen so much data about the impact of those Medicaid cuts, and perhaps one of the most 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 300 most challenged rural hospitals, including one in Mr. Scott's district that has been unable to meet payroll, had its water cut off for failing to pay water bills. 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?
Representative Jeffries (04:23:59):
Thank you so much for the question, and for your 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 healthcare 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 of 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.
(04:25:10)
Republicans, in their One Big Ugly Bill were equal opportunity offenders. Everyone's getting hurt, but it certainly is the case that a disproportionate amount of harm is going to be inflicted on rural hospitals throughout this country.
Ms. Scanlon (04:25:29):
Thank you. Mr. 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. We've been following along with our Affordable Care Act insurance in Pennsylvania. It's called Penny, and we've met with them several times and they warned us that fewer people were signing up. But then they said we're not going to 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 and actually pass an extension of the tax credits. And when that hasn't happened, their coverage is being dropped.
(04:26:11)
Can you speak at all to what you're seeing nationally?
Pete Aguilar (04:26:15):
Yeah. And what we're seeing, over a million people have lapsed that coverage already, and that could just be the start. To your broader point, people are signing up and they're being optimistic and they're looking at, hopefully, this place working and receiving the opportunity to have those lower premiums. And now, what they're going to see is those skyrocketing costs continue to grow, with the Senate just turning their back on a bipartisan dealer. They've got different working groups, so they say, but they haven't done anything about it. And to the credit of this body, not the Republican majority though, Republicans joined us in a successful discharge in January, because everybody here knows the costs are continuing to rise for our constituents, and this is one opportunity for us to try to meet that. And so, it's just unfortunate. And as I said, this is hitting rural communities, just as you mentioned earlier, even harder. And this is 77% of folks impacted live in Trump states. This is affecting every corner of this country.
(04:27:34)
Costs are rising. People aren't going to sign up or they're going to get less care in the future, and they're going to continue to crowd emergency rooms. And in rural communities, that could be a death sentence in and of itself.
Ms. Scanlon (04:27:47):
It's certainly been an issue in my district, which is not a rural community, but so many of our frontline hospitals are dependent on Medicaid, and they're really feeling that challenge as our federally qualified health centers. 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 industrial complex, which is what we're seeing instead.
(04:28:15)
Thank you for your testimony. I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman (04:28:20):
Thank you.
(04:28:23)
Mr. Jack, do you have any questions? Okay.
(04:28:29)
Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (04:28:32):
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question was going to be to the leader, Democratic leader, about how many points he thinks the Knicks will win by tonight, but I don't want to put him on the record so he's not required to answer that question. I will say to Mr.-
(04:28:46)
Unless you'd like to.
Representative Jeffries (04:28:48):
No, listen, I appreciate you raising that. I actually was going to inquire of the distinguished chair of the rules committee who... She knows I have great respect for her. We may disagree on a whole host of issues, but certainly have always had great respect for her.
(04:29:03)
Given her New York City roots, will you be rooting, Madam Chair, for the Knicks tonight?
Madam Chairwoman (04:29:12):
Oh, I'm not going to participate in this kind of a struggle here. I'm going to let those of you who are more involved with it take the lead for it, Mr. Leader.
Representative Jeffries (04:29:22):
I appreciate that diplomatic answer.
Joe Neguse (04:29:24):
Very, very nuanced answer. I was going to say to Mr. Scott's point, I know there's some reporting that President Trump may attend the game tonight. So if they lose, I think we'll know who to blame. But in any event, that's certainly how I feel about it.
(04:29:37)
Chairman Aguilar, on a more serious note, you served with distinction on the January 6th 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 6th. A lot of these people were stone-cold criminals. Is that a fair characterization?
Pete Aguilar (04:30:09):
Without a doubt.
Joe Neguse (04:30:10):
These are people convicted of serious crimes, seditious conspiracy, assaulting police officers.
Pete Aguilar (04:30:16):
Even before January 6th, many of them had been convicted of things: domestic assault, battery. These were some violent individuals who came in the Capitol that day before they agreed. Many of them pled to charges related to January 6th themselves.
Joe Neguse (04:30:33):
And is it your understanding that some of these same people, since the pardons that they received from President Trump, have been convicted of serious crimes?
Pete Aguilar (04:30:43):
Many, including new reporting, indicating far more than we thought previously, have gone on to re-offend. And some of those charges, by the way, battery, assault, crimes against children, and the list goes on and on. These are individuals who Donald Trump pardoned. Many of them... Also, one of them, one story 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 committed crimes against and offered them a portion of a payout not to testify. And so, the presumption that these individuals had was, "The weaponization fund is going to fix all of my issues," including future potential legal issues that they would have as well. And so 1,500 day one pardons, those are the types of people Donald Trump feels comfortable around. Those are the people he lifts up.
Joe Neguse (04:31:51):
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.
