JUST IN: Sparks Fly As Lawmakers Argue Over Amendment To The Permanent Trump Secure Border Act

[00:00:00]Anyone seek recognition?

[00:00:05]>> Gentleman from California.

[00:00:06]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have an amendment at the desk.

[00:00:09]>> Clerk will report >> point of order reserved by the gentleman from California. The other gentleman from California.

[00:00:19]>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of his >> without objection. Be considered as read. The gentleman from California is recognized to uh explain his amendment.

[00:00:29]Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[00:00:31]Folks, once again, our nation is at war.

[00:00:36]So far, 17 American service members have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Hundreds others have been injured.

[00:00:46]These are soldiers that take an oath to defend our country, to make the ultimate sacrifice when necessary.

[00:00:56]These soldiers need to know that we back home have their back.

[00:01:03]My amendment essentially codifies current President Trump administration policy.

[00:01:11]HR2 protects for all only the children and spouses of active duty servicemen.

[00:01:19]My amendment would essentially again cottify current Trump policy of protecting children, spouses and the parents of active duty service members, reserveists and veterans.

[00:01:33]As you know today, actually very sadly, ICE is willing to go after the military families and specifically the parents who are not protected by this bill.

[00:01:44]Again, ICE is going after the parents of soldiers who are serving in our battlefield today. In my district, Santa Ana, Narciso Varano, a hardworking law-abiding man and father of three US Marines. Folks, you make movies about individuals like this. He was pepper-sprayed, handcuffed, and beaten while being restained by ICE agents.

[00:02:14]After the incident, Mr. Baro was held in custody for three weeks by our government as they tried to deport him.

[00:02:23]After a judge ruled in Mr. Baro's favor, DHS still worked to appeal the ruling to pause his parole in place application and to deport him.

[00:02:36]It's important to note he had a parole in place application.

[00:02:42]a father of three Marines and our US government DHS was doing everything in its power to deport this father of three Marines.

[00:02:54]The second case in Huntington Beach, Ombberto Martinez Martinez was stopped and taken into ICE custody while driving with his daughter Anna to school.

[00:03:08]He was removed to Mexico within hours.

[00:03:12]At the time of his arrest, he had a pending parole application in place based on his daughter, his other daughter's active duty military service.

[00:03:23]His daughter Jessica Martinez, a Navy aviation ordinanceman serving aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

[00:03:34]20 years old, Navy Abraham Lincoln.

[00:03:39]On the same day her father was deported, Jessica was deployed aboard the Lincoln to the Middle East amid the conflict with Iran.

[00:03:51]Folks, this is not the way to reward our soldiers. You have to make sure you let our men and women in uniform that are fighting for our country know that our nation has their back. My amendment again is simply codifying President Trump's current policy of extending parole in place to again to parents of active duty service members, reser and veterans. Since 2013, USCIS has approved over 40,000 applications for military parole in place, including 20,000 applications approved by the Trump administration from 2017 to 2020. Mr. Chairman, I yield.

[00:04:40]>> Gentleman yields back. Does gentleman insist on his point of order from California? Gentleman withdraws his point of order. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

[00:04:48]>> I thank the chairman. Um the under current law, members of the United States military can seek uh an exped expedited path to uh LPR status. Uh the legislation that we have uh contemplates very specifically uh dealing with the spouse and children uh with respect to parole for uh members of the United States military. Uh we believe that is uh directly reflective of what the administration is doing and reflective of the appropriate policy and that this uh amendment is is unnecessary. And I I would add uh in response to uh some of the rhetoric from my colleagues uh in their statements regarding the legislation, I want to remind everybody out there who's viewing this. This is legislation that uh we passed uh the the construct of this was passed previously uh in in Congress and out of this committee. Um, this legislation is designed very specifically to cottify current practices which have objectively and irrefutably slowed, stemmed, eliminated the border crisis that was resulting directly, >> gentlemen, yield, >> the deaths of American people. I in in a moment, but I I just want to finish here in response to to the to the amendment.

[00:06:04]>> That that's the purpose here. And I and I heard my colleagues bringing up uh other matters involving uh enforcement, ICE, and and things going on, which we could have a full throat debate about, and we have repeatedly in this room and else elsewhere. But what we're talking about here is stopping what happened. I mean, again, we've had repeated testimony in this room from people who were victimized by by folks that were released into the United States. In a little bit, I'm not going to do it right now. I've got an entire folder here, an entire folder of the examples of people that I'm going to ask to insert in the record in a little bit of Americans.

[00:06:44]Hundreds, dozens, like all of these pages right here. These are all Americans. All people. And by the way, all immigrants who were abused by people released into the United States under the previous administrations and my colleagues policies of abusing asylum and parole that resulted directly in these rapes, murders, and destruction and death and fentanel and impacts on the state of Texas to the tune of 11 billion dollars of incalculable impact that we're trying to deal with. So here we have legislation designed to codify it. I I remember, you know, I was my my daughter's here and we were watching an episode of the West Wing from 1999 2000.

