▶ 0:23:45call this meeting of the appropriations committee to order. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's meeting. As you know, we have a very busy schedule ahead of us today as part of a very busy week. We'll be marking up our fiscal year 2026 bill covering Homeland Security. Homeland Security markup was originally noticed for June 12th, but delays in our other markups necessitated a move to today.
▶ 0:24:10Tomorrow, our military construction and veterans affairs bill will be considered on the floor. And on Thursday, we'll have uh marking up will be marking up our legislative branch bill for fiscal year 2026. As such, we must and will finish our work on the Homeland Security bill today or more probably tonight. Uh, and we'll be here until we're done. Uh, that said, we will recess in the afternoon for votes, then reconvene immediately following the final vote.
▶ 0:24:40Soon as I get 32, we will uh come to order. Uh, I also understand there's a full member briefing on the situation in the Middle East scheduled for 3:15 this afternoon. We will recess uh for that briefing. We'll go up to as close to 3:15 as we can and give you time to get there and we will reconvene immediately after. I I'll come I'll be going to the brief myself. So, I'm coming straight back here. Soon as we get 32, uh, we'll be moving.
▶ 0:25:10So, I I appreciate your cooperation. Um, our only order of business today is uh the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2026. So, I'll now recognize Chairman Ammedday to present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madame Ranking Member, uh, Madame Ranking Member of the of the full committee.
▶ 0:25:36Uh I've been around this process for a little while and I know that the bill's been out and that uh that you're all familiar with it. Uh a robust amendment discussion has taken place and proposed on both sides. And so I am going to assume for the bill presentation that you all know why we're here and what's in the bill. And I yield back. Thank you very much. That must be your opening move to be chairman of the full committee. That's a brilliant start.
▶ 0:26:06I'd now like to recognize Miss Underwood for remarks on the bill. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, while I ultimately cannot support the legislation we're considering today, I've been so pleased to work with you on strengthening improving our many shared bipartisan priorities in the space. I thank you and your staff for your hard work and partnership and look forward to continuing to work together. I also want to thank our staff who I know have not slept much recently, Shannon, Jamie, and Chris for their incredible work on these critical issues.
▶ 0:26:34Now, I think we can all agree that whether it's at the border, the airport, our country's shorelines, or in cyerspace, the Department of Homeland Security cannot fail. But I also believe that the Department cannot fail the rights and values that make America the greatest nation in the world. Under the Trump administration, DHS is out of control, illegally spending hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars, flagrantly violating constitutional rights, and putting America's security at risk.
▶ 0:27:03Under this administration, due process and the limitations that the Constitution puts on our government are being ignored. And this bill must do more to check them. Right now, this bill fails to protect American citizens from being deported by the Trump administration. It fails to protect American citizens from being confronted in their homes and offices or having their property seized.
▶ 0:27:26As this administration's deportation policies ignore the boundaries of federal law, it shamefully allows law enforcement to continue snatching people off the street at church, at schools without requiring proper identification or due process.
▶ 0:27:44And it punishes immigrants who are following our laws, all while rewarding for-profit detention centers with billions of taxpayer dollars and lacks As members of Congress, we have a constitutional responsibility to keep this administration accountable in both how it spends taxpayer dollars and how it operates. We saw this year after our FEMA hearing what this department does when anyone speaks truth to power.
▶ 0:28:14I'm deeply concerned that if this bill passes and DHS goes unchecked, the United States of America will become a country that our own citizens will seek refuge from because of the repeated attacks on our basic freedoms and rights.
▶ 0:28:32Giving unchecked power to this administration is bad enough, but unfortunately the bill makes things worse by leaving Americans more vulnerable to catastrophic threats and burdening state and local governments. The bill adopts Doge staffing cuts to SISA and FEMA personnel by roughly $130 million and $93 million respectively. Let me say that again.
▶ 0:28:58As a ceasefire remains elusive with Iran, a nation known for cyber attacks on adversaries, infrastructure, and communities, you are doubling down on cuts to our core cyber defenses. That's indefensible. And the only people who benefit from this bill's failure to invest here are bad actors in Iran, China, Russia, and around the world who are now find it easier to attack the American people.
▶ 0:29:29Meanwhile, the White House requested zero dollars to supplement FEMA's disaster relief fund that all Americans rely on to recover from major disasters and fails to acknowledge an urgent $8 billion deficit in the disaster relief fund. We are heading into both wildfire and hurricane seasons. And friends, the funding level provided in this bill is insufficient to help us dig out of this hole.
▶ 0:29:56And it all but guarantees that the disaster relief fund will be at a dangerously low level again by next All of this means that the burden to respond to the next ransomware attack on your local hospital or deadly hurricane in your district will increasingly fall to state and local leaders who lack the resources to respond. State and local communities don't have the ability to rebuild after disasters or cyber catastrophes on their own.
▶ 0:30:24This bill abandons our neighbors after a crisis. Finally, I want to note that this bill does not include funding for the citizenship and integration program that has now been run for more than a decade by US citizenship and immigration services. This initiative funds faith-based organizations and community focused organizations that help legal immigrants prepare to become citizens by preparing them for the citizenship exam and helping them learn English. Mr.
▶ 0:30:55Chairman, we make America stronger and more secure when we make investments in our community stronger and when we uphold our values. But this bill does neither and I cannot support it. I yield Thank the gentle lady. I now recognize myself for remarks on the bill. With our agricultural priorities advanced, we now turn to our homeland security bill to ensure a comprehensive approach to protecting Americans.
▶ 0:31:22To start, I want to thank Chairman Ammedday and ranking member Underwood for their attention and their hard work. Everyone in this room understands that the safety of our citizens is paramount. We do this through strong vigilance, action, empowering our frontline law enforcement. agents. Uh the work of the Department of Homeland Security is fundamental to those efforts. Their mission is more vital than ever.
▶ 0:31:47Under new White House leadership, we've seen a critical shift toward restoring safety and security, including an historic turnaround at our southern border. Yet, we continue to face the consequences of the dangerous threats emboldened by the previous administration's weakness. The alarming rise of anti-semitic assemitic rioters attacking federal agents, and extremist risk shows the evolving threat environment at our doorstep.
▶ 0:32:15It's why we are advancing critical resources to ensure DHS has the tools to protect the homeland, enforce the law, strengthen border security, and enhance preparedness for everything from violent threats to natural disasters.
▶ 0:32:30This bill delivers just that and upholds the America first agenda through supporting first the border patrol and enforcement agents, detention and deportation efforts, cutting edge technology to detect elicit activity, and Coast Guard investments to counter communist China's aggression in the maritime sphere. From our communities to cyber security, we're implementing the most effective safeguards at every level and supporting our brave agents on the front line.
▶ 0:32:59I want to thank the staff on the subcommittee, both the majority and the minority, for their hard work on the product before us. Uh, as our last markup, uh, actually that's not correct. This is not our last markup of the week. We clearly have changed the speech since I saw it. I look but I do look forward to consideration and approval of this vital message. And with that, I yield back my time. I now recognize my very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
▶ 0:33:29Laurel, for her opening remarks. I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member uh and a chair of the full committee uh uh and the subcommittee staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work, especially Shannon McCully, Jamie Weise, and Chris Pap. Uh, I'm opposed to this homeland security bill because it will make Americans less safe, more vulnerable to growing security threats.
▶ 0:33:54Despite the everinccreasing threats against American families, businesses, critical infrastructure, and national institutions, House Republicans bill weakens our national security. It leaves Americans vulnerable to attacks from our adversaries by sharply cutting cyber and infrastructure security.
▶ 0:34:11Their bill fails to protect Americans from terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating targeted violence and terrorism prevention grants which help local leaders and law enforcement identify threats and intervene before violence occurs. House.
▶ 0:34:29The House Republicans bill allows President Trump to abuse Americans constitutional rights by shuttering civil rights offenses, blindly funding costly privatrun detention centers with limited oversight, greenlighting the deportations of people who have lived and worked here for 10 to 20 years, abandoning due process protections, and defunding the community organizations that help these communities manage response to border issues. and they do nothing to help with the cost of living.
▶ 0:35:00The cost of living crisis is felt by every American family. But the president is not laser focused on the cost of living crisis. He is making it worse by stealing resources that help families and businesses recover from disasters. Among the illegally frozen funding is over $100 billion FEMA awards state and local governments to respond to disasters and mitigate future ones, protect against terrorism, secure ports, and much more.
▶ 0:35:30President Trump and Secretary Gnome proposed eliminating They proposed to eliminate FEMA when FEMA's acting administrator Cameron Ham Hamilton came before the Homeland Subcommittee and defended the existence of the agency uh he oversaw. He was summarily dismissed. I asked the him the question, should we eliminate the federal emergency management agencies?
▶ 0:35:59And he said while he believed there were some reforms to be made, he would not recommend elimination. The very next day he was fired. I'm a gasast at the notion that this country would cease to lend our fellow countrymen a helping hand after disaster strikes. But that is the administration's goal. Earlier this month, President Trump said of disaster relief, and I quote, "We are going to give out less money.
▶ 0:36:28we are going to give it out directly. It will come from the president's office." End quote. Not only does he want to cut aid, President Trump is going to personally dole out relief dollars based on favoritism. Helping Americans recover from da disaster cannot depend on whether their state's governor bends the knee or how their state voted in the last election.
▶ 0:36:54Americans are not more or less deserving of disaster aid because of how their neighbors vote. From housing to education to health care to disaster recovery, not one of our states can afford to take on the burden of everything this administration seeks to shift upon them. And everyone in this room knows that. Everyone here knows that they have canled the building resilient infrastructure and communities program or brick.
▶ 0:37:23a popular effective tool for state and local governments to prevent the very damage and destruction FEMA responds to after disaster strike. It is hard to call this program wasteful when research has shown mitigation efforts like brick save a minimum of $6 for every dollar invested. Not far from here, the town of Chrisfield, Maryland, lost $36 million for a flood protection initiative, which will be impossible for them to cover with a town budget of only $4 million.
▶ 0:37:54Chrisfield's mayor said, and I quote, "We are pretty much devastated. Without this, we know that we will be in a really bad position to protect our citizens, protect our property, protect our community, and really protect our way of life." And this administration's reckless cuts affect all of our constituents, including mine. In the last year, Connecticut has been devastated by wildfires, historic flooding, and damaging storms.
▶ 0:38:19Last fall, historic rainfall and flooding washed out several roads and bridges demolished a major shopping center in Seymour, Connecticut, called Clarity's Village. 14 of the 16 businesses in the center were destroyed, mostly familyowned. Quote, "Everything is gone. Everything is destroyed." End quote. Said Mike Abe, whose restaurant, the 67 family diner, ended up needing nearly $1 million in repairs. His insurance company refused to help. They told him, quote, "No thank you." End quote.
▶ 0:38:49This is how important the federal role for disaster relief is. This is what government must do for people in need. Connecticut announced a $5 million emergency grant program to help the victims of this disaster. But it was a FEMA federal disaster declaration that made enough funds including SBA loans available for the shopping centers businesses to rebuild. This is what is at risk thanks to President Trump and to Elon Musk.
▶ 0:39:15In the wake of disasters going back to Hurricane Sandy and Irene and even before, FEMA has played a critical role in helping the people of Connecticut get back on their feet. But now the administration is leaving them behind by stealing FEMA resources. Without the federal support, my district needs to rebuild, mitigate future disasters, staff emergency management offices. My constituents will be left hung out to dry as they try to piece their lives back together as they prepare for whatever storm strikes next.
▶ 0:39:46New Haven, Connecticut was to receive $25 million from FEMA for flood control, but the funding freeze is putting our mitigation efforts in jeopardy. Again, leaving my constituents exposed to the next flood. In addition to mitigation, Connecticut is losing emergency management support. Like many other states, FEMA helps fund well over 100 local emergency management offices throughout Connecticut.
▶ 0:40:10And this administration's threats to FEMA's existence endanger Connecticut's capacity to manage future emergencies. Bill Turner, Connecticut State Emergency Management Director, said, and I quote, "The option of just getting rid of FEMA and dumping it all in the states and locals isn't going to work." End quote. Emergency management, response, recovery, and mitigation is not waste. It helps our neighbors and fellow Americans rebuild their lives after disasters. And that is not abuse.
▶ 0:40:39In the bill before us, House Republicans double down on the administration's effort to throw the responsibility of disaster recovery and mitigation to the states. In the face of worsening natural disasters, they seek to reduce FEMA staffing slashfunding for climate resistance and they ignore an $8 billion shortfall in the disaster relief fund.
▶ 0:41:00Instead of focusing on ways to help lower the cost of living, to help keep the American people safe from threats from our adversaries, extremists, and major disasters, House Republicans are using this bill to gut critical federal resources and advance their own agenda. Cannot support this bill, but my hope is that we can improve this bill to support our country's safety and security. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady.
▶ 0:41:27Are there any other members wishing to make general comments about the bill? Gentleman from Maryland's recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In his speech on election night in 2024, President Trump promised to, and I quote, make America safer and stronger, excuse me, than it has ever been before.
▶ 0:41:55I wonder if the American people feel safer and stronger now. The administration has purged a third of the staff of cyber security and infrastructure security agency as was discussed by the ranking member including including almost all of the senior leadership. Doge also cut roughly a third of the staff at FEMA. My remarks will be redundant.
▶ 0:42:21I presume uh they will get more redundant because these are the concerns that the American people have. Does that make America feel more secure as flood waters rise, wildfires, fires blaze, and storms rage through their community? I well remember when Superstorm Sandy hit the Northeast. 58 million people were at risk. We had a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.
▶ 0:42:51Only, I think 49, it may have been 50 Republicans voted for Sandy Relief. Out of the some 200 members, Republicans that were in the House. Do Americans sleep better at night knowing that Trump has fired numerous top generals and intelligence officials at the behest of Laura Loomer, a far-right conspiracy theorist with close ties to neo-Nazi op organizations.
▶ 0:43:22I certainly don't. I doubt Americans do either. This bill will make us even less secure and safe. It underfunds our cyber security efforts to stop our adversary hackers from stealing Americans data, spreading misinformation, and infiltrating our critical systems and infrastructure.
▶ 0:43:43How interesting it is that most experts said that one of the responses Iran could have to our uh attack would have been cyber security attacks and yet we are making that less secure. This legislation also fails to address the $8 billion shortfall which has been already referenced to by the chair and the ranking member uh in FEMA's disaster relief fund. Sort of like super storm Sandy.
▶ 0:44:13You're on your own. Crucially, it leaves our people vulnerable to violent extremism. I've also been proud a friend of Israel and the Jewish community. Jews in America and around the world have feared for their safety and the vile spike in anti-semitism following the October 7th terror attacks.
▶ 0:44:36That is especially true uh these past few weeks since the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers just blocks away from our capital as well as the vicious anti-semitic attacks in Boulder, Colorado.
▶ 0:44:50Jewish leaders across the country have been calling on this Congress to provide at least $500 million for the nonprofit security grant program, which helps synagogues and Jewish communities and other people of faith and organizations protect themselves and their people. Well, I'm pleased the manager's amendments provided another 30 million for this program and I want to thank the Mr. Ammeday.
▶ 0:45:21I want to thank you for adding 30 million back to that. I think a very good step to take, but the bill falls $170 million short of the request and the danger rises and the money has been is going down. But I do thank you for the increase that you did do.
▶ 0:45:40These groups need this funding now more than ever, especially considering those security grants were earlier this year as part of the administration's funding freeze at FEMA. Fighting am anti-semitism, stopping terrorists, upholding our cyber security, and responding to disasters are not partisan issues. But this is a partisan bill.
▶ 0:46:06I hope at the end of this process I can support it but if it is not significantly changed and the security enhanced I will not be able to and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to make general Gentle lady from Florida, Miss Washerman Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this Homeland Security funding bill.
▶ 0:46:37It's hard for me to do justice here to the pain and betrayal that so many families in my community are feeling. So, if I get a little emotional, I hope you understand, but uh it is a deeply personal issue in communities across this country. President Trump promised to focus on removing violent criminals and allow people to come here legally, but that's not what happened. Not in the first Trump term and certainly not now. Instead, ICE was turned into a mass incarceration and disappearance machine.
▶ 0:47:06Masked men are literally leaping out of unmarked vehicles and haphazardly snatching people off of our streets. ICE now indiscriminately raids churches, schools, emergency rooms, and courtrooms. ICE is now under orders to arrest 3,000 people per day. That's regardless of whether anyone committed a crime, and it's going on with almost no oversight or due process. A report yesterday shows that nearly twothirds of those taken by ICE had no criminal convictions of any kind.
▶ 0:47:34Only 7% of those arrested this year so far have any record of violent crime. Instead of keeping their promise to protect Americans from criminals and real violent threats, DHS is going after legal immigrants, people who did it the right way. This includes legal permanent residents, workers with tax IDs, dreamers, and parents who've lived here peacefully for decades. We see TPS holders and humanitarian parole recipients from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua.
▶ 0:48:01People who fled socialist dictators and murderous gangs now being stripped of their legal status and called criminal dirt bags. I repeat, the Trump administration is collaborating with dictators to send Cubans and Venezuelans with lawful status back to communist regimes where they will face torture and repression. This is a slap in the face to the freedom fighters who lost their lives in pursuit of human rights and democracy with America's backing.
▶ 0:48:26And let's be clear, you can't even get approved for TPS or parole without passing a criminal background check. The president and several of his appointees would not even qualify for this standard. And they are intentionally dissuading immigrants from following the law. Abusing IRS data to a aid deportations will only discourage immigrants from filing taxes and incentivize businesses to hire under the table. Like so many other cruel attacks, this one doesn't lower costs for taxpayers. It puts more burden on them.
▶ 0:48:54And arresting moms at courouses after their asylum and status hearings, this will only deter them from showing up to court in the first place. Taking away work permits will take hundreds of thousands out of the workforce, effectively bleeding Social Security and Medicare. Discriminatory travel bans and suspension of refugee admissions will only drive more desperate people to the border. Trump's policies do not promote legal immigration. They make it illegal.
▶ 0:49:19They create more chaos, more fear, more danger for immigrants and mixed status families who work hard and follow the law. And it's an insult to suggest that any of us are safer as a result. Nobody is safer when ICE officers racially profile, assault, and detain an American citizen who's 9 months pregnant, as they did this week, or when they beat up a gardener who happens to be the father of three sons bravely serving our country in the military.
▶ 0:49:42Nobody is safer when the president sends noncriminals to foreign concentration camps or when he illegally deploys the National Guard or Marines against Americans to enforce domestic law. Nobody is safer when legal immigrant parents lose health coverage and snap for their citizen kids. Legal immigrant parents. Nobody is safer if anybody if anybody can be snatched off the street and sent to a country they've never seen with no due process.
▶ 0:50:06Nobody is safer when more than,00 people are crammed into a detention facility designed for 600 outside my district, nearly half of whom have no criminal record at all. And nobody's safer when DHS officers are diverted from human trafficking, fentinel, and organized crime cases to terrorize people seeking an honest day's work. So, I'm definitely not comfortable writing this administration a blank check and dismantling oversight, which is exactly what this bill proposes.
▶ 0:50:32This bill would pump billions into Trump's anti-immigrant rampage and allow the secretary to transfer infinite amounts to ICE from other accounts. The Republican passed big ugly bill would already allow ICE to detain children indefinitely and codify Trump's policy of separating kids from their parents. Republicans also seek to gut the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which protects all of us from unwarranted surveillance, wrongful detention, and discrimination.
▶ 0:50:56To make matters worse, this bill drastically underfunds nonprofit security grants, a crucial program to shield houses of worship and other vulnerable institutions from rising anti-semitism and hate crimes. Just two weeks ago, everyone in this room voted for a non-bonding resolution condemning anti-semitic attacks and calling for action to protect Jewish Americans.
▶ 0:51:14While I appreciate that this bill contains a slight increase over current funding for nonprofit security grants, it's truly unacceptable that this bill barely surpasses 60% of what Jewish, Black, Asian-American, and other community leaders have requested and is desperately needed. This bill also abolishes grants that aim to prevent terrorism and target violence after Trump installed a 22-year-old fanboy with no experience in command of the counterterrorism center.
▶ 0:51:38I look forward to debating the amendments to mitigate the worst aspects of this bill, but I cannot in good conscience support putting more money in the clutches of this administration without clear conditions that they follow the law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentle lady from Ohio, Miss Captor, is recognized for general comments on the bill. Thank you, Chairman Cole, and and ranking member Deloro, Chair Ammedai, and Ranking Member Underwood.
▶ 0:52:05I rise to express concern about the array of security issues facing the United States. One of the most important steps a family can do if they want to secure their own home is maintain a responsible budget. The same principle should apply to homeland security at the national level. Yet, we've experienced month-long delays waiting for a proper and full budget request from this administration. It is now late June.
▶ 0:52:33We are still waiting for the full Trump budget. What is the majority waiting for? Delay forsakes the men and women who work to secure our border, counter hostile foreign actors both directly and online, combat the opioid epidemic, and protect our coastlines.
▶ 0:52:57This bill fails to adequately address issues related to strengthen our border security and reduce the flow of migrants towards our southern and northern borders as the bill defunds customs and border patrol by 249 It is peculiar that the Trump administration has farmed out counterterrorism to a 22year-old whose most recent experience is bagging
▶ 0:53:28groceries and landscaping. We are under potential terrorist threats countries that seek to do us harm while a glorified intern has been put in charge of combating terrorism here at home. Does anyone remember 911?
▶ 0:53:48Additionally, a member from the Great Lakes region and co-chair of the House Great Lakes Task Force, I rise to tell you that over the past several decades, the inadequate capacity of the US Coast Guard Great Lakes icebreaking fleet has resulted in economic losses estimated at $2 billion with the loss of over 10,000 jobs over the last 10 years in our Great Lakes region.
▶ 0:54:14Despite this reality, the proposal fails to appropriate the amount necessary dedicated to fund a new Great Lakes icebreaker. Lastly, the bill dramatically cuts our cyber security and infrastructure security programs. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, they're applauding and they're launching wave upon wave of cyber attacks against our country. And these attacks are increasing every year.
▶ 0:54:42This majority cuts our premier cyber security agency that others have referenced CISA by 134.8 million below previous levels. Why would America do this especially now when we are in a war mode without significant changes to the legislation including those I have discussed today. I regret I will be unable to support this current bill as our nation will not be safer for our own citizens.
▶ 0:55:12Thank you and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Espat is recognized for general comments on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I I I rise today to express my deep concerns about this legislation and the activities of ICE CBP and other elements of DHS under this administration which are challenging the community safety uh the continuity of
▶ 0:55:42thousands of families and the rule of law. I do so, Mr. Chairman, because I've seen firsthand, in fact, I've been an The mass deportation efforts are not about deporting a violent criminal, a violent felon that was found guilty in a court of law as they should be deported.
▶ 0:56:06It's ultimately also about green card holders that are legally here in our country, people that have work per permits that were issued by our government so they could motivate the economy and pay taxes. and ultimately is also about US citizen.
▶ 0:56:25I personally visited a family in Mexico with four US children that were deported, including a 10 10 yearear-old girl with a serious brain tumor. Uh that was uh that family was stopped at a checkpoint on their way to the hospital for that little girl in Texas to get the kind of health care that is going to save her life.
▶ 0:56:49And yet now she stands stranded in Mexico not being able to get the life saving treatment she needs. So this is not just about uh violent criminals. This is about people that are here legally including US citizens.
▶ 0:57:06And so to put the um these agency on and give them the funding unrestricted in many ways to deport US citizens really set set out fear and a chilling effect across America that's hurting our small businesses that's uh unleashing uncontrolled operations including the ability
▶ 0:57:36for ICE to go into houses of worship where people are concerned that they got to pay to pray. Mr. Chairman, people have to pay to pray, meaning not paying monetarily, but paying with a potential deportation when they go to worship their god. That operation could occurred outside the church.
▶ 0:58:01I will speak about this later on, but paying to pray by paying with your own physical removal of a house of worship is unamerican. Fundamentally is unamerican. This country, our country values our ability to pray to our own God and without any interruptions.
▶ 0:58:27And so to see potentially a masked ICE agent come into a house of worship to remove somebody is pay to pray. And so I think that we need to be sensible and we need to be Americans about this effort to fund these agencies. And the the most important component that we should all protect is the rule of law.
▶ 0:58:54We must preserve and protect the rule of That is the spinal cord of our democracy and our nation and we must preserve it at any cost. I think that the funding, extreme funding of some of the agencies uh that are impacted by this and their unrestricted uh operations goes against our fundamental values as a nation.
▶ 0:59:24And for that purpose, uh Mr. Chairman, I am asking that we vote against this. Uh America relies on the rule of law. People should not pay to pray.
▶ 0:59:38US citizens should not be deported from their own country, particularly We should have a a balanced approach to government that yes, deports a violent criminal who has committed a crime, has been found guilty in court, but doesn't take a 10-year-old little girl with a brain tumor whose life is in danger. In fact, the illness is so rare and serious that it doesn't even have a name. And we should be Americans at every step of the way.
▶ 1:00:08And we start by doing that today here in this uh committee room and voting in the negative of this bill for this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen. The gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Wattsman, Watson Coleman, is recognized for general comments on the bill. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Chair, the majority's priorities in this bill simply do not meet the needs of the American people.
▶ 1:00:37It makes devastating cuts to crucial programs that Americans rely on in their most desperate moments. This bill will reduce funding for FEMA's emergency food and shelter program by 25 million, a nearly 20% cut from the last time we properly funded it. and it completely eliminates the shelter and service program which will severely weaken initiatives that protected refugees and asylum seekers in need.
▶ 1:01:05The emergency food and shelter program actually reduces longerterm cost by providing temporary organized shelter that helps lessen the strain on hospitals, local law enforcement, and social services. Without this program, these entities will have to navigate more complex recovery challenges, prolonging the the consequences of their catastrophe.
▶ 1:01:28The targeted elimination of any program that aids in the sheltering of our most vulnerable population, guarantees an increased strain on local resources, and reduces the overall effectiveness of disaster response But, Mr.
▶ 1:01:44Chairman, I must express my frustration with the 11 billion dollar out dollars allocated to ICE in this bill, especially in light of the recent efforts events, I'm sorry, in Los Angeles and across our country. I refuse to allow this body to ignore what is taking place in our backyards.
▶ 1:02:07We are witnessing the growth of detention centers in the state of New Jersey, which can only indicate the administration's agenda to overpop populate the centers with innocent people. I refuse to stand by and watch my constituents suffer. This is the clear weaponization of federal agents and the entire Department of Homeland Security. While we are witnessing and what we are witnessing in Los Angeles and elsewhere is not just a routine enforcement operation.
▶ 1:02:38It is a traumatic show of force that tears families apart, spreads fear throughout our communities, and targets individuals with no criminal record or offense. We just saw what happened to Barono in California. A father of three, a United States Marine, beaten like a dog. And for what? Mothers, fathers, farmers, teachers, you name it. My colleagues are sitting back and watching icebreak laws put into place to protect our constituents.
▶ 1:03:09And you mean to tell me that we want to place more taxpayer dollars in their while they are terrorizing people in our communities. The action taken by ICE and DHS officers are what we would see in a Gestapo country, not in the United States of America.
▶ 1:03:29As if we needed more proof of that, our administration is allowing maybe even and even more encouraging these cowards to c cover their faces to keep the public from identifying them. We already know ICE has no respect for congressional authority. I witnessed their disrespect firsthand when I was exercising my statutory right as a member of Congress to conduct an oversight visit at Delaney Hall earlier this year.
▶ 1:03:57We also saw what happened to our colleague Senator Padilla, someone you know well, certainly they knew well. What they did to him, manhandling him and shoving him and throwing him to the ground. They did that in the state in that he represents. It is as if my Republican colleagues think that what happened to Senator Patia could never happen to them. News flash, it can.
▶ 1:04:24I cannot in good faith support such a deeply inadequate bill. I refuse to turn my back on the crisis of my constituents to appease a racist in the White House. And for that reason, I urge a no vote and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case is recognized for general comments on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:04:50First, I want to uh commend uh the subcommittee uh chair, the gentleman from the state whose flower is Artameisia Trident Tata uh and also the ranking member uh because uh uh this subcommittee can be a very difficult subcommittee as we're going to see from our debate today. It's a kind of a subcommittee that can get away from you real fast and you have both operated this subcommittee in a way to facilitate a civility courtesy and a and a real debate.
▶ 1:05:20However, having said that, um this is a good demonstration that courtesy and civility alone do not produce a good bill. Uh and uh many of my colleagues have pointed to deficiencies in the bill that I share with them. But I want to highlight two areas that I think are highly problematic and that I hope and believe can be fixed going forward. and those are FEMA uh and the cyber security uh information and uh security infrastructure and security agency or SISA.
▶ 1:05:49We had long debates in in uh subcommittee about uh what is a continuing vendetta if I can put it that way against FEMA that is to this day unexplainable inexplicable to me. Uh now I have personal experience with this with the incredible uh disaster in Lahina that I detailed um at great length in in our subcommittee uh where we do not believe that FEMA did a bad job.
▶ 1:06:14We think FEMA saved the day for us and this is a personal experience that I think other people would have shared uh in places like California, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, etc. And so it is really inexplicable to me that there is a continuing effort to underfund FEMA to somehow call out FEMA's credibility to to chalk some some um motivation that I don't understand up to waste, fraud, and abuse. We didn't see waste, fraud, and abuse in Lahina.
▶ 1:06:44We saw the expenditure of necessary monies by our federal government uh that saved the day after a terrible disaster. And so it it's it's something that I think we need to discuss. Now, if you want to talk about policy here, about a policy of decentralizing the federal government down to the state government level, then let's talk about how that actually works when a small state especially gets overwhelmed by a massive natural disaster or any other disaster for that matter because we're
▶ 1:07:14not just talking about natural. So, what is the policy? If you want to say, well, the state should take care of this, then let's take Hawaii for example. How should a Hawaii have responded to a disaster of this magnitude? And is it not a good policy to maintain the federal government as the central administrator of common uniform disaster responses across our country? That's the policy decision that we're not and debate that we're not having.
▶ 1:07:40And if that's where you want to go with this, then let's have that debate and then let's have funding follow the policy. Now let me switch over to cyber security because it is also inexplicable to me that you are reducing funding for cyber security at a time when we all know or should know that if we want to look at exposure from mallayion actors across the world including the last few days one of our greatest exposures is in the cyber security realm.
▶ 1:08:08This is when we need to be ramping up cyber security across our country not defunding cyber security. And let's take a look at what you've done in this bill. You have reduced um uh cyber security proper by 87 million. You have cut infrastructure security. Uh you have cut risk management operations. And it's in and it it similarly inexplicable to me um that you would somehow call out these areas of the greatest need uh for cuts.
▶ 1:08:37Now is that a waste, fraud, and abuse argument? Because I don't see it at all. Let's just talk about infrastructure just to pick out one of the areas that you have reduced funding in. Anybody that knows what mallayian actors are up to in the cyber security space now knows that they are not necessarily and exclusively focused on national security, cyber security. No, what they're after is civilian infrastructure. They're after electric grids. They're after water systems.
▶ 1:09:05They're after things that can disrupt the civilian infrastructure. They want control. They want to be able to control that. They want to be able to trigger cyber security at the proper time. And this is an area that that state governments, county governments, and companies need incredible amounts of highly sophisticated advice and resources to prepare for and to identify and to fight.
▶ 1:09:32And yet you have reduced infrastructure cyber security. It's inexplicable to me. And so I would really urge that in these two areas in particular, you take a look at the judgments that you're making on a policy basis and then follow that with funding as you go through the process. I yield Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Murvan, is recognized for general comments on the bill.
▶ 1:10:00Thank you, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Deloro, uh, subcommittee chair and ranking member. Uh, prior to my time as a member of Congress, I served 15 years as a local elected official. In that capacity, I was responsible for providing certain emergency assistance, including the leading and coordinating of responses to natural disasters such as storms and flooding.
▶ 1:10:20While I appreciate the times of filling sandbags and removing debris, I am reminded of those heightened moments now as we consider our funds for agencies and public servants that keep our community safe and respond to our times of great need. Notably, I appreciate the essential work and the role of FEMA plays to respond to natural disasters and the incredible personnel who must coordinate with state and local officials and nonprofits and volunteers to rise to those occasions.
▶ 1:10:47Knowing firsthand of this type of support of FEMA, I am concerned that this legislation allows for severe cuts to FEMA's workforce and threatens our ability to effectively respond emergencies and distribute life-saving aid. Reducing staffing and ex expertise at an agency will not make FEMA more efficient. Instead, it will make it harder for states and localities to respond emergencies and cause further harm for individuals and families uprooted by natural disasters. We're all aware of the increase in the extreme weather events.
▶ 1:11:17So, it is more important than ever to ensure FEMA has the personnel support and institutional knowledge required to respond rapidly to evolving emergencies. Additionally, I'm concerned that this legislation eliminates funding for terrorism and targeted violence prevention grants. This program helps local communities proactively prevent violence by bringing together the mental health providers, educators, nonprofits, and public safety officials in Indiana.
▶ 1:11:41This grant has supported the development of an online wellness pilot program to reduce targeted violence for youth in high-risisk communities. Terminating this funding harms our public safety by leaving our communities more vulnerable to violence and extremism. I also would highlight that the closing of the countering weapons of mass destruction office would increase the likelihood of dangerous attacks established in 2018 on a bipartisan basis.
▶ 1:12:06This office leads the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to detect and deter chemical, biological, rad, radiological, and nuclear threats. Even if we transfer its funds across the Department of Homeland Security, getting rid of the office's personnel and expertise could cost us essential tools and protect our national security.
▶ 1:12:25Further, I believe that this bill further weakens our cyber security and infrastructure security at the time of rising threats against government, American businesses, schools, and state and local governments. Since the beginning of this year, the cyber security and infrastructure security agency has lost nearly onethird of its staff, and its election security operations have been gutted.