Joe Neguse (04:32:00):
... stop that fund from materializing.
Pete Aguilar (04:32:04):
Nothing.
Joe Neguse (04:32:05):
Nothing. For all the hand-wringing from some Republican senators over the last three weeks and boasts about their efforts to potentially try to claw this back or to stop the administration from moving forward, the bill does nothing.
Pete Aguilar (04:32:18):
And we've got an interview with the president just hours ago, or maybe taped on Saturday and aired yesterday where he refused to rule this out in the future as well. This is something he feels passionate about. Not that police officers got beat up. Not that police officers lost their lives. He talked about some of the rioters losing jobs. He didn't mention anything about police officers losing their lives, getting beat up themselves. That's just incredibly unfortunate.
Joe Neguse (04:32:54):
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 Capitol today. I just think that should be a red line and I would yield back to the chairwoman.
Madam Chairwoman (04:33:31):
Thank you very much. Ms. Leger Fernandez ... Mr. Langworthy, you have questions.
Mr. Langworthy (04:33:37):
I have no questions, but would like to share Go Knicks.
Representative Jeffries (04:33:43):
Appreciate that moment of bipartisanship.
Madam Chairwoman (04:33:46):
Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Fernandez (04:33:48):
Thank you very much. And thank you very much, Rep Clark, for raising the issue of how the Trump administration has screwed up the screwworm. And the reason why that's really important is I'm from New Mexico and the screwworm is going to devastate cattle production in Texas, multi-billion dollar industry, and it's going to increase the costs.
(04:34:17)
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 Trumpublicans, because this is done because Republicans are lockstacked with Trump, Trumpublicans are cutting $2 a meal. That's what SNAP provides. But they are willing to deport migrants at a million dollars some of the flights, a million dollars a person to deport a migrant, $100,000 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?
Representative Clark (04:35:17):
Thank you for the question and thank you for your work. It has just been 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. Hardworking families who are telling us they are not making it in this economy are just not being thought of and having solutions that work for them.
(04:35:51)
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 hardworking Americans. And now we have 60% of American families who are struggling to afford the basics and today we are being asked to come back and say, "Another $70 billion for ICE."
(04:36:38)
For what? For what? What's the plan? How does this help us secure borders? How does this help us make sure that we are doing right by people and 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 healthcare 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.
(04:37:21)
And we have to get back to rewarding hard work where there's lots of talk about the K-economy and unsustainable wealth disparities, but what it all boils down to is we got to be on the side of American workers and fighting for them. We got to 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.
(04:37:54)
And when you have a bill that invests again in this deportation machine 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 going to 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 childcare if you need it. These are the basics. And Democrats have solutions. Why aren't we seeing these on the floor and just this cruelty that exists in going forward and continuing to fund ICE at the expense of all that the American people are telling us they need.
(04:38:50)
It is hard to understand and it's impossible to justify.
Ms. Fernandez (04:38:56):
Thank you. And Chairman Aguilar, both your amendment and the leader's amendment really goes to the need to prioritize healthcare, to make sure that people 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.
(04:39:17)
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 going to move forward on voting for this bill 'cause leadership has," his leadership, "the speakers have told me, 'Oh, we're going to take care to make sure that people who are in Medi-Cal, right? It's on Medi-Cal, won't be hurt, that Affordable Care Act won't be hurt.'"
(04:39:42)
And I was so aghast when I heard that because I know that in California and especially in Representative Valadao's 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 Medicare, Medi-Cal and medical funding.
Pete Aguilar (04:40:13):
I appreciate the question, that District California 22, the highest utilization of Medi-Cal in the state of California. So for hardworking families of the Central Valley and for hardworking families across the state who are beneficiaries of it, what they received back was a paper promise, right? They had a member of Congress sign the letter saying, "Don't hurt my constituents." And raised their hand and said, "I'm going to help protect my constituents." And at the end of the day, all of them voted for this bill that harms our shared constituents, that harms people in our state, that kicks them off of care, that eliminates their supplemental nutrition, eliminates healthcare opportunities, forces them to drive further for worse care, will add more people to emergency rooms. In that part of the state of California sometimes it can take you an hour and a half, two hours, three hours to drive to a doctor to provide care.
(04:41:18)
That's not the way our country should function. And we're giving the Republican majority an opportunity here to fix that, to fix that wrong that was passed legislatively, and we'll see what happens, but it's just incredibly unfortunate the position that we're in.
Ms. Fernandez (04:41:36):
And Leader Jeffries, thank you for bringing forward the amendments that focus on healthcare and having the discussions about where are your priorities and actually taking a look at the corruption, the well-off. I love how you alliterate because it's true, right? Their priorities are the well-off and the well-connected. And we had a discussion earlier tonight about the amount of campaign contributions that are flowing to the Trump administration to run these private prisons, the Trump campaign, to run these private prisons, to fly immigrants around the country at hundreds of thousand dollars, a million dollars, and that these are not the priorities that the Democrats hold.