▶ 1:12:48I regret that the refusal to invest in the expertise and resources needed to protect our critical infrastructure, including our election infrastructure, jeopardizes our national security and leaves Americans more open to attacks from foreign adversaries.
▶ 1:13:03In conclusion, I support the intention of the Homeland Security Appropriation Measures to prioritize helping our communities and our nation respond to everchanging threats, whether those threats come from natural disasters and emergencies, violent extremists, or attacks on our physical and cyber infrastructure. And unfortunately, I regret that this bill severely undercuts these priorities. I thank the chairman and the time, and I look forward to debate on this issue. I yield back. Thank the gentleman for his comments.
▶ 1:13:33Are there other members wishing to make general comments about the bill? Seeing no other members wishing to make opening remarks, I'd like to recognize Chairman Ammedday to offer a manager's Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I thank the gentle lady from Illinois and her staff and mine for working on the manager's amendment in the spirit of cooperation.
▶ 1:13:57The amendment makes technical edits to the bill uh and report and adds several new uh sections of report language requested by committee members on both sides of the aisle. This amendment also includes an additional $30 million for the nonprofit security grant program at a time of rising threats to houses of worship and increasing anti-semitism. We want to ensure that communities at risk have the means to protect themselves.
▶ 1:14:22I might also add that we had money in in the Israel supplement that was about a year ago. About half of that is out. There is still money in that account. So, it's not like the cupboard is bare and we're trying to backfill it. I would also remind members that if this amount gets overs subscribed that this committee also has the jurisdiction at any time to return to this issue just like we did in the Israel supplemental. Um, and guess what? I yield back.
▶ 1:14:54Your popularity is going up by the minute. Uh, gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood, is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this manager's amendment, and I'm so proud of the priorities we were able to secure in it. My amendment requiring Customs and Border Protection to ensure it has a policy to uh facilitate the safe treatment of pregnant, postpartum, and nursing people in its custody.
▶ 1:15:18my amendment ensuring that former members of the armed services are included in data collected by the Office of Homeland Security Statistics and my amendment directing the department to lift the freeze on hiring mental health providers for the United States Secret Service. This manager's amendment also includes language I worked on to help the Coast Guard train physicians and hopefully other medical providers and to expand the Coast Guard's legal and oversight capacity to respond to sexual assault and sexual harassment.
▶ 1:15:46In addition, it includes language that Congresswoman Watson Coleman and I worked on together to protect the public's right to record immigration enforcement actions in public spaces. Lastly, this amendment includes language I wrote to ensure that none of the funds in this bill may be used in violation of the first, fourth, fifth, or sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. These are some of the most basic fundamental rights that define us as Americans.
▶ 1:16:14freedom of speech and assembly, the right to due process, protection against unreasonable searches, and access to a fair trial. We should not need to reaffirm them today. But we cannot accept selective enforcement of the Constitution. And as Congress, we have a responsibility to provide the essential checks and balances that preserve those rights.
▶ 1:16:38These provisions are essential improvements that strengthen this bill's integrity, safeguard our constitution and civil liberties and support the people on the front lines of our homeland security mission. I am proud of the priorities we were able to secure together and I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? Gentleman from Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:17:06I um I also want to thank uh the chairman of the committee, the ranking member uh for adding one of this uh amendments that is so important to me. I uh live there at the border where I get to talk to a lot of border patrol agents, a lot of border patrol chiefs all the way to the CBP commissioners and secretary's homeland. And one of the problems we've had is that for years we've added enough money to hire 22,000 Border Patrol agents. But there's a problem with the hiring process.
▶ 1:17:34uh and that has to do with the polygraph exam. And what we're asking here is we're not waving the polygraph exam. Uh what we're doing is we're streamlining where we're giving the CPP commissioner the ability to look at people that have got clear backgrounds as veterans. Clear backgrounds that that is that they hold a active top secret clearance or or who have completed a current single scope background investigation.
▶ 1:18:02And this is important because even if they feel that they should even somebody has a top secret and they they can still administer the uh the polygraph exam. This is something that we need to do because otherwise we can keep adding monies and monies and still be at 22,000 men and women border patrol and still be short uh by thousands of people. So um I want to thank the uh chairman.
▶ 1:18:25I know some of us have been talking about this for a long time, but I think this is a balanced approach to streamline the hiring process and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for this. Thank you. I yield back. Thank gentlemen. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Sisamman, he's recognized to comment on the manager's amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I rise in support of the madress amendment. Uh, I was glad to work with you, Mr.
▶ 1:18:51chairman and your team to get a 30 mill $30 million increase included in the amendment for the nonprofit security grant. Uh in FY 2024, organizations located in my district in Arizona received over 1.3 million in NSGP funding. These grants continue to make a real difference on the ground, helping houses of worship and other nonprofit institutions bolster their security in the face of rising threats.
▶ 1:19:17the need for increased funding and is especially clear after the recent incident in Colorado which serves as a stark reminder that there are that that the threat environment for the religious and particularly the Jewish community remains very high. Thank you again for working with me on this increase and my colleagues as well. I know that many others were involved in this this effort. So with that I yield back. Thank you sir. Thank the gentleman. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment?
▶ 1:19:46Seeing none, I recognize Chairman Ammedday for one minute to close. I recommend your bipartisan nationwide support. I yield back. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor say I. All those post say no. The opinion of the chair of the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted. I now recognize Chairman Ammedday to offer a Republican onblock amendment.
▶ 1:20:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment before us codifies necessary changes in our asylum and credible fear processes. While the administration has made incredible strides in closing our borders, these changes are critical to ensuring we don't have a repeat of rampant illegal immigration in the future. These provisions are necessary to allow us to maintain the progress we've seen in the past six months. Additionally, last year, Mr.
▶ 1:20:42Gonzalez asked ICE for a full accounting of the number of aliens on the non-detained docket who had criminal convictions in America. The response was shocking. ICE noted that more than 600,000 aliens present in the United States had current or pending criminal convictions. ICE must prioritize their resources to arrest, detain, and deport those who have harmed or intend to harm our fellow citizens. This amendment ensures ICE does exactly that. I yield back.
▶ 1:21:14Thank the gentleman. The gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood, is recognized. I rise in opposition to the amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Do any other amendments seek recogn members seek recognition to speak on the onblock amendment? Gentleman from Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the Republican Endlock amendment, which includes my amendment to restore integrity and common sense to our asylum process.
▶ 1:21:44Under current law, an alien arriving at our southern border can claim fear of persecution and be released into the United States based on a significant possibility standard. That bar is simply too low. This weak standard gave the Biden Harris administration cover to let 8 million illegal aliens flood into the country, most of whom will never meet the criteria for asylum, but will be here anyway. This amendment corrects that.
▶ 1:22:07It aligns credible fear determinations with a more appropriate threshold, more likely than not, that the aliens claims are true and that they would ultimately qualify for asylum. This language mirrors section 102 of the Secure Border Act, which this house passed last Congress. Let me be clear. President Trump's return to office has helped reestablish order at the border. If we want to ensure that the floodgates stay closed, we must stop allowing our asylum laws to be exploited by bad actors.
▶ 1:22:36This amendment strengthens the standard, restores credibility to the asylum system, and supports the officers on the front lines of our border crisis. Additionally, this Republican endlock includes another provision that I offered to prevent asylum shopping and uphold the principle that asylum is intended for protection, not for personal preference. International law, including the UN's own guidelines, states that asylum seekers should not be returned to danger. But it does not say that they have a right to choose the wealthiest country as their destination.
▶ 1:23:07If someone is truly fleeing persecution, they should seek protection in the first safe country that they enter, not ignore multiple safe nations just to get to the United States. This amendment ensures that those who transit through another country must first apply for asylum there, just as section 101 of the Secure the Border Act requires. The vast majority of border crossers today are not fleeing danger. They are exploiting loopholes. This is about fairness.
▶ 1:23:34It's about ensuring our asylum system serves those in true need, not those coached by cartels on how to game the system. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help restore sanity to our immigration laws and I yield back. Thank the gentleman for his amend his comments. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the onblock Seeing none, I recognize chairman Amade for one minute to close.
▶ 1:24:02urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted. Before we proceed, let me uh just make a quick announcement. I don't know if this is good news or bad news, but the brief on Iran has been postponed. So, we'll be able to stay here and work.
▶ 1:24:31I know you're all excited about that. I now recognize Dr. Harris to offer an onblanc bipartisan amendment. Dr. Harris not here. I'm sorry. He must uh have left for the moment.
▶ 1:25:00So, we'll set that aside and move on. Oh, here here he comes. We just recognizing you for your amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an amen amendment at the desk and uh ask unanimous consent to wave. Without objection, the reading of the amendments dispensed with and Dr. Harris is recognized to present his amendment. Thank you very much. Um M Mr.
▶ 1:25:27Chairman, what this amendment uh does, it actually combines several uh several proposed amendments. It's a uh an amendment that uh on issues that we've dealt with before in the committee. Uh one of the uh parts of it exempts the H2B workers that received visas in the past five fiscal years from the statutory cap. So, this removes the H2B employers who are what are called certified employers. That is they've uh they've followed the rules.
▶ 1:25:54They're they're they're they're certified by the by the department as uh being an H2B employer. Uh this removes the uncertainty they face every year with the lottery uh the lottery system which uh picks winners and losers. So what it does says you're a certified employer, you can have the uh same number of employees. Uh you can uh have the same number of H2B workers in a given year that you've had in the past five fiscal years. Uh it also incorporates um Mr.
▶ 1:26:20new houses proposals from the past that expand H2A temporary agriculture worker visa seasonality. It uh includes an amendment prohibits funding to modernize the H2 program requirements, oversightes, and workers protection rules just to make it easier to uh find H2 uh workers. And it uh has an a the last part of it is uh one by Mr. Edwards and Molinar that allows the admission of temporary circus and carnival workers under the P visa system.
▶ 1:26:49So, what it does, it takes a lot of the temporary worker uh issues that that we've had uh and deals with them. Uh why do we need to do this now? Because, you know, as the administration um attempts to remove people who are here illegally, uh illegal immigrants, it would uh allow some of those positions to be to functionally be replaced by people who are here under temporary work visas. Not to be confused with illegal immigration, these temporary work visas.
▶ 1:27:17and uh provide some certainty to employers uh who again in all these programs they have to uh attempt to seek American employers employees first. They have to pay the wages that you would pay to an American employee and if you can't find one then you'd be eligible to have this temporary foreign worker here.
▶ 1:27:37I think it's the the right time to make uh to make these uh definitive changes to those temporary worker programs uh to aid our our employers who again are going through some of whom go through a difficult time because of the removal of uh of the some of the millions of people admitted uh in the last four years and who are being who are being removed. So with that I would uh urge support of the end block amendment. Thank the gentleman.
▶ 1:28:06Uh, Chairman Ammedday is recognized to address the Harrison block amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and I thank him for his willingness to include Mr. New Houses and Mr. Edward's position in his bipartisan inblock amendment. I support the general ideas behind some of these amendments in the inblock and I know that we take similar amendments every year on a bipartisan basis. I'm not suggesting that we do anything else.
▶ 1:28:34I do recommend we approve his his amendment. However, changes to visa policy are just that. Policy changes that should be worked with the with chairman Jordan and the authorizing committee. This committee's jurisdiction over such policy changes, especially ones that change the immigration nationality act, is probably not present. But if we don't support these to drive the conversation with the folks in the policy area, then what the heck?
▶ 1:29:02And so while I have the utmost respect for the chairman of the judiciary committee, um it's time that they come out of the weeds and weigh in on this so that we have to stop tiptoeing around the edges of what our jurisdiction is. I encourage your bipartisan nationwide Thank gentlemen. Gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood is recognized to address the Harris on block amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:29:30This amendment requires an expansion of the H2B visa cap based on overall demand in the last 5 years. It expands the H2A agricultural work visa by broadening the definition of agricultural labor. It prohibits funding to modernize H2 program requirements oversight and worker protections rule and it expands the use of P visas to circus carnival workers. I understand that each of our districts may have unique needs as it relates to these various programs covered by this bipartisan unblock amendment.
▶ 1:29:58Um, and I appreciate our colleagues working together across the aisle to offer it. I plan to support the amendment and I yield back. Thanks, gentle lady. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the onblock amendment? Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, in western North Carolina, our local businesses, farms, and community traditions don't just define our economy, they define who we are.
▶ 1:30:28They're familyrun, hardworking, and deeply rooted in the values of self-reliance and service. But these pillars of our district are being threatened not by regulation or global markets, but by something as simple and fixable as labor certainty. That's why this visa onblanc is so important.
▶ 1:30:51This onblanc is a series of thoughtful, narrowly tailored amendments that offer practical solutions to support American workers and small businesses without expanding immigration, all while strengthening our rural way of life. Let's start with Congressman Harris's Certified Seasonal Employers Amendment, which addresses a growing crisis for small seasonal employers.
▶ 1:31:20These are businesses that follow every rule. They hire American workers first, paying prevailing wages and meet every federal requirement. But due to overwhelming demand and outdated visa lottery system, many are being shut out of the H2B program year after year. This amendment gives a lifeline to those who've demonstrated five consecutive years of full compliance by guaranteeing a set number of returning visas.
▶ 1:31:50This doesn't just help those employers, it helps every other small business that faces labor uncertainty because it's trying to use the overprescribed H2B program and it supports their communities. These are people who sponsor little league teams, serve on local boards, and keep our small towns alive. We owe it to them to reward reliability and integrity with a stable, predictable process.
▶ 1:32:18Congressman New Houses's H2A seasonality amendment is equally important. This is a vital fix for agriculture producers. In NC11, farming means high value specialty crops including apples, tomatoes, vegetables, and your Christmas tree. These crops don't grow on the same schedule. And yet, our visa rules treat them as if they do.
▶ 1:32:43Right now, when the apple harvest ends in Henderson County, those visa workers must leave, even if nearby growers still need them to plant or harvest. That makes zero sense. This amendment gives the agriculture industry the flexibility needed to retain skilled and legal seasonal laborers across crop cycles and across employers for up to 12 months. It's not an expansion of the program.
▶ 1:33:10It's just a smarter use of the workers that we already have. Lastly, we need to address a unique but equally critical workforce need faced by our county fairs, agricultural shows, and festivals. These are more than events. They're cornerstones of our communities supporting FFA chapters, 4 age clubs, and local charities.
▶ 1:33:35But the carnivals and mobile entertainment companies that make these possible are struggling with an unsustainable labor shortage. That's why I'm leading an amendment to transition approximately 10,000 carnival workers from the overstretched H2B program into the more appropriate P visa category.
▶ 1:33:55Originally designed for traveling performers and entertainment professionals, this simple fix preserves a cherished part of our all-American culture while freeing up thousands of H2B slots for other employers, including farmers, landscapers, and foresters, each of which are also desperate for Together, these amendments deliver targeted, conservative solutions that reflect the needs and values of western North Carolina.
▶ 1:34:26They protect local jobs, reward good actors, and help stabilize the seasonal workforce that we so desperately need. I urge the adoption of this onblock amendment, and I yield Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is recognized to address the onblock amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this bipartisan unblock amendment while I continue to oppose the underlying bill.
▶ 1:34:56The amendment would help provide more workforce certainty to seasonal employees and agricultural producers and preserve markets for consumers. Right now, America's farmers and foresters are having a hard time getting the workers they need to bring their goods to market. Our food supply chain is a matter of national security and forestry products are essential in every American household, whether it be wood, paper, or pulp.
▶ 1:35:25Adoption of the amendment would allow for yearround H2A workers, as well as cut red tape and honorous reporting requirements for employers who have followed the rules and who demonstrate a strong need for temporary foreign workers. I support this amendment to help bring more certainty to America's seasonal employers and agricultural producers and in turn to American consumers.
▶ 1:35:50Passage of the amendment, however, will not be enough to overcome my opposition to the underlying bill. But I think it's a good amendment. I think it's good for American agriculture and good for American consumers. I thank you. And with that, I yield back. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Quay is recognized for his remarks on the alblock amendment. Mr.
▶ 1:36:13Chairman, thank you so much and uh again to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member and the co-sponsors and the lead person uh Dr. Harris and the other members that are co-sponsors and Shelley also I know you and I have been talking about this for a long time.
▶ 1:36:30Look, members, every single member in this room knows that either you know somebody that is affected by the two H2B, H2A or the the P visas for the circus or carnival. Everybody in this room, you know, it does as we are seeing our economy, there are certain jobs that Americans don't want to do. And I I'll say first, give those jobs to the Americans, any American worker that wants to do that.
▶ 1:36:58But if we can't find that, then we got to work with the H2B, uh, and the P visas for the circus and carnival workers. Uh, certainly, uh, the H2B amendment. Uh, it's a bipartisan, uh, support that, uh, that works on the past five years. Uh, as it was mentioned on the statutory, we're not expanding this. We're using this in a very smart way, efficient way to address the needs that we have.
▶ 1:37:26So certainly the ability to hire H2B visas when workers American workers are not available makes sense. Uh and again it's to make sure that we address because most of this are small hardworking individuals uh uh um uh businesses that we need to address.
▶ 1:37:46So H2B uh seasonal businesses play a very significant role in our nation's economy and we need to make sure uh that we help them so they can continue contributing uh to our economy. Uh and again the H2A amendment uh the temporary agriculture worker to make sure that we address that. Uh and I know we're going to go with another amendment that I think Mr. Valer is going to offer and amend the parole for the agriculture.
▶ 1:38:15I support that also. Uh but again, we know in the agriculture area, we need workers there. My father, my mother were uh workers in the A and it's hard. You know, anybody that wants to go out there and work in the in the hut fields, it's very very very very hard. And again, if you don't have an American worker, you got to find somebody that can do this. So, this is again uh important.
▶ 1:38:39And finally uh the P visa um the the temporary uh circus and carnival workers you know again name any place of the country and you will have that San Antonio I've seen that Loredo WBCA we've seen that name any place and you will see the circus or the carnival workers and and we got to help those. So again, give those jobs to Americans, but some of those jobs are hard.
▶ 1:39:07And if we can, we got to find uh this solution. So uh to all the co-sponsors of this bipartisan folks uh that have been working on this for many years, uh uh Mr. Chairman, I ask that we support this bipartisan amendment. Thank the gentleman. Now recognize a gentleman from Washington, Mr. New House, for his remarks on the onblock amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to appreciate the hard work of the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr.
▶ 1:39:35Amade, as well as the ranking member. I also want to point out the hard work that Dr. Harris has been providing in this effort to to uh truly make some important changes in our im immigrant work visa programs. So, thank you very much for that. And this, as you have heard from several speakers, these are bipartisan efforts.
▶ 1:39:56Many people recognize the importance of having an immigrant workforce, but I want to underscore we want a legal immigrant workforce and these changes work towards that end. So this onblock includes two important provisions that I have proposed. I'll just briefly talk about those.
▶ 1:40:14The first one clarifies the initial statutory intent to allow admission of foreign workers for temporary or seasonal work based upon the terms of the job offer so long as the duration of that job offer meets the current regulatory definitions of temporary or seasonal which is less than one year.
▶ 1:40:36Now, those of you that have been here for a couple of years may notice that this is a a small change from language that I've offered in previous years. This language is not as comprehensive in that it does not change the underlying statute to elimmit entirely the need for the agricultural job to be temporary or seasonal which has unfortunately previously encountered some opposition at the rules committee with one recent exception.
▶ 1:41:07Nevertheless, the proposed language to clarify what it's already on the books would go a long ways in addressing labor needs in all of agriculture by allowing the farmer to set the terms of the job offer, enabling the worker to maintain non-immigrant status and circular migration so long as the duration of the job does not exceed the duration of temporary or seasonal as defined in the regulations. If that makes sense.
▶ 1:41:38Um, so we're not changing law. We're just changing the ability of the the farmer that offers the employment that allow him to make sure that or him or her that the job follows the definition of current law. New House number two would block new regulatory requirements that the previous administration finalized as literally as they were packing up their offices late in December of 2024.
▶ 1:42:06and it became effective merely 3 days before the um inauguration of President Trump. So in this lastminute effort, DHS finalized new regulatory requirements that expanded its authority over labor law, establish establishing policies that allow H2A workers to roam around the country without a valid new contract in place and essentially creating strict liability for growers
▶ 1:42:36based on the actions of third parties in a foreign country. All of which would jeopardize the entire H2A program which is essential to so many farms uh in order to stay in business. So I would encourage my colleagues to work with this bipartisan team to build a strong legal workforce and encourage all members to support this amendment.
▶ 1:43:02And just just a small comment on the on the observations of chairman Ammedday. I've I've heard chairman Cole say many times, we don't we don't authorize in the appropriations committee. We appropriate.
▶ 1:43:17But I would agree that is it very important for us to engage in this important debate and conversation um to build support and momentum so that the authorizing committees in this particular case the judiciary committee uh can feel that urgency and that momentum so that we can actually make important changes to policy and to law.
▶ 1:43:42Uh, and I think this is an important step for us to do as the appropriation committee to weigh in on weigh in on this important topic. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge support and I yield back. Thank the gentleman. I think I actually quoted Chairman Simpson who once told me we don't authorize on an appropriation bill until we do. That I want to recognize my good friend, the gentle lady from Ohio for any remarks she has on the onblock amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:44:12And I just have a clarification because as we began discussing this amendment, uh there was reference made to rural areas that uh have seasonal needs for uh harvesting and so forth. Um but then it morphed a little bit into circuses and carnivals. And I wanted to get some clarification on what is included because I represent a very large amusement park called uh Cedar Fair, but it only operates threequarters of the year or less.
▶ 1:44:41uh how do you look upon parks such as uh Disney World or Kings Island? Uh there are different uh water parks in other parts of the country, many of which are seasonal. How do you define You started out talking about circuses and carnivals. Is there a definition of that? Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized to an answer the gentle lady's question. Yes. Thanks. Thanks for the question.
▶ 1:45:12Uh there are different types of P visas. There are different there are different categories. Uh and depending on uh the seasonality if if if you will would be the uh uh what the applicant would uh would would request. I think there's like six different uh variations of a uh of a P visa. So it would not necessarily preclude these organizations these business? Oh, not not necessarily.
▶ 1:45:40I would view those uh while I'm not an attorney, I would view those as uh entertainers inside of a a bigger Thank you. And I yield back. Gentle lady from Maine, Miss Ping, recognized for her comments on the onblock amendment. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:46:03I just want to thank uh my colleagues who have been working on some of these H2B related issues um and make a few remarks about how they impact in Maine. Um first I just want to say this is the Homeland Appropriations Committee and we will have a lot of debate today related to immigration issues and in my opinion most of them go back to the fact that this Congress has been unwilling during the period of time I've been here to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Let's just get that done.
▶ 1:46:31We are going to have endless debate today and it is all related to the fact that we don't straighten out the situation that goes on in our country. The need for workers, the need to make sure that we have legal processes for people and the need to make sure that farmers and hospitality uh uh industry and everyone else has all the people they need to do the job. Uh I also want to concur.
▶ 1:46:52We we shouldn't be authorizing on an appropriating committee, but we do when we do and uh we all use it when we can because things like this are so vital and this amendment comes up every year and I'm always pleased to work with my colleague Mr. Harris and so many others, Mr. Quayar who uh also have these concerns uh Dutch who used to be on the committee. If you have any kind of a seasonal industry, you know what we're talking about and this one also includes some agriculture which is very much the same. So, uh, I remind you all that I represent Maine.
▶ 1:47:22This is our summer season. I hope you're all planning your August vacations, your opportunity to eat some lobster, have some wild blueberries, spend a little time on the ocean, and uh, see our wonderful state. If you want, you can come in the winter when we also have a seasonal industry of skiing and winter sport. So, we'd love to have you either time. Tourism is our largest industry, and while we're very proud of our agriculture, fishing, manufacturing, the other things we do, we depend on tourism.
▶ 1:47:48And like so many what like so many other states uh we don't have enough people to do the jobs. Now it's a common summer job for kids. All my kids worked in the seasonal industry. I've worked in the seasonal industry. We've owned businesses in the seasonal industry. And the challenge is while people say, "Oh, what a great summer job for kids." By the time it gets to August, they're back to school. They're back to sports. Uh you can't finish out the season.
▶ 1:48:14And we are thrilled that our tourists stay through October or come in even early November now. Uh but we don't have enough people to do the work. And I can list countless employers who come to visit me every year and say, "What's going to be the situation? How many workers will I be able to get the number of people that I need?" I have examples of a family here um who had a family-owned seafood restaurant for 17 years. They've been able to run their uh business, support local fishermen because they have H2B workers.
▶ 1:48:43uh motel um and when they don't have enough people, they close down a wing. They can't be open for the season that they want because they don't have enough people. So without these uh visas that are so necessary without these kinds of amendments that we have to sponsor usually every year uh because we're always at odds with the system um we can't do it. So I just uh want to support all the people who work on this.
▶ 1:49:06But I want to encourage us all to find an ultimate solution so that we're not here every year authorizing on this committee and uh also dealing with a hodgepodge solution to immigration reform. Uh with that, I'd love to yield the rest of my time to Mr. Quayar for his thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify something uh to Miss Capture uh on the circus uh part of it.
▶ 1:49:31If you look at the uh section deal with a PE, it deals with mobile uh entertainment provider which means a carnival or circus that travels around the United States on a temporary basis or seasonal worker uh etc. So there is a definition there for the circus worker. So I just wanted you asked for a definition and if you look at the amendment uh there is a definition that with that I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you Miss Pingry. Thank the gentleman.
▶ 1:49:59gentle lady from Texas, Miss Escobar is recognized for her comments on the onblock amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the ranking member, and thanks to Chairman Ammedday and ranking member Underwood for um their collegiality on this subcommittee. I also want to add my support to this, but really wanted to speak to the overall effort and in a way echoing um what Miss Pingry just mentioned.
▶ 1:50:30It's heartening when we are able to work together in a bipartisan way on an issue that has become one of the most toxic issues in America. And I wish we could take a look at the overall issue instead of just the narrow focus on agriculture. I completely agree. I mean, we've got to put food on the table. We need to support our farmers.
▶ 1:50:59But if you like me have been visited by CEOs and companies across the country, all of the various sectors that need workers, if you like me have looked at our census numbers and see that families are not having babies at the same rate that families used to, I mean, my parents had 12 siblings each. I don't know many of us who are having 12 kids anymore.
▶ 1:51:29At the same time, we're getting older and if we want to remain a competitive nation, we need immigration reform. And obviously, we're not here to do immigration reform. We're the appropriations committee. I can tell you having come from the judiciary we are pretty far from doing immigration reform uh in any meaningful way. And that has to change.
▶ 1:51:57And it has to change with these bipartisan conversations with the ability for us to work across the aisle and come up with common sense I can tell you what doesn't work. Demonizing people doesn't work. Making people fear others doesn't work.
▶ 1:52:20What we're seeing today, these quotas of 3,000 apprehensions per day, an arbitrary quota determined by Steven Miller, and seeing people hardworking immigrants being chased in agricultural fields, overcrowded detention facilities through reconciliation, putting all of that on steroids, using DoD funding to put it even more on We all need
▶ 1:52:50to work together on this issue. If we can come up with narrow targeted solutions for agriculture, that means we can do this in a broader way.
▶ 1:53:04So, I rise to urge my colleagues, especially in this markup today, for us to hear one another, not demonize one another, and not demonize the people that this bill will impact. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thanks, Dr. Oh, excuse me.
▶ 1:53:29Are there any other members who wish to address the onblock Seeing none, before I turn to Dr. Harris uh to close, uh I feel incumbent to say as a former chairman of the rules committee, those of you that have an interest in this need to be talking to the committee of jurisdiction, judiciary, and need to be talking to the rules committee because they do have the ability to come in and challenge this particular measure. So, if you have an interest, don't think we can just solve it here.
▶ 1:53:59you've got to go talk to the folks on judiciary and particularly on the rules committee. So, just a piece of free advice. With that, I yield to Dr. Harris, one minute to close. Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we certainly will be discussing this before this comes before the whole body.
▶ 1:54:16And uh as the uh as the chairman of the subcommittee uh indicates uh this is to this is to make sure this discussion uh occurs and that some movement forward is made because we're at a critical juncture with our uh with our uh workers in the country. And and again as as we begin the process of returning some workers to their homeland, we're going to need some workers to come in under a strictly monitored system. And that's what this amendment does. Uh, so I urge a yes vote.
▶ 1:54:49Questions on the amendment? All those in favor say I. All those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted. Gentleman from California, Mr. Valadeo is recognized for an amendment. Mr.
▶ 1:55:13Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, valido number one, and uh I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment. Thank you, chairman, and I know we've had a dialogue on this for a while. Um, but one more round. I think it's important because it's such an important topic for us. Uh, I'm in full support of the administration's policies to secure our borders, improve the integrity of our immigration system, and remove dangerous criminals.
▶ 1:55:42However, the fact remains that over the last 25 years, a significant number of undocumented immigrants in the United States have been working in our fields and food processing facilities and play an essential role in bringing food to our Agriculture is a $50 billion industry in California alone and the backbone of my local economy. Central Valley produces over 300 specialty crops and is the largest provider of fresh fruits and vegetables for the nation. So, I understand the issue firsthand.
▶ 1:56:11For decades, Congress has been unable to provide a long-term fix for our immigration system, and our inability to address this situation has led to a crisis for the agriculture industry. I've consistently heard from producers across the country already struggling with the lack of a reliable workforce, that any additional strain will lead to crops rotting the field and empty shelves at the grocery store. Without protections for the current agriculture workforce, we are putting our food security and our economic stability of our rural communities at risk.
▶ 1:56:41My amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise existing authority to provide temporary parole in place and work authority for undocumented individuals currently working in the agriculture sector. This temporary solution would help stabilize our agriculture workforce, providing provide essential protections for farm workers and offer much needed security certainty for producers as Congress continues working toward a permanent solution.
▶ 1:57:09I want to thank the chairman and the committee for the time to address this critical issue impacting our farmers, ranchers, and producers across the country. And I heard a lot of dialogue in the room and I know there's a lot of support uh for some sort of solution and I really hope that we get to that point. But with this amendment, I'm going to withdraw it and uh I yield Thank the gentleman. Uh the gentle lady from Connecticut, the ranking member of the full committee, Miss Dolores, recognized for the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:57:39Uh, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. This amendment uh this amendment restores the building resilient infrastructure and communities program or brick, an incredibly popular and effective tool for state and local governments to help prevent the very damage and destruction FEMA responds
▶ 1:58:09to after disasters strike. And the president is um not labor focused on the cost of living crisis or on protecting families from disasters. He is actually attacking programs created by the Congress to help like brick which helps protect our communities from future damage and prevents uh families from losing everything to a storm, to floods, and to fires in the first place.
▶ 1:58:36It's hard to call this program created in President Trump's first term wasteful when research has shown mitigation efforts like brick save a minimum of $6 for every dollar invested and that savings more than doubles when including economic relief. Let us look at some examples of how 2023 brick awards are preventing future damage, saving taxpayer money.
▶ 1:59:05In central Louisiana, a brick-funded drainage project was a project was awarded to reduce flood risk by widening a creek and using infrastructure features to improve water flow, lowering 10-year flood levels by up to 5 in across 500 acres benefiting 119 structures, including 106 homes.
▶ 1:59:27In Edinburg, Texas, brick funds were awarded to help build a regional storm water detention facility and ditch extension reduce to reduce the depth of flooding and protect 90 structures from extreme precipitation events.
▶ 1:59:43And in Columbus, Nebraska, brick funds were awarded to help reduce the risk of long-term power outages that could cause heat loss in homes during cold weather storms, including rebuilding three and a half miles of distribution circuit and building a new 24 mile underbuild distribution line. These are states and communities that depend on my colleagues across the aisle to advocate for their needs.
▶ 2:00:12In fact, many of my Republican colleagues here today on this subcommittee pleaded with the secretary to restore the building resilient infrastructure and communities program because they know how important this initiative is to their states.
▶ 2:00:28Make no mistake, from housing to education to health care to disaster recovery, not one of our states can afford to take on the burden of everything this administration seeks to shift upon them. Everyone in this room knows that these cuts are not just numbers on a page and they are not only felt in Washington DC. They affect all of our constituents.
▶ 2:00:53In the last year, Connecticut has been devastated by wildfires, historic flooding, and damaging storms. In my district alone, the cancellation of this program has jeopardized nearly $25 million that New Haven was awarded to protect our downtown against damage from flooding as we face increasingly serious It's it's not right that my constituents or other constituents are left out on their own to fend off increasing
▶ 2:01:24natural disasters and we should we we should be opposed to that. We have to restore this funding and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Uh the chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Amiday is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the brick program was established by Congress and signed into law by President with bipartisan support during his first term.
▶ 2:01:54It was originally intended to improve disaster mitigation efforts and decrease the costs associated with federal disaster relief. However, the last administration shifted the program outside its intended scope to incorporate climate change and equity based priorities. I understand the new administration's efforts to review past brick awards to ensure they're legitimate. However, I take issue with the secretary directing FEMA to unilaterally cancel the program.
▶ 2:02:26I would prefer the department identify and implement necessary reforms without foregoing investments critical to communities across the country to prepare for and recover from natural disasters. While the gentle lady's amendment requires the administration to administer the brick program, it doesn't address the waste and abuse scene under the Biden administration. Therefore, I will be offering a secondderee amendment to restore the program to its intended scope. I yield back.
▶ 2:02:58Gentle lady from Illinois is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The brick program directly supports strengthening communities across all 50 states in US territories by improving disaster mitigation ahead of devastating weather events. The Trump administration cancelled this program earlier this year. And however, Miss Deloro's amendment would reverse that action.
▶ 2:03:22I think both sides of the aisle can agree on how beneficial this program is to the long-term investment in our communities, especially for those of us who have faced a disaster. If you want to continue to use taxpayer money to pay for multiple reconstruction of the same destru of the same destruction as the price to build only goes up, then go ahead and vote no on this amendment.
▶ 2:03:42But if you want to use taxpayer money wisely and help districts across the country properly prepare for future de devastation and avoid multiple rebuilds, then this should be an easy yes vote. In line with the chairman of the full committee's views that this program is essential for proper preparation and can lead to saving taxpayer money. As he said, this isn't a partisan issue. It's one that concerns states regardless of politics. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. amendment and reject the secondary amendment.
▶ 2:04:11I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Gentle lady from Florida, Miss Washerman Schultz, recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the ranking members amendment which would reinstate the building resilient infrastructure and communities program also known as brick. The brick program is one of the most effect cost-effective tools in our toolbox to assist state and local governments with resources before a disaster strikes.
▶ 2:04:42This program was created in a bipartisan fashion through the disaster recovery reform act of 2018. At the time, both parties recognized a fundamental truth. The best way to protect lives and save taxpayer dollars is to prepare before disaster strikes, not just respond afterwards. And that has worked. For every dollar we invest in pre- disaster mitigation, we save$6 to13 dollars in avoided damage, disaster response, and economic disruption. That's not a partisan talking point.
▶ 2:05:10That's the data from the National Institute of Building Sciences and the US Chamber of Commerce. You you might say the program is inefficient or duplicative. Let me tell you what's inefficient. Paying to rebuild the school three times because we never invested in floodproofing it the first time. Let me tell you what's duplicative. spending billions on emergency aid while gutting the programs that would have made that aid unnecessary. The hurricanes that devastated Florida in recent years from Helen, Milton, Ian to Michael, they weren't one-offs. They're our new normal.
▶ 2:05:40And cancelling brick in the face of that reality is not just misguided, it's reckless. It will leave our coastal towns, our rural communities, our seniors, our children more vulnerable when the next storm hits. And we all know it will. These grants fund storm water systems in floodprone towns. They fund fire breaks in wild wildfire zones. They fund living shorelines and wetland restoration which not only buffer storm surge but also prever preserve our ecosystems and our way of life. Communities desperately need these grants.
▶ 2:06:09Demand for brick funding has outstripped the available dollars 5 to one. And now we tell these communities after years of work after being selected for awards after they planned their futures around these very funds, never mind. That is just bad government. and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Thank you, gentle lady. Gentle lady from Maine, Miss Penguish, recognized to address the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:06:36I want to thank the ranking member for her uh amendment and speak in strong support of the brick program. Um, as you've heard my colleagues say, this is a thoughtful uh cost-effective program uh which was eliminated one day in April, leaving communities and individuals uh sort of out in the cold with no understanding of where they were going to go to get the funding for their work. Maine, like many states, has been hit by some very serious storms. Uh if you haven't had one in your state, one is coming soon.
▶ 2:07:06But most of you have experienced some level of disaster that your state and local government cannot afford. FEMA comes in and helps out. And as you've heard, one of the most important things is not doing everything exactly the same way you did the last time. So, we just spend the same money over and over and over again to rebuild. That is an efficient way to use government funding and it's a good way to plan and think into the future. And that was the idea of the brick program to help communities to be more resilient to face the future.
▶ 2:07:34Now, Maine had two back-to-back storms two years ago in January which devastated much of our working waterfront. About 50% of our warves and coastal communities had some level of damage and some of it was gone completely. These were fishing warves that belonged to families for a long time. These were breakwaters and warfs that belong to communities. These were extremely expensive things to repair. Many of these communities over time have qualified for brick grants.
▶ 2:08:00And the value of them is it allows the community to think ahead and say, "What's going to happen when the next storm hits? Why should we build this somewhat differently? What kind of way can we restructure our waterfront or our wararf? Uh that is vital to our community for transportation, for economic uses, for our commercial fishermanmen, for our recreational boers. The only way you can get it in and out in many communities is by water. And you have to rebuild them in a way that withstands what's going to happen in the future. That's what being resilient is.
▶ 2:08:30And that's what these grants are. Now, one of the arguments the administration made was this was to woke. We were talking about climate change and that's a misuse of the program. Well, whether or not you want to believe that climate change exists, sea level rise is happening and it's happening in all of our coastal communities. These storm surges that come with our winter storms now are so severe that one building in my town was flooded up to people's waist. People had never seen flooding like this that we had two years ago.
▶ 2:08:59And the building was almost washed away after being there for more than a hundred years. Well, if a community like mine or other coastal communities doesn't plan ahead and try to be more resilient and whether you call it climate change or you call it sea level rise or extreme source surge or extreme weather, it doesn't matter. It's what we're going to face in the future. And that's what resilience is. That's what thinking into the future is.
▶ 2:09:23And if this government can't um gert itself to think into the future and spend the taxpayers's dollars in such a way to make sure we're planning for that, then we are truly waste, fraud, and abuse right here in this committee. We are wasting the our taxpayer dollars. So, this has been a wonderful program. It was shocking to our communities when they got that call in April. Nobody ever expected a FEMA grant to suddenly be dropped overnight.
▶ 2:09:48uh grants that people had already been doing the planning and having meetings and thinking ahead uh were suddenly disappeared and there aren't a lot of other sources for this money. So I urge the committee to put this back. I urge this funding to be reinstated and I urge us all to spend the taxpayer dollars a little more wisely and I yield back. Thanks gentle lady. Does anybody else wish to address the amendment? Seeing none, there is at the desk an amendment in the second degree to the amendment.
▶ 2:10:17It's offered by Mr. Ammedday who's recognized to explain his Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I have an amendment at the desk and ask for unanimous consent to dispose of with the reading of the amendment. Without objection, gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:10:40Well, um, speaking only for my observations from the debate so far, it doesn't sound like there's much disagreement amongst the committee on whether or not the brick program ought to go forward. So, I'm not going to talk much about that. Um, if somebody thinks I deprived them from something, please let me know, but I'm guessing you didn't. Um, the gentle lady's amendment makes brick program mandatory and endorses the statute as is.
▶ 2:11:08My amendment would ensure that the brick projects are related to mitigating hazards posed by potential major disasters similar to events that have occurred in a state or locality over the previous four years. This ensures we aren't spending millions of dollars on shaded bus stops, planting of trees, whatever. My amendment would so it shortens it from seven to four.
▶ 2:11:35My amendment would also adjust the scope of eligibility requirement to ensure brick grants are used for we've heard this word in discussion so far They are uh grants used for infrastructure projects and not for example CO 19 related purposes by shortening the eligibility window for states with major disaster declarations from within the past seven to the last four years.
▶ 2:12:02My amendment would also strike a catch-all provision that provides overly broad discretion which we think was abused by the previous administration. You're going, "Well, what is it?" What it is is language that says, "Oh, and by the way, anything else the president in consultation with the deems appropriate." That's pretty broad language, ladies and gentlemen. Anything they deem appropriate.
▶ 2:12:30And so it would strike that language from the program if it goes forward. If this was adopted accordingly, seven years to four, not anything deemed appropriate. I urge my colleagues to support my second degree amendment, and I yield back. Thank the gentleman. The gentle lady from Connecticut, Mr. Lur is recognized to address the amendment in the second Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:13:00Um, this second degree amendment changes the following. Requires mitigation efforts to be tied to a major disaster declaration from the past four years. Currently, the brick program does not have any requirement of this nature. Changes eligibility from seven years to four years.
▶ 2:13:21A state or tribe must have had a major disaster declaration within the last four years to be eligible to apply for brick funding for fiscal year 2026.
▶ 2:13:35This rules out Maryland, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia strikes the quote catchall clause in the eligibility section that currently allows the president with broad flexibility quote such other criteria as the president establishes in consultation with state and local governments end quote.
▶ 2:14:02I rise in opposition to the secondderee amendment which limits the number of states that can receive brick funds and limits the eligible use of awards. Under current law, states that have had a major disaster declaration in the last seven years are eligible for brick awards which are flexible dollars to mitigate against future disasters.
▶ 2:14:24The secondderee amendment would reduce the number of states that are eligible by lowering the window from seven years to four years. It would also restrict how the funds could be spent, preventing We want to put emphasis on the states having a say in all of this. Preventing communities from prioritizing programs that would save the most taxpayer dollars.
▶ 2:14:49If the second degree amendment were adopted, Delaware, Maryland, and Wisconsin, District of Columbia would be ineligible to receive 2026 funds. I'm very glad to see the bipartisan support for reinstating brick after President Trump decided to gut this program, which has demonstrated its success in multiple occasions, as I laid out in my opening statement.
▶ 2:15:17However, there is no reason to exclude communities in these three states and the District of Colombia. Maryland, it's the mo mobile home severe damage mitig damage mitigation sludge management sustainability and resiliency southern Chrisfield flood mitigation project. My colleagues across the aisle have consistently tried to deny funding to the District of Columbia.
▶ 2:15:44But this would also disadvantage states who have also suffered disasters in the last seven years, including severe tornadoes in Wisconsin in 2019, tropical storm Sai in Maryland and Delaware in 2020. I oppose the secondderee amendment and I yield back. And I might add if I can. I did yield back. I'm sorry, just for one second. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. FY23, building resilient infrastructure and communities.
▶ 2:16:15This is really extraordinary. Just about every state in the nation has several projects that have been included in the in the in the brick program and amounting to 882.6 $6 million in federal costs, 656 sub selected 94 communities and tribal nations for brick direct technical assistance.
▶ 2:16:39This program works and it has been effective and for both for every state for every Democrat, Republican, independent, Native American who wherever it is it works. Why are we doing this? I oppose this second degree amendment and I do yield back this time, Mr. Chair. All right. I thank gentle lady for remarks. Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards recognized to address the secondderee amendment.
▶ 2:17:10Thank you, Mr. Chair. When Hurricane Helen devastated western North Carolina, we realized that we don't just need recovery, we need resilience. The building resilient infrastructure and communities program, also known as brick, helps communities like mine, build stronger roads, upgrade storm water systems, and hardened infrastructure so they're not wiped out by the next storm. I think we've all established of the program.
▶ 2:17:36But without this program, many communities across the country do not have the resources that they need to fund their own resilience projects, making for a more vulnerable America. When brick was canceled, North Carolina alone saw roughly $196 million in projects get rescended. That's nearly $200 million in shovelready resilience wiped away in the middle of one of our state's worst natural disasters.
▶ 2:18:05Earlier this year, President Trump asked me to sit on a task force to offer suggestions on how to accelerate the recovery of western North Carolina. and I produced this 101page report. Included in it is the fact that we not only need a brick, but uh Mr. Chairman, we need a brick that is restructured. Uh I'll tell you the latitude that's taken by allowing the president to have such an influence on this.
▶ 2:18:34In 2023, three states received 50% of the brick funding. two of those, California and New York surprisingly. And so, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your secondary amendment. Uh, and this year, please know that I led a bipartisan biccameal letter with 85 colleagues urging the administration to reinstate brick immediately.
▶ 2:19:03And uh, I even included, as I mentioned, that suggestion to the president. Rebuilding isn't enough. We need to rebuild stronger. strengthening brick, not only take uh not taking it away, is essential to the longterm recovery of western North Carolina and similar communities nationwide and it clearly needs restructuring. I believe your secondary amendment uh takes bold steps to do that.
▶ 2:19:29I appreciate it coming forward and I urge everyone to support it. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Uh the gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood, is recognized to address the second Oh, that's No, I don't have you. Okay. Okay. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to address the Second Degree amendment. As you heard, and as I understand, I was I had another meeting.
▶ 2:19:53Sorry, I was late coming into this debate, but Maryland obviously is one of the states that's exempted from uh eligibility eligibility. one of four jurisdictions, one of which is the District of Columbia. Apparently, on the rationale that Maryland has not had a disaster, uh, which from our standpoint is obviously good. Uh, on the other hand, we're a vulnerable state. We're on the Atlantic coast. We have the Chesapeake Bay. We are subject to flooding.
▶ 2:20:20Um and uh we would be very concerned if next week we had a major disaster, but we're not eligible for funds until 27. Is that my understanding of the if that's my understanding of the amendment? That does not seem to me to be fair at all to us. Let me tell you, when Mr. McCarthy and I were both number TWS in our party.
▶ 2:20:45We went down to Puerto Rico after their hurricane and we saw the devastation and we visited the Keys and we sat we we we viewed two structures sort of a condos. One had been built prior to Florida's own code increase in building uh The other had been built after They were both done by the same builder and essentially
▶ 2:21:15the same structures except one was built to the Florida code after a previous hurricane. The one had been built after code essentially had windows broken out but was fine. The other was essentially 80% destroyed. We came back to Congress and we amended the law, co-sponsored a bill, amended the law so that you had to build to resilient, not to what was.
▶ 2:21:44The law at that point was you rebuilt to what was and that's what you were reimbursed for. Made no sense because you didn't want it to happen again. So you wanted to build to resiliency uh requirements. Uh so I'm very strongly for the brick but would be a little bit confounded as to why four states are picked on other than perhaps to save money. Well, I understand that.
▶ 2:22:13But if you have a disaster in three states, it's going to cost you more than if you have a disaster in only one. But the need in both is keen. uh and uh seems to me it would be responsible that we make sure that all are eligible. If we haven't had one recently and don't fall in that category, hopefully we'll stay there so it won't cost any money.
▶ 2:22:36But if it doesn't and some act of God or natural disaster, not necessarily an act of God, but natural disaster happens, it seems to me that see unfair to make us ineligible because we haven't been hurt I thank the gentleman. Do any other amen members seek recognition to speak on the second degree amendment?
▶ 2:23:06Seeing none, Mr. Ammed is recognized for one minute to close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, let's recap. Nobody's opposed to the brick program, right? So, that's off the table here. I I think we all support that. The question is, do we shorten seven years to four years? And and do we get rid of the language that says anything else appropriate? Basically, that's the status quo.
▶ 2:23:35And so, if you like the status quo, and obviously that's fine. Um could could I not have the editorial, please? You know better. I I know you're going to vote against me on this. I'm just guessing. Um but but anyhow, as we go forward, reinstate the program by all means. Um nobody came up with a different I don't know, five years is m it's got to be seven. Now, mind you, if there's a Chesapeake Bay disaster next week, you're fully eligible.
▶ 2:24:03And let's not forget about other FEMA sources of funding that is eligible for disasters, but we won't talk about that. So, the rule going forward when we reinstate a program that everybody likes is you got a four-year window after a major disaster declaration. And the rule going forward is anything else that the president in consultation with the loc local localities deem appropriate.
▶ 2:24:26I'm sorry there I think that was abused under the previous administration and so that needs to go away in my opinion that's the biggest chunk of the secondary amendment. And with that Mr. Chairman I yield back. Thank the gentleman. The questions now on the second degree amendment offered by Mr. Amidday. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. The opinion of the chair, the eyes have it.
▶ 2:24:58Roll call has been requested. Roll call. Sufficient uh support uh for the roll call. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Adhalt. I. Mr. Adhold. I. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar. No. Mr. Alford. Hi. Mr. Alford. I. Mr. Mr. Amade. Yes. Mr. Ammedday. I Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice. I Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop. No. Mr. Calbertt. Mr. Calbertt. I Mr. Carter.
▶ 2:25:29Mr. Case. Mr. Casease. No. Mr. Mr. Klene. Mr. Klene. I. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Klyber. Mr. Klyber. No. Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde. I. Mr. Cole. Hi. Mr. Cole. I Mr. Quayar Mr. Quayrar No Miss Dean Miss Dean No Mr. Loro Mr. Loro No Mr. Diaz Bolard Mr. Diaz Bolard I Mr. Edwards Mr. Edwards I Mr.
▶ 2:25:58Elzie Mr. Elzie I miss Mr. Espayat Mr. Espayat no Mr. Flechman Mr. Flechman I miss Frankle Miss Frankle no Mr. Franklin Mr. Franklin I Mr. Gonzalez Mr. Gonzalez. I Mr. Guest Mr. Guest I Mr. Dr. Harris Dr. Harris I Mrs. Henson Mrs. Henson I Mr. Hoyer Mr.
▶ 2:26:28Hoyer no Mr. Ivy Mr. Ivy no Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce I miss Captor Miss Captor no Mr. Loa Mr. Loa Mr. Loa I Miss Lee Miss Lee no Miss Lutllo Miss Lllo I Mr. Levan Mr.
▶ 2:26:54Levan no Miss Malloy Miss Malloy I Miss Miss McCullum no Miss Ming Ming no Mr. Molinar Mr. Molinar I Mr. Moore Mr. Moore I Mr. Morelli. No. Mr. Morelli. No. Mr. Mvan. No. Mr. Mvan. No. Mr. New House. Mr. New House. I Miss Miss Pingri. Miss Pingri. No. Mr. Pokean.
▶ 2:27:25Mr. Pokean. No. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley. No. Mr. Rashenthaler. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. I. Mr. Mr. Rutherford. I. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Mr. Simpson. I Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong. I Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres. No. Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood. No. Mr. Valido. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Mrs.
▶ 2:27:55Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman. No. Mr. WAC. Mr. WAC I Mr. Zinci I Mr. Zinci I does any member wish to record their vote or change their vote gentleman from gentleman from Arizona Valado I gentle lady Mr.
▶ 2:28:25Ciscomani I Washington uh gentle lady from Florida gentleman from California Schultz no gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr. Carter. No. Are there any others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tell it.
▶ 2:31:00on this vote. The eyes are 33, the nose are 27. The amendment in the second degree is adopted. We'll now return to the amendment offered by Miss Dellora as amended. If there's no further debate, the general lady is recognized for one minute to close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:31:26Uh, it's been said April 4th, 2025, FEMA announced the cancellation of the brick program while citing no authority to do so. 4 billion in funding from projects that were already awarded around the country. I I I might add for those who who voted yes. Uh in in North Carolina, you got eight projects from the brick program. And u I've got down at least two for Oklahoma. In Louisiana, you got five programs.
▶ 2:31:54Somebody talked about California getting more in New York. California got five. Louisiana got five. This has been a program that has worked like a charm for people who find themselves in a difficult spot after uh a after a disaster. I don't understand the rationale uh for excluding four states. I guess once you got yours, you don't care about you know several others uh that ought to have the same opportunity uh of uh to do this.
▶ 2:32:21But um uh you know and both I will just say this both chairman Cole and I really pleaded uh with the with the secretary of uh we made the case to not really end this program. We both did this together. So, uh, this is it's a good program. It's I understand I I don't understand the um uh uh leaving out of three states in the District of Columbia. This is like a random notion.
▶ 2:32:50They said, "Oh, how can we, you know, get ourselves back on track here uh on the brick program because it has helped. So, we need to change it in some way. Let's exclude these three states and the District of Columbia." no rationale, no criteria, nothing. Uh but a whim. Uh if you know well but but the body has voted uh so be it. And um I will just say this as we conclude that uh I oppose the second degree amendment as you know.
▶ 2:33:19Um, but I will just say that it really is um preferable to where we are today after the president of the United States uh inexplicitly canceled all brick awards and will live to fight another day. Thank you and I yield back. Thank you, gentle lady. The questions now on the amendment offered by Mr. Deluro as amended. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no.
▶ 2:33:47The opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amended amendment as amended is adopted. Gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde is recognized for an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading.
▶ 2:34:17Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment. Thank you. Today I'm offering an amendment to reduce the funding for the Department of Homeland Security Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency or CISA to the fisc year 26 president's budget request level of 1.5 um $1.95 billion $280 million less than the committee mark. I think the president's budget request is fiscally correct.
▶ 2:34:47I believe this cut is necessary to rein in the waste, abuse and mission drift and politicization, political weaponization, excuse me, that plagued SISA under the Biden Harris administration, as well as to return the agency to its core mission.
▶ 2:35:01I'm grateful that on day one, President Trump acted to defend America's First Amendment rights by issuing Executive Order 14149, restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship, which bars federal agencies from pressuring social media companies to censor lawful speech. It reaffirmed a basic truth. Government has no role in controlling America's free speech, including online expression.
▶ 2:35:30CISA was originally created with bipartisan support to protect our nation's critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats. Yet under the Biden Harris administration, the agency became weaponized to focus on Americans speech. For example, in 2021, SISA renamed the countering foreign influence task force to the mis and malinformation or MDM team, dropping the word foreign entirely. An alarming pivot toward domestic speech policing.
▶ 2:35:59SISA also participated in the now defunct disinformation governance board, a failed effort to monitor and censor American speech. While the board was shut down following public outcry, SISA's censor censorship efforts continued. A 2022 report revealed SIS's plans to target so-called inaccurate on issues such as the origins of CO 19 pandemic and the efficacy of the CO 19 vaccines.
▶ 2:36:27the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and US support for Ukraine, topics all central to p the public debate. Additionally, the Twitter files revealed how SISA actively shaped online discourse by working through third parties engaging in what amounts to be government by proxy censorship. Of course, this activity expanded beyond Twitter.
▶ 2:36:48There was a formalized process involving a special Facebook portal for government officials to flag Americans content to Facebook or Instagram with requests that such content be suppressed or throttled. These actions represented a direct and serious threat to our first amendment freedoms by SISA. These concerns were confirmed by the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.
▶ 2:37:13Its report, the weaponization of SISA, documented SISA's coordination with other agencies and nonprofits to suppress speech while avoiding the appearance of propaganda and egregious abuse of taxpayer resources and public trust.
▶ 2:37:28Thankfully, the president's FY26 budget request acknowledges these concerns by proposing a $491 million cut to SISA, eliminating its censorship related efforts and restoring focus on core missions like federal network defense and critical infrastructure protection.
▶ 2:37:47The request notes that quote SISA was more focused on censorship than on protecting the nation's critical The president's budget request is certainly enough funding to properly accomplish their mission. With our country now at $37 trillion in debt and spending over 1 trillion in interest to service that debt, more spent on interest payments every year than what we spend on the entire Department of Defense, the spending must be held in check.
▶ 2:38:17Again, my amendment matches the president's budget request and ensures SISA's funding supports its actual mission, not partisan efforts to suppress free expression. I urge all members to support this amendment and help restore SISA to its original purpose while protecting the constitutional rights of every American. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, um Mr. Chairman, I withdraw in committee and reserve to offer on the floor and I yield back.
▶ 2:38:47I thank the gentleman. Uh with that then we'll move on. Gentle lady from Illinois. Miss Underwood is recognized for an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Underwood number two. I request unanimous consent to um skip the reading.
▶ 2:39:17Thank gentle lady. Without objection, the reading the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This simple amendment carries forward language that helps ensure Congress can fulfill our article one responsibilities under the Constitution to conduct oversight of how taxpayer dollars are spent on immigration enforcement. This language helps keep our country safe and ensures that as representatives we can serve our communities with the transparency, accessibility, and accountability that they deserve.
▶ 2:39:47I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. I now recognize myself as the acting chairman of the committee. So, anybody wants to lead, now would be a good time.
▶ 2:40:10Um, first of all, I I want to compliment my uh my colleague, the ranking member of the committee for offering her amendment and not pansying out like the previous speaker. Hats off. Okay. Second of all, I accept the amendment. I yel back. So you you're moderating. What? There are others who might want to speak. Others might want to speak. You're doing the script. We accepted the amendments. Anybody want to want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Are there other members wishing to speak on the amendment?
▶ 2:40:40Okay. Then the gentle lady from Illinois is recognized to close. Well, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your partnership in preserving our article one uh oversight responsibilities and I yield back. Okay. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Illinois. All those in favor say I. I. Would all those in favor please say I. I. Better. Um in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted.
▶ 2:41:12The recorded vote is not requested. so far Mr. Bishop U. Mr. Bishop is recognized for an Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
▶ 2:41:41The member is recognized for remarks on his amendment. Thank you. And I rise to offer an amendment to the bill that would fully restore the funding to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to the FY25 enacted level.
▶ 2:41:56Uh the United States of America exists on the bedrock principles that every person is entitled to and must be treated fairly equally under the law, must have due process, and must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. The bill before us fails to achieve the delicate balance of keeping our country safe without sacrificing the civil liberties of the American people.
▶ 2:42:26It siphons off funds from the Office for Civil Rights, Customs and Border Patrol, Cyber Security, and Federal Assistance to increase ICE funding by nearly a billion dollars. Now, whether you agree that ICE should get a billion dollars in new funding or not, we as members of Congress have a duty to protect the civil rights and the civil liberties of every person in America.
▶ 2:42:55Because when one person has his or her constitutional rights violated, every American citizen's rights are put at risk. The bill before us eliminates over $37 million from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, leaving the office with a mere $4.9 million, a 90% to investigate what I expect could be hundreds of new complaints of civil
▶ 2:43:26rights and constitutional violations by an increasing number of individuals who are now going to be interacting with immigration officials. In March, the Trump administration announced that the Department of Homeland Security would be cutting funding to several oversight and watchdog offices, consolidating their functions and eliminating job positions.
▶ 2:43:51Shamefully, the DHS spokesperson justified the changes by saying that watchdog offices like the Office of Immigration Detention on Budsman and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties obstruct immigration enforcement at the department. But in many cases, the department has wrongfully weaponized immigration enforcement resources against lawful residents and even United States citizens.
▶ 2:44:18sometimes detaining people based solely on their race, ethnicity, or dialect. A few weeks ago, one of my constituents in Southwest Georgia, who is a US citizen of Mexican heritage, was wrongfully detained by Florida State Troopers for illegally entering Florida under state immigration law.
▶ 2:44:40ICE then put a 48-hour detainer on the 20-year-old even after a judge viewed his birth certificate and dropped the charge. This is just one story of an American citizen who got swept up in an immigration case, but it won't be the last.
▶ 2:44:59If the committee ultimately decides to pass this bill with increased immigration enforcement, we will definitely need adequate funding so that cases like this receive proper attention and an independent A vote for this amendment helps ensure that the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has the resources it needs to fully investigate alleged civil rights and constitutional violations at the department.
▶ 2:45:28I ask you to vote yes to help protect the civil rights of all Americans. I thank you and I yield back. Thank the gentleman. The uh chairman of the subcommittee is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has limited responsibility in statute.
▶ 2:45:53Over the last few years, what was once a relatively small office grew into a $ 43 million organization then that did far more than what the law authorized. Earlier this year, the administration reduced the scope of this office back to the original authorized functions. The action reduced the wor workforce of 135 down to just four full-time positions.
▶ 2:46:19As appropriators, we have a responsibility to only fund positions that are actually filled or likely to be filled in the coming year. The fact of the matter is that moving forward, the work of the CRCL office will largely be done by contractors rather than federal workers, maintaining many of the functions while reducing the cost.
▶ 2:46:42I would also like to point out that that if we do pass this and put that money into this agency with four workers, it is it is my personal opinion, you're just creating a target for a reprogramming request for the administration. And I would submit to you that when we're talking about doing our jobs, that providing money that's already been appropriated for expenses that aren't going to occur is handing that over to the administration in a reprogramming request.
▶ 2:47:12And so with all respect to my colleague from Georgia, uh I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back balance of my Thank the gentleman. The gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwoods, recognized to respond to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
▶ 2:47:30This amendment would utilize funding from within the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management to restore the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties or CRCL at DHS, an office mandated by law within the Homeland Security Act. CRCL has a critical role in oversight and management of cases involving possible violations of civil rights and liberties for DHS employees and anyone the Department of Homeland Security interacts with.
▶ 2:47:57They're charged with ensuring DHS complies with civil rights laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act. They're charged with protecting religious freedoms while maintaining highquality screening at TSA. They're charged with protecting Americans privacy when it comes to identity verification. But earlier this year, the administration made the decision to gut this office down to just four people. And now they're contracting out the functions of this office to keep up with the workload.
▶ 2:48:25And now the bill that we're discussing today cuts the office by nearly 90%. I've not yet heard from anyone from the administration or my colleagues across the aisle with a credible explanation of how the Department of Homeland Security can possibly meet the statutory mandates. We heard the chairman mention statutory mandates. And how are they supposed to do that and preserve individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the law with four staff and a 90% cut? It just doesn't work.
▶ 2:48:55That's why we need this amendment which would restore the office and ensure the Department of Homeland Security follows its congressional mandate. And I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Are there other members wishing to address the Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close. Thank you, Chairman.
▶ 2:49:22This amendment would simply provide level funding the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties so that they can continue investigating civil rights violations amid what we can expect to be a dramatic increase in immigration Every day, law-abiding American citizens are being wrongly swept up in the administration's mass deportation activities.
▶ 2:49:47And it is our job to make sure the Department of Homeland Security is doing its dead level best to treat every human being with whom it interacts, whether they be undocumented, legal, or US citizen, with the dignity and fairness that our constitution demands.
▶ 2:50:07This bill, as it currently is written, attempts to allow the department to sweep civil and constitutional rights violations under the rug, sending the dangerous message that officials may act with a sense of impunity as they enter our schools, churches, businesses, and public buildings. This amendment lays two options before us.
▶ 2:50:31Either we vote to help protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans or we relinquish our freedoms and submit to the arbitrary will of the executive. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor say I. I.
▶ 2:51:00All those opposed say no. No. The opinion of the chair of the nose have it. Roll call vote has been requested. Sufficient support has been shown. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Adhalt. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguular. I Mr. Alford. Mr. Ammeday. No. Mr. Ammeday. No. Mrs. Mr. Bishop. I Mr. Bishop.
▶ 2:51:30I Mr. Mr. Carter. Mr. Casease. Mr. Casease. Mr. Case. I Mr. Sisammani. Mr. Sisammani. No. Mr. Klein. Mr. Klene. No. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Klyurn. Mr. Clyde. Negative. Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole, no.
▶ 2:52:01Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Quayar. Miss Dean. Miss Dean. I Mr. Luro. Mr. Loro. I Mr. Diaz Bolard. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Elie. Mr. Elzie. No. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar. I Mr. Espayat. Hi. Mr. Espayat. I Mr. Fleshman Mr.
▶ 2:52:31Fleshman No Miss Frankle Mr. Franklin Mr. Franklin no Mr. Mr. Guest no Mr. Guest no Mr. Harter Mr. Harter I Dr. Harris Dr. Harris no Mrs. Henson Mrs. Henson no Mr. Hoyer. Hi, Mr. Hoyer. I Mr.
▶ 2:52:59Ivy, Mr. Joyce, Miss Captor. Hi, Miss Captor. I Mr. Loa, no. Mr. Loa, no. Miss Lee, Miss Lee, no. Miss Llo, no. Miss Llo, no. Mr. Leven, Mr. Leven, I. Miss Malloy, no. Miss Mallaloy. No. Miss McCullum. Hi. Miss McCullum.
▶ 2:53:29I Miss Ming. Hi. Miss Ming. I Mr. Molinar. Mr. Molinar. No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Morelli. Mr. Mvan. Mr. Murvan. No. Mr. New House. Mr. New House. No. Miss. Perez. Miss. Perez. I. Miss. Pingri. Miss. Ping. I. Mr. Pokean Mr. Pokean I Mr. Quigley Mr.
▶ 2:53:59Quigley I Mr. Rashenthaler Mr. Rogers Mr. Rogers no Mr. Rutherford Mr. Rutherford no Mr. Simpson Mr. Simpson no Mr. Strong Mr. Strong no Mrs. Torres Mrs. Torres I miss Underwood Miss Underwood I Mr. Valido Mr. Valado. No. Miss Washerman Schultz. Miss Washerman Schultz. I Mrs. Watson Coleman.
▶ 2:54:29Mrs. Watson Coleman. I Mr. WAC. Mr. Wack. No. Mr. Zinci. Mr. Zinci. No. Does any member wish to record their vote or change their vote? I I think gentleman from Texas. Mr. Gonzalez votes no. Gentle lady from Mrs. Bice. No. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Joyce. No.
▶ 2:54:59Gentlewoman from Alabama. Mr. Adder Holt. No. The gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Edwards. No. The gentle lady from Florida. Miss Frankle. I. The gentleman from Missouri. No. Mr. Alford. No. The gentleman from California. No. Mr. Calbert. No. The gentleman from Texas Mr.
▶ 2:55:22Carter no the gentle lady from noon I miss Lee gentleman from South Mr. Klyber I gentleman from Maryland Mr. Ivy I the gentleman from Florida no Mr. Diaz Bolard no the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr. Rashenthaler no the gentleman from Indiana off. No on I Mr. Murvan.
▶ 2:55:52Gentleman from New York. I do not believe the gentleman is recording. Mr. Morelli I. Gentleman from Texas. Mr. Quay I. Okay. Are there others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 2:56:57On this vote, the eyes are 28, the nos are 34. The amendment is not adopted. Is there further amendment or discussion? The gentle lady from Minnesota, Miss McCullum, is recognized for an Uh, as you know, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask the reading be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:57:26My amendment prohibits the use of funds to detain or deport Afghan nationals who held temporary status protection prior to the end of the program on July 13, 2025. When the United States was attacked on September 11th in 2001, President Bush with an authorization from Congress took military action against al-Qaeda. the Taliban and Afghanistan.
▶ 2:57:5020 years, the United States maintained a significant military and diplomatic presence in support of the Afghan government. As part of that effort, we asked the people of Afghanistan to trust the United States, to work with us, and to work with them to build a new future for their nation.
▶ 2:58:10Over those 20 years, tens of thousands of Afghan soul soldiers and civilians stood shoulder-to-shoulder with US troops and diplomats serving in Afghanistan. Many of us, some of us here in this room as members of Congress, we benefited and we um were able to do our oversight duties when we were in Afghanistan.
▶ 2:58:35We worked with our our State Department officials and our troops and their interpreters so our questions could be fully answered. They did this these interpreters at great risk to their own lives and at the risk to their famil family's lives as well. When the United States withdrew from Afghanistan in August of 2021, we evacuated 124 Afghans.
▶ 2:59:02We did that because we knew what would happen when the Taliban returned to power. Those Afghans, their families who had assisted US operations would be subject to vengeful retribution of the Taliban. Not all of those who were evacuated came to the United States, but those that did, they were given the status of temporary protection, and they received that in order to keep themselves safe.