(04:42:25)
So 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? 'Cause this is corruption at its core in terms of you're giving us money and we are turning around and giving you contracts.
Representative Jeffries (04:42:56):
It's an extraordinary level of corruption, and thank you Teresa, Congresswoman Leger Fernandez for your continued leadership on all of these issues, particularly as it relates of course to healthcare and nutritional assistance. And at the same time pushing back against corruption, which we're seeing at an extraordinary level in real time.
(04:43:20)
As House Democrats, our view is that America's too expensive. There are far too many people in this country, working class folks, middle class folks, hardworking 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.
(04:43:44)
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 healthcare 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.
(04:44:09)
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 $70 billion 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.
Ms. Fernandez (04:44:49):
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. Thank you very much for your proposed amendments. I wish we could vote for them on the floor 'cause I think each one of them would pass. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman (04:45:07):
Thank you.
(04:45:13)
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.
Speaker 9 (04:45:23):
Thank you.
Speaker 10 (04:45:25):
Thank you.
(04:45:25)
And maybe you can unlock the door.
Speaker 12 (04:46:22):
Madam Chair, I move that the committee grant H.R.8312 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 and 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.
(04:46:46)
The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amendment. 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.R.8464 the Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
(04:47:15)
The rule provides that the amendment and 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.
(04:47:44)
The rule further provides for consideration of HRES1335 condemning actors seeking to defraud the United States government and 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.
(04:48:10)
The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider HRES1335. 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.
(04:48:36)
The rule further provides for consideration of S2, 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 in control 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.
Madam Chairwoman (04:49:12):
You've heard the motion from the gentleman from New York. Is there further discussion or amendment to the rule?
Jim McGovern (04:49:25):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number 45 to S2 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 6th insurrectionists.
(04:49:45)
Madam Chair, the Justice Department's recent corrupt settlement with President Trump establishing a $1.8 billion 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 with the fund, President Trump refused to disavow it saying, "I love it. I think it's so important." Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio has already said the quiet part out loud. Even if Trump and Blanche truly scrapped the 1.8 billion fund, the DOJ can still settle the meritless claims brought by January 6th rioters and cut taxpayer funded checks to rioters who beat police directly from the Judgment Fund unless Congress enacts guardrails.
(04:50:29)
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 prohibits 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 the president's loyal MAGA foot soldiers and to reassert Congress' control over spending decisions, we should adopt this amendment and at a very minimum, the full house should be able to debate it and vote on it and I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman (04:51:01):
Mr. McGovern, yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Jim McGovern (04:51:11):
Aye.
Mr. Scott (04:51:11):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (04:51:12):
Those opposed say no.
Speaker 13 (04:51:13):
No.
Madam Chairwoman (04:51:13):
No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment's not agreed.
Jim McGovern (04:51:17):
I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (04:51:20):
Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (04:51:22):
Mrs. Fischbach.
Michelle Fischbach (04:51:22):
No.
Clerk (04:51:23):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.
Erin Houchin (04:51:26):
No.
Clerk (04:51:27):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy (04:51:28):
No.
Clerk (04:51:29):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith? Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack?
Brian Jack (04:51:34):
No.
Clerk (04:51:34):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern.
Jim McGovern (04:51:35):
Aye.
Clerk (04:51:35):
Mr. McGovern, aye.
(04:51:36)
Ms. Scanlon.
Mary Scanlon (04:51:37):
Aye.
Clerk (04:51:37):
Ms. Sanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse.
Joe Neguse (04:51:37):
Aye.
Clerk (04:51:39):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (04:51:40):
Aye.
Clerk (04:51:41):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (04:51:42):
No.
Clerk (04:51:43):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (04:51:45):
The clerk will report the total.
Clerk (04:51:47):
Four ayes, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (04:51:49):
The nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Further discussion on the motion.
Jim McGovern (04:51:55):
Madam Chair, I have another amendment to the rule. 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 amendment number 66 to S12 offered by ranking member Raskin, which prohibits an individual who is convicted of or pleaded guilty to assaulting a law enforcement officer on January 6th, 2021 from receiving a settlement payment.
(04:52:20)
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, but no source of federal compensation should be given to those people that I just mentioned. But since my Republican colleagues and 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 to assaulting a law enforcement officer on January 6th should get compensation. It's that simple.
(04:53:02)
These rioters hit police with bats, with bike racks, fire extinguishers, flagpoles. 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 and this is certainly something that the full house should consider and vote on and I urge a yes vote.
Madam Chairwoman (04:53:31):
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Morgan Griffith (04:53:34):
Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (04:53:35):
Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.
Morgan Griffith (04:53:37):
Thank you, Madam Chair. I kind of like the amendment. I understand the input and the purpose behind the amendment. I would say, however, that we have numerous cases that have happened over the years. It's why Virginia created the writ of actual innocence for after accumulated 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 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 want to go there. And I yield back.