▶ 2:59:29It's unfortunate that President Trump has rescended the protector temporary protected status for 10,000 Afghans living in the United States. He claims and I quote, "Permitting the Afghan natural national nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interests of the United States." I do not believe that is the fact that we should be talking about.
▶ 2:59:56What we should be discussing instead is a way to support these individuals, to honor them, those who sacrifice to help keep American personnel. The plans to deport these Afghans back to their country controlled by the Taliban. We know what will happen to them. This is a regime that has cast an entire generation of Afghan women and girls back to the darkness of state sponsored military.
▶ 3:00:22And for the Afghans who will be sent back, especially those young women and girls, it's their worst nightmare. And let's face it, we know how it ends. It will not only cost them their freedoms, but for many of them, it will cost them their lives. So I ask yourself this, are there other things we should be asking the administration to do to help them be able to remain and stay?
▶ 3:00:45If we don't want temporary status to exist forever, we have a responsibility to work with the administration to find different venues for them to continue to live here. So ask yourself, if we don't do something about this, work collectively on this, how will other nations in the world view us? Will they see it for what it is, a complete betrayal of allies and partners by the United States?
▶ 3:01:10Would anyone trust or volunteer to work for our military so quickly as the Afghans did in the future? So, Mr. Chairman, I believe today we have the opportunity to write the thing. Let's stand by those Afghans who gave up everything to help our mission Afghanistan to keep our service members, our diplomats safe. Let us honor our nation's commitment by keeping them safe. So, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back to any time remaining.
▶ 3:01:41Thank the gentle lady. Uh the gentleman uh from Nevada, Mr. Amade is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the gentle lady's amendment.
▶ 3:01:56And while I appreciate that members may have conflicting opinions over the issue, uh this seems to be another example of the previous chronic exploitation of every authority to allow as many foreigners into the country as possible. The fact of the matter is we were unable to fully vet everyone who came in under this program following the last administration's withdrawal in Afghanistan.
▶ 3:02:23Additionally, the Afghan nationals who were employed by or on behalf of the United States government in any capacity were and are eligible for special immigrant visas. The department's job is to assess and balance our homeland security interests amid competing priorities. And if DHS has determined that this program needs to be terminated, then we can have that discussion.
▶ 3:02:50And particularly as we under as we're under a heightened threat environment, it is of the utmost important that we ensure the safety of our fellow American citizens. Temporary status should be just that, temporary. And so I agree with my colleague from Minnesota. Hey, we need to re get back and focus on this and decide what to do with the people who quite frankly we shouldn't send home because of the dangers she's described.
▶ 3:03:19But to continue to do nothing and then basically just keep continuing this is not the answer to the issue. The temporary uh visa program is still in effect for those folks that helped us. And so if we need to give the the uh DHS or whatever the ability to to crank that up again, then fine. Um but to just say we're going to keep extending this down the road, I don't think is a viable solution. And for that reason, uh I oppose the amendment.
▶ 3:03:51Thank the gentleman. Gentle lady from Illinois is recognized to respond to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Earlier this year, the Trump administration unjustly terminated temporary protective status for over 11,000 Afghan nationals. Despite the fact that many of these folks have strong asylum cases, TPS status for Afghans will end on July 14th. But the evidence to support ending it just isn't there.
▶ 3:04:15In terminating TPS to Afghan nationals, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that there have been quote notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions.
▶ 3:04:35First of all, when it comes to safety, the Department of Homeland Security should consult the State Department, whose current advice is, "Do not travel to Afghanistan." Second, the Department of Homeland Security should consult some Afghan women. According to Human Rights Watch, the situation for women in Afghanistan since the Taliban regained control is quote, "the world's most serious women's rights crisis." This is not a hard vote.
▶ 3:05:04We know exactly what conditions we will be sending these people back to. Cutting off their TPS now with little time to prepare puts 10,000 people needlessly at risk. I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same and I yield back. Thank you, gentle lady. Gentle lady from Connecticut recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:05:29I rise in support of this amendment which is essential to America's credibility and to our national character. This amendment prevents funds from being used to detain or deport Afghan holders of temporary protected status. TPS was established by the Congress on a bipartisan basis in 1990 to allow migrants from designated countries to reside here legally for up to 18 months eligible for employment and travel.
▶ 3:05:57This program is not a path to permanent residency or a guarantee of citizenship. TPS recipients still need to apply for those statuses separately. It was used for the first time in 1990 to protect Salvadorans fleeing civil war and follows an international tradition of extending shelter to those who are fleeing conflict.
▶ 3:06:19Europe offered temporary protection to refugees from the Balkans in the early 1990s and Turkey offered the same to Syrians fleeing civil war. It has historical precedent in the United States as well with legislation like the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistant Act, which welcomed nearly 130,000 South Vietnamese, Le Oceanian, and Cambodian refugees into the United States under a special status following the Vietnam War.
▶ 3:06:49In Afghanistan, our country made similar promises to those who had helped us. These are overwhelmingly brave American allies who directly helped our troops. They served as translators, engineers, guidance, guides, and even side by side as brothers in arms. It also includes their family members and people who fled in genuine fear for their lives from the Taliban.
▶ 3:07:15These are people like Sed Catali who spent years helping our forces as security commander for the Afghan interior ministry in Harat province. He was unable to evacuate so he fled through nearly a dozen other countries finally reaching the United States in 2023. They received relocation help from a veterans organization and Guatali got a job as a leasing agent and enrolled his children in a charter school.
▶ 3:07:45Then Katali got an email that he needed to leave within 7 days. And I quote, "I have a threatening letter." Catali said, "Quote, if I go back, like 100% they're going to kill me and my family as well." End quote. Just a few years ago, I was proud to welcome more than 300 Afghan refugees to Connecticut.
▶ 3:08:09refugees and allies who were fortunate enough to have already made the trip, left behind their lives, professions, and families with the hope of a better life. So many of them supported our mission abroad, and they came to us in their hour of need. We have a duty to ensure that these men, women, and children have the resources they need to thrive.
▶ 3:08:29In terminating this status, the Department of Homeland Security cited, quote, "Notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions." End quote. What were those notable improvements?
▶ 3:08:55One, a small decrease in armed conflict and attacks against civilians compared with 2022. Second, an increase in Chinese tourists. That's the evidence the Department of Homeland Security gave us that life in Afghanistan is safe. Slightly fewer attacks on civilians and more Chinese tourists. Give me a break.
▶ 3:09:20One report about this issue quoted an interpreter who worked with US Army special forces from 2011 to 2014. This gentleman who was lauded by President Trump at the White House in 2019 summed up the impact of ending TPS for Afghans by saying, and I quote, "It's a death penalty for them if they return." End quote. Make no mistake, if these people are sent back to Afghanistan, it is a death sentence.
▶ 3:09:50The Taliban will kill them without hesitation. That cannot be this committee's position. It would be a stain on America's name for all history. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. Mr. thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from California is recognized to address the amendment. I'm going to support the gentleman's amendment.
▶ 3:10:15However, I would hope between now and the time we can come to the floor that we can come up with acceptable language that will protect the worthy Afghans that are here in this country that protected our interests when we were in Afghanistan and did notable service for the United States government. There is no doubt if those people came back to Afghanistan, they would be immediately executed. So, we need to come up with some language would protect them.
▶ 3:10:39at the same time make sure those individuals who were not thoroughly vetted and are here for other reasons uh are removed from the country. That I yield back. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized to address the Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment.
▶ 3:11:00Uh the amendment would help ensure that African nationals who assisted our service members in Afghanistan be allowed to live and to work in the United States without fear of being deported to the hands of the Taliban.
▶ 3:11:14A few weeks ago, the Trump administration ended temporary protective status for tens of thousands of Afghans with the secretary callously determining that the security situation of Afghanistan had improved to the point where its citizens could return home safely. The Taliban is not only an enemy of the United States, it is evil and it frequently commits human rights abuses against its own people.
▶ 3:11:42They treat women and girls as property. They have eliminated freedom of speech and religion. And they will persecute any repatriated Afghans who assisted US personnel during the two get the two decades that we were in Afghanistan. Our service members know this issue better than any of us. They fought alongside these Afghans.
▶ 3:12:08The Afghans who served as soldiers, navigators, interpreters, intelligence support, and service members often bonded with our Afghan allies because they share our values. American Afghan allies saved American lives on the battlefield at great risk to themselves and to their families. Let me be clear. America's Afghan allies are not safe in today's Afghanistan.
▶ 3:12:40Failure to pass this amendment will only expedite the removal of Afghan nationals to our hostile terrorist regime. Those Afghans who helped the United States in our time of need and who had every reason to believe the United States would have their back be subject to to torture, and to death.
▶ 3:13:07I urge a yes vote on the amendment to protect those who put their lives on the line for us. And I too hope that between now and the end of this process that we will be able to work out language that will successfully be able to protect these individuals who did so much to protect us. With that, I yield back and urge the support of the amendment. Thank the gentleman.
▶ 3:13:36Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady from Connecticut is recognized for one minute to close. Oh, who's a gentle lady from Minnesota is recognized for one minute to close. Thank you. You for doing the job that you're doing. I know that you and the ranking member through all of these stand up and just just do a lot of work for all of us. So, totally understand.
▶ 3:14:07Um, you know, there was much that the subcommittee uh chair chair said about, you know, the all the different visas that are out there. I do a lot of visa work in my um my constituency. I have a lot of M Lao, Cambodian, um especially M refugees uh who work side by side with our soldiers. There's language barriers. These visas can take months. They can take years.
▶ 3:14:36they came here in um you know in 2025 they just find out that that uh that this is going to end in July. Maybe they started this paperwork and I'm not kidding folks. This paperwork can take years. I don't disagree that people have to be vetted. They're now trying to get paperwork for people who uh they might not have the right name or it might have been a contractor through the state department trying to verify their employment and all that there.
▶ 3:15:04So, so they're struggling with getting this paperwork done. Um, I I I appreciate what my my chairman of the the Defense Appropriations Committee said. So, Mr. Chair, if I could ask the subcommittee chair, Mr. Armotti, to to yield without objection. Um, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marti, gentleman from Nevada. Isn't mine? No, I I asked you if you would yield if I could yield you some time.
▶ 3:15:35Um I I need to I need to know and and you are you and I are friends and I don't use that term lightly as you know. Um if if you're willing to to seriously work with me on trying to figure something out. There's been bills in the Senate, there's bills in the House. These people are in limbo. And I think that if we could even get get some movement on the administration to know one one way or the other whether or not they're serious about doing things. So people could apply for green cards.
▶ 3:16:04They could see if they could apply for the special program that you did. Some of these people might want to apply for asylum, but they need some time to do that. So if we can work between now and the rules committee to see if we can come up with with some joint language to to move forward on that, I would withdraw the amendment. But if you don't think that that's possible, and I know and and I know you mean it, no disrespect if you think it's not possible, I'll proceed with the amendment.
▶ 3:16:30Do you think it's possible we might be able to come up with something before the rules committee? Yes, ma'am. Priority number one for my staff. Okay. So, uh to the full chair of the committee and to the ranking member that with that, I will withdraw the amendment and I look forward to working with Mr. Calbert and you and I yield back.
▶ 3:16:50I thank the gentle lady for withdrawing and u I appreciate the discussion that this amendment provoked gentle lady from Florida is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have an amendment at the deskman Schultz number one and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:17:17I offered this amendment to restore $1 million in funding for the family reunification task force. This is a modest amount that carries immense legal and moral weight. This task force was created to confront and begin to repair the damage caused by the Trump administration's family separation policy, one of the darkest stains on our recent history. This was not an accident. It was a calculated decision with the objective of inflicting maximum punishment to convey quote unquote zero tolerance.
▶ 3:17:45That zero tolerance policy tore thousands of children from their parents at the southern border with no system to track them, no plan to reunite them and no regard for the trauma imposed on these families. When this horrifying news broke, I attempted to conduct an oversight visit at Homestead in South Florida where we learned that children were being held and I was denied.
▶ 3:18:06And as appropriators, Democrats and Republicans, we worked together to change the law and ensure members access to detention facilities going forward without an announcement in advance. And when I was admitted in to carry out oversight along with the ranking member and and numerous others, I'll never forget what we saw there. I know many of you witnessed it as well. Many of those children were under the age of five. Many still have not been reunited with their parents. Some families have now spent more than six years apart. This isn't speculation.
▶ 3:18:36It's been painstakingly documented in court filings that are truly chilling to read. Federal courts ruled accurately that family separation without any reunification plan violated the constitutional rights of parents and children alike. The inter agency task force for the reunification of families was established in 2021 to meet the government's obligations under the Miz. LV ICE lawsuit. And just this week, a federal court ruled that the Trump administration is in breach of the settlement that resolved that case.
▶ 3:19:05We have a legal obligation to bring these families together. And more than that, we have a moral obligation. It is not enough to say, quote, "The last administration did this, the last administration did that." America has only one federal government, and it was our government that separated these families. It was our government that agreed to the terms of the settlement. It must be our government that reunites them. And this task force is the only federal entity charged with making that happen. Yet, this bill eliminates its funding entirely.
▶ 3:19:34This is especially troubling given provisions in the Republican reconciliation bill that would allow unprecedented indefinite detention of minors. Restoring this $1 million will not come close to addressing the full scope of what these families deserve. It won't undo the trauma. It won't fix the years lost. It's just a portion of what we should be dedicating, but it will keep the work going. Identifying families still separated, coordinating reunification across borders, and offering basic services to those harmed by our own policies. This should not be a partisan issue.
▶ 3:20:05No child should be used as leverage. No family should be treated as disposable, no matter our differences on border policy or immigration reform enforcement. I'm old enough to remember there was bipartisan outrage at the time how h over how these families were treated and there should be bipartisan resolve today to make it right. We owe these families more than apologies. We owe them action.
▶ 3:20:27We owe it to them to reunite them and this amendment is one small but essential step and I urge adoption of this amendment to restore funds to the family reunification task force and I yield back. Thank you gentle lady. The gentleman from Nevada, the chairman subcommittee is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The previous administration spent millions of dollars on the so-called family reunification task force. Last year, we spent almost $34 million.
▶ 3:20:57The settlement agreed to by the previous administration was really a giveaway to non-governmental organizations under the guise of supporting aliens temporarily separated from their families after adult aliens were arrested during the zero tolerance policies of the first Trump administration.
▶ 3:21:18This settlement agreed to by the previous administration provides a whole host of taxpayer funded services over a period of six years, including behavioral health, medical services, housing, and legal services. But perhaps most agariously is this settlement streamlined asylum claims, which allowed certain individuals the ability to apply for parole and jump to the head of the I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment so we can stop the endless funding
▶ 3:21:48of programs that do nothing but undermine enforcement efforts and encourage more illegal immigration. I yield back. Thank the gentleman uh for his remarks. Gentle lady from Illinois is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:22:04I rise in strong support of this amendment, which carves out $1 million to continue the family reuna reunification task force that was stood up in 2021 to facilitate the reunification of children with their families who were separated by the government between January 20th, 2017 and January 20th, 2021 in connection with the first Trump administration policy of family separation.
▶ 3:22:29In 2023, the government entered a settlement agreement that ended the practice of separating families at the border and provided a single mechanism, which is this task force to reun reunite children with their families. It is still not fully known how many children and their parents are covered under the settlement, but estimates suggest nearly 4,500 to 5,000.
▶ 3:22:51The last update we received from the Department of Homeland Security about the progress of the task force was in April of 2024, where they reported that as of March 20th, 2024, approximately 3,225 reunifications were completed with over 1,400 children without confirmed 1,400 kids. We cannot turn our backs on these families.
▶ 3:23:16We cannot ignore court We cannot abandon this task force until their mission is complete and every child is reunited with their family. This amendment restores the task force and I urge my colleagues to support it and I thank Miss Miss Wasserman Schultz for offering the amendment. I yield Thank the gentle lady. Gentle lady from Connecticut, chair of the or ranking member of the full committee is recognized to respond to the amendment.
▶ 3:23:48Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I rise in support of this amendment which provides $1 million for the most basic humanitarian responsibility of this country, ensuring that families are not ripped apart with no hope for The family separation agenda that the first Trump administration pursued was one of the most cruel and heartless policies ever enacted by this According
▶ 3:24:19to the department's own reports, nearly 1,000 and maybe more children have still never never been reunited with their parents, never have been reunited with their families. I I I clearly remember a call I had uh with Alex Azar, the HHS secretary at the time.
▶ 3:24:42I was in my home in New Haven uh with my two-year-old grandson on my lap when I asked the secretary if the Trump had a list of the children and their families in order that they would be able to reconnect their children at some point. Just a basic list of kids, parents.
▶ 3:25:11This is you know Rosa Deloro, Anna Katherine Jonathan Greenberg. That's so that we were connected. He assured me that they had such a list. It was a lie.
▶ 3:25:31A pilot program conducted in 2017 showed that DHS lacked adequate systems to track separated children for the purpose of reunification. But the Trump administration still expanded the policy in 2018, anticipating that over 26,000 children could be taken from their parents or guardians over just four months.
▶ 3:26:00This was not an accident. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a phone call to the Southwestern DA's office said, and this is a quote, "We need to take away children." End quote. He felt it was necessary to discourage migration. In a radio interview, he later said, and I quote, "If people don't want to be separated from their children, they should not bring them they should not bring them with them." end quote.
▶ 3:26:30This was understood across the first Trump administration. HHS's acting assistant secretary, Steven Wagner, told reporters, and I quote, "We expect that the new policy will result in a deterrence effect. We certainly hope that parents stop bringing their kids on this dangerous journey and entering the country illegally." End The cruelty of this policy was and is today a astounding.
▶ 3:27:02Imagine treating children, the most vulnerable among us, with less care than we treat luggage at an airport or clothing dropped off at a cleaners. We bring our clothes to be dry cleananed. They give us a slip of paper. We go back. We pick it up. We check against the list to see if we have it all. We check our bags at airports. We've got a a a tag.
▶ 3:27:28We reclaim at a baggage claim and we claim them. We can track packages today all over the world. We know where they are, when they're coming, when they're going to arrive at our doorstep. Family separation should never be a US policy again. Imagine being separated from your child.
▶ 3:27:53You think about it with no way to know where they were being sent or if you would ever be able to find them again. It was and is an appalling abuse of power. But that was a government policy. when I visited the Macallen CBP processing center and I was at Port Isabel the ICE detention facility and it was at Port Isabel where we met with the mothers. Um this was about eight years ago.
▶ 3:28:24Um we were told that ICE and CBP were working together along with HHS and that kids would be reunited with their parents. We spoke to mothers there crying. They didn't know where their kids were. They had no communication with their kids. They were hardpressed to know what to do and felt helpless in the process.
▶ 3:28:50And at the beginning of their stay, Port Isabel was a prison for these mothers. At the beginning, they were not even allowed to make a telephone call to try to get information about their child. There were two children in 2018 that were forcibly separated from their parents and brought to the state of Connecticut due to family separation. The trauma these children suffered was indescribable.
▶ 3:29:17They were ultimately reunited with their parents, but not before real rupture of trust between parent and child. Just one story. It was a Trump administration that inflicted this traum trauma under zero tolerance and should make amends for this intentional cruelty. I fought this cruel policy in both the minority and 2018, I passed an amendment through conference directing no less than four million in funding to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network for separated children and families.
▶ 3:29:452020, when I chair this committee, I directed funding to post release services to engage with family reunification service providers for those effective and increased funding for mental health services with their children. Critically, I passed language in full committee that is still in effect today requiring monthly reports on children separated from their parents at the border so that doesn't happen again. This amendment provides the bare minimum. We need to do more.
▶ 3:30:10This amendment will ensure that some effort is being made to ensure this hateful policy will not be reinstated under the Trump administration. I thank the chair. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Uh chair would advise and we're certainly will proceed with debate. We are voting now. So, uh, the debate goes on too long or we'll just suspend and go on. But I'm not trying to shut the debate down. I just want you to be aware of where we're at in timeline.
▶ 3:30:39I'm not sure where we are right now in the vote. We'll try and find that out. Uh, in the meantime, gentle lady Mcdeen is recognized for her comments on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I thank the gentle woman from Florida for uh raising this amendment and raising this issue that sadly seems so forgotten.
▶ 3:31:05More than a thousand children years separated from their families, from their parents, it's hard to even wrap your head around. And this amendment takes me back to my travels to Homestead Florida under the first Trump administration. I traveled there with a number of uh representatives, members of Congress, including John Lewis uh at Homestead. You might remember that was a forprofit detention center of children for profit.
▶ 3:31:34They charged hundreds and hundreds of dollars per day per child. And they showed us a room with all of these TV screens monitoring when the child would turn 18. And I said, 'What happens when the child turns 18? They are not only let go, they are handcuffed and deported. It was a shameful, cruel place. And it was for profit.
▶ 3:32:03In fact, one of the owners of it was uh a former member of the Trump administration. That was Homestead, Florida. And I'll never forget John Lewis with an interpreter speaking to children at a lunch table and saying, "America welcomes you. We are better than this. This is not how we treat the stranger." He was gorgeous and eloquent, and these children didn't know what to make of any of it.
▶ 3:32:30Fortunately, that horror of a detention center, for-profit detention center, was eventually closed. But we went on to other borders and visited uh others who were in detention. And I want to say this, sadly what we saw, the hallmarks of the first Trump administration were incompetence, corruption, and cruelty. And guess what? The hallmarks of the second Trump administration are incompetence.
▶ 3:33:01If you came back as president and you knew there were a thousand that children that you separated, wouldn't task number one be how do we get those kids back to their families? Wouldn't that be your moral obligation? But they're so incompetent that they can't do it. They're so corrupt that they would run for profit detention centers of And this is the thing I never understood until somebody said it to me recently.
▶ 3:33:26And I don't believe it of any members in here, but for this administration, the cruelty is not just an after effect. It is often the point. The cruelty is the point with separating children. The cruelty is the point with so much of what we are seeing. The cruelty is the point with TPS holders, this administration.
▶ 3:33:49And I pray that some of you will separate yourself from the incompetence, from the corruption that is so present before our face and from the cruelty that mars this administration and will forever and it's hurting our country. With that, I rise in strong support of this very small and modest amendment that will say we're not forgetting those children. I yield back. Thanks, gentle lady.
▶ 3:34:17Are there others wishing to uh address the amendment? Uh gentle lady from Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this Family separation, the Trump policy started in my district and it went on for months before it was discovered And I hope we can all remember those
▶ 3:34:47horrifying audio tapes of those whailing children who had been taken from their parents. I know there's a lot of folks who will say, "Well, the parents shouldn't have done that." This is about those kids. This is about those kids.
▶ 3:35:06I have met with children who were reunited with their families and despite their reunification, the trauma I want you to think about your kids and how horrific it would be to be separated from your small children and imagine the fear and the terror that those small children lived through.
▶ 3:35:37This very modest amount would go a very long way to making sure that we bring those families together. That's our That is our obligation. Our government separated them. Our government did not have a policy or a plan in place for tracking them. Our government has an obligation to write this wrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 3:36:08Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady is recognized for one minute to close. Thank you, Mr. chairman, you know, the expression there, but for the grace of God, go I is applicable here. Because I think a lot of people who would consider voting against this amendment think to themselves, well, you know, that's what they get for putting themselves in that situation.
▶ 3:36:40you know, there's a lot of mothers in this room. And I I remember back to walking through that detention facility and going to the border with the gentle lady from Texas and walking through the Mexican side of the border and seeing the babies and toddlers really in squalor intents on on the
▶ 3:37:12waiting for the opportunity to be able to come across cross and go through the process of uh of seeking asylum. I remember thinking how desperate and and trying to wrap my mind around what would happen and how I would feel if my children were ever taken from me while I was trying to trek across the entire continent.
▶ 3:37:42And once I arrived, my children were stolen from me and six years later, I still didn't have them back. I I mean, that's just incomprehensible. And the cruelty that we're allowing here is incomprehensible. We have an obligation, no matter who is in charge of our administration, to abide by settlements. That's what this ensures we do. Please support this amendment.
▶ 3:38:11It appropriates at just a million dollars to make sure this task force can continue its work, which is our obligation and the administration's obligation by law. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you. Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Florida. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. Roll call. Opinion of the chair. The nose have it. Roll call has been requested.
▶ 3:38:41Sufficient support being shown. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Adterholt. Mr. Adder Holt. No. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mr. Amade. Mr. Ammedday. No. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice.
▶ 3:39:11No. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop. I Mr. Calbertt. Mr. Calbertt. No. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter. I Mr. Casease. Mr. Casease. I Mr. Sisammani. Mr. Sisammani. No. Mr. Klene. No Mr. Klene. No Mr.
▶ 3:39:41Cloud Mr. Klyurn. I Mr. Klyurn. I Mr. Clyde. Negative. Mr. Clyde. No. Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Quay. Miss Dean.
▶ 3:40:06Miss Dean I Miss Deloro Mr. Deloro I Mr. Diaz Bolard No Mr. Diaz Bolard no Mr. Edwards no Mr. Edwards no Mr. Elzie Mr. Elzie no Miss Escobar Miss Escobar I Mr. Espayat Mr. Mr. Aspayat. I Mr. Flechman.
▶ 3:40:38Mr. Flechman. No. Miss Frankle. Miss Frankle. I Mr. Franklin Mr. Franklin. No. Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Harter. I. Mr. Harter. I. Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris. No, Mrs. Henson, Mrs. Henson.
▶ 3:41:07No, Mr. Hoyer. Hi, Mr. Hoyer. I Mr. Ivy, Mr. Ivy, I, Mr. Joyce, Miss Captor, Miss Captor, I Mr. Loa, no. Mr. Loa, no. Miss Lee, Miss Lee, I Miss Lutllo, no. Miss Leello, no. Mr. Levan, hi. Mr.
▶ 3:41:36Levan, I Miss Mallaloy, Miss Mallaloy, no. Miss McCullum. Miss McCullum. I Miss Ming. Miss Ming. I Mr. Molinar. Mr. Molinar. No. Mrs. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Morelli. Mr. Morelli. I Mr. Morvan. Mr. Murvan. I Mr. New House. Mr. New House. No.
▶ 3:42:06Miss Perez. Miss Perez. I Miss Pingri. Miss Pingri. I Mr. Pokean. Mr. Pokean. I Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley. I Mr. Rashenthaler. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. No. Mr. Rutherford. No. Mr. Rutherford. No. Mr. Mr. Strong. No. Mr. Strong.
▶ 3:42:37No. Mrs. Mrs. Torres. I Miss Underwood. Hi, Miss Underwood. I Mr. Valido. Mr. Valado. No. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz. I Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman. I Mr. Mr. Mr. Wac. No. Mr. Zinci. Mr. Zinci. No.
▶ 3:43:07Does any member excuse me. Does any member wish to record their vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Texas. Mr. Quay votes I. Are there any other members wishing to change record the vote? Seeing none, the clerk will call.
▶ 3:44:10On this uh vote, the eyes are 28, the nose are 29. The amendment is not agreed to. Uh votes have been called. We'll take a brief recess and we will reconvene immediately after the last vote. Committee stands in recess.
▶ 4:51:42committee will uh reccom convene and uh so we'll get right back to work. With that, gentle lady from Florida, Miss Washerman Schultz is recognized for an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered. As without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I I rise to offer an amendment that every member from a state vulnerable to floods, wildfires, or tornado or tornadoes or any other natural disaster should support.
▶ 4:52:12This amendment is simple. It prevents any funds in this bill from being used to eliminate FEMA. And it's perfect timing since it's hurricane season. Of course, it's not clear to President Trump's pick to lead FEMA that he even knows that. But every member here knows how critical this agency is. And we can agree that FEMA needs reforms, namely by removing barriers so it can focus on its central missions of swift emergency aid and response work in all of our local communities.
▶ 4:52:41But Homeland Security Gnome wants to burn FEMA down. The Trump administration is pushing its demise. FEMA's already slashed up to 30% of its workers. Some of its best talent pushed out the door or let go right at the start of hurricane season. and $10 billion 10 billion dollar in FEMA grants are still frozen. This is money that we Congress set aside in law that's been confiscated. Flidians are waiting for $800 million that sits in limbo.
▶ 4:53:10Instead of helping Flityians rebuild, Trump blocks those dollars and lets bureaucracy or worse ideology get in the way of needed relief. that not only handcuffs cities, counties, and electric co-ops from recovering now, it simultaneously paralyzes preparations for their next response. Shockingly, internal FEMA records admit they're not ready for this storm season. Yet, Republicans still starve the agency of resources. Let's put aside the gross incompetence and cruelty here.
▶ 4:53:39People stand to get hurt. Aid will be delayed. Families reeling from storms will suffer even longer. And why? Because once again, this president is not focused on the cost of living crisis and kitchen table issues facing American families. Instead, like with FEMA and so many other services, he makes it worse. Trump promised to fight for the working class. But delaying FEMA aid means slowing recoveries, costlier fixes, and less preparations before the next storm takes place.
▶ 4:54:08And that will cost us all as taxpayers and as storm victims. We see how this works. To give billionaires tax breaks, Republicans attack and gut federal services that keep Americans safe, like FEMA. That way, the rich don't pay their fair share, and the middle class and vulnerable workers are left to pick up the tab. That's why my amendment protects FEMA. Yes, FEMA needs fixes, but FEMA helps all of our communities. And we can make it better and should be making it better without killing it.
▶ 4:54:36The states cannot handle the responsibilities of FEMA in the aftermath of a storm on their own. That is simply not possible. Starving FEMA so federal recovery stops flowing to Florida or North Carolina doesn't help any of our communities. Places like Jacksonville, Lakeland, and Miami really can't live without FEMA, and it's not possible for them to go it alone.
▶ 4:55:02Forcing Louisiana or Mississippi to risk bankruptcy if a category 4 rolls over them, which happens on a pretty consistent basis these days, that does not make America great. So, please support my amendment to prevent FEMA from being eliminated and then we can all work on reforms to speed up recovery aid to all of our communities. Thank you. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ammedday, is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 4:55:35the amendment and all else fails, read the amendment. says uh none of the funds made available may be used by the secretary or any member of the FEMA review council established by the president last January to develop propose or implement a plan to eliminate FEMA. Well, I I I missed I missed the part of today's hearing where somebody said we really need to get rid of FEMA.
▶ 4:56:05You know, it's kind of like the brick program. It's like I don't I don't know if there's anybody in here. It's like if we just get rid of FEMA, we'd be on the road to making America great again. But when I look at this and it's like you can't talk about any of this stuff and I hear things about presidential focus and stuff like that. It's like the reason FEMA has had some bumps in the road is because of the focus of the prior doing their thing. Fine. They won the election.
▶ 4:56:34They can do that. They didn't win this election and so this administration deserves the same as the president of this administration says FEMA needs to be reformed. That's an important word. Reformed. Now I know there's been talk and and stuff like that. We've got some convention talking points going around. But I haven't heard anybody say boy will it be good when they're gone.
▶ 4:57:02So, we need to empower state and local governments who can make far better decisions for their communities than bureaucrats in Washington DC to work their will in seeing what reforms are appropriate in a noteliminated FEMA. And while I agree with my colleague that Congress has the final say on authorization of agencies and program, I got to point out that the authorizers on a bipartisan basis have introduced legislation to completely reconfigure FEMA as it exists today.
▶ 4:57:33And that's our prerogative. This amendment would hamstring the ability of the administration, the FEMA review council, and the authorizers, remember those folks, and the authorizers to work together to make necessary improvements to the federal agency in charge of disa disaster response and recovery. And we cannot allow that.
▶ 4:57:54So, we'll continue to fund the mission through programs and other investments as we all agree to, as we see fit, because it's our prerogative. Remember the part we're supposed to do our job. So, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back. Thank gentlemen, and we now turn the gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood, to respond to the amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment.
▶ 4:58:22I have been incredibly alarmed to hear President Trump, Secretary Gnome, and others in this administration attack FEMA and weaponize our federal disaster response against their political rivals. Let me be clear, playing political games and eliminating FEMA would cause catastrophic and needless suffering to the American public. State emergency management leaders have gone on the record. They are not equipped to handle the roles FEMA currently plays.
▶ 4:58:47Marshalling emergency resources from multiple federal agencies, providing flood insurance, conducting damage assessments, and distributing billions of dollars in recovery funds. Pushing disaster response and recovery fully back to the states is dangerous and unrealistic. If this administration wants to reform FEMA, then they should come to the negotiating table with real suggestions that will make Americans safer in emergencies. Meanwhile, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that desperately needed resources aren't taken away from our local communities.
▶ 4:59:18And I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, is recognized to address the amendment. I must respectfully oppose this amendment, not because I believe disaster recovery should be eliminated or weakened, but because I believe it must be strengthened and modernized.
▶ 4:59:42And this amendment risks locking us into a rigid, outdated structure that no longer serves the best interest of the American people. Let me be clear. As a representative for western North Carolina, the community hit hardest by Hurricane Helen, I know firsthand the critical importance of timely and effective federal disaster response.
▶ 5:00:06But I also know that the system that we have today is flawed, bloated, and Recovery efforts in my district have been slow, disjointed, and riddled with bureaucracy. We owe it to our constituents to consider better ways of delivering help when it's needed most. That's why I support the FEMA Act of 2025, a proposal developed by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where this issue rightly belongs.
▶ 5:00:37The FEMA Act doesn't eliminate disaster recovery, it reforms it. It proposes moving FEMA out of DHS to operate with more autonomy, flexibility, and focus. It empowers states through expanded block grants and reduces red tape and gives communities more control over how recovery dollars are used, and I certainly believe it's the right direction.
▶ 5:01:05This amendment would preemptively tie the hands of Congress just as we are beginning to evaluate those reforms. And we can't let one appropriations amendment shortcircuit the work of a committee in the middle of its deliberative process. That's just not good legislating. Whether it's FEMA or a future agency with a different name, I believe the federal government must provide disaster recovery services. But we should be open to how we do that.