Jim McGovern (04:54:20):
Well, I ... Let me make sure. You yield-
Madam Chairwoman (04:54:28):
Is there further discussion?
Jim McGovern (04:54:28):
Yield to me one second?
Joe Neguse (04:54:30):
Yeah, I'd like to. I'd like to be heard on the amendment.
Madam Chairwoman (04:54:34):
Pardon?
Joe Neguse (04:54:35):
I'd like to be heard on the amendment.
Madam Chairwoman (04:54:36):
No, I've recognized you.
Joe Neguse (04:54:37):
Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't want to proceed without appropriate recognition. I would just say, what was the name of the writ that you just described, Mr. McGriffith?
Morgan Griffith (04:54:47):
General yield?
Joe Neguse (04:54:50):
Yes.
Morgan Griffith (04:54:51):
In Virginia, we call it the writ of actual innocence.
Joe Neguse (04:54:53):
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?
Morgan Griffith (04:55:02):
That would be correct under Virginia law, but under this, we would be prohibiting them from receiving any compensation and that's what I'm concerned about.
Joe Neguse (04:55:09):
From this point I would [inaudible 04:55:10] my time-
Morgan Griffith (04:55:10):
Further there are-
Joe Neguse (04:55:11):
Mr. McGriffith, just to be very clear, and Mr. McGovern can clarify this if this isn't the case, this would bar someone who was convicted of assaulting a police officer on January 6th from recovering money from this particular fund. 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 ...
Jim McGovern (04:55:42):
You're correct.
Joe Neguse (04:55:43):
McGovern, is that-
Jim McGovern (04:55:44):
You're correct-
Joe Neguse (04:55:44):
... not the case? Yeah. So 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 Blanche and Donald Trump deciding what money they'll hand out to these people who were convicted of terrible crimes. It's insane. I don't understand how this is even up for debate, but ...
Madam Chairwoman (04:56:17):
Let me point something out to the members. 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.
Joe Neguse (04:56:28):
Good.
Madam Chairwoman (04:56:29):
And therefore ...
Joe Neguse (04:56:30):
Sounds good.
Madam Chairwoman (04:56:31):
... I want to call attention to my colleagues on the other side. To my colleagues.
Joe Neguse (04:56:40):
My apologies. Just to conclude my remarks, I would say-
Madam Chairwoman (04:56:42):
That's right.
Joe Neguse (04:56:44):
Yeah. So just to conclude the point that I was referencing, 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 want to make sure that we're level set on what it does and does not do. Different argument as to whether or not members might not want the bill to go back to the Senate and so on and so forth. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (04:57:08):
Yeah, sure. I would just say I'm a member of the House of Representatives and I don't like the idea of always having to concede to the Senate or whatever they do. I don't like getting jammed by them. I mean, I think we have the exact same power they do to influence legislation. And then the final thing I'm going to say is if you want to ... Again, I think my colleague, Mr. Neguse, clarified this, but again, what we're asking here is that we have a vote on the first floor. That's all, a debate and a vote, that it's not just ... Because I'll be honest with you, this is not the first time we've tried to do these kinds of things and every vehicle you all block it. We're just trying to have a full debate and a vote. That's it. And so I thank the gentlemen for yielding and hope you vote yes.
Joe Neguse (04:57:58):
I thank 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 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 civil liberties. You all might recall that. And the chairwoman, I know, intervened and I suspect got a lot of perhaps very intense blowback or 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 this is important for the House to express its will that who attacked the police officers on January 6th are not going to get a payout, simple, full stop. I yield back to the chairwoman.
Madam Chairwoman (04:59:00):
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Scott (04:59:03):
Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (04:59:06):
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott (04:59:07):
I would like to yield to Mr. Griffith.
Morgan Griffith (04:59:12):
Thank you, Mr. Scott. I would just say I understand and I think this is an area for debate. Mr. Neguse raises some good points about the Virginia writ 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 there should be some mechanism to recognize that as well. I understand the intent. I'm not sure we get there with this amendment.
(04:59:40)
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 big pile of money and then that organization gets to spend that money.
(05:00:05)
I think that we need to look at this across the board, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to coming up with a solution that works for all of the American people on 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 for us to be saying no money out of this fund, because I don't know that that fund currently exists because they backed off some. And I'm not 100% sure of where we stand on that. 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 us to be suddenly laying down something that could be precedent in some other situation and deny people who might actually be entitled.
(05:00:56)
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 gentlemen from Georgia.
Mr. Scott (05:01:07):
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-
Speaker 11 (05:01:15):
Legislation.
Mr. Scott (05:01:16):
Or legislation. I think that there would be.
Ms. Fernandez (05:01:17):
Madam Chair.
Mr. Scott (05:01:19):
But that 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.
Madam Chairwoman (05:01:25):
Thank you. Ms. Ledger Fernandez.
Ms. Fernandez (05:01:27):
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 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, because this is a very narrow provision. Only if you've been convicted of assaulting law enforcement, not for breaching the Capitol grounds, not for any of the essence, but actual assault of our law enforcement, now is the time to do it.
(05:02:05)
I would join you Representative Neguse and thanking the chairwoman for taking action because now we don't have that 500,000 and up Slush Fund for senators because the House took action on a bill. And we can do the same here. You will be walking by some of those law enforcement officers who were beaten 'cause some of them still work for Capitol Police.
(05:02:34)
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's the time to do it. And if there is nothing else, ranking member that you need to speak, I will yield back.
Ms. Scanlon (05:03:07):
Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (05:03:07):
Thank you.
Ms. Scanlon (05:03:09):
Just I remain appalled at the lengths to which our Republican colleagues are willing to go to cede the authority of Congress to the administration. Mr. Scott says that we'll see if it gets set up. Last time I read the Constitution, every time I've read the Constitution, 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 with that, Mr. McGovern, do you need anything?
Jim McGovern (05:03:45):
I would just say there was already a judgment fund set up in statute. So any event, again, look, you may not be defending these criminals. Well, let me put it this way. Your vote on this matters.
(05:04:01)
I just want to point out one thing to my Republican friends. This committee was the primary block for getting the Epstein Files released. I mean, we had a gazillion votes up here and you all voted every time no, not to force their release. And then we adjourned early. We adjourned early for the summer and then we had to have a discharge petition to force a vote on the floor and then everybody had to go on record. But I mean, the number of votes we had on trying to release the Epstein Files in this committee is too numerous to mention and we're doing the same thing here. So I mean, maybe the only way to get some movement here is going through a discharge petition.
(05:04:50)
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 that this is unacceptable, period. And I urge a yes vote on this and I thank the gentle lady and I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon (05:05:05):
Thank you. And I would yield to Mr. Neguse.
Joe Neguse (05:05:07):
Yeah. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Just to clarify for my colleague from 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 they do not intend to pursue the fund at this time, which they could reverse anytime they'd like. So the moment if and when, God forbid, Todd Blanche 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. Yes ...
Joe Neguse (05:06:01):
... that's why Donald Trump was defending the fund yesterday on Meet the Press like 20 hours ago. So I don't really understand. Again, maybe there are folks who want to 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 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 of course at this point it's difficult to unwind and all the rest.
(05:06:36)
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 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 would implore my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment. I think it's important.
Ms. Scanlon (05:07:04):
And I would just say you can't defend this fund. It is defending the indefensible and I'd suggest that's 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.
Jim McGovern (05:07:20):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:07:20):
Those opposed say no.
(05:07:30)
No.
(05:07:30)
[inaudible 05:07:31], the no's have it.
Jim McGovern (05:07:35):
Ask for roll call, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (05:07:37):
The clerk will call the role.
Clerk (05:07:39):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:07:39):
No.
Clerk (05:07:40):
Mrs. Fischbach, no.
(05:07:41)
Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:07:42):
No.
Clerk (05:07:43):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:07:44):
No.
Clerk (05:07:44):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:07:45):
No.
Clerk (05:07:46):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:07:47):
No.
Clerk (05:07:48):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:07:48):
No.
Clerk (05:07:49):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:07:50):
Aye.
Clerk (05:07:51):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:07:53):
Aye.
Clerk (05:07:53):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:07:53):
Aye.
Clerk (05:07:55):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:07:56):
Aye.
Clerk (05:07:56):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:07:58):
No.
Clerk (05:07:58):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:08:00):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:08:02):
Four yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:08:05):
The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the motion?
Jim McGovern (05:08:09):
Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (05:08:10):
Mr. McGovern.
Jim McGovern (05:08:11):
I have an amendment to rule. I move the committee make an order, Amendment Number 67 to S2, offered by Ranking Member Raskin, which prohibits an individual convicted of an offense committed on January 6th, 2021, and who received a pardon from receiving a settlement payment if they subsequently were convicted of a new crime. Okay. 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 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.
(05:09:06)
Several recipients of presidential clemency were 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 compensation? Of course not. So can we at least agree on that? You beat cops, Trump disgracefully pardoned you. Then you went on to commit another crime. Surely you should not be eligible for taxpayer money from the insurrectionous slush fund. So I urge a common sense yes vote on this amendment and I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman (05:09:58):
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Jim McGovern (05:10:05):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:10:06):
Those opposed say no? No. In the opinion of the Chair, the no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Jim McGovern (05:10:12):
Ask for roll call, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (05:10:14):
Clerk will call the role.
Clerk (05:10:15):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:10:15):
No.
Clerk (05:10:16):
Mrs. Fischbach, no.
(05:10:17)
Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:10:19):
No.