▶ 5:01:36And we must make sure it works better for the people who need it most. America deserves a system that works, not just one that stays the same. And this amendment is protecting the bureaucracy and maintaining the status quo. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and let the authorizers finish their work. Thank the gentlemen. Uh we now go to the ranking member of the full committee, gentle lady from Connecticut, Mr. Lord, to respond to the amendment.
▶ 5:02:07Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would just like to say to the gentleman from North Carolina, and I want to read you this quote. I think, quote, I think we're going to uh going to recommend that FEMA go away, Trump said while touring flood damage in North Carolina in January before continuing on to Los Angeles, which was devastated by wildfires where he said, "I say you don't need FEMA, you need a good state The was it Mr.
▶ 5:02:36Hamilton who was the acting director of FEMA, he proposed that there be reforms. He lost his job. So, I I I think we're on a slippery slope here with regard to to to FEMA and making sure that FEMA is strong and supported because people need it and your state has benefited from it as my state has. Um, as well, I I rise in support of this amendment. It recognizes the invaluable role that FEMA plays in helping Americans recover from what are oftentimes lifealtering disasters.
▶ 5:03:04In the bill before us, House Republicans have doubled down on the administration's effort to throw the responsibility of disaster recovery and mitigation to the states. Let's check with North Carolina. Let's check with Oklahoma. Let's check with Connecticut to find out if they can pick up the tab. I doubt that they can. In the face of worsening natural disasters, they seek to reduce FEMA staffing/funding for climate resilience. They ignore an 8 billion shortfall in the disaster relief fund.
▶ 5:03:30Instead of focusing on ways to help lower the cost of living, help keep American people safe from threats from our adversaries, extremists, and major disasters, House Republicans are using this bill to gut critical federal resources and advance their own agenda. It should be a flashing alarm to everyone on this committee that the administration's first pick, I said, to lead FEMA, could not even survive saying that he thought the agency should exist. They fired him the very next day. This is not an academic debate. It's deadly serious.
▶ 5:04:00We have seen extraordinary wildfires earlier this year in California, and June is just getting started. Even more places will burn by the end of the summer. Currently, FEMA is responding to disasters, including severe storms in Arkansas, Tennessee, floods and tornadoes in Kentucky, wildfires in Oklahoma. We're preparing to enter the hurricane season, which is once again predicted by Noah to produce more uh than average storms. Keep in mind, it's though it's in another bill.
▶ 5:04:29This administration wants to get rid of Noah as well. They don't want to th keep our eyes closed and not know anything about whether or not we're going to have a storm or a flood or anything. And then we're not going to give you any money for it as well. You're on your own. Last year's season was the third most expensive on record. 18 named stores that dealt with over 130 billion in damage. Hurricanes are not just a threat to the Gulf Coast.
▶ 5:04:51Hurricane Helen wrecked nearly six 60 billion dollars worth of damage on North Carolina, much of it in rural western areas of the state. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle could not be picking a worst time to short change disaster relief. What happened in California or Kentucky or North Carolina could happen to any of us next? We are two weeks into the hurricane season once again predicted by Noah to produce more than average storms. Last year's season was the third most expens expensive on record.
▶ 5:05:2118 storms, $130 billion in damage. It's not just the Gulf States or wildfire prone states that are at risk. Every single state territory in some form or another eventually suffers a disaster. Every single state territory looks to FEMA for support when that happens. I hope my colleagues in this committee never have to experience a moment like that. But when many of us inevitably do, we will think back to this moment and either be proud or ashamed of what we voted to do.
▶ 5:05:49Quote, in support of FEMA, I don't think it makes sense to get rid of FEMA. Lynn Bud, director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, said in an interview with Sale, there are economies of scale that a nationwide agency provides. States don't have the capability built to handle a disaster every single year. Um, some governors, including Democrat Andy Basher of Kentucky. Trump's threats to dismantle FEMA are dangerous. It would be disastrous in and of itself for the FEMA organization to be dissolved.
▶ 5:06:18Um, uh, removing access to federal resources from FEMA would undermine power restoration efforts, negatively affect reliability, ultimately increase the cost of electricity. This is NRCA said in comments filed with the agency. And this is the National Rural Electric Co-ops Association. This the the bulk of the information says that let us not short change uh a FEMA.
▶ 5:06:44Let's not do it in um let me just say we're going to look back on this moment and I hope my colleagues would support uh the gentle lady's um uh uh amendment. Um I urge my colleagues to support this. I yield Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer is recognized to address the amendment. I'll yield to LA if she wants to speak now. Will you yield?
▶ 5:07:12I'm going to ask for recognition later. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, if that's okay. Um, I think it's important to recognize Oklahoma was mentioned and Oklahoma has been impacted by many, many, many severe storms and tornadoes um over my lifetime. But I think the function of FEMA isn't working anymore. It has become bureaucratic. It has become bloated.
▶ 5:07:36I'm currently working cases in my district where FEMA hasn't paid for disa disaster uh debris removal for over two years. Uh I want to submit for the record uh without objection uh Mr. Chairman an article from the Vermont public uh website. FEMA's plotting bureaucracy exacts financial toll on Vermont towns.
▶ 5:08:01At least five counties in Vermont were part of a 2023 federal disaster declaration and they have yet, as of this article's date is, September of 24, that have yet to be reimbursed. These communities cannot afford the huge cost of debris removal for two years or more uh when FEMA doesn't pay them reimburse them for the services that they've provided. This can't continue.
▶ 5:08:27Uh I I certainly want to see reforms, but I think that we have to get someone's attention to have them recognize that this is a problem. I think their mission uh there's been mission creep within FEMA. the bureaucracy has continued and in order to make sure that we're actually getting services to the people that truly need it, something has to be done. And so, um, I appreciate, uh, the amendment.
▶ 5:08:53I will be voting no on this, but I I think it's worth noting that something has to be done with FEMA. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. And I thank the gentleman from Maryland for catching that for me. Gentleman from Maryland's recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Uh some of you will remember uh a report language that I offered when Mr. Harris's bill was on the floor or in the committee. Mr. Harris responded to me, "This is only report language. Nobody will pay attention.
▶ 5:09:25This is why. This is why if FEMA needs reforming, and I may certainly agree with that, we are the reformers. The president can propose to us reform, but he can't adopt it. Mr. Vote thinks he can. Mr. Vote thinks he can fire anybody he wants to fire. Mr.
▶ 5:09:53vote thinks he can do almost anything he wants to do under article 2 authority which he believes is almost plenary. The issue that the lady from Florida raises is we don't have those reforms in place. We don't have an alternative in place and let's not throw out what we have which in my view in many many many instances has worked very well. In some instance have they messed up?
▶ 5:10:22They have they're like every other agency then in that respect. But the issue we're going to deal with as an appropriations committee is is the or is the executive responsible? Forget about the issue of what needs to be in reform. I'm glad people are working on it. I may well support it.
▶ 5:10:50But I am not going to eliminate an agency before we have a reform proposed either by the president or very frankly by ourselves or jointly. That's why report language may not make any difference. I will tell you when I first started on this committee, report language meant something. And why? Because agencies were concerned that if we did not follow the voice of Congress and the direction of Congress, their budgets would be cut.
▶ 5:11:21pursuant to our article one authority. So what whatever side of the aisle you're on, it seems to me if you respect the Congress, if you respect Article One, if you think we're the ones supposed to do it, then you'll vote for this amendment and say, "Yes, let's get to reform. You say it's not working. Bring it down to us. We'll debate it. We'll initiate it. We'll pass it. You implement it. That's what executing means.
▶ 5:11:53I hope this amendment is passed. Thank the gentleman. Uh is there any other member wishing to gentle lady from Ohio is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you uh Mr. Chairman and um I would like to yield a a minute to the gentle lady from our ranking member from Connecticut. I thank you very much.
▶ 5:12:23Um, Congress from Captor. I I just want to note that this is information that um um talks about what FEMA has done by state uh over the last uh 20 years. And I just will read you with regard to Oklahoma here. Further, there are 58 open uh awards here.
▶ 5:12:47Uh and over the these years, $2.4 billion dollars has gone from FEMA to the state of Oklahoma. Now, I'm going to ask you, is that possible for and I've got every other state, which will get it out so that you can see uh how much your state has received uh from from FEMA over the years and what kind of open awards are there. I just to say is that is this uh your state going to be able to pick that amount of money up? Think about it.
▶ 5:13:17Think about it when the administration uh uh the president and the director of homeland security have both said we should eliminate FEMA. And if you think about it and what your state has received over the years from FEMA, you'll think twice and you will vote for this amendment. I thank the gentle lady. I thank the ranking member and I also rise in support of the amendment uh from our colleague and friend from Florida.
▶ 5:13:42Um Ohio has had plenty of tornadoes and floods and uh coastal erosion and uh all that forest fire dust comes down on us now over the last couple years from Canada. It's really a different universe around the Great Lakes with all that's happening. I've always been a supporter of FEMA even before it became rolled into the Department of Homeland Security.
▶ 5:14:07Um, we have drawn upon FEMA uh for our firefighters equipment uh as well as personal upgraded safety equipment uh respirators, hoses, and as the uh ranking member has stated uh awards to our state to try to clean up after disasters. I would be the first not just to vote for this amendment in order that we can continue meeting the real needs of the American people, but also to look at reforming FEMA.
▶ 5:14:38When FEMA was its own agency, it was much more agile. And I wasn't happy when it got rolled into the Department of Homeland Security. I'll just be honest with you, because when a disaster happens, you need an entity that is less bureaucratic.
▶ 5:14:52So, I don't want to change anything in the amendment, but I will say I would be one of those open to language uh that would urge um a um a review uh by the respective um responsible to make it more agile so they can get there faster and with the proper resources. And I know that there are people from my region, for example, when there's flooding in Kentucky or North Carolina.
▶ 5:15:19Uh the people from Defiance and Brian, Ohio, stand with you. When there's a hurricane in Florida or Louisiana, Ohioans from Sunduski and Vermillion will be there for you. Could FEMA improve and make it even better? Yes. These fires in Los Angeles and Maui or Nevada, uh the people of our region want to help and they actually do. We have teams that go out. So, um I am very proud uh supporter of FEMA.
▶ 5:15:45I think that this increase is absolutely uh warranted and uh but I would be supportive of those that are talking about um reform uh and strengthening FEMA as we move forward. Thank you so very much and I yield back. Thank gentle lady. Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to yield to my good friend, Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
▶ 5:16:14Uh, I can't believe I'm trying to make a rational debate in here. I've found in my short time on appropriations that's often a uh a feudal exercise, but I can't help but listen to the argument from the other side. What I hear is the uh the bitterness and the distaste of the current administration. My argument in voting against this amendment is to allow Congress to do its work.
▶ 5:16:45Uh I very specifically said that there is a FEMA uh act of 2025 in process right now in the TNI committee. Uh let's allow Congress to do its work. Let's let's get the distaste for the current administration out of the the the rational thinking here. Vote against this amendment and let's let Congress do its work.
▶ 5:17:12I will also reiterate that there are few people in this room that have more uplose and personal interaction with FEMA over the last eight months than I. Up until September 27th, FEMA was nothing more than a line item on a budget for me. Uh, since September 27th, I've very much been getting an education. I can tell you that FEMA needs major reform and Congress is best suited to do that.
▶ 5:17:41Please get past your distaste of the administration. Let Congress do its work and vote no on this amendment. Thank Y back, Mr. Schumer. Thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the Seeing none, the gentle lady from Florida is recognized for one minute to close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:18:07I'll just point out to the gentleman from North Carolina that this is the fourth anniversary today of the collapse of the Champlne Tower South building in Surfside, Florida. So, I can guarantee you that I have quite a bit more experience directly with FEMA than you. And I represent a district that is in smack in the middle of Hurricane Alley. So, trust me when I tell you that I have a lot of experience with FEMA. And my amendment has nothing to do with my disdain for President Trump here.
▶ 5:18:36Not one person in this room, not one person in this room has stood up and said that we should close down FEMA or that we should eliminate FEMA. We are legislators and that's our job is to legislate. The president said Trump says he plans to phase out FEMA after 2025 hurricane season. There are numerous other examples where he said his the plan is to wean off FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level.
▶ 5:19:02I say you don't need FEMA, you need a good state government, Trump said while visiting the Los Angeles fires in January. FEMA is a very expensive in my opinion mostly failed situation. We have an opportunity to reform FEMA and we can do that through legislation. In the meantime, the president has cut FEMA by 30. He's cut 30% of the employees. He says he's going to phase out FEMA after the 2025 hurricane season.
▶ 5:19:28If he shuts it down before we have a chance to legislate about how to reform it, then it's going to go away. And if we think that we get constituent casework that is alarming as a result of people having challenges dealing with FEMA, now imagine if FEMA's shut down and we have 50 different ways plus the territories to deal with the aftermath of natural disasters and reimbursement when somebody is trying to be made whole. That would be a nightmare.
▶ 5:19:56And so all we're doing here is suggest is saying that in the meantime we should not spend funds and that's what the appropriations committee does and our bills only last a year. So there's no alarm about you know blocking it interminably. We would just be saying no funds should be spent as is the prerogative of the appropriations committee to shut FEMA down while Congress looks at reforming it. I urge the adoption of my amendment if you live in a natural disaster area and want to make sure you can keep people whole.
▶ 5:20:27Thank you. Thank the gentle lady. I would remind members to try to stay within the clock. The chair is very generous with time. I know people are very passionate about issues. Just please try and stay within the allotted time if you can. Questions now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Florida. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. The opinion of the chair of the nose have it. Me roll call has been requested.
▶ 5:20:56Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Adhalt. No. Mr. Adhalt. No. Mr. Agular. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mr. Amade. Mr. Ammedday. No. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice. No. Mr. Bishop. Yes. Mr. Bishop. I. Mr. Calbertt. Mr. Calbertt. No. Mr. Carter. No. Mr. Carter. No. Mr. Casease. Mr. Casease. I. Mr. Sisammani.
▶ 5:21:27Mr. Sisammani. No. Mr. Klene. Mr. Klene. No. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud. No. Mr. Klyurn. Mr. Klyber. I. Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde. No. Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Quayar. Mr. Quayar. I. Miss Dean. Miss Dean. I. Mr. Loro. Mr. Loro. I. Mr. Mr. Diaz Bolard. Mr. Mr. Diaz Bolard. Mr. Diaz Bolard. No. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards.
▶ 5:21:57No. Mr. Elzie. Mr. Else. No. Mr. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar. I Mr. Espayat. Mr. Espayat. I. Mr. Fleman. Miss. Frankle. Miss. Frankle. I. Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin. No. Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez. No. Mr. Guest Mr. Guest no Mr. Harter I Mr. Harter I Dr. Harris Dr. Harris no Mrs. Henson Mrs.
▶ 5:22:27Henson no Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hoyer I Mr. Ivy Mr. Ivy I Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce no Miss Captor Miss Captor I Mr. Loa Mr. Loa. No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee. I Miss Llo. Miss Llo. Mr. Lean. Mr. Levan. I. Miss Mallaloy.
▶ 5:22:57Miss Malloy. No. Miss McCullum. Miss Ming. Miss Ming. I. Mr. Molinar. Mr. Molinar. No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Morelli. I Mr. Morelli. I Mr. Murvan. I Mr. Murvan. I Mr. New House. Mr. New House. No. Miss Perez. Miss Perez. I Miss Pingri. Miss Pingri. I Mr. Pokean. Mr. Pokean. I Mr.
▶ 5:23:27Quigley. Mr. Rashenthaler. Mr. Rashenthaler. No. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. No. Mr. Mr. Rutherford. No. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong, no. Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres, Mrs. Torres, I Miss Underwood, hi. Mrs. Underwood, I Mr. Valado, Mr. Valado, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz, Miss Wasserman Schultz, I Mrs.
▶ 5:23:57Watson Coleman, Mrs. Watson Coleman, I Mr. Wac, Mr. Wac, No. Mr. Zinci, Mr. Zinci, no. Does any member wish to record their vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Mr. Fleshman, no. Are there any others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 5:25:05On this vote, the eyes are 25, the nos are 34. The amendment is not adopted. Is there any further amendment or discussion? M the gentle lady from Florida, Miss Wasserman Schultz, is recognized for an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read.
▶ 5:25:33Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this amendment to prohibit the use of taxpayer money to detain, deport, or remove Venezuelans who were granted temporary protected status or TPS. Specifically, this amendment would provide relief for Venezuelan nationals who would still qualify for protection if not for the Trump administration's arbitrary and cynical termination of their lawful status. This amendment does not offer blanket amnesty.
▶ 5:26:01It does not shield those who commit crimes or pose a threat. It just keeps our promise to people who followed every legal requirement we set out for them. They applied under a humanitarian protection program that Congress created and presidents of both parties have utilized. They passed continuous criminal background checks. They registered with the government. They earned work permits. They paid taxes and application fees. They are teachers, nurses, small business owners, construction workers and child care and elder care providers. They are raising US citizen children.
▶ 5:26:29The only reason they are now subject to detention or removal is because Republicans decided to end TPS for Venezuela without any regard for the conditions there. That decision flies in the face of everything senior officials in this administration have said about Venezuela. Secretary of State Rubio has repeatedly and publicly condemned the Maduro regime as corrupt, authoritarian, and hostile to basic freedoms. He is correct. And since Maduro's stolen election and brutal crackdown last year, the humanitarian and political crisis there has only deepened.
▶ 5:26:57So let me ask, how can we condemn a regime as dangerous and repressive and then forcibly exile people back to the same regime? It's incoherent. It's morally indefensible and exposes this administration's hypocrisy for what it is. There is no security or law enforcement rationale for treating lawful immigrants as criminals without any due process. And there is certainly no moral justification for returning Venezuelan democracy advocates to a dictatorship that jails their family members and wants them dead.
▶ 5:27:23So why then did that did Trump decide to strip lawful status away from people who are not criminals and did all the right things? It's simple. He wants to deport as many people as possible and doesn't care whether they are upstanding community members or real criminals or even whether or not they have a legal basis to stay. So, he's going after the low-hanging fruit. Venezuelans who filed their information with the government and who are easier for DHS to round up. Let's also talk about this policy's economic consequences.
▶ 5:27:50For starters, Venezuelan CPS holders are essential workers in industries across the country. Many of them own small businesses. They're part of our labor force and our tax base. They pay into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without demanding anything in return but safe harbor from dictatorship. This amendment doesn't shield anyone with a criminal record. In fact, any criminal history would render you automatically ineligible for TPS. It does not override final orders of removal for individuals who are no longer eligible.
▶ 5:28:15It simply says that if a person was lawfully protected under TPS and isn't a criminal, DHS shouldn't waste our money on rounding them up instead of countering real threats. Let's not forget we are talking about people who are part of the largest peaceime refugee crisis in the world. We welcome them under a legal framework because we recognize their need for protection. If this administration succeeds in removing them, it won't just shatter families. It will deal a brutal blow to a community that has already been de devastated by tragedy.
▶ 5:28:43If somebody poses no danger, if you were here legally yesterday until President Trump decided you weren't, the US government should not deplete its limited resources, tearing your life apart. This is not just about immigration. This is about consistency in our fallen for foreign policy and laws. We cannot denounce authoritar authoritarian dictators like Maduro while cutting side deals with him to swap immigrants for sanctions relief. We cannot be a beacon for human rights while exacting collective punishment on victims of hardship.
▶ 5:29:12We shouldn't send human beings into harm's way to score political points, especially Venezuelans who love America and appreciate the rights many take for granted. As a proud resident of the city known affectionately as Westa, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amade is recognized to respond to the amendment. I oppose the gentle lady's amendment.
▶ 5:29:42While I appreciate that members may have concluding or conflicting opinions over this issue, it seems to be yet another example of the previous administration's chronic exploitation of every immigration loophole without following the letter and spirit of the law. The fact of the matter is that we were unable to fully vet everyone who came in under this program.
▶ 5:30:03And when we see just how many Venezuelans have ties to one of the most ruthless gangs on the planet, TDA, now I know some of you are better at saying Hispanic words than I am, so I use the acronym. Full disclosure, TDA, it just makes sense to defer to the department here. Their job is to assess the balance assess and balance our homeland security interests and competing priorities.
▶ 5:30:29assess and balance our homeland security interests and competing priorities. And if DHS has determined that this program needs to be terminated, I'm going to agree with them after I look at the analysis and if it's appropriate. And particularly as we are under a heightened threat environment, it is of the utmost importance that we ensure the safety of our fellow American citizens. I yield back.
▶ 5:30:57Thank gentlemen for his remarks. Gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwoods, recognized to address the amendment. I rise in support of this amendment which will help restore fairness and reduce confusion in the wake of Secretary Gnome's recision of TPS for Venezuela earlier this year. Although some of the 600,000 Venezuelans who had TPS status may be eligible for another form of legal status, the vast majority of Venezuelans are about to be in illegal status.
▶ 5:31:23And like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am concerned that it's not safe for many Venezuelans to return to their homeland. Yet, this amendment acknowledges what everyone except the Secretary of Homeland Security knows. The people of Venezuela endure corruption, persecution, and human rights abuses at the hands of the Maduro regime. Temporary protected status was created for scenarios just like these, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
▶ 5:31:53Espayat's recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I rise in support of this amendment. Uh, I thought we were supposed to be the Uh and in fact, time and time again, we've heard in the uh Florida region and in states like Florida that we are left to the left and uh we're not moderate,
▶ 5:32:23we're not family oriented, we're not faith that in fact uh that is entirely a domain of the other side of the aisle. But what we see now is that people that are fleeing a communist regime, an oppressive regime, one that's uh full of corruption, persecution, and human rights violation. What we see now is that we're sending families back.
▶ 5:32:55We're sending them back to a place where they may be persecuted and if not killed. And so TPS, temporary protective status, was designed to provide people like the Venezuelans protection from a government that threatens to kill them. Simple as that. A very repressive government and one that doesn't share our values uh in government or democracy.
▶ 5:33:24And so, uh, this I'm baffled by this because we're supposed to be the lefties, uh, and we're supposed to be the ones that cuddled leftleaning uh, governments across the world. And so what you do is people that are victims of those governments, you send them back so they can get imprisoned, tortured, I think that's the wrong approach.
▶ 5:33:54I think we should be we should continue to be u a beacon of hope and opportunity for the world. And that means looking at people that are being persecuted in this way, in this fashion across the world and giving giving them an opportunity to be safe, a safe haven. And and I disagree that that they're criminals. I most of the ones that I seen, if not all, are hardworking people.
▶ 5:34:20In fact, they deliver my food at in the middle of the night, under the rain, under the cold weather. They take care of the elderly and and children and they they m some of your lawns and they do all the stuff that other people don't want to do and they keep us going forward. So, I urge you all to continue to move America forward. Support this amendment and I yield back, Mr.
▶ 5:34:51Thank the gentlemen. Are there any other members wishing to address the If not, there's at the desk an amendment in the second degree to the amendment offered by Mr. Ammedday. Mr. Amade, you're recognized to uh explain your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
▶ 5:35:18Without objection, the department has discretion to determine if TPS for any country is necessary, proper, and aligned with Homeland Security interests. At the same time, I think it's also appropriate for this committee to ensure that we conduct vigorous oversight of those determinations. This amendment does just that, allows the department to execute its authority while assessing the conditions that led DHS to make this determination. That's right.
▶ 5:35:48We can take a look at what they decided was important when they made their determination. I want to make sure we know the language here. This is report language. And this just changes the sentence that says uh the committee strongly encourages the secretary to reconsider the termination of TPS for Venezuelans and conduct a more thorough analysis of the situation in country not later than 30 days after the date of enactment
▶ 5:36:18of this act. The secretary shall provide a briefing to the committee on the evaluation of the conditions that led to the termination of TPS in Venezuela. We changed two words. We got rid of strongly encourages the secretary and changed that to directs the secretary to do that. Why are you doing this? It'll be kind of nice to know why they decided what they what they what their basis was for deciding to terminate TPS. That's a legitimate oversight function.
▶ 5:36:48I uh I recommend your support and I yield back. Thank you. Gentle lady from Illinois. Miss Underwood is recognized to address the second degree amendment. This amendment will do nothing to fix the real problem, which is Secretary Gnome's misunderstanding of the facts on the ground. In terminating the 2023 TPS designation for Venezuela, DHS stated, quote, "Overall, certain conditions for the 2023 TPS designation of Venezuela may continue.
▶ 5:37:19However, there are notable improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime that allow for these nationals to be safely returned to their home country." Such a statement is patently at odds with reality on the ground. According to our own State Department's travel advisory issued on May 12th, Venezuela remains a harsh repressive dictatorship where there is a quote high risk of wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime,
▶ 5:37:49civil unrest, and poor health The advisory also found that quote violent crimes such as homicide, armed robbery, kidnapping, and carjacking are common in Venezuela. Police and security forces have instituted a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy or anti-regime demonstrations, including the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets against participants, which occasionally devolve into looting and vandalism.
▶ 5:38:17In spite of all this, Secretary Gnome has quote determined that permitting Venezuelan nationals to remain in the United States is in fact contrary to the national interest as is the Secretary's authority and prerogative under the statute. So in spite of the obvious obvious facts on the ground, I have little faith that the Department of Homeland Security will do anything other than continue to find that she wants to remove Venezuelan nationals as quickly as possible.
▶ 5:38:45A study will do nothing other than result in the same nonsensical findings that the secretary used to try and get rid of Venezuelans as quickly as possible. I urge the rejection of this secondary amendment and I urge a vote in support of the underlying amendment. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentle lady from 40 Florida, Miss Wman Schultz, is recognized to address the second degree amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:39:08I I'll just point out um because the gentleman from uh Nevada seemed to paint all Venezuelan immigrants with a brush of criminality and uh being gang members um that TPS is granted individually. Each person who is granted TPS applies for TPS individually and there is a criminal background check.
▶ 5:39:34So you can't be granted TPS if you have committed crimes in against this country. Uh and I rise to oppose the secondary amendment um because what it would do is it would eliminate the underlying amendment by House Democrats to protect law-abiding Venezuelans from a socialist dictatorship. DHS rationalized ripping away lawful status from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans by citing quote notable improvements in several several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime. That's bewilderling. bewilderling bewildering.
▶ 5:40:04Given more than half of Venezuelans live in extreme poverty, residents cannot access basic life-saving medicine. And back in 2020, Maduro himself was indicted by the US for his alleged involvement in narcot trafficking. And this came despite statements just days later from former senator and now our and former defender of Venezuelans, now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, that the Maduro dictatorship is, and I quote, a regime that has forced about 8 million citizens to leave Venezuela. They imprison, they torture innocent individuals.
▶ 5:40:31He said that Maduro is quote an enemy of humanity and quote the same threat today that he was two years ago, three years ago, four years ago. The same threat as when Trump and Biden and members of both parties acted to provide TPS for Venezuelans. I wrote to Secretary Gnome on January 30th asking her to reconsider. Her response was, quote, given the current conditions in Venezuela, DHS has every intention of ending 2023 Venezuela TPS. Doesn't get much clearer than that. Venezuelan Americans are in crisis. They're afraid to go to work.
▶ 5:41:01Their kids are afraid to go to school. They can't even attend their asylum hearings for fear that they will be snatched up by masked men and stuffed in detention. These people followed the law and did it the right way. The Trump administration treating them this way should help you realize that they don't care what conditions Venezuelans are sent back to. Otherwise, there wouldn't be 300 Venezuelans in an El Salvador death camp or thousands in inhumane ICE detention.
▶ 5:41:23And I appreciate the chairman's agreement to my request to to direct them to reconsider rather than strongly encourage them under this secondary amendment. We should be stopping them in this bill through my original amendment. But this language will send a message to the administration that they must look at the conditions on the ground now. But I oppose the secondary amendment because the previous admin administration did not overuse TPS obviously given the bipartisan outrage over the dangerous conditions in Venezuela.
▶ 5:41:51and I urge anyone who considers themselves an ally of the Venezuelan pro-democracy cause to join me. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the second degree amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is Mr. Amade is recognized for one minute to close. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This this will be relatively quick. It was my understanding that this was going to lead to our agreeing to the underlying amendment and your agreement to the secondary one.
▶ 5:42:22Since there isn't, I withdraw the secondary amendment and I'm prepared to go forward on a vote on the original amendment. Thank you. I yield Are there any other members wishing to address the original amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady from Florida is recognized for one minute to close. Okay, Mr.
▶ 5:42:46Chairman, we have a misunderstanding because our staffs had a conversation and there was an understanding about what was going to happen going forward. So, I'm not clear what's happened here, but well, I'd be glad to work it out, but I am surprised the gentleman withdrew the secondary amendment.
▶ 5:43:08Let me uh just Would you two like to withdraw for a moment and then you can I would that be all we'll set aside this amendment you guys uh communicate and we'll revisit it at the end of the day. Thank you. That would be helpful. Thank you. Oh, what? Okay. Well, actually I'm told we can't come back. So, we can take a very brief like five minute recess or something. Why can't we come back?
▶ 5:43:35or or you can withdraw it and resubmit it again and we'll entertain it at the end of the deal, but we can't. Yeah, I Well, that's what I was hoping to do with a chairman question. I certainly have no objection to that. The gentleman said he's going to withdraw his amendment. I I started to get up to object.
▶ 5:44:03Um, am I correct that once that amendment is offered, it cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the offer of the amendment. It takes the consent of the body itself in whose possession that motion now is. Is that That is correct. Then I object.
▶ 5:44:24Uh well, parliamentary inquiry if the gentle just a moment. No, he won't. We should just table the amendment and move on. The deal was him.
▶ 5:44:54Uh actually under amendment we couldn't take out actually the gentleman can withdraw the amendment I'm now advised. Correct. So is the amendment withdrawn? Yes it is. Okay. So we are on the original Is that correct? I thought you ruled Mr. German that could not be done unilaterally by the sponsor of an amendment. Once amendment I have actually not ruled on anything. I'm getting advice on how to rule.
▶ 5:45:36I'm I'm advised that your parliamentary experts and our parliamentary experts agree that the gentleman can withdraw. Mr. Chairman there separate rules for the parliamentary inquiry. Gentle lady again I will come to you if you would just hold for one second.
▶ 5:46:15that would give you time to work. I'm advised that we have two we you can withdraw it and we can bring it back which would give you two a chance to communicate. Uh otherwise we'd have to proceed and vote. So I would recommend you withdraw and again if you want to resubmit it in its original form that'll be fine. We'll do that. just if you'll withdraw then you two can hopefully work is willing to talk with me because we seem to have a misunderstanding about what was agreed to.
▶ 5:46:45Well that's fine but I want to keep this he's shaking his head up and down so I'm good that's fine with draw the amendment for now it we need to keep moving here Mr. Quayrar is recognized. Oh, he's gotten up. We'll come back to Mr. Quayar.
▶ 5:47:16Mr. Quigley, are you here? Yes, you are. Thank you very much. Gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Quigley is recognized for an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask the reading be dismissed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment. And uh this also proves that half of life is showing up. But uh thank Mr.
▶ 5:47:39Chair I rise to today reminded us today uh that four months ago we marked three years since Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. A brutal assault on Ukraine sovereignty and democracy that has forced millions to flee their homelands in search of safety. Since that dark day on February 24th, 2022, tens of thousands of Ukrainians have sought refuge in the United States.
▶ 5:48:09For many of them, the Uniting for Ukraine program has provided a vital humanitarian lifeline, offering a pathway to safety, dignity, and hope. This humanit uh my amendment urges the USCIS to continue the uniting for Ukraine program. This grants humanitarian parole for Ukrainians. I've traveled Ukraine five times since the war began.
▶ 5:48:37Several times with uh Democrats and Republicans in this room. We have witnessed firsthand the devastation, the shelled schools, the bombed out apartment buildings, the communities wiped off the map, burned places of worship, kidnapped children. And I've met with families separated by the conflict and the young children growing up too fast in the shadow of war. But I've also seen something more powerful than the destruction, the unbreakable will of the Ukrainian people.
▶ 5:49:06Their courage, determination, and their fierce love for their homeland are unmatched. And they remind us of the values we hold dear in this country. Freedom, resilience, and the fight for democracy. For the decade, I had the honor of representing Ukrainians Village, one of the largest Ukrainian communities in the US. Since the start of the war, I've spoken with hundreds of Ukrainian families both in my district and abroad, who have shared their stories of unimaginable loss.
▶ 5:49:35As co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, I worked alongside our colleagues from both sides of the aisle to ensure the United States firmly with Ukraine, not only in defense against aggression, but in our humanitarian response as well. Two months later, the administration launched the United Ukrainian initiative, opening a critical humanitarian pathway for those seeking refuge in the US. But today, that pathway is at risk.
▶ 5:50:04USCIS has paused the United for Ukraine program, leaving families in limbo, sponsors uncertain, and our commitments hanging in the balance. This amendment urges USCIS to resume this important program, maintain efficient processing timelines, and ensure that sponsors and beneficiaries receive the robust support they deserve. Right now, the world is watching.
▶ 5:50:28So are the Ukrainians, those still on the front lines, those who have made new homes here, and those trying to reunite with loved ones. They are watching to see if we will stand by our values, if we will honor our commitments, not just with weapons and aid packages, but with compassion, consistency, and leadership. Thank you, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank gentleman for his comments. Gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ammedday, is recognized to address the amendment.
▶ 5:50:59I support the gentleman's modified amendment which urges the department to continue the uniting for Ukraine program. This program has been in existence since April of 22. Quite a bit has changed on the ground in the past three years. The modification of the amendment before us acknowledges congressional intent while still giving the department the discretion to evaluate the program's necessity and effectiveness as conditions evolve in Ukraine. I will support support the amendment as modified and I yield back.
▶ 5:51:30Thank the gentleman. The gentle lady from Illinois is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment will provide much neededed clarity to USCIS by directing it to continue to operate the very successful Uniting for Ukraine program that has helped folks who have been displaced by Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine to get settled in the United States. The program requires incoming Ukrainians to pass a background check and have a financial sponsor so that they so that they don't end up on government resources.