Clerk (05:10:19):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:10:20):
No.
Clerk (05:10:20):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:10:21):
No.
Clerk (05:10:22):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:10:23):
No.
Clerk (05:10:24):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:10:24):
No.
Clerk (05:10:25):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:10:26):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:27):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:10:28):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:28):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:10:28):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:30):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:10:32):
Aye.
Clerk (05:10:32):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:10:33):
No.
Clerk (05:10:33):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:10:37):
Clerk record the total.
Clerk (05:10:38):
For yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:10:39):
And the nos have it, the amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion or amendment.
Jim McGovern (05:10:45):
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order, Amendment Number 46-2, 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 prosecution by any agency of the federal government for any violation of the federal law. This amendment would do what we all know is right 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 null and void. This amendment would specifically prohibit a sitting president 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.
(05:11:40)
Are we really going to act like this is like normal and this is like okay? 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. This is like a banana republic nonsense. 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.
Madam Chairwoman (05:12:12):
Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Jim McGovern (05:12:21):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:12:22):
Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Jim McGovern (05:12:28):
Ask for roll call, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (05:12:30):
Clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:12:30):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:12:30):
No.
Clerk (05:12:31):
Mrs. Fischbach no.
(05:12:33)
Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:12:34):
No.
Clerk (05:12:35):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:12:36):
No.
Clerk (05:12:36):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:12:37):
No.
Clerk (05:12:38):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:12:39):
No.
Clerk (05:12:40):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:12:40):
No.
Clerk (05:12:41):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:12:42):
Aye.
Clerk (05:12:43):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:12:44):
Aye.
Clerk (05:12:44):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:12:45):
Aye.
Clerk (05:12:46):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:12:47):
Aye.
Clerk (05:12:48):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:12:49):
No.
Clerk (05:12:50):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:12:51):
Clerk report the total.
Clerk (05:12:53):
Four yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:12:54):
The nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:12:58):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order, Amendment Number 103-2, offered by Democratic leader Jeffries, which repurposes $70 billion to ICE and CBP to restore the $1 trillion House Republicans cut from Medicaid and the ACA.
(05:13:12)
Madam Chair, last July, Republicans made the largest cut to healthcare in the American history to fund tax breaks for billionaires. As a result, Americans are getting fewer healthcare benefits and paying more for care. 750 hospitals, clinics, and other providers have shuttered 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, 15 million Americans are expected to be kicked off of their healthcare. And now Republicans are sending years and years of extra funding to ICE and CBP instead of addressing the needs of regular Americans.
(05:13:49)
The emergency we need to be focused on is the healthcare crisis facing this country and that's exactly what this amendment does. So a vote for this amendment repeals the devastating cuts to healthcare that my Republican friends made, and a vote against this amendment continues to lock in higher healthcare costs for Americans. And I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman (05:14:10):
Is there further debate and discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Jim McGovern (05:14:18):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:14:19):
Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the no's have it. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the role.
Clerk (05:14:28):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:14:28):
No.
Clerk (05:14:29):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:14:31):
No.
Clerk (05:14:31):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:14:32):
No.
Clerk (05:14:33):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:14:34):
No.
Clerk (05:14:35):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:14:35):
No.
Clerk (05:14:36):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:14:37):
No.
Clerk (05:14:39):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:14:40):
Aye.
Clerk (05:14:41):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:14:42):
Aye.
Clerk (05:14:42):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:14:43):
Aye.
Clerk (05:14:44):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:14:45):
Aye.
Clerk (05:14:45):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:14:48):
No.
Clerk (05:14:48):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:14:49):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:14:50):
Four yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:14:52):
The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Jim McGovern (05:14:57):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order, Amendment Number 107- 2 offered by Democratic Whip Clark, which repurposes $70 billion to ICE and CBP to restore a portion of the $200 billion house Republicans cut from the SNAP food program.
(05:15:15)
The bottom line is hunger is getting worse in this country, Madam Chair. And as the Whip pointed out, I mean, there is a new report out that only covers 12 states that basically indicates that over 700,000 kids, these are just kids, have already lost SNAP due to the changes in The Big Ugly Bill. And now we're giving tens of billions of dollars more to ICE. Again, a vote for this amendment is to vote to restore SNAP benefits for veterans, kids, and seniors. And a vote against this amendment is going to contribute to the increase of hunger in America and we can do something about it and I'd urge a yes vote.
Madam Chairwoman (05:15:56):
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Jim McGovern (05:16:03):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:16:04):
All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to.
Jim McGovern (05:16:10):
Ask for a rule call, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (05:16:10):
The clerk will call the role.
Clerk (05:16:12):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:16:12):
No.
Clerk (05:16:13):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:16:15):
No.
Clerk (05:16:16):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:16:17):
No.
Clerk (05:16:18):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:16:18):
No.
Clerk (05:16:19):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:16:20):
No.