▶ 5:52:00Shortly after the Trump administration started, USCIS placed an administrative hold on United for Ukraine, effectively freezing the program. The program remains in legal limbo after several conflicting court rulings this spring, leaving approximately 240,000 Ukrainians in the US uncertain about whether they may continue to stay. As the committee knows, the war in Ukraine is well into its third year with no insight, despite Donald Trump's assertion that he would end the war on his first day.
▶ 5:52:29After a pause of nearly 5 months, it is time for USCIS to make the appropriate changes to the program to prevent fraud and get back to supporting the people and organizations here in America who are willing and able to help the people of Ukraine who have fled death and destruction in their homeland. I urge a yes vote on this amendment and I yield Thank the gentle lady.
▶ 5:52:51The gentle lady from the state of Washington, Miss Perez, is recognized to address the and and thank you to our chairman for um your support of this amendment. Thank you to RepresentativeWigley for offering it. Um, I think one of the things that um it is going to be long work to position Ukraine in the in in the durable work of preserving their democracy, their ability to work here and send those remmences back home to rebuild the infrastructure that Russia has so ruthlessly attacked uh and destroyed.
▶ 5:53:21This is, you know, as a small business owner, I can tell you that it it's it's not just a a light switch that you flip on and off. A hiring decision takes time. It takes work. uh and the uncertainty that has been generated by the pause in UCIS's uh processing of these applications is really detrimental to the long-term success of Ukraine's independence and pursuit of democracy. Um a a truly righteous fight.
▶ 5:53:45Uh and I appreciate this committee's work to support that fight and ensure that they have the resources necessary uh to defend and rebuild their country. I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Deans, recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:54:10Uh, and I too rise to say it's a bright spot in this committee to see this kind of agreement, to see this understanding uh that we need to support uh Ukraine and the Ukrainians who have come here and seeking refuge. Uh my district like yours is home uh to many Ukrainian Americans and many students who have come as a result of this three almost three and a half year war. Uh I too have been uh to Ukraine to Kev.
▶ 5:54:36Uh and also have met with service members there, family members there, family members here, uh young people who have been through so much. Uh so to me it is a real bright spot to show this kind of support and I know you are co-chairs uh with Miss Captor of the Ukraine caucus. Uh I really admire your work. Uh and I hope we can do more work like this where we agree on things so important because what we see in Ukraine is something that I think we search for in ourselves.
▶ 5:55:07a value of democracy, a value of understanding that uh it takes work to protect a democracy young or older like ours. Uh so I'm just thrilled that there is this agreement and I thank the gentleman for bringing the amendment. Do any other members wish to address the If not, the gentleman from Illinois is recognized for one minute to close. Oh, I'm sorry.
▶ 5:55:34gentle lady from Ohio, Miss Captor is recognized to address the amendment. Thank Thank you very much um Mr. Chairman and I want to commend Congressman Quigley uh to uh protect the uh Uniting for Ukraine program. And to all my colleagues, we know that when liberty calls uh and it hangs in the balance, patriots must stand tall to keep the hope of liberty alive.
▶ 5:56:01And that often happens by working with families who so want to achieve that difficult goal that Vladimir Putin has um cast upon the country uh that they call home. He invaded in 2014 and even after Ukraine became free in 1991, he did everything in his power to kill journalists.
▶ 5:56:24He did everything in his power to disrupt government, to try to have henchmen in there, to run agencies and departments in the most corrupt manner. It has not been easy for the people of Ukraine. So, connections to the West, including protecting beloved family members who wish to re return home is something surely it is the least we can do. How we get back the tens of thousands of children that Putin is currently reprogramming is a task that I would place on each of your shoulders.
▶ 5:56:55It won't be easy, but that remains for the world to do. And the first step to addressing this crisis is recognizing its scale. Millions of Ukrainians have been relocated from one part of the country to the other and to adjoining nations in Europe and elsewhere.
▶ 5:57:13And I look forward to working with our Senate counterparts to increase support for this critical program as well as ensure the existing funding in this legislation is used for the projects that are truly in the most urgent need while the war in Ukraine continues to rage on. As Jesse Jackson Jr. would say um or senior would say, keep hope alive and this is the program to do it. Thank you so very much and again thank you Congressman Quigley for bringing this before the full committee.
▶ 5:57:42keep the hope of liberty alive. I yield. Thanks, gentle lady. Do any other members wish to address the amendment? If not, the gentleman from Illinois is recognized for one minute to close. Mr. Chairman, every once I see a little flicker of light, a glimmer of hope that our our parties can work together on things that matter.
▶ 5:58:02uh the chairman of the subcommittee deserves some uh real credit from me for uh asking me to mic a modification rather than uh opposing this amendment and uh that's greatly appreciated. I've seen little glimmers of that with uh other amendments that have gone forward. And I'd ask that we uh dream bigger and that we we introduce bills um after we discuss these matters with them.
▶ 5:58:30When I won a special election here, I got to you they stop votes and uh they swear you win and then you say now what do I do? Um, but the first person that came up to me was a Republican, Mark Kirk, our friend who became a senator, and he said, "Everything that gets done here gets done in the middle." Uh, we need to remind ourselves of that occasionally. So, I do want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, and I urge approval of this amendment. Thank the gentlemen.
▶ 5:59:00The questions now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Quay is recognized for an amendment. Thank you so much. Uh my a Mr.
▶ 5:59:31Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask that we dispense with a reading without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment. Uh thank you Mr. uh chairman. Uh this amendment is an amendment that I'm going offer and withdrawal because I want members to get familiar with the different provisions uh under the law that we passed in uh 2010 that deals with performance measures uh and other uh things that we should be doing in providing
▶ 6:00:01oversight. This amendment has diff uh different parts. wanted it calls for efficiencies where we ask for reviews of regulations that are outdated, duplicated uh and uh ask the agencies to provide that to us as we provide oversight. Number one, the second part has to do with contracts. Make sure there's competitions because there's still too many contracts are given on a sub basis. Um and again, we should have competition.
▶ 6:00:30Not only that, whenever a contract is awarded, we need to make sure that if somebody bids for x amount of dollars that they stay with that, the problem is once they get the contract, we see that on defense, we see that on homeland, we see that with the VA, and what starts off with, for example, $10 million uh will come and change and probably double the amount.
▶ 6:00:53And what we need to do is make sure that we enforce on time and on budget uh and should have very strong penalties uh if somebody doesn't keep that unless they have a certain circumstances. And then the last part has to do with the um uh performance measures. Uh again, if we spend $1, we should know what we spend that $1. We don't we really do we don't have an idea. And I think a lot of members that are serving the state legislature, we've done that. We did it in Texas.
▶ 6:01:23Uh, Judge Carter, you remember we did that. Uh, uh, the gentleman from Florida also know they've done it in Florida and probably in your state we've done that where we have performance measures where if you spend $1, you know what we spend here. We just appropriate. We put them in certain accounts and pretty much that's it. Unless if it makes a news and then it gets our attention. So under the law that we passed in 2010, it does call for performance measures.
▶ 6:01:49The problem is that the agencies are doing the performance measures and they'll pick the best ones out there and then they pat themselves on the back saying, "Hey, look how good I did." But we ought to be involved in doing the performance measures. So that way, and I don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican at the White House, uh we should hold them in the executive branch to those measures that Congress does that.
▶ 6:02:13We're the only entity I think I think all 50 states do that except for the US Congress uh for the US Congress. So members, I I would ask you to consider this. It's it's part of that. It's already in the law. We just need to make sure that we do this in the appropriations. Uh and again, I've asked all the members to please consider this. Uh this year, I'm just asking you to take a look at it. But uh I'm hoping that maybe later on we can add this uh with that. Uh, Mr.
▶ 6:02:43Chairman, I will I'm offering and I'm withdrawing and thank you all for the consideration. Thank gentlemen and appreciate the uh courtesy of the committee to the committee in terms of time. Gentle lady from California, Miss Taus is recognized for an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment.
▶ 6:03:13Thank you. This past January, the Los Angeles area faced devastating wildfires. Thousands of families lost their homes. Hundreds of businesses business owners lost their businesses, and there has been serious damage to roads, schools, and much more. I appreciate that FEMA was there during those harrowing first uh few weeks, but as the area transitions from response to recovery, we in Congress are failing be are falling behind.
▶ 6:03:42The governor along with local partners made a comprehensive request for disaster assistance from several government agencies, including from FEMA. That request happened in February and to date we've not heard from the administration and we in Congress have not put forward a disaster um supplemental bill not for California or any other state who has had a major disaster in 2025.
▶ 6:04:11And since that time more major disaster declarations have piled up. Since January, there have been 25 major disaster declarations by FEMA. Those declarations over cover disasters in 13 states, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
▶ 6:04:38And they cover a wide range of natural disasters from wildfires to floods, storms, tornadoes, and much more. We need to do more for all of our communities and that is what my amendment will do. It adds 16.8 billion in emergency funding to FEMA's disaster relief fund so my home state and many of your states can help um Americans recover and rebuild.
▶ 6:05:05This will ensure that the disaster relief fund remains able to help communities no matter what stage of recovery they are in. And while this amount is consistent with Californians request, the language of the amendment allows any any community that has had a major disaster declaration in 2025 to utilize these funds.
▶ 6:05:29Should we need more funding, then I hope that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion in the future to help ensure that FEMA has the resources to help American families and communities in their time of need. Natural disasters don't look at state boundaries or political parties. When it comes to helping Americans in desperate need, we we shouldn't either. And I urge um my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady.
▶ 6:05:59The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ammedday, is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, for my friends on the other side of the aisle that are talking about the Trump administration eliminating FEMA and claiming that our mark furthers those I I I can only say when all else fails, let's take a look at the bill.
▶ 6:06:24We exercised our article one authority to determine the funding level for FEMA, as we should always do. We ended up at $4.5 last year's topline. My next sentence is not mission This this includes an increase of nearly $4 billion for the disaster relief fund.
▶ 6:06:49My colleagues have have been talking about there being no recognition of a potential $8 billion deficit projected for the disaster relief fund by the end of this fiscal year. How would adding that into the fiscal year 2026 bill, which is what we're considering here today, help fund that?
▶ 6:07:13with all due respect, I don't think anybody in the bill in the room has a better crystal ball than anybody else. The disaster relief fund, as we speak, is healthy. Now, the disaster relief fund is not the beginning and the end of any FEMA conversation. If there are problems with region 9 and how they are responding to people in Southern California, then we need to address those problems.
▶ 6:07:38And and I'm happy I'm open-minded to whatever uh those folks that are headquartered out of Oakland are doing. And if we need to direct them to specific people, whether it's from North Carolina or Southern California on behalf of the committee, then I stand ready, willing, and able to do that. And I understand wanting to make sure that it's as robust as possible because we understand there are claims there. I've been down there, seen Southern California at the request of Mr.
▶ 6:08:04Aguar and some other folks on the committee and I thought I'd seen fires before and it was eyeopening um to say the least. So, um, I I will just say the DRF currently has just above $13 billion, and should it deplete at a burn rate where the administration is concerned about running out of money, they will send us a supplemental request to consider outside the regular appropriations process, as they did
▶ 6:08:34in Supertorm Storm Sandy, which by the way, FEMA is still processing claims for. That's not impressive in terms of the rate, but it does mean that doors aren't shut when it's a legitimate I don't think anybody's questioning the legitimacy of what happened in Southern I support the disaster recovery efforts across the country from North Carolina to Los Angeles. And in this bill, we ensure the disaster relief fund is replenished responsibly.
▶ 6:09:02Congress is ready to consider any supplemental should the DRF be depleted as the fiscal year winds down. However, this amendment, in my view, is unnecessary and the emergency funds are in conflict with the nature of our fullear appropriation cycle. While I appreciate the gentle lady's concern for this district, I assure her that we have done the appropriate assessments in partnership with FEMA to get the DRF number right in this bill with the information we have here today.
▶ 6:09:31Also, it becomes also a thing where you say, "Well, guess what? They're very deserving in Southern California. Wait till we get to the floor for those of you with short memories. And and God good good luck to those folks on the rules committee because guess what? It's it's I need this much for me. I need this much for that. It needs to be done in some organized fashion instead of and I'll just say nobody is questioning the need for for making Southern California whole.
▶ 6:09:59But the process that we've used and in context of fiscal year 26, we have uh supple or or uh if you will backfilled the disaster relief account. So it's in good shape right now, but you know what? A week from now when uh when my colleague from Maryland calls in a big title wave on the Chesapeake Bay just to prove his point, um you know what that then it may not be.
▶ 6:10:26So very respectfully, but quite frankly, despite what the White House has said about this, that and the other sort of thing, this committee has treated FEMA as a full partner in 2026 to start, and we'll see what the future brings. But the door will always be open with respect to oversight on region 9, FEMA generally, and Southern California as it is with with the appropriate region for North Carolina and FEMA generally.
▶ 6:10:53And so I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentleman, but I would advise him having spent a lot of time in the rules committee. They don't need luck, they need prayer. So uh with that, gentle lady from Illinois is recognized to respond to the amendment. I rise in support of this crucial amendment.
▶ 6:11:12FEMA's disaster relief fund is currently projected to finish fiscal year 2025 with a deficit of around8 billion dollars, which will only grow larger if any disaster strikes between right now and September of this year. This is a dangerous position for the country to be in, especially at a time when an internal FEMA review claims that quote FEMA is not ready for hurricane season.
▶ 6:11:34The report continues to say, quote, "As FEMA transforms to a smaller footprint, the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood. Thus, FEMA is not ready." This is not acceptable. Not only are the confers empty, but this administration is also working to destroy the morale and the talent of this agency charged with assisting communities across the country when they need it most.
▶ 6:12:01The notion that states will take on this vital work themselves, it's not possible. There isn't a single state or territory in this country that can fund or fully respond to a major disaster or multiple major disasters in any given year. Let's stop making disaster recovery a partisan issue and let's instead ensure that our country is able to rebuild from previous disasters and ensure we are ready for what's next.
▶ 6:12:28I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment to take care of all of our communities because yours could be the very next one in need. Thank you and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calbert's recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first, let me compliment the core of engineers on the fantastic job of they've done in the fire in Los Angeles.
▶ 6:12:52uh they taken on a big big responsibility both in the eaten fire and in Pacific Palisades and virtually almost all the sites that were uh identified to be cleaned up is well on its way as a matter of fact the core believes they'll wrap that up by the end of July and also the SBA has been very much involved uh and obviously we're all working together to make sure that uh Southern California is made whole obviously that potential
▶ 6:13:23claims against Edison are being understood at this point in time. Also the same thing with the insurance uh companies and how much uh they are going to have to come up with and as we go through this process I I pledge to the general lady we work together to make sure adequate funds are available for region 9 and for all the regions in the United States uh to make sure that the the FEMA accounts are made whole. I've been here a while and one thing I do recognize we will have a supplemental bill.
▶ 6:13:52I suspect, Mr. Chairman, uh on disasters and so I and I suspect it'll make sure that we do it in a timely way and uh that we'll have the funds available to take care of Los Angeles, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and other places that have unfortunately experienced disasters. With that, I thank the gentle lady's amendment, but I'll support the gentleman because right now it's not necessary. Thank the gentleman. the gentle lady from Connecticut, Mr. Lor's recognized to address the amendment.
▶ 6:14:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the chair of the of the subcommittee who is a dear friend. I have a long memory. Um maybe it is my ethnicity, but I have a very very long memory here. Um and uh just so that you understand that uh FEMA uh is not whole. FEMA can't make it through the end of this year.
▶ 6:14:45Now, we had an opportunity with the continuing resolution and this both in December and in March to address this issue of the shortfall for FEMA. And in both instances, the Republicans said no. No. So, there isn't there isn't enough money for the end of the year for FEMA to be able uh to uh uh to make it. And I I rise in support of this amendment.
▶ 6:15:14It recognizes the invaluable role that FEMA plays uh in helping Americans recover. And what you've done in this bill, you double down on the administration's effort to throw the responsibility of disaster recovery and mitigation to the states. And I I I will get a copy of this table uh to everyone here. It says FEMA open awards frozen funding disaster relief funding for the DURF 2005 to 220 2025.
▶ 6:15:41Um uh and someone talked Florida over those years $ 35 billion. Um uh Missouri 33 um billion dollars. I mean $3 billion. I apologize. Hawaii $3.9 billion. Texas 38 billion. And the gentleman who spoke about most of the money going to California uh it was 34. You go to Louisiana, 56 billion dollar.
▶ 6:16:11You need to look at this document and and it's overall there are open awards of 7,500 open awards. The funding that's frozen now is $10 billion and that the 20 year uh history of this total is $424 billion. It defies the imagination to believe that estates are going to have any opportunity to be able to make up this difference.
▶ 6:16:40And you know, it may be that all of you here are not talking about eliminating FEMA, but the president of the United States who said, by the way, that it was the president who was going to make the decisions about where the money goes, that he is for eliminating it. The Secretary of Homeland Security is for eliminating the the FEMA. We're not for it. You say you're not for it.
▶ 6:17:08But what happens when he comes forward and says we're going to do it? Are you going to stand up and fight against it? Listen, you know, we have a pattern here. If he says it, it's okay. And it's not. It's not about him. It's about a policy. It is about a policy. That's a wrongheaded policy.
▶ 6:17:28Um, and this is it should alarm all of us on this committee that this is where they're going to try to uh really allow FEMA not to be able to survive. And the gentleman quite honestly you they're he's not going to fire you. The administration can't fire you. Only your constituents could do it. But I sat across from that gentleman, Mr. Hamilton. I just asked him a simple Do you believe we should eliminate it? He was very honest. He says it needs reform.
▶ 6:17:58You believe it needs reform? I believe it needs reform. The next day, the next day he was fired for saying it should reform but not be eliminated. So what what you know, let's be realistic. Let's be realistic. We know what FEMA is doing now. Storms Arkansas, Tennessee, floods, tornadoes, Kentucky, Oklahoma. Um a hurricane season that we just talked about here.
▶ 6:18:26Um uh it's we're just beginning the hurricane season as as well here. So, and it's not just one part of the country. We all are suffering uh here. And I remember Sa Sandy and I will tell that to my colleague uh from Nevada. It took this body when I voted over and over again for money for Louisiana um uh to be able to rebuild itself.
▶ 6:18:53And when it came to Hurricane Sandy and what happened in the Northeast, it was at least seven, eight or nine months before my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree to disaster relief for my part of the country. We should be providing disaster relief for whatever part of the country needs it. I hope you know my my hope is that you can uh talk about an emergency supplemental 16.8 billion dollars. Let's allow FEMA to succeed.
▶ 6:19:21Let's work with it to make the reforms that we think are necessary, but let's not go down a road that says we're going to listen to people who want to eliminate FEMA uh and not allow and get this to the states because our states cannot afford this kind of money. And it's not the states, it's the people who are hurt, the individuals who are trying to recover, the small businesses that are trying to recover. Those are the people who are going to be hurt by this.
▶ 6:19:49I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, is uh recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I appreciate the chairman and I I want to say that I appreciate the um the subcommittee chairman as well for his comments and for his visit to Southern California.
▶ 6:20:16Um I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee for her comments and the ranking member of of the subcommittee. Um and I'm I'm very sensitive to what uh Mr. Calbertt said, not just because he's the chairman of the committee that I serve on, but because I believe that he believes what he says, that he knows that there will be a supplemental. The concern is what Representative Deluro mentioned.
▶ 6:20:45It's how long will our constituents have to wait and will we be in a position where it matters if your state is red or blue as to when a disaster supplemental comes? That's the concern we're in. Rebuilding communities throughout Los Angeles County and Southern California is going to take an unprecedented effort. Um people are counting on us not to play politics but to roll up our sleeves.
▶ 6:21:10And whether we're in North Carolina or Florida or our constituents deserve the ability to make these claims. We have an opportunity now. We have an opportunity now to forcefully say we support FEMA with reform and we support the disaster relief fund and we're not going to play politics and just wait for a supplemental to be sent. We're going to fund these programs.
▶ 6:21:38Failing to provide adequate funding to FEMA is going to put people's lives and their communities at risk. This shouldn't be about what state you're from when a supplemental comes. Our colleague, Mr. Edwards, talked for a moment. Uh many of you have reached out to those of us from California. Um uh when when Hawaii had disasters, when California's had disasters, we've reached out to each other. Mr. Edwards, I reached out to you. I think I have a wrong number because I think Wulmack gave it to me quite honestly.
▶ 6:22:07But um you know we look out for one another because we know the importance of not playing politics with this issue. Um Mr. Chairman um uh Mr. Ammedday I I know you support this program. I know we want to keep the politics out of this program, but we have a we have an opportunity right now to do that. and shame on us if we don't take that opportunity and fund the disaster relief fund. Thank you so much. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
▶ 6:22:38There any other members? Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. Not because I oppose funding FEMA's disaster relief fund, but because I oppose doing it in a way that would prevent the passage of a targeted, desperately needed second supplemental appropriations bill for Western North Carolina. Let me be clear.
▶ 6:23:04This amendment may look like it's helping, but for my constituents, it would be a setback. My district in western North Carolina took the brunt of Hurricane Helen. Estimated damage exceeded $ 59 billion and entire communities from Avery to Jackson to Mcdow counties are still digging their way out of situations including washed out roads, destroyed homes, shuttered businesses, and entire towns that are struggling
▶ 6:23:34to get back on their feet. Our needs are not hypothetical. They're urgent and they go far beyond what the DRF as currently structured can provide. This amendment would refill FEMA's DRF fund and declare the job done. But for my constituents who are counting on Congress to follow through with a second supplemental tailored to Helen's damage, this would be a serious mistake.
▶ 6:24:02If we pass this amendment today, we're sending a signal that there will be no further assistance that would delay recovery, undercut state and local coordination, and leave rural communities in North Carolina holding the bag for costs that they can't bear alone. North Carolina has always taken care of its own. But we can't do that by ourselves. Now, even after the first supplemental, Congress must act with the same urgency and precision as it did after past disasters.
▶ 6:24:32Whether it was Katrina, Wilma, or Harvey, anything less is a broken promise to the people of Western North Carolina. I urge my colleagues, don't slam the door on a supplemental. Vote no on this amendment and let's finish the job the right way for all disasterstricken communities, but especially for the folks in western North Carolina who've lived through the worst natural disaster to ever hit the state of North Carolina and who are relying on our helping hand now to
▶ 6:25:03get them back on their feet. Thank you and I yield back. Thank the gentlemen. Are there any other members wishing to address the Seeing none, the gentle lady from California is recognized for one minute to close. Uh thank you, chairman, and and to the subcommittee. Chairman, thank you for visiting uh my home state. Um also, Mr.
▶ 6:25:26Calvert, thank you for your involvement with the California delegation to ensure that um we move forward a bill that could actually help California recover. It simply is not enough. California is still owed 4 to6 billion dollar from last year's uh recovery effort. We don't know that we will ever see that. Um Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple.
▶ 6:25:52We're trying to make sure that FEMA has the resources to help Americans in need in California, in Oklahoma, and beyond. The language of the amendment allows any community that has had a major disaster declaration in 2025 to utilize these funds. And yes, we can always come back and do another supplemental as I know that we will need because the weather changes have been drastic.
▶ 6:26:20We cannot we don't have a clear crystal ball as to what next week's weather is going to be or what tornado will come, what hurricane will come, what fire will come or for California, what earthquake will devastate our state. So with that I um ask for your support for this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The questions now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from California.
▶ 6:26:50All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. Opinion of the chair. The nose have it. Recorded vote. Recorded vote has been requested. Sufficient support having been shown, the clerk will call the role. Mr. Aderhalt. Mr. Aderhalt. No. Mr. Aguular. Mr. Aguular. I. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mr. Ammeday. Mr. Amade. No. Mrs. Bice.
▶ 6:27:22Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop. I. Mr. Calbertt. Mr. Calbertt. No. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter. No. Mr. Casease. Mr. Casease. I Mr. Sisammani. Mr. Sisammani. No. Mr. Klene. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Klyurn. Hi. Mr. Klyber. I Mr. Clyde. Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Quayar.
▶ 6:27:52Mr. Quayar. I. Miss Dean. Miss Dean. I. M. Deloro. I. Mr. Deloro. I. Mr. Diaz. Balard. Mr. Mr. Diaz Bolard. No. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards. No. Mr. Elie. Mr. Ellie. No. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar. I Mr. Espayott. Mr. Espayot. I Mr. Fleshman. Mr. Fleshman. No. Miss Frankle. Miss Frankle. I Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin. No.
▶ 6:28:22Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Harter. Hi. Mr. Mr. Harter. I Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris. No. Mrs. Henson. Mrs. Henson. No. Mr. Hoyer. I. Mr. Hoyer. I Mr. Ivy. Mr. Ivy. I Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce. No. Miss Captor. I. Miss Captor. I. Mr. Loa. Mr. Loa. No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee. I. Miss.
▶ 6:28:52Let Miss Lello. No. Mr. Levven. Mr. Leaven. I. Miss. Malloy. Miss Mallaloy. No. No, Miss Miss McCullum. I Miss Ming. Miss Ming. I Mr. Molinar. Mr. Molinar. No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Morelli. Mr. Morelli. I Mr. Murvan. Mr. Mvan. I Mr. New House. Mr. New House. No. Miss. Perez. Miss. Perez. I. Miss. Pingri. Miss Pingri. I. Mr. Pokean.
▶ 6:29:22Mr. Pokean. I Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley. I. Mr. Rashenthaler. Mr. Russianthaler. No, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. No, Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford. No, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong. No, Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres. I Miss Underwood. I Miss Underwood. I Mr. Valido. Mr. Valido. No. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz. I Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman. I Mr. Wac.
▶ 6:29:53Mr. Wac. No. Mr. Zinci. Mr. Zinci. No. Do any members wish to record or change their vote? Gentleman from Texas. Mr. Cloud. No. Gentle lady from Utah. I just Okay. Any uh any other members wish to change or record their vote?
▶ 6:30:22Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 6:31:12On this vote, the eyes are 28, the nose are 30. The amendment is not adopted. Gentle lady from California, Miss Torres is recognized for an amendment. Uh Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple.
▶ 6:31:39It prevents any funds in fiscal year 26 Homeland Security Bill from being used to end the Flores settlement agreement. The Flores agreement exists to make sure children in immigration custody are treated humanely. It sets basic standards, safe and sanitary conditions, limits on how long minors can be detained, and a preference for release to family when possible. These were these aren't extreme positions.
▶ 6:32:08They are a minimum protections for vulnerable children. Under the Trump administration, children were torn from their parents' arms and placed in cages in overcrowded, unsanitary facilities without adequate medical care, hygiene, or basic necessities. That policy didn't just violate our values. It sparked outrage across the country and around the world.
▶ 6:32:34This amendment says clearly, you can't use taxpayers money to get around those protections. Not through lawsuits, not through regulations, not by writing new rules that got the agreement. No child should suffer because adults in the government choose cruelty over compassion. This isn't about being soft on enforcement. It's about doing it responsibly. We can secure the border and still treat children with basic decency. This amendment draws the line.
▶ 6:33:05It says protecting kids in custody is not an option. It is not a bargaining chip. It is a baseline requirement for any fair immigration system. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from Nevada Nevada is recognized, Mr. Ammedday to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I rise in opposition.
▶ 6:33:33I'm trying to find in in the bill before us where there is language or funding terminating the Flores So I I say that as the predicate to the Florist settlement which requires minors to be held in licensed facilities, released to family members or uh or other suitable conditions as soon as possible um are held in detention for a maximum of of 20 days. I don't see anything in our bill that says no, we want to change that.
▶ 6:34:01Now, I know there's distrust of the administration, but our bill doesn't defund that. Um, doesn't go after it. Um, so uh uh I I I guess without knowing the basis of the concern, um I'm going to oppose the bill because there has been no attempt to erode, at least from us, any of this. So, it's still the law as far as I know.
▶ 6:34:25And so I would recommend that we not uh I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. The gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood, is recognized to address the amendment. This amendment supports decades old president regarding the detention and treatment of children in Department of Homeland Security custody.
▶ 6:34:48The current administration seems more inclined to detain families indefinitely instead of prioritizing the arrest and detention of real criminals. This is not going after the worst of the worst. It's an insurance policy to line the pockets of for-profit prisons due to a broken immigration system. I urge my colleagues uh to support this amendment and I yield I thank the gentle lady. Gentle lady from Connecticut, Miss Dolores recognized to address the amendment.
▶ 6:35:19Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will just tell the subcommittee uh chairman that uh very honestly in response to your comment in May, federal agencies, including DOJ, DHS, DHSS petitioned a Los Angeles federal court to terminate the Flores uh settlement agreement. And by the way, and the administration is looking to vacate the Flores agreement. So this is not made up.
▶ 6:35:49It it is and this is in in the courts um uh at the moment. I I I rise um in support of this amendment which prevents any funds from being used to terminate the Flores settlement agreement.
▶ 6:36:02Just very very quickly in terms of the genesis origins 1985 Reagan administration uh when the uh ACLU went to court on behalf of Jenny Flores a 15year-old girl fled civil war in El Salvador included in her harsh treatment was a strip search being locked up in juvenile facility for months without education recreation other supports while awaiting deportation.
▶ 6:36:27The agreement that was fashioned in 1997 um the government agreed to release unaccompanied meers children to relatives and Flores did have a non-parent relative willing to take her in. They set limits in detention. agreed to certain humane treatment standards and living conditions.
▶ 6:36:46Provided that all care provider facilities provide children with classroom education, health care, socialization, recreation, vocational training, mental health services, access to legal services, access to child advocates where applicable, and case management. And that's part of of the Trafficking Victims Protection uh Reauthorization Act or TVP. that is the law that governs the rights of of of immigrant children.
▶ 6:37:13So that the government is charged with taking care of uh unaccompanied children. And uh the other piece is this also applies uh to children who are detained with their families that they have to have those same procedures in place uh and they have to be released after after 20 20 day 20 days. These are clear guide guidelines. In the 1997 Reno versus Flores, it's foundational piece of law.
▶ 6:37:42It established clear guidelines, oversight mechanism, time limits. Um, uh, and, uh, it was because of Flores Council site visits in 2018 led to the discovery that unaccompanied children had been medicated with psychotropic medication without informed con consent. During the border crisis of 2019, children were held for days longer than Flores allowed at the CBP processing facilities.
▶ 6:38:10It was discovered due to Flores council visits that children had been packed into cages without access to basic sanitation, adequate food, subjected to cold temperatures and lights on 24/7. I saw these kids in cages and they were mainly kids from El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua. I have a grandson who is adopted from Guatemala.
▶ 6:38:35And every time I looked at one of these little boys who looked exactly like my teao that I thought there for the grace of God goes my grandson. That's real. This was the real thing that was happening. Today is Flores council that is monitoring the length of stay for children in HHS's care for children who have a parent or legal guardian here and ready for unification. The number of days a child is in custody has tripled under um this uh under this administration.
▶ 6:39:05Uh it is the florest standard that ensures children who are coming to the United States are treated safely, humanely and with respect. The second Trump administration is attacking the legal guidelines that would hold back its worth impulses. As I said, federal agencies in May petitioned the court to terminate Flores. They are doing this at the same time the White House wants to increase ICE arrests from 650 a day to 3,000.
▶ 6:39:35That means more people are into facilities, more children that are already overcrowded and understaffed. and they want to take more pe children into custody and have fewer rules governing how they will be treated. Um I I I I've been here for 34 years. I saw how families were torn apart during the last Trump administration. I I I can't give them the benefit of doubt. Uh Mr. chairman.
▶ 6:40:03Um, we're hearing disturbing reports from investigations at immigration facilities operated by private corporations. And these private corporations, by the way, some places charge a million dollars a day to house these kids. Um, we had a young boy with cancer missed critical medical appointments when his family was detained. 12-year-old boy denied follow-up on medical testing after being left unable to walk during to a blood condition. These are horrifying stories.
▶ 6:40:33Um, and we cannot have the guard rails that protect these children that that abide by the Flores decision which came to a conclusion in a bipartisan way. Thanks, gentlemen. Um, are there any other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentle gentlemen, I'll yield one minute to the members of the committee. I I don't want to talk about administrations.
▶ 6:41:01I had my share of disagreements with the Biden administration. I fought very very hard through the labor HHS committee which its jurisdiction is unaccompanied If you don't like the Flores standards of humanity and care for children, then deal with the basic law of the land.
▶ 6:41:25And as what I mentioned here, the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act TVP and what happened in the Flores settlement was that in fact we are obligated by law. If you want to challenge that then go after that law. Just don't make up facts. I can stand behind every single fact that I have that I have profered here today because I lived through it.
▶ 6:41:51I watched it and we were able to hold on to the Flores standards in a way that protected youngsters who were coming here and his children were not lost. You can talk about the Biden administration all you want and what they did wrong or right.
▶ 6:42:08I can only tell you now that what we are doing is wrong in terms of getting the guard rails which I would hope that any administration Republican or Democrat would adhere to when it c comes to taking care of children in our custody. Claiming my time, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman's recognized. I yield I think three minutes and 45 seconds to the gentle lady. Thank you for the two minutes. Thank you for Thank you for yielding.
▶ 6:42:39I rise in support of this amendment which supports decades old precedent regarding the detention and treatment of children in DHS custody. This amendment is especially important in the wake of the Trump administ administration's decision to bring back family detention as it falls further and further behind on its unreal unrealistic deportation goals. Currently, DHS is subject to a court order governing how they treat kids in their care, and that's what's known as the Flores settlement.
▶ 6:43:06But the Trump administration has been pushing back on the standards it sets. That's unacceptable. No matter how much they may want to, the Trump administration cannot ignore court orders. We have a legal and a moral duty to provide kids in our custody with the basic standards of care laid out in the floor as settlement and this amendment will help make sure we don't fail them. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady and the gentleman.
▶ 6:43:36Are there any other members wishing to address the Seeing no further debate, the gentle lady from California is recognized for one minute to close. Uh, thank you, Chairman. I'm not sure what all of that back and forth um was really about, but let's be clear. This amendment is simply about protecting children. Nothing more and nothing less. Here's an example of what I observed in the last administration.
▶ 6:44:05Children in cages under miler um blankets. Um, I talked to a border patrol agent who told me uh during that time that he had gone out shopping the night before and bought a bunch of socks. Socks because the children were freezing cold in their cells and they were there was no clothing. There were no blankets for them.
▶ 6:44:30So, seeing their humanity, this border agent went out and bought socks for the children. Um I've seen voter agents trying to feed a um child an infant without teeth an apple. I mean that is the cruelty that we have seen in the past. So ensuring that this doesn't happen twi entry and oversight at ICE facilities. Yeah.
▶ 6:45:01I ask for your support for this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from California. All those in favor say I. All those opposed say no. Opinion of the chair. The nose have it. Recorded vote has been requested. Sufficient support for having been shown. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Adhalt. No. Mr. Adhalt. No. Mr. Aguilar.
▶ 6:45:33Mr. Aguilar. I. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mr. Ammedday. Mr. Amade. No. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice. No. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop. I. Mr. Calbertt. Mr. Calvert. No. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter. No. Mr. Casease. Mr. Casease. I. Mr. Siskamani. Mr. Sisammani. No. Mr. Klene. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud. No. Mr. Klyurn.
▶ 6:46:03Mr. Klyurn. I Mr. Clyde Mr. Cole No Mr. Cole No Mr. Quay Mr. Quayrar I Miss Dean Miss Dean I Miss Deloro Mr. Deloro I Mr. Diaz Bolard Mr. Diaz Bolard no Mr. Edwards Mr. Edwards no Mr. Elzie Mr. Elzie no Miss Escobar Miss Escobar I Mr. Espayat Mr. Espayat I Mr. Fleshman Mr.
▶ 6:46:33Mr. Flashman. No. Miss Frankle. Miss Frankle. I. Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin. No. Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Harter. Mr. Harter. I. Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris. No. Mrs. Henson. Mrs. Henson. No. Mr. Hoyer. Yes. Mr. Hoyer. I. Mr. Ivy. Mr. Ivy. I. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce. No. Miss Captor.
▶ 6:47:03I Miss Captor. I Mr. Loa Mr. Loa. No, Miss Lee. Miss Lee. I Miss Lllo. Miss Lllo. No, Mr. Levven. Mr. Levan. I Miss Mallaloy. Miss Malloy. No, Miss Miss McCullum. I Miss Ming. Miss Ming. I Mr. Molinar. Mr. Molinar. No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Morelli. Mr. Morelli. I Mr. Morvan. Hi. Mr. Murvan.
▶ 6:47:33I Mr. New House. Mr. New House. No. Miss Perez. Miss Pingri. Miss Pingri. I Mr. Pokean. Mr. Pokean. I Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley. I. Mr. Rashenthaler. Mr. Rashenthaler. No. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. No. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford. No. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson. No. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong. No. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres. I. Miss. Underwood. I Miss Underwood. I Mr.
▶ 6:48:04Mr. Valido. No. Miss Washerman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz. I Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman. I Mr. Wac. Mr. Wac. No. Mr. Zinci. Mr. Zinci. No. Do any members uh wish to record their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 6:49:17On this vote, the eyes are 27, the nose are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Gentle lady from California, Miss Taus is recognized for an amendment. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Mr.
▶ 6:49:42Chairman, non-citizen veterans can enlist in the military if they are legally residing in the United States. They choose to defend a country that isn't their birthplace. They weren't born here, but they believe in America so much that they choose to fight for it. That is a powerful act of loyalty and we are repaying it with cruelty.
▶ 6:50:09This amendment is not asking for special favors. It is demanding due process, the bare minimum owed to anyone who serves in our military. Today NPR reported that a US Army Seun Park, a Purple Heart Army veteran, self-deported after nearly 50 years in this country. This was the hardest moment of his life.
▶ 6:50:36Not getting shot in combat, not the years battling post-traumatic stress disorder or addiction, not prison. It was leaving the US, a country he called home for nearly five decades. On Monday, Park, a green card holder, self-depreported to South Korea.
▶ 6:50:57His removal his removal was the result of charges related to drug possession and failure to appear in court from over 15 years ago. Offenses that he said stem from years of unrelated untreated PTSD. Park came to the US from South Korea at age seven to join his mother in Miami.
▶ 6:51:24When 20-year-old Park finished basic training, he was deployed to Panama, unaware that he would soon be a part of the 1989 US invasion known as Operation Just Cause to topple Manuel Noriega's regime. One afternoon while eating lunch with his platoon, Panameanian soldiers began to fire.
▶ 6:51:47And according to Park, he started shooting back when suddenly he felt a sharp pain in his back. He realized he was shot. He said, "I am thinking, oh my god, I am paralyzed." And then thinking, "Oh my god, I am not just paralyzed.
▶ 6:52:05I am dying right here, right now." Park was flown back to the US on and and given an honorably a discharge and awarded a Purple Heart through his body began to heal. His mind did not. Park didn't know he was dealing with PTSD, so he never sought help and the trauma slowly took a toll.
▶ 6:52:32He eventually turned, as so many of our veterans turned to drugs to cope. Throughout his 20s and 30s, he battled a crack cocaine addiction. I just couldn't stay clean, he said. So, finally the judge told me, "Don't come back into my court with a dirty urine, which I knew I would. I got scared, so I jumped bail." Park was in prison for three years.
▶ 6:53:03After his release, he moved to Hawaii, where his family was living at the time. He found work at a car dealership in Honolulu where he spent 10 years while raising his son and daughter. After prison, Park received a removal order, but was allowed to stay in the US and required annual check-ins with immigration agents, which is typically uh it's a typical uh thing for individuals that ICE does not consider a priority for
▶ 6:53:34Fast forward 2025, that changed this month. At a meeting with the local ICE officials in Hawaii, Park said he was warned that he would be detained and deported unless he left voluntarily within the next few weeks. This story is devastating.
▶ 6:53:54We must do more for our nonitizen veterans that choose to serve in our military, especially now with the war in the horizon with Iran. When I offer this amendment on the Milcon VA bill, we ended up in a tie. I am asking for just one more colleague on the other side of the aisle to stand up, do the right thing, and vote yes.
▶ 6:54:24And with that, I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ammed, recognized to respond to the amendment. this general issue has been an issue for a long time that's come before this committee and before the full house. I remember joining with the gentleman from California named Jeff Denim. I think it was called the with honor act, co-sponsor of that.
▶ 6:54:56But when I see language that says to remove uh may not be used to remove from the United States any any noncitizen veteran. I'm like well wait a minute. I I mean the park story that you've told is like you know what there maybe there is an amendment to fix Mr. Park. um sound like he had and and re but this says any noncitizen veteran.
▶ 6:55:25So if you have concerns about somebody who makes a mistake who's a non-citizen veteran, domestic violence, child abuse, drug stuff, oh and let's not forget about the uniform code of military justice if you're on active duty. Because guess what? If you're on active duty, the UCMJ requires that you have a lawyer at government expense. It's called the trial defense service. We fund it as we should.
▶ 6:55:55But this amendment says you got to certify that the government didn't pay money. So I look at this access to legal counsel any and it looks to me like to be honest with you if I can make sure that nobody goes and sees this person or at all so that nobody can certify that they had a lawyer then guess what all this other stuff and listen life we all have better days than others and nobody has more respect for veterans than I do and so
▶ 6:56:25it's like you want something to help Mr. park. Great. Any noncitizen veteran that doesn't have access to a lawyer that wasn't at government expense, that's a pretty big that's much bigger than the story I heard about Mr. Park.
▶ 6:56:42And so I will just say this, if we want to if we want to look at some sort of creating something that says, hey, if you're a veteran, I mean, look at Jeff Denham's proposal from four or five Congresses ago, the With Honor Act. Look at that proposal. Talks about it's like if you're honorably serving or honorably served or whatever, you get special status. Any is not special status for a veteran. And God knows that most of them deserve it all. And we ought to do something to take care of that.
▶ 6:57:13But any veteran who did not have non-government expense lawyer provided gets a free excuse from this regardless of any other facts. Just sounds broad to me. Uh and and so uh I oppose the amendment. Uh I I I understand the history in Milcon and I respect people are going to vote the way they're going to vote, but I haven't heard any facts that say I don't care what you did.
▶ 6:57:42If you're a veteran and you didn't have a govern an attorney at non-government expense, um then then it doesn't matter what you did. I I mean, we're going to be we're that's that's going to create some headlines as well in a bad way. At the end of the day, you still have to have a removal order from a judge. Um and so if that judge says, "I know all that stuff," and you get removed. Because as I recall, say, "Hey, we're going to get you." I said that.
▶ 6:58:12It's like, "Well, if you're going to get me, then you know, honestly, if I was thinking about like, well, let's go see the judge right now and see what he thinks about what I did." But I didn't hear that. And so to create an exception that wide, just saying the only thing we really ought to do for a get out of jail free card, and that's I don't mean that. That's not a good choice of words. But to create this is a phenomenally huge exception that ignores all of the alleged potential law-breaking facts.
▶ 6:58:39and I I I'm I'm doesn't make me happy about it, but but I just don't think it's good policy for us to send uh to our non-citizen veterans who are deserving of the protection. I yield Thank the gentleman. The gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood, is recognized to address the amendment. I support this amendment upholding the constitutional rights of America's service members, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
▶ 6:59:04This is another amendment that should not even be necessary, but the Trump administration's actions have pushed us to a sobering moment that threatens our veterans basic rights. Due process is a fundamental right guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the Constitution. And the US Supreme Court has ruled that these protections apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. And for veterans who served our country, protecting these rights is both a legal and moral duty.
▶ 6:59:30This amendment will also help us get important data that GAO has already recommended DHS begin monitoring to better understand the issue and how we can support our veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment?
▶ 6:59:51Gentle lady from Pennsylvania chairman and uh I thank the gentle lady for offering this amendment as well as the other two.
▶ 7:00:09Um, I'm a little baffled because as I read this amendment, it says simply that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to remove from the United States any non-citizen citizen veteran of the armed forces of the United States unless the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice certify one, two, uh, three or four things. All that amounts to is due process. Are we now against due process?
▶ 7:00:40Do we agree with the administration when they just disappear people with no process? This is an amendment that simply says a non-citizen veteran who served our country honorably was wounded in his service to our country then suffered PTSD and addiction and was untreated for that and then paid other penalties for it.
▶ 7:01:06Self-epports this is simply you can't do that to a noncitizen veteran without due process. That's all this says. I I'm baffled that we would be arguing against that. Why wouldn't we lift this up?
▶ 7:01:21Why wouldn't this be another moment of agreement that says honest to God, somebody who served our country, devoted that much of themselves, risked their own lives in service of this country, we can't assure them due process? I'm utterly baffled by that. It feels unamerican. I yield back. Are there any other members wishing to gentleman from Maryland is recognized to address the amendment?
▶ 7:01:52Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I share my colleagues confusion on this. I'm I'm trying to look at the language and it says basically that the government would have to before they remove somebody from the United States um non-citizen veteran that uh they provide legal counsel and they get a full and fair hearing in removal proceedings before an immigration judge consistent with current law.
▶ 7:02:21I I respect the subcommittee chair. I I just I don't understand the concern that you're raising there. That's it doesn't get any more basic than that. You go to court, somebody should have a right to have an attorney. Um that's that's all it says. So, I'll yield to the gentleman if he has um additional explanation or thoughts. Well, thank you for your generosity. First of all, there's things called petty offenses and misdemeanors.
▶ 7:02:51Petty offenses for which your freedom is not one part of the sentencing document means you don't have a right to legal counsel. We're not going to remove your freedom. We may find the be Jesus out of you, but if it's a petty offense charge, you're not going to jail. So, you don't automatically have a right to legal counsel. Also, in certain uh uh deportation proceedings, you don't have a right as an alien to legal counsel. You do in many, but there's not all of them.
▶ 7:03:18So when you say any in this, you are widening that. Thank you for your generosity. My pleasure. A petty. Why would we remove a non-citizen veteran for a petty offense? What? Again, I'll yield. Yes. Well, it depends on what state you're talking about. You know what? Some of the some of the DUI stuff or other things, you know, prosecutors and defense council, if you had them, typically bargain things down, plea bargain, stuff like that.
▶ 7:03:47So, I'm not saying we shouldn't do something for the person that that that the author was talking about. I'm saying, you know, there's a lot of turns and whatever in this. And to say this, go, hey, Kings X, any any non non-alien, it's like, well, there you go. What it was bargained down to might have not been what it was, but well, but it doesn't imply counsel for the plea. So, with all due respect, I mean, there's people that have been in court before.
▶ 7:04:17Well, well, let me say this. Yes. Because I I've been in court before. I to the extent we want to give veterans some degree of gratitude and respect and appreciation for their service. In a scenario like this, I think it's certainly merited there. Um, I know there's concern about we hear talk about criminals, you know, violent offenders and the like, terrorists, gang members, all of that stuff. None of that would come close by any stretch in falling in a petty offense category.
▶ 7:04:46And so I would think that before we deport um you'd want to do it for something that isn't petty. Traffic violation I think was one of the examples you gave. I don't think that's a good basis to deport. Certainly not a veteran. Um, and in the scenario we were just talking about give a hearing before in a, you know, in removal proceedings before an immigration judge consistent with current law. Why would that be a problem? I I don't understand why this would be objectionable.
▶ 7:05:17I know that there's a lot of resistance and I understand that this goes both ways with respect to the debates we have here in the committee. I'm new to the committee, so I'm sort of learning this as I go. But I would think that this would be one where there should be an open mind and some consideration to give some sort of difference to veterans to veterans in a scenario like this. And with that, I would yield back. Thank the gentleman.
▶ 7:05:45Are there other members wishing to address the Seeing none, the gentle lady Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized to address the Thank you to the former u former chairman of the full committee. Listen, I I have no disagreement. There should be some difference. And I'm just looking at the language. Any alien veteran.
▶ 7:06:17And and and unless I'm missing any alien veteran. Well, what are the charges? Say, well, what if it's a traffic ticket? What if they're going, you know, I mean, we can all play the game of, well, 100 miles an hour through a school zone. I'm not going to play that game. I'm just saying there ought to be some additional language here that kind of makes it more towards Mr. Park or PAC, then anybody who's a veteran, unless you can certify this, and and it's not just due process.
▶ 7:06:44I mean, listen, in in the hands of of an average somewhere, it's like, hey, Kings X, I don't think that's the intent. But if I'm wrong, that's fine, too. And uh I yield back to uh the gentleman from Are there any other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady's recognized for one minute to close. Thank you, chairman. Lawmaking is hard and sometimes emotional. I get it.
▶ 7:07:14But we have to make sure that we have all of the facts in front of us. What this amendment is simply asking is for due process. If someone commits a crime, we have a legal system to deal with that.
▶ 7:07:30But I would think that a veteran who served their country, a Purple Heart recipient, would have that guaranteed that he fought for us to have that we would reciprocate and give them the ability to be able to have legal representation and to have access to due process without having to make a decision between a jail
▶ 7:08:00cell in El Salvador or returning to a country that he's never been to since he was seven years old. And with that, I ask for one more vote from my Republican colleagues. Um, and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The questions now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from California. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No.
▶ 7:08:29The opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not adopted. It's already been called. It's not like we didn't give you enough time to vote. We'll do it.
▶ 7:08:56But I would ask if you're going to do that that you do it at the appropriate time. I paused, waited, looked out there. There were no hands in the air. So if we need to vote, we'll vote. The gentle lady want to vote. Gentle ladies asked for vote. Can she have some support this time? I'm glad you support your colleague.
▶ 7:09:22With that sufficient support having been shown, the clerk will call the role. Mr. Aderhalt. Mr. Aderholt. No. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar. I Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mr. Amade. Mr. Ammedday. No. Mrs. Bice. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop. I Mr.
▶ 7:09:52Calbertt. Mr. Calvert. No Mr. Carter. No. Mr. Carter. No. Mr. Casease. Mr. Casease. I Mr. Ciscoani. Mr. Klene. No. Mr. Klene. No. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud. No. Mr. Klyurn. Mr. Klyurn. I. Mr. Clyde.
▶ 7:10:22Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Quayrar. Mr. Quayar. I Miss Dean. Miss Dean. I Mr. Lauro. Mr. Loro. I Mr. Diaz Bolard. Mr. Diaz Bolard. No. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards. No. Mr. Elzie. Mr. Elzie. No. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar. I Mr. Espayot. Mr.
▶ 7:10:53Espayott. I Mr. Flechman. Mr. Flechman. No. Miss Frankle. Miss Frankle. I Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin. No. Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez. No. Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Harter. Hi. Mr. Harter. I Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris. No. Mrs. Henson. Mrs. Henson. No. Mr. Hoyer.
▶ 7:11:24Hi. Mr. Hoyer. I Mr. Ivy. Mr. Ivy. I. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce. No. Miss Captor. Mr. Loa. No. Mr. Loa. No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee. I. Miss. Let Miss Latlo. No. Mr. Leaven. Mr. Leaven. I. Miss Mallaloy. Miss Mallaloy. No. Miss McCullum. Miss McCullum. I Miss Ming.
▶ 7:11:53Miss Ming. I Mr. Molinar. Mr. Molinar. No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Morelli. Yes. Mr. Morelli. I. Mr. Mvan. Yes. Mr. Mvan. I. Mr. New House. Mr. New House. I. Miss. Perez. Miss Pingri. Miss Pingri. I. Mr. Pokean Mr. Pokean I Mr. Quigley Mr. Quigley I Mr.
▶ 7:12:22Rashenthaler Mr. Rashenthaler No Mr. Rogers Mr. Rogers no Mr. Rutherford Mr. Rutherford no Mr. Simpson Mr. Simpson no Mr. Strong Mr. Strong no Mrs. Torres Mrs. Torres I miss Underwood I miss Underwood I Mr. Valido Mr. Valado I Miss Wasserman Schultz Miss Wasserman Schultz I Mrs. Watson Coleman Mrs. Watson Coleman I Mr.
▶ 7:12:52WAC Mr. Wac no Mr. Zinci Mr. Zinci no Miss Perez votes I Are there any other members wishing to Uh gentle lady from Oklahoma Mrs. Spice. No. Gentleman from Virginia. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 7:13:20Are there any other membershing to record their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerks will tally. The gentleman from Arizona wish to
▶ 7:13:50be. He's a yes. Mr. Ciscomani votes I
▶ 7:14:45on this uh vote. The eyes are 30, the nose are 32. The amendment is not Gentleman from New York, Mr. Espott is recognized for an amendment. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask unanimous consent to dispense the reading of the amendment. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
▶ 7:15:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm pleased uh to offer my amendment which will ensure that no funds are used for immigration enforcement in places of worship. And I must stress uh specifically in places of worship which have been sacred and sensitive to communities since the founding of this Uh churches, synagogues, mosque and other places of worship have been
▶ 7:15:45above the political frey for a long long time. Uh but this administration uh reversed that. the DHS policy that preserve the sanity of places of worships back in uh That same month, they started targeting churchgoers. So, imagine that um targeting churchgoers.
▶ 7:16:08On January 26, an ICE agent in Tucker, Georgia, stalked and arrested a Honduran man outside of a church service he attended. On June 11th, ICE agents arrested several worshippers at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church in Downey, Nearby at Downey Memorial Christian Church, reporting suggests that armed agents with ambiguous identification arrested another
▶ 7:16:39man and took him away in an SUV with Texas plates. Imagine this. During a church service, Pastor Al Lopez of the Downey Memorial Christian Church noted that the agents wore badges but were not disclosed and would not disclose the agency they worked for.
▶ 7:17:00We've seen a rash of arrest and police activity where agents are masked uh and will not reveal their identity. uh was troubling because if you're an agent uh of the law, peace officer, you should not be anonymous. You you should uh be able to provide your name and the agency that you work for.
▶ 7:17:24We saw how in Minnesota the tragic killing of legislators there, the uh impersonated a police officer and had a police lookalike look like lookalike van with lights on it.
▶ 7:17:42So uh the identity of a peace officer or uh a law enforcement agent uh is important if they are peace officers and securing uh the peace of our country. Uh Pastor Lopez also shared that one of the agents pointed a rifle at his wife who is a senior pastor at the church when she was when she demanded that they leave church property.
▶ 7:18:10Even a quick scan of public reporting in recent weeks will yield numerous accounts from families, congregation leaders, community people expressing concern that immigration enforment enforcement at at places of worship is uniquely distressing to the community. I really hope that our nation is better than this. And the American people overwhelmingly agree that places of worship should be exempted for immigration enforcement.
▶ 7:18:38Standalone legislation that is similar in structure and spirit was endorsed earlier this year by the United Methodist Church, Catholic Charities, the the network of Jewish human services agencies, Human Rights Watch, the New York City Arch Dasis, and over 500 nonforprofits and community advocate organization.
▶ 7:19:01Uh I know that there is a similar um amendment being introduced and I thank the gentleman who introduced it uh for acknowledging the the importance and the significance of of being able to pray in your own temple to your own God without the fear that you will be cuffed, arrested and uh deported or detained at a detention center or jail.
▶ 7:19:30I urge for your support of my amendment to ensure that our tax dollars would not be used for these purposes at places of worship. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Gentleman from NEA Nevada, Mr. Amade is recognized to respond to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.
▶ 7:19:51While I understand the sensitivity of the issue, I don't think it's appropriate for Congress to micromanage exactly when, where, and how ICE should enforce our nation's immigration laws as a general proposition. However, I do think it's appropriate to clarify our intent. That's why I propose an amendment in the second degree urging ICE to only take immigration enforcement actions at houses of worship if the agency acknowledges it is absolutely le necessary to do so.
▶ 7:20:21What did he just What I just said is I don't think it's a good idea for parishioners or anybody in communities to make houses of worship free zones for immigration issues. And we know it's been that way before. And so it's like, hey, if you can just make it to the XYZ church, they can't come get you. And it's like, okay.
▶ 7:20:46So now we've set up pockets around to where it's like, listen, um, so, so what are you gonna do? you going to mule uh meals back and forth, whatever the heck. I I I don't I think that's a disservice to the religious beliefs. Not that I know all of them or and a substitute. I'm just saying it sets up free zones within communities throughout the nation and and it's going to get it to where it's like, listen, if you do that, you're putting everybody at risk. Well, so what are they going to do? They're going to watch it.
▶ 7:21:16Oh, the person stepped out or they're whatever or it it just sets up a bad management thing. So, I'd appreciate your attention in the amendment in the second degree when we get around to that. But, but I think creating a free zone for houses of worship um incredibly is an incredible step backwards to to some prior days. And I don't think it ultimately solves any problem except to say, hey, you enforcement people now have a steeper hill to climb. Uh and so I yield.
▶ 7:21:49Thank you. Just for the purposes of clarification, the debate is not yet on the secondderee amendment. Gentleman's amendment from New York is still the subject of debate. It's my understanding you'll offer a second degree amendment later in the process. So, just so we're clear. So, the gentle lady from Illinois is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment.
▶ 7:22:10Sacred grounds within our communities, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, should not be places where those who seek religious refuge are met with fear of possible arrest and never seeing their families again. For decades, Congress has failed to fix our broken immigration system, creating chaos and confusion for families who are trying to follow the law. Within this broken system, immigration enforcement should be focused on keeping us safe and upholding our values as Americans.
▶ 7:22:39The amendment would help ensure that the Trump administration keeps their promise to focus, in their words, on the worst of the worst, not on terrorizing peaceful worshippers seeking higher guidance and community. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. Are there any others wishing to address the amendment?
▶ 7:23:07There is at the desk an amendment to the second uh degree um to the amendment offered by Mr. Ammedday. Clerk will read or Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, the reading of the second degree amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his second degree amendment. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 7:23:34My amendment includes report language for ICE to evaluate the necessity of enforcement action at houses of worship, but ensures that if the need comes, they can appropriately enforce the law. Most importantly, I don't want criminal and removable aliens to think of houses of worship as sanctuaries, um, a place where they are harbored from lawful enforcement actions. It's ISIS job to enforce the law.
▶ 7:24:02After four years of being hamstrung, ICE is finally allowed to go about their mission. Let's not make it harder for them, or I should say a lot harder for them. I ask for my colleagues to evaluate this from the perspective of both a parishioner and also from the perspective of people who expect law and order in their community. Uh, and so I I just think sanctuaries and churches or a are a bad idea if at some point in time my colleagues want to say, "No, no, no.
▶ 7:24:31here's what we want in your evaluation. That's perfectly good for discussion. But to just say they're sanctuaries, I think is a bad idea. And so I ask my colleagues to support secondary amendment. Thank you. The gentle lady from Illinois is recognized to address the secondary amendment to the amendment. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the second degree amendment.
▶ 7:24:54While I appreciate the chairman's support on the broader issue, the fact is we are far beyond quote urging ICE to do the right thing. We need the strong direct language in this underlying amendment instead. Earlier earlier this year, ICE overturned 14 years of bipartisan precedent that prevented immigration enforcement in sensitive locations and began conducting conducting immigration raids in houses of worship, at schools, and hospitals.
▶ 7:25:22And I don't think anyone here seriously believes that ICE or the Trump administration will take a different approach based on our polite urging. This amendment might be slightly better than nothing. But it's not the best that our committee can do. If we as a committee are in agreement that families should not be targeted while at church, then as a co-equal branch of government, we should assert that. That's what the underlying amendment here does. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the second degree amendment and I urge support for the underlying amendment. And I yield back.
▶ 7:25:51Thanks, gentle lady. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the second degree amendment? Gentleman from Texas is recognized. If we're dealing with orders from a court for removal by people for under the existing laws, then all of these these
▶ 7:26:22seem to be presuming that every educ every immigration judge in America got their law license out of a cracker jackack box and they don't know how to do anything. and we're going to tell them how to do their job. But if that if if you've got a order from a judge that says this person has been deportable and there they should be picked up, that judge has examined the law.
▶ 7:26:49I promise you, and I know this from having chaired this committee, there's more judges try more of these cases in in a week than all the people in this room. So they deal with this stuff all day, every day, five days a week. It's a tough job and they have a huge monstrous docket that has to be dealt with. So they know the law.
▶ 7:27:17They've made a ruling that these people should be picked up and deported. any other thing you're presuming that judge is stupid and didn't know the law and I'm tired of listening to it for this time. that judge made a ruling you the the the officers have to follow the judge's ruling and pick these people up. That's the way it works. Yield back.
▶ 7:27:49Thank the gentleman. Are there any others wishing to speak to the secondderee amendment? Seeing none, gentleman, Mr. Amade is recognized for one minute. Oh, excuse me. Gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde's recognized to speak to the second degree amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, there should not be any place in this country where the rule of law is ignored.
▶ 7:28:11when you start making sanctuary places, sanctuary cities, sanctuary towns, you know, sanctuary buildings, uh, you know, houses of worship being sanctuary against which the law is ignored, um, then we have problems and there shouldn't be any place. So, uh, I rise in great opposition uh to the original amendment and and and I don't even honestly don't even think that that I should have to evaluate any particular place.
▶ 7:28:39If there's a legitimate removal order for someone, go find them, take them out, and deport them. And I I yield. Thank the gentleman. Do any other uh members wish to address the um address the secondary amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close. Yield back. I admire the gentleman's brevity.
▶ 7:29:08Um the question now is now on the second degree amendment offered by Mr. Ammedday. All those in favor say I. All those opposed say no. No. The opinion of chair the eyes have it.
▶ 7:29:26Seeing uh and the amendment is the sec amendment to the second degree is We'll now return to the amendment uh as offered uh by Mr. Espad as amended. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment as amended?
▶ 7:29:55If there's no further debate, the gentleman from New York is recognized for one minute to close. Chairman, uh there are some exception exceptions to the amend to the in the amendment including circumstances which includes the imminent risk of death, violence or physical harm to any person including a situation implicating terrorism of the national or the national security
▶ 7:30:26of the United States in some other manner. uh but there is ample support in America from parishioners and churchgoers whether they are Catholic, they are uh Jewish or uh Pentecostals uh all religions are feel very much that the places of worships are sensitive locations.
▶ 7:30:53In fact, among all locations that are considered sensitive, it is particularly houses of worship that are considered by the American people to be that should be untouched and um operations could happen elsewhere, but when people go to pray to their God, uh they really should be left alone. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I ask for your support of this amendment. Thank the gentleman.
▶ 7:31:22The question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. Espat as amended. All those in favor say I. All those opposed say no. I would ask for a little more clarity. So I'm going to repeat the vote. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no.
▶ 7:31:52No. The opinion of the chair the nose have and the amendment is adopted. Amendment is not adopted. Excuse me. Gentleman from California, Mr. Harter is recognized for an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 7:32:19I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for unanimous consent to dispense of the reading of the amendment. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment. I rise in support of my amendment to protect our domestic wine grape industry and fix a federal loophole that is devastating vineyards across America.
▶ 7:32:40Our wine grape growers have had a very tough last few years with over 40,000 acres of vineyards being pulled out and half a million tons of wine grapes going unh harvested, literally rotting on the vines. And at the same time, our domestic wine industry has been struggling.
▶ 7:33:01The federal government is subsidizing cheap foreign imports of The way this works is through a program called the duty drawback. I call it a loophole that allows that cheap foreign wine to be used instead of domestically grown wine. Specifically, importers who pay duties on foreign bulk wine can claim up to 99% refunds for all the duties, taxes, and fees that come from that.
▶ 7:33:29So essentially what's happening in this industry over the last few years is we are importing millions of dollars of foreign wine, repackaging it and blending it with a little bit of American wine, calling it all American wine and undercutting American farmers.
▶ 7:33:47At a time when there's a lot of discussion about tariffs and the right level of of of our trade negotiations with other countries, I can think of nothing that should be more bipartisan than supporting American produce and not paying millions of dollars towards uh subsidizing cheap foreign imports of any product that is competed with uh our American farmers, let alone our domestic wine industry.
▶ 7:34:15We have lost 60. We're losing six $69 million a year in revenue from this loophole. All money that should be going into our tax revenue. But at the same time, money that is being used to out compete American farmers. More than 5,900 wine grape growers and family winery wineries are struggling across the country because of this loophole. at a time when our wine industry needs all the help it can get.
▶ 7:34:45I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. I know we have a lot of room to go to build support for this uh amendment and and others like it. So, at this time, I'll withdraw my amendment and yield back in the hope of continuing to build support for it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the gentleman and thank him for his withdrawal as well. The gentle lady from Texas, Miss Escobar is recognized for an amendment. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 7:35:15I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Thank you so much. President Trump has asserted over and over again to the American people that his desire is to ensure that the worst of the worst criminals are those who ICE focuses on to deport.
▶ 7:35:46Unfortunately, that's not been the case and the data backs that up. As of June 15th of this year, during um President Trump's term, 65% and actually that number I just saw recent um figures and it's higher, but as of June 15th, 65% of people booked into detention have absolutely no criminal record.
▶ 7:36:12And in fact, fewer than of people de being detained right now in immigration detention, fewer than 606% have a violent criminal record. Why is this happening? It's happening because ICE was given a directive by Secretary Gnome and by Steven Miller that they want quotas met by ICE.
▶ 7:36:393,000 detainees, 3,000 people detained every um single month. And as a result, US citizens and people with legal protections are being swept up in these actions.
▶ 7:36:55This amendment is very simple and I am hoping that my Republican colleagues will join so that we can together assert that US citizens cannot and should not be detained or deported by ICE.
▶ 7:37:14And in fact, ICE itself, even during the first Trump administration, and I have the memos here, ICE has acknowledged it is not lawful to deport to detain US citizens. And so this is an a reassertion essentially that US citizens should not be detained or deported by ICE. That's it. And I yield back.
▶ 7:37:43In fact, the gentle lady, the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amade, is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think the gentle lady from El Paso, as well as her quotes of the ICE people, I think it's basically agreeable that we don't detain or or deport US citizens. I accept the amendment.
▶ 7:38:13Happy birthday to the Buckeye State. The amendments ac declared passed. Gentle lady from Texas, Miss Escobar is recognized for an amendment. Do we still do we Okay. Well, sorry. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. There's no further debate.
▶ 7:38:42Uh gentle lady is actually recognized for one minute. Gentleman from uh Maryland's recognized. Thank you. I I just have a question if the subcommittee chair would would just yield to answer a question. I I don't understand because there have been cases where we have deported a parent and the children who are US citizens who have been born here, they're anchor babies. they the parents wanted them to go back with them.
▶ 7:39:11So would this disallow would this in fact separate that family by allowing the deportation of the parents but not the deportation of the children. I if the subcommittee chairman would yield I can actually respond. Well, I'd be happy to yield to you after. I Well, I will I will do that because because uh I think that you might be able to ask that because I I know that courtesy wasn't given me yesterday by someone, but I I'll I'll give you that courtesy. Thank you. I I appreciate that.
▶ 7:39:42So when ICE detains um a family for example, let's say a mother or a father with a young child, there is there are two forms that so the parent essentially can choose to bring their US citizen child with them. And there's a couple forms. I'm happy to share the form numbers with you.
▶ 7:40:03This is not about children who um have parents who are being deported and the children are US citizens and the parents willingly take their US citizen with them back to their homeland. So I want to I want you to rest assured there's a a process and a policy that ICE follows. Um ICE form 71-078 the caregiver designation at arrest form.
▶ 7:40:31So ICE provides that or should be providing that to parents and then when when a non US citizen parent wants is being deported then ICE provides them with form 71-076 the pre- removal parental interest election form.
▶ 7:40:52So there's a process for um non US citizen parents being deported who have US citizen children that they want to bring back with them. So this is not that process. And if the if the general will just uh yield for a question is that because the wording is that it's uh carrying out a civil immigration enforcement activity and obviously they're not carrying out a civil immigration enforcement activity against the children. Right. Thank you very much.