Clerk (05:16:21):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack (05:16:22):
No.
Clerk (05:16:23):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:16:24):
Aye.
Clerk (05:16:24):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:16:26):
Aye.
Clerk (05:16:26):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:16:26):
Aye.
Clerk (05:16:26):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:16:29):
Aye.
Clerk (05:16:29):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:16:31):
No.
Clerk (05:16:31):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:16:33):
The clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:16:34):
Four yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:16:36):
The nos have it, the amendments not agreed to. Mr. McGovern.
Jim McGovern (05:16:39):
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make order, Amendment Number 158 to S2 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.
(05:16:52)
Again, Republicans have rushed to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and forward fund ICE and CBP for years and years while turning their backs on Americans who can't afford their skyrocketing healthcare costs. A vote for this amendment brings down healthcare costs for millions of Americans by restoring the ACA tax credit. And as Chair Aguilar pointed out, we forced the vote on this in a discharge petition and we actually prevailed. So maybe we can put it in this bill and jam the Senate for a change and do something good for people. But a vote against this amendment will continue to allow healthcare costs to skyrocket. I urge a yes vote.
Madam Chairwoman (05:17:36):
Further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor say aye.
Jim McGovern (05:17:43):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:17:44):
Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it.
Jim McGovern (05:17:49):
We ask for a roll call.
Madam Chairwoman (05:17:49):
The clerk will call the role.
Clerk (05:17:52):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:17:54):
No.
Clerk (05:17:54):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:17:55):
No.
Clerk (05:17:56):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:17:57):
No.
Clerk (05:17:57):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:17:58):
No.
Clerk (05:17:59):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:18:00):
No.
Clerk (05:18:01):
Mr. Griffin, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:18:02):
No.
Clerk (05:18:02):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:18:04):
Aye.
Clerk (05:18:04):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:18:05):
Aye.
Clerk (05:18:06):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:18:06):
Aye.
Clerk (05:18:07):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:18:09):
Aye.
Clerk (05:18:09):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:18:11):
No.
Clerk (05:18:11):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:18:13):
Clerk report the total.
Clerk (05:18:14):
Four yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:18:15):
The nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Ms. Scanlon (05:18:19):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee making order, Amendment 62 to Senate 2 offered by myself, which prohibits the use of funds to conduct a search of the home of a United States citizen, unless such search is lawful under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
(05:18:37)
The reason we need this is that we have seen ICE conduct warrantless searches to arrest people in the homes of American citizens. There's video evidence of this happening in 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.
(05:19:00)
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. 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.
(05:19:37)
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.
Madam Chairwoman (05:19:46):
So further discussion on the amendment for Ms. Scanlon? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Ms. Scanlon (05:19:54):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:19:55):
All those opposed say no. No. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it.
Ms. Scanlon (05:19:58):
I request a roll call [inaudible 05:20:00].
Madam Chairwoman (05:20:00):
Ms. Scanlon requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the role.
Clerk (05:20:04):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:20:05):
No.
Clerk (05:20:06):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:20:08):
No.
Clerk (05:20:08):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:20:09):
No.
Clerk (05:20:10):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:20:11):
No.
Clerk (05:20:12):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:20:13):
No.
Clerk (05:20:13):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:20:14):
No.
Clerk (05:20:15):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:20:17):
Aye.
Clerk (05:20:17):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:20:18):
Aye.
Clerk (05:20:18):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:20:19):
Aye.
Clerk (05:20:21):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:20:22):
Aye.
Clerk (05:20:22):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:20:23):
No.
Clerk (05:20:24):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:20:26):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:20:27):
For yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:20:29):
The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion or amendment?
Ms. Fernandez (05:20:35):
Madam Chair.
Madam Chairwoman (05:20:36):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.
Ms. Fernandez (05:20:38):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order, Amendment Number 95 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 HR1, the One Big Beautiful Bill act.
(05:21:05)
As Representative Scanlon just described, United States citizens are getting detained. They're having the doors torn down in their homes and there are no consequences. And the reality is ICE and DHA 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.
(05:21:44)
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 Chair Jordan say, "Oh, that doesn't happen", and acknowledge that 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.
Madam Chairwoman (05:22:58):
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Joe Neguse (05:23:07):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:23:08):
All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to.
Ms. Fernandez (05:23:15):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
Madam Chairwoman (05:23:19):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.
Ms. Fernandez (05:23:21):
I move the committee make an order, Amendment Number 72, offered by Representative Davids and myself, which inserts the text of HR 8742, which would require the Department of Homeland Services to implement training standards for immigration officers interacting with Native Americans and regarding tribal documents and IDs.
(05:23:45)
Days after the inauguration of the second Trump administration, immigration officials detained and questioned 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, 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.
(05:24:17)
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 going to say not a lot of people are used to the tribal IDs. Let's train ICE regarding tribal IDs and Native American identity and that's what this amendment does is insert into the bill the text of this amendment. And with that, I urge your yes vote on my amendment.