▶ 7:41:23You'll back. If there's no further debate on the issue, then the gentle lady's recognized for one minute to close. And I yield. I thank the gentle lady from Texas. The questions now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Texas. All those in favor say I. I.
▶ 7:41:52All those post say no. The opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted. Gentle lady from Texas, Miss Escobar is recognized for an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
▶ 7:42:22Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. This amendment, Mr. chairman is to me a very common sense amendment that will in fact it help increase security in communities and it addresses what I think many of us have seen in videos and have heard about from our constituents which is the alarm that is created when federal law
▶ 7:42:52enforcement agents who are whose faces are completely masked and are not wearing any kind of identifier essentially take people off the street um without without they themselves having any way to be identifiable. I I have I was a county judge in El Paso, Texas um for many many years before I came to Congress.
▶ 7:43:19worked very closely with my sheriff and with local law enforcement and local law Most local law enforcement leaders uh embrace the fact that there are local requirements and sometimes indeed even state requirements that law enforcement have to have identifiers. And it's good not just because the public can identify them as law enforcement officials.
▶ 7:43:50Um but it's good also in the case that there's any violation by a law enforcement official. Anyone who has stepped over the line and done something inappropriate. It doesn't sully the the others the other law enforcement officers around them.
▶ 7:44:10It is so important that we create a standard like this not just because of what we're seeing but in order also to prevent any problems in the future. Women who you know might be surrounded by men who h are not identified and the public who has no way of identifying law enforcement. That is not good for any of us.
▶ 7:44:38So, this simply requires ICE agents to display their badge and their last name on their uniform. Again, like we see local police officers do every single day. Um, and the way that they engage in the community is with the use of those identifiers. That's it. That's it. is is setting that standard and making sure that we are requiring our federal law enforcement to meet that standard.
▶ 7:45:08And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I thank gentle lady. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amade is recognized to address the Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, no, nobody is for mystery civil rights violations. Um, so I don't know that there's any argument about that.
▶ 7:45:32But I think when we talk about in this day and age, uh, cartels, paid uh, foreign criminal elements, um, in our security, and the fact that all of us can record whatever the heck you want, wherever you happen to be. Um, and the fact that these federal folks have their badge numbers on their vests.
▶ 7:45:54They don't have their last name and they are covering their face, but let's face it, uh the threats for this go all the way up to the Supreme Court depending on how you voted on a particular case where all of a sudden you got people at your house, blah blah blah, that sort of stuff. It is a and I don't want to use the wrong phrase, but it's a it's a threat environment for even the people in this room.
▶ 7:46:17Um, and so I think the bottom line here is, yeah, we need to be able if somebody's doing something wrong, we need to be like, well, nobody knows. There was a mask. There was no identifying feature on the outside of them or whatever. I'm just going to tell I think we have that and the ability to go after those bad apples because they're in any sort of thing. But I think basically in under the present threat environment um we want these folks to do a good job.
▶ 7:46:47We want them to play by the rules and we want them to do their duty. But I don't think we need to expose them to what actually you and I are exposed to. Uh- because frankly uh I think LA regardless of what your politics were is a pretty good example of oh my gosh um not sure anybody's winning that particular program and exposing our law enforcement people um for doing nothing but showing up where they were told to go and do their duty
▶ 7:47:18um is I think I I just think it's a bad management decision and this Congress shouldn't do it. Um, and because the anti-ICE rhetoric is is so outrageous. Um, and and I'm not I'm not talking about people here, but you all know of examples where people have gone, you know, go get them where they're eating and confront them wherever and let's take that to the whatever.
▶ 7:47:40It's like, well, I'm not sure that produces great policy and I don't think putting these people on somebody's post uh because of an action shot at an enforcement action is a good policy. So, uh, I don't support the amendment and I hope you vote against. Thank the gentleman. Gentle lady from Illinois, it's Underwood recognized to address the amendment. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 7:48:05I think we can all agree that threats or assaults upon federal agents and officers or any public servant is indefensible. Uh, we can also agree that those who we entrust to uphold our laws must also have the trust of the communities that they serve. And so we've seen an uptick of these federal law enforcement officers wearing face coverings while performing enforcement activities.
▶ 7:48:25We're also seeing an uptake in people who are posing as federal law enforcement but who are not actually federal law enforcement um buying things on Etsy, right? And then putting on a mask and then trying to terrorize and detain people. Um, and so, you know, we need to be able to balance agent safety against public trust, and we need to support Miss Escobar's amendment.
▶ 7:48:55I look forward to working with our colleagues across the aisle um to coming towards an effective solution that can get signed into law. And I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ruford, is recognized to address the amendment. I I rise in opposition to this amendment.
▶ 7:49:21However, I I will um I would like to address the two separate issues here. One is the identification of the individual officer and the agency through whom his authority uh is derived. Both of those should be um presented to the public. I I agree completely with that.
▶ 7:49:49What I disagree with is the idea that uh these officers cannot wear masks while performing their uh because many of them may currently be or in the future be working undercover operations and they don't want their uh facial uh identity exposed uh on national networks.
▶ 7:50:17So I I I Yes, sir. The gentleman used the mic, please. Thank you. uh I disagreed with violently on her opinions, but when she was put in an unmarked car, that reminded me of Chile and Pinocha and the disappeared people.
▶ 7:50:46So uh if if uh if that if the young lady if this amendment won't be adopted identifying the department and the andor agency that is affecting the arrest. You and I agree 100% and I would like to perhaps a substitute uh with you on that Well if if I could uh claim back my time I I would be absolutely glad to get with you and and work on that.
▶ 7:51:15I know you and Pete, we spoke about uh some options here uh and and maybe look at uh some legislation dealing with uh federal agencies because I can tell you state and locals uh we already we already have uh those requirements. So I'd be glad to work with you on that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 7:51:43gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, is recognized to address the amendment. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and I want to thank the the ranking members as well. And, uh, just a point of clarification. Um, sheriff, there's nothing in in here about masks in this amendment. Uh, this is only about identifiers. And I completely agree with you that the organization in which the individual works for and some identifier are required.
▶ 7:52:14Uh there's a revised sheriff. There's a revised Escobar 2. I'm sorry. Here, let me give you I'm I'm sorry. It's it's a revised as Escobar Aguilar revised too sheriff.
▶ 7:52:32So uh there's no mention of masks in this option and and what we would say is the identifying entity, the employing agency and some identifier should be listed on their person. I understand the sensitivity and I lift up the work that law enforcement does. my brother's in law enforcement uh in the county in which I live in and I wouldn't want to put him or his family in any harm or any jeopardy.
▶ 7:53:00But they have to his name is sewn into his uniform. They have to and local agencies are not touched in this amendment. Um local and state entities. What we're saying is in this case, as Congresswoman Escobar mentioned, there is this law enforcement entity that falls under the jurisdiction of this committee and they are in our community. They are tackling individuals.
▶ 7:53:27They are beating them up and there is no identifier at all on who they are. And that needs to change. Now, there needs to be I'll happy to yield to you in in 30 seconds. There has to be a better way and there needs to be a federal solution. Now, as the sheriff said, maybe this is a broader solution that we expand. And maybe this is I'm sorry to the CJS folks, maybe this is something we can revisit in CJS.
▶ 7:53:52Maybe this has to do with federal law enforcement and this is legislation uh and language we need to look at. Uh and I'm willing to have those conversations and I I feel comfortable speaking for Congresswoman Escobar that she is as well. Um, but we need a solution and we need people to be identified because that one law enforcement individual who does bad hurts everyone.
▶ 7:54:16And as a result in the community, you're also going to get folks who are witnesses of crimes and are victims of crimes who do not come forward because they see this and they know it is unamerican and unpatriotic when someone claiming to be a law enforcement officer conducts bad behavior. I'm happy to yield to the to the sheriff. Um, what you have to understand as well though is there are undercover officers who are always working in a lot of these operations.
▶ 7:54:46They're there for intelligence. Yet, when an officer may be uh under assault, he's going to assist that officer. Uh, but because he's under cover, he has no identification on him, not even his agency identification.
▶ 7:55:02And so if we make some exceptions, like I said, if we get together and make some exceptions, the last sentence in this sheriff says, "Provided nothing in this section shall be implemented that may compromise the integrity of an ongoing undercover operation." I still think you're you're you got the bad amendment in front of you, and that's on me.
▶ 7:55:21Um, but but I'm I'm I'm happy to work with the gentleman and I will tell you we are very sensitive to those undercover operations, but I don't believe that that should be an excuse for any law enforcement individuals to not identify themselves when they are part of an of an operation. Uh, so uh, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage our colleagues support and and continue um, good faith efforts to address this either in this bill or in Well, Mr. M Mr.
▶ 7:55:51Zeni Escobar 2 Agular Aagular Revised is the one. Well, there there should be some on every table, but sure that's on me. I understand. I understand that.
▶ 7:56:18Um what we're what we're dealing with is a couple sentences uh that we're asking for. Um I'm I'm engaging the gentleman in good faith discussions on what a solution can be. There may be other committees uh as well. Um I'm happy to just yield back to the ranking member though. Um I'll just I'll just yield back. I'll just yield back. I'll yield to the ranking member. It if if that allows, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to the ranking member. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
▶ 7:56:47to the chairman of the committee to the chairman of the subcommittee. Is it okay with the chairman if I'm the ranking member for a minute? I was projecting. Yeah. Yeah. So, so just in in in a way of I I think um I I can I can pledge the resources of the committee to to get this together and work on it for uh a floor amendment which we will support on the floor to work this stuff out. That's one potential.
▶ 7:57:17Uh if you don't like it, then I yield back. if uh if you all are not confused, you've followed this more carefully than I have. So let me ask a couple of questions perhaps to you, Mr. Aguilar, or Miss Escobar, either one of you. Number one is are we considering the revised amendment here?
▶ 7:57:48Yes, Mr. Chairman. Number two, and does everybody have a copy of the revised amendment? I'm seeing some sh head shaking over here. Mr. Molinar does not. I don't again, I don't know how this got distributed or when. Mr. Chairman, this may be the inspiration for us to stop using so much paper and maybe have laptops. The only inspiration I need is inspiration to get out of here at a reasonable time. and you're providing a lot of it, I must say.
▶ 7:58:16Uh, but, uh, I want to make sure everybody has this, number one. So, it seems like I Does Mr. Molinar have a copy? Okay. So, we seem like we're getting that around. Number two, question I have for you, Mr. Chairman. is this going to be acceptable or do you want to have a continued discussion and have something that you can either make as a manager's amendment on the floor or whatever?
▶ 7:58:44I just want to know if there's if you're going to oppose or support this and if there's a process to get us to an agreement. Well, well, Mr. Chairman, since you asked, uh, I would I would like the opportunity since we've had some very good discussion with some folks who have some pretty good background that we move towards the manager's amendment on the floor thing so that all the all the uh all the loose ends are tied up and we're ready to go and
▶ 7:59:14um and and then maybe the member from Ohio would be shocked again that we're actually working together on something, but you know, whatever. Okay. So to the gentle lady, because it is your amendment, I think it's up to you as to whether or not you want to push on with the amendment, knowing the gentleman has some concerns or whether you want to set the amendment aside, come to an agreement, which it looks to me like you guys are pretty close to to doing and then include it in a manager's amendment.
▶ 7:59:42We don't have a lot of time here because the way this has fallen, we're very in the near meeting. Now, we do have one other uh and we do have another one that had been agreed upon by the gentle lady from Florida uh and gentle gentleman from Nevada that they worked something out. So, we have a little bit of time here.
▶ 8:00:04It's really a question you you want to redo this real quick if you think we might have time or do you want to go on and and I would ask you my friend to be very clear with the gentle lady from Texas whether it's something you could support or not because I think you have the votes to prevail uh either way. So Mr. Chairman first of all thank you for this dialogue and um I want to thank my co-lead as well Mr.
▶ 8:00:33Agilad, I'm happy to work together for a manager's amendment and to come to some consensus and get this done that way. Okay. Then we will set this aside and uh you two can work with that and at the appropriate time we can come with a manager amendment. Both sides can support it in rules committee or on the floor whatever you want to do. So, I would ask the general lady, do you withdraw your amendment?
▶ 8:01:01Considering this agreement that we're making and the willingness to work together, uh, I withdraw my amendment. I thank the gentle lady. Now, what's next? We do not have Debbie here. Okay. All right. A gentle lady from Texas, Miss Escobar. I think still has one more amendment. Is that correct? The gentle lady is recognized for an amendment. Mr.
▶ 8:01:31Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My last one, I promise. And I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed. I hear promises on this committee all the time. Uh but without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. this last amendment.
▶ 8:01:53And I I'd like to to preface uh my comments about the amendment by saying I I think we all agree that we want to know who's in the country. Uh who the non-citizens who are in the country. We want people um I hear my colleagues say all the time, we want people to quote do it the right way. We want quote legal immigration. That is a challenge when arrests are being made in courouses.
▶ 8:02:25The reason why we don't want folks to be afraid of showing up to court is because that helps us know who they are, where they are, and be a part of the legal When ICE goes into federal courouses or courouses in general to arrest people, that will dissuade folks from showing up to their court hearings.
▶ 8:02:52That works contrary to what we should want in a functioning immigration system. And I know we had the discussion earlier about um churches and places of worship. courouses are very specific because that's where people go who we who we want to know who they are and where they are. So my amendment is simple.
▶ 8:03:18It would prohibit ICE from uh their enforcement activities in courouses. And again, if ICE continues these arrests at courouses, then we should expect that fewer people will show up for their court hearings. We can expect that more people will fall into the shadows and that will be because of the way ICE is engaging inside courouses.
▶ 8:03:45So, my amendment is very specific to courouses for the reasons that I've laid out. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentle lady. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ammedday, is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, a courthouse is a courthouse is a courthouse at or near a courthouse. A lot of rural areas, detention facilities are located adjacent to a courthouse.
▶ 8:04:09And so, um, while I understand the intent, I I I think the practical effect here is maybe not a sanctuary like the church's thing, but we're creating special areas. And I would associate myself with the remarks maybe for the first time ever of my colleague from Texas about, you know, when you and so I'm just saying I get it. Um, but I think one size doesn't fit all.
▶ 8:04:37And so to put a blanket thing on courouses in there is is probably not a good policy and it creates issues for different jurisdictions. Uh, and especially I'm thinking of the rural ones. Uh, so respectfully I oppose the Thank gentlemen. Gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood's recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment because it will help make our country safer. Our immigration system is fundamentally broken. Only Congress can fix it and we have failed to do so.
▶ 8:05:08Without comprehensive immigration reform, immigrants who want to follow the law are left navigating a confusing and opaque bureaucracy. And now the Trump administration is targeting them because they're failing to meet their unrealistic deportation goals. Targeting folks who are trying to follow the law and show up at their court dates is counterproductive to our homeland security goals. Congress created this problem and we need to solve it.
▶ 8:05:32This amendment helps make sure our existing immigration laws are enforced and it protects constitutional due process. Again, we are talking about people who are already trying to navigate our complicated immigration system and are complying with the court process, have claims of asylum, or have other legal protections. CBP and ICE as law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to ensure equal access to the courts and thus access to justice is preserved.
▶ 8:06:03I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Thank the gentle lady. I'm going to ask if there's anybody else that wants to address the amendment, but I want to advise everyone. There is an amendment on to the second degree on this. So, you might want to hold and hear that. I don't know. It's up to you. But if you care to address the main amendment, uh, please let me know.
▶ 8:06:29And gentle lady from California, you All right. Seeing none, I know there's an amendment of second degree. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized to uh present his amendment. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the The gentleman, does the amendment uh care to dispense with the reading? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to the reading of this amendment to be without objection.
▶ 8:06:55The reading of the second degree amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his second degree amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, as a as an immigrant myself, I know that our system on the immigration side of things is broken. I think we've talked about this quite a bit today and we can see evidence of that and how we're making it better. Now, as a father, I also want to make sure that criminals who have no legal right to remain in this country are removed swiftly.
▶ 8:07:23Our immigration and customs enforcement officers need to be able to do their jobs. We do not want to prohibit ICE from enforcing the law, especially on individuals convicted of crimes with deportation orders, but we need to also protect those who are showing up to court to have their immigration cases fully adjudicated. My amendment is simple. It urges ICE to use restraint when conducting enforcement activities at courouses for individuals who are trying to go through their immigration process.
▶ 8:07:50I think everyone in this room will agree that would like to see a higher percentage of individuals showing up to their immigration court cases and court dates. This is one of the main issues that we have in our immigration system. People not showing up to their court dates. Our immigration courts exist for a reason. They allow individuals to have their cases heard, ensures due process and provide the opportunity for cases to be fully adjudicated by the US government to determine if there is a legal right for individuals to remain in our great country.
▶ 8:08:19Additionally, showing up to court ensures the most vulnerable who do qualify for relief in the United States are able to have their cases heard without fear of being deported for simply showing up. We want everyone to be able to show up. But we cannot and should not hamstring our law enforcement agencies.
▶ 8:08:38So the main purpose of this amendment is to make sure that we that we still allow our agents and our government to conduct the activities that are necessary but with restraint around courouses for all the reasons that I just mentioned. Want to make sure people have the ability to show up. Having gone through the process myself, I can say that at times it's frustrating. Uh you have a lot of fear, you're nervous, you get a court day, you don't know what's going to happen there. I'm hearing about this from my district as well of people being afraid now to show up to court. That's something that hadn't happened before.
▶ 8:09:08Now, there are orders and people are in, you know, and have criminal records and and there's a reason for uh ICE and our government agencies are still going to be able to conduct whatever activity they need to at the courthouse. However, what this does, it strikes the um the prohibition of actually law enforcement being able to carry their duties. However, it also gives people a piece of mind that when they show up, they're going to be given the benefit of the doubt that they're there to hear their case and actually be able to make a case for themselves and let it go through the process.
▶ 8:09:36Once the process is determined, then of course, our agents can carry out the orders that they need to. However, the courouses need to be a place where people can go and get and go through the process in the way that they need to without fear of just being deported on the spot uh with with further without further notice. So, with that, I yield, sir. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ammedday, is recognized to address the amendment in the second I support the amendment in the second degree. I yield back.
▶ 8:10:08Gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Underwood is recognized to address the second degree amendment. Gentleman from Arizona is verbal first. Any other me uh members have gentleman from Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I I think that's a a big step in the right direction.
▶ 8:10:37I just wanted to add one layer to this. Um when I was a local prosecutor, we had MS-13 in our jurisdiction. Um, and so obviously was a huge problem with prosecuting criminal cases. One of the things that we ran into from a problem a problematic standpoint was for victims and witnesses because we had a when we first started it this out, we had people who would they were afraid to come to court because they might be arrested even though they were coming as witnesses, even though we're coming um as victims.
▶ 8:11:07And in fact, uh, defendants started using that to dissuade them from coming to court. Hey, if you go report that you saw me do X, um, you're gonna get arrested, you'll get deported, and you'll never see your kids again.
▶ 8:11:21So, I I think I really agree with the point you're trying to make there, but if there's a way to add this piece to it as well, because we don't want the court to be a place where folks are afraid to go uh when they have basic needs for legal services or when they're comp trying to comply with what, in your instance, the civil immigration system is requiring. In my instance, we needed them to prosecute those cases. I can't send those uh the guys who are really the killers and robbers and rapists.
▶ 8:11:51If you can't get the witnesses to come to court, you're not going to get them convicted. So, if if there could be some consideration about adding a layer like that, I would think it would be extremely helpful to to resolving some sort reaching some kind of agreement on this issue. And I will yield to the gentleman if he if he'd like to speak or the sheriff. Sheriff, if you'd like to speak, I'll yield to you.
▶ 8:12:16Listen, there is a visa process uh that's there to protect them from deportation. It's called a U visa. If they have uh material information about a felony, they are they're already Uh well, here's the challenge that we ran into with that.
▶ 8:12:36Number one was uh from a cultural standpoint, the people in the community not understanding that level of nuance, they were just like, "Well, hey, if you go to court, you might get deported." So, we had to work through that piece. The second though was the time lag. So, you'd have the time it would take to actually get that work through. Um sometimes the witnesses would be deported already. I had cases where, you know, we were getting ready to go to trial for a homicide and guess what? The witness isn't there anymore.
▶ 8:13:06he got deported for some other reason before it comes up to trial. So, I think that the you that visa process is is helpful, but it might make sense to have something here where we recognize this issue, too, because it's it's a major cultural challenge once you establish a sense in a community that court is a dangerous place to go. It's a very hard thing to reverse and it undermines law enforcement at every level.
▶ 8:13:32Even when you've got people in the community and I know we there's a lot of talk about all these folks being criminals and all that stuff. They are not. They are hardworking people trying to make it and do good things and send their kids to school. And from my perspective when I was a prosecutor, they were excellent witnesses. They were excellent u um um uh victims uh you know from the standpoint of giving their testimony and the like.
▶ 8:13:55So making sure that they understand you can come here and have the criminal justice system work for you in this instance doesn't mean we don't want to preempt the whole immigration process or anything, but if we're really worried about keeping our streets safe and using all the tools we can to beat groups like MS-13 on our streets, this is a a critical component to it. And I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 8:14:23I appreciate the gentleman and u just a word going forward suggestion from the uh chairman of the subcommittee. Uh this has actually been very helpful been a great discussion been very useful. I think some good things have come out of this.
▶ 8:14:39probably would be better in the future since people have had this bill for a week uh if some of that discussion preceded us actually arriving here uh and you had more of an opportunity to literally sit down in a more informal setting and work through something. But I don't want to discourage what's happening. I just want to point out it would be a whole lot better going forward if this kind of discussion could happen sooner.
▶ 8:15:03So, if you can go through it and find the person that you need to partner up with when you've got a concern on this, it would just be helpful. Uh, with that, my friend from Minnesota, M. McCullum is recognized to speak on the second degree amendment.
▶ 8:15:28Possession of another amendment number one a court enforcement acknowledges by Mr. Sysammani. It says the court acknowledges the importance of aliens participating in immigration hearings and urges ICE to restrain immigration enforcement activities at courouses. So this does this address I I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to even pretend I'm one. But what Mr.
▶ 8:15:58Ivy was talking about is something I know that I have a family member who lines up witnesses and I've been with her when she's been on the phone talking to people. It's really important. So the courthouse enforcement is that so that is just for immigration hearings. Um is this something we're working on a manager's amendment? There seems to be consensus on this. I don't know how the subcommittee chair feels about it. I think the gentle ladies just previous point.
▶ 8:16:30I just I you know I I I think we're almost there. Um I don't know if we can fix it now or if this is something that everybody can agree on. If the the author of the amendment second degree let's go to the author of the amendment. Would he I I Yes. Thank you. I I thank you both for bringing up that point. That's that's actually something that I don't think we had fully thought of in that sense for the witnesses. I'm happy to work with you all on that. um at a later time we'll move forward with this quote now, but we can move forward.
▶ 8:16:59This is report language. It's not, you know, something that we can't deal with. Oh, you can't. Okay. Oh, okay. But but Okay. Well, I'm advised you cannot amend report language. I understand. Okay. So, we'll I'll still move forward with the vote today then. Okay. So, uh gentle lady cast the time.
▶ 8:17:27There either a point you want to make or a question you want to address? Well, I I don't want to I I'd like us to proceed to get something going. If I could ask the chairman of the subcommittee to yield for um a question. I'd prefer that you didn't, but go right ahead. I'm sorry. I and I'd prefer not to even have to be talking about this.
▶ 8:17:54So, it it seems like everybody's agreed that there there is important to law enforcement, judges, victims to have their day, prosecutors to move forward. Is this something as as you're moving forward that we might be able to um address with consensus um if if all parties can can agree to it? Sounds like we have law enforcement victims and and to figure out how we can make sure we have witnesses show up in a timely fashion.
▶ 8:18:28Um, is that for report language? Yes. Well, then if anybody's got a 6:30 drink date to call them and tell them you're going to be late. Uh, so so you need to get that squared away since we can't fix it in a manager's amendment on the Well, can So, while we're doing the the uh the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Amade are now skipping to the same tune thing, perhaps you guys could have
▶ 8:18:58a little report piouette in the hall or something like that. Chair Armani, I think you and I are singing the same song and maybe at some point I owe you a drink. And with that, I yield And we plan on fixing your problem in the manager's amendments. I don't think we forgot about you. No, you all owe me a drink. Actually, M. Well, can um can we just still move forward with this with this amendment and vote on? Gentlemen is recognized to close.
▶ 8:19:28Okay. Well, I uh again urge um support for this amendment. It is a reasonable response to ensure we encourage individuals to show up to court but do not hamstring our department of um human uh the DHS personnel from removing criminals from our communities. With that, sir, I yield. Thank the gentleman. The questions now on the second degree amendment offered by Mr. Ciscomani. All those in favor say I. I.
▶ 8:19:57All those opposed say no. the opinion of the chair. The eyes have it and the second degree amendment is We'll now return to the amendment offered by Miss Escobar as amended. Do any members care to speak on that?
▶ 8:20:26Seeing none, the gentle lady, Miss Escobar, is recognized for one minute to close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I appreciate the acknowledgement across the board that that courouses are an important space that we want we do not want to create conditions where we're discouraging people from coming to uh I understand
▶ 8:20:57the the report language and I was hoping we'd have a chance to kind of work through it before a vote. That's okay. I will continue to work on an amendment. Oh, no. Will the gentleman Can I ask the gentleoman to yield for a question? Well, or because she's a new member. The gentle lady have been recognized to close, right?
▶ 8:21:21But I think because the gentle lady is a new member and doesn't realize that the report is closed and cannot be amended after it leaves this full committee. I think she does recognize that that actually been made. But I'll allow the general lady to make a point. But so the amendment that I'd like to work on is not a report. Um is So you're right. I'm new to this committee. This is the first time I'm arguing amendments. So I'm trying to figure this out uh as I go.
▶ 8:21:51But well, I just wanted to clarify that if the gentle lady is making uh plans to amend this language or this issue down the road, then we just all need to be clear that this report language will go as is and it'll be closed off, right? And the report is not dealt with in conference, just the bill language. And yeah, as far as I know. Okay.
▶ 8:22:20So, I will with the report after five minutes from now. Okay. I'm not going to try to amend the report, but I am going to continue to work on an amendment for the floor. Thank you. I yel back. Thank the gentle lady. Questions now on the amendment offered by Miss Escobar as amended. All those in favor say I. All those opposed say no. No. Do you want to know?
▶ 8:22:47The chair is looking for a little more clarity, a little more conviction. All those in favor of the amendment as amended say I. I. All those opposed to the amendment as amended say no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes show more enthusiasm. This is so more conviction. So I'm ruling in favor of the eyes, but obviously anybody job for the appropriation can challenge it.
▶ 8:23:17In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment as amended is Okay, we now move to what I think will be our last uh amendment of the evening before final passage. Uh let me make a quick announcement before we do that. Uh dinner is being provided by Mr. Elzie uh immediately after we're concluded here. So if you've got places to go, that's up to you. But this is Cap Grill.
▶ 8:23:45So, this isn't your average, right, dinner. It's not cold pizza out there waiting for you. There's a worthy prize for a long day and you can thank Mr. Elie for that. Um, so with that, uh, Miss Washerman Schultz is recognized for an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous I have an amendment at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read. Without objection, the reading the amendment is dispensed with. The gentle lady's recognized for remarks on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:24:14Um this is a Wasermanman Schultz Amadeday amendment and it is an example of what you just described. When given an opportunity to do a little more work together, we can reach a uh a a joint conclusion and uh one that is positive and moves the issues forward like the one that was part of my amendment that I introduced earlier.
▶ 8:24:35My amendment previously would have said that TPS for Venezuelans uh would that we would not be spending funds in this bill to advance deportation and would ensure that TPS for Venezuelans at least for the fiscal year would uh would not have funds uh spent on it to terminate that program for them.
▶ 8:25:02Um what the chairman of the subcommittee and I have agreed to is that we've revised his secondary amendment which now I'm introducing as a main amendment that would say that the committee acknowledges that TPS for Venezuela should not be used in perpetuity and it would also from our revised secondary amendment earlier direct the secretary to reconsider the termination of TPS for Venezuelans and conduct a more thorough analysis of the situation in the country
▶ 8:25:32and then provide our committee with a briefing on the evaluation of the conditions that led to the termination of TPS in Venezuela. So for me, I I'm continuing the fight through legislation, legal advocacy, and by speaking out for TPS holders and by uh and fighting for Venezuelan democracy. And this is a first step. And I appreciate the chairman working with me on this.
▶ 8:25:57um the willingness on both sides to seek an accommodation that protects people who followed the law and did it the right way. I hope we can continue to work in a bipartisan manner to communicate our serious concerns to this administration about their treatment of those who have a legal status or a good reason to be protected here because we do owe it to our constituents to the hard work and find to do the hard work find a lasting fair solution for those who seek refuge from oppression and earned temporary lawful status in our country.
▶ 8:26:25And I'll just put in a plug for my bipartisan legislation that includes TPS for Venezuela act and the Venezuelan Adjustment Act, both of which are bipartisan. And again, I thank the gentleman for working with me and for everyone's support. And I yield back. Thank the gentle lady, the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amday's recognized to address the amendment. I support the amendment. I yield back and please pass on my well wishes to my senior colleague from the Buckeye State.
▶ 8:26:56the don't just don't even go there. Okay. Piece of advice. Uh gentle lady from Illinois, Mr. Underwoods, recognized to address the amendment. Well, I'm just so pleased at the spirit of bipartisan cooperation. Look at the way that we're ending the day. Colleagues, this is um remarkable. I missed it. I'm sorry. I yield back. What's remarkable is you're going to end the day with cap grilled steak. That's remarkable.
▶ 8:27:24Okay, if there's no further debate, the gentle lady from uh Florida is recognized for one minute to close. Thank you. I I I just would ask that everyone pray for a free Venezuela because we absolutely need to make sure that the dictator Maduro who is illegally serving in the office of president of Venezuela right now because he usurped and overturned a legitimate election needs to be removed and
▶ 8:27:55the rightful winner should be established as the president Edmundo Gonzalez who won the election and you know all observers that were that participated in watching that election acknowledge that and so the oppression and horror that Venezuelans face in that country certainly warrant continued protection for people who held TPS from Venezuela and I would urge you all to work with me to make sure that we can keep them safe here in this country until it's possible to return to a democratic
▶ 8:28:26safe Venezuela. Thank you and I yield back. Thank you gentle lady. the questions now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Florida. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted. Seeing no further amendments, I now recognize Mr. Rogers for a motion. Mr.
▶ 8:28:52Chair, I move to favorably report to the House the fiscal year 2026 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. Questions now on the motion to favorably report the fiscal year 2026 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill to the House. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. In the opin in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it.
▶ 8:29:22Recorded vote has been requested. Sufficient number amount of support having been uh demonstrated. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Adhalt. Mr. Adherol. I Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar. No. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alfred. I Mr. Amday. Mr. Ammedday. I Mrs. Spice. Mr. Bishop. Hi. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop. No. Mr. Calbertt. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter.
▶ 8:29:53I Mr. Casease. Mr. Casease. No. Mr. Sisammani. Mr. Sismani. I Mr. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud. I Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Klyurn. No. Mr. Clyde. Hi. Mr. Clyde. I Mr. Cole. Hi. Mr. Cole. I Mr. Quay Mr. Mr. Quayrar Mr.
▶ 8:30:18Quayr No Miss Dean Miss Dean Miss Dean Noro Mr. Lauro. No. Mr. Diaz Bolard. Yes. Mr. Diaz Bolard. I Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards. I Mr. Elie. Mr. Ellie. I miss Escobar. Miss Escobar. No. Mr. Espayat. Mr. Espayat. No. Mr. Fleshman. Mr. Fleshman. I Miss Frankle. Miss Frankle. No, Mr. Franklin.
▶ 8:30:49Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez. I Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest. I Mr. Harter. Mr. Harter. No. Dr. Harris. I. Dr. Harris. I Mrs. Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hoyer. No. Mr. Ivy. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce I Miss Captor Miss Captor No Mr.
▶ 8:31:15Loa Miss Lee Miss Lee no Miss Lllo Miss Lllo I Mr. Leven Mr. Leven no Miss Malloy. Miss Mallaloy I Miss McCullum Miss McCullum no Miss Ming Miss Ming no Mr. Molinar Mr. Molar I Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. I Mr. Morelli. Mr. Morelli. No.
▶ 8:31:45Mr. Morvan. Mr. Morvan. No. Mr. New House. Mr. New House. I Miss Perez. Miss Perez. I Miss Pingri. Miss Pingri. Miss Pingri. No. Mr. Pokean. Mr. Pokean. No. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley. No. Mr. Mr. Rashenthaler. Mr. Rashenthaler. I Mr. Rogers. So members can hear, please.
▶ 8:32:15Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. I Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford. I Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson. I Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong. I Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres. No. Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood. No. Mr. Valido. Mr. Valido. I. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz. No. Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman. No. Mr. WAC. Mr. WAC. I Mr. Zinci. Mr. Zinci.
▶ 8:32:44I Are there any members who wish to record or change their vote? Gentleman from California. Yes. Mr. Calbert. I. Gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Klene. I. Gentleman from Florida. Mr. Franklin. I. Gentle lady from Oklahoma. Mrs. Bice. I. Gentle lady from Mrs. Henson I Mr.
▶ 8:33:14Gentleman from New York Mr. Loa I gentleman from Maryland Mr. Ivy no gentle lady from gentle lady you're recorded as a no okay are there others we have a lot of people standing around Mr. Valdez, did you have a chance to vote? Okay. Are there any other members who wish to record or change their vote?
▶ 8:33:45Okay, seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 8:34:35On this vote, the eyes are 36, the nose 27. The motion is agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and the report just approved. Seeing no object in three days. Three days. Seeing no objection. So ordered.
▶ 8:35:03There being no further business, uh the committee stands adjourned.