Madam Chairwoman (05:24:57):
Further discussion on the amendment for Ms. Leger Fernandez? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. Those in favor signify by saying aye.
Joe Neguse (05:25:05):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:25:06):
Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Fernandez (05:25:12):
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. Oh, recorded vote. Sorry. I request a recorded vote.
Madam Chairwoman (05:25:20):
A recorded vote. The clerk will call the role.
Clerk (05:25:21):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:25:22):
No.
Clerk (05:25:22):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:25:25):
No.
Clerk (05:25:25):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:25:26):
No.
Clerk (05:25:27):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:25:27):
No.
Clerk (05:25:28):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:25:29):
No.
Clerk (05:25:30):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:25:31):
No.
Clerk (05:25:31):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:25:33):
Aye.
Clerk (05:25:33):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:25:34):
Aye.
Clerk (05:25:34):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:25:35):
Aye.
Clerk (05:25:37):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:25:37):
Aye.
Clerk (05:25:38):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:25:39):
No.
Clerk (05:25:40):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:25:41):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:25:44):
Four yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:25:45):
The nos have it, the amendments not agreed to. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:25:49):
I have an amendment to the rule, Madam Chair. I move the committee making an order, Amendment Number 4, offered by Representative Kamlager-Dove to S2, which would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide essential care and attention to pregnant individuals held in immigration detention.
(05:26:04)
You would think that we wouldn't 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. Or that they don't as some instances of what we have support introduced for the record show that their mistreatment means that they may never be able to have children again because of the mistreatment in detention. And in total, DHS detained nearly 500 pregnant, postpartum, and nursing women between January '25 and February '26. We know so far, but reporting is not complete that there were 16 miscarriages reported in this window alone.
(05:26:55)
Let's treat 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 the dignity and respect so that their pregnancies can proceed and proceed with the healthcare they need. With that, I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman (05:27:18):
Further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Ms. Scanlon (05:27:25):
Aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:27:26):
Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Ms. Leger Fernandez requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the role.
Clerk (05:27:37):
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:27:37):
No.
Clerk (05:27:38):
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:27:42):
No.
Clerk (05:27:42):
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:27:42):
No.
Clerk (05:27:42):
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:27:43):
No.
Clerk (05:27:44):
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:27:45):
No.
Clerk (05:27:46):
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:27:47):
No.
Clerk (05:27:48):
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:27:49):
Aye.
Clerk (05:27:49):
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:27:51):
Aye.
Clerk (05:27:51):
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:27:52):
Aye.
Clerk (05:27:53):
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:27:55):
Aye.
Clerk (05:27:55):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:27:56):
No.
Clerk (05:27:57):
Madam Chair, no.
Madam Chairwoman (05:27:58):
Clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:27:59):
Four yeas, seven nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:28:01):
The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion or amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the motion from the gentleman from New York. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no.
Jim McGovern (05:28:20):
No.
Madam Chairwoman (05:28:21):
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Jim McGovern (05:28:24):
Can we ask for a roll call vote, Madam Chair, please?
Madam Chairwoman (05:28:27):
You may ask for a roll call vote. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Clerk (05:28:33):
Ms. Fischbach?
Mrs. Fischbach (05:28:33):
Yes.
Clerk (05:28:35):
Mrs. Fischbach, aye. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin?
Mrs. Houchin (05:28:38):
Aye.
Clerk (05:28:38):
Mrs. Houchin, aye. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy (05:28:40):
Aye.
Clerk (05:28:40):
Mr. Langworthy, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott (05:28:42):
Aye.
Clerk (05:28:42):
Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith (05:28:43):
Aye.
Clerk (05:28:44):
Mr. Griffith, aye. Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack (05:28:45):
Aye.
Clerk (05:28:45):
Mr. Jack, aye. Mr. McGovern?
Jim McGovern (05:28:47):
No.
Clerk (05:28:47):
Mr. McGovern, no. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon (05:28:49):
No.
Clerk (05:28:49):
Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Neguse?
Joe Neguse (05:28:49):
No.
Clerk (05:28:53):
Mr. Neguse, no. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez (05:28:54):
Absolutely not.
Clerk (05:28:56):
Ms. Leger Fernandez, no. Madam Chair?
Madam Chairwoman (05:28:58):
Aye.
Clerk (05:28:59):
Madam Chair, aye.
Madam Chairwoman (05:29:01):
The clerk will report the total.
Clerk (05:29:04):
Seven yeas, four nays.
Madam Chairwoman (05:29:07):
The ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Representative Langworthy will be managing the rule for the majority.
Jim McGovern (05:29:15):
And Representative Scanlon will be managing for the Democrats.
Madam Chairwoman (05:29:18):
And Representative Scanlon for the Democrats. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.