[00:07:24]It was the Shabolith episode and they were talking about there were some refugee uh Christian refugees from China and there was an entire episode dedicated to credible fear and trying to figure out and determine whether there was in fact credible fear. And here, fast forward and we are long gone from the days of Chuck Schumer taking to the Senate floor and talking about the need for border security or our Democratic colleagues going to the House floor and talking about the need for border security or a relatively left-leaning television show talking about the law and following the law with respect to credible fear. And instead we have seen this evolution to abuse credible fear, make it completely meaningless, drive a truck through loopholes of that parole, asylum, and all of the things that are designed to allow us to be a country that does the things I think the gentleman is referring to, right? that we have a country that wants to say that when there's a baby at your doorstep or when there's somebody that need is deserving of a parole so they can come here and have a kidney transplant or see their grandmother or do the things we all as human beings and people of faith want to do. We are left having to deal with the exploitation and and uh uh you know using loopholes to undo the purpose of the law. And so thus resulted in the countless millions of people in the United States that then harmed Americans. So the purpose of this bill is to leave in place paths. As I said, military, if you're here, there's a path, expedited path to LPR. If you're the spouse or child of that person, there is a path under parole. This legislation would leave in place a path for asylum, a path for parole, a path to be able to deal with unaccompanied children, be able to seek asylum, all of the paths we want to do as people of faith to help individuals, but not allow it to be exploited, to dump people onto the streets of our country that have resulted directly in the death, destruction, murder, mayhem of the American people. Uh, and with that, I I yield back.

[00:09:30]>> Gentleman yields uh gentleman yields back.

[00:09:32]from >> gentleman from Maryland's recognized.

[00:09:34]>> Oh.

[00:09:36]>> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got an amendment at the desk.

[00:09:39]>> Well, we're still on the other amendment.

[00:09:41]>> Oh, we're we're still >> gentle lady from Washington's recognized.

[00:09:44]>> Thank you. I yield time to Mr. Caro.

[00:09:47]>> To my colleague from Texas. Uh, I want to get you back on point on my amendment.

[00:09:54]Again, this is President Trump's existing policy on his website.

[00:10:01]You mentioned children and spouses of military personnel. My amendment simply adds parents of active duty service members, reser, and veterans. And I have my colleagues here in this committee focus on what we're talking about here.

[00:10:19]On this amendment, you have Jessica Martinez, a Navy aviation orsman on the SS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier.

[00:10:30]Her job is to again load up those F-18s with ordinances as they go off to another mission. This is a 20year-old off naval personnel in an aircraft carrier. What are we telling her the day you deport her father? The next day you say, "Please make the ultimate sacrifice for your country." We're talking about keeping this country strong, defending this nation, about soldiers who are human beings, and more importantly, my friend from Texas, I am essentially codifying with this amendment current Trump administration policy. This is the Trump administration policy. And if we are here to keep America strong, we got to make sure that we watch and watch the backs of those military officers, those military personnel, men and women fighting for us across the country. This is a common sense legislation, common sense amendment to keep our country strong. Again, Narciso Baranco, the father of three US Marines who was provide both of these fathers were following the legal process to adjust their status to stay in the United States. ICE went out of the way to arrest them. They deported one individual. The second one they're trying to deport. What is this all about? Narciso Baranco, father of three Marines. We should be lo getting ready to make a movie about this guy.

[00:12:12]His three sons he raised to be patriots and we want to deport him.

[00:12:19]Mr. Martinez, daughter, Navy, proud American and we're trying to deport her father.

[00:12:29]Mr. Chairman, I yield yield back to Miss Jaipo.

[00:12:34]>> Thank you, Mr. Korea. I I I don't know if there's a misunderstanding, but the Trump policy that's on the website is what this amendment is about. The bill um that is in the bill, the military parole option only benefits the spouses and minor children of active military service members. And so in doing so, it leaves out the service members parents and the families of US veterans. It leaves out the families of individuals who served or are currently serving as reservists. That is different from the Trump policy that is on Trump's website.

[00:13:11]So Mr. Koreah's amendment seeks to codify the one parole program that the Trump administration is actually using.

[00:13:20]And I don't understand why my Republican colleagues want to restrict a parole program that is actually being utilized by Donald Trump for members of our military. And to your broader point about um you know the work that we need to do if only we would actually reform the immigration system. We have spent between 400 to$450 billion dollars on border security over the last 10 years instead of actually providing more legal pathways. You can't do one without the other and expect one to work. What we need is a functioning immigration system that allows people to have a process whereby they come to the United States.

[00:14:03]It is orderly. It is humane. We respect the rights of those who are here. We don't try to throw out people who are here and who have committed no crimes, who are working, who are doing all the things. And we have not provided a pathway to citizenship for people in this country, including those who have lived here for 30 years. Imagine how this country would suffer if we actually succeed in kicking out everybody that Trump and Steven Miller want to kick out.

[00:14:31]>> The gentle lady yield for a question. 15 seconds.

[00:14:34]>> The my question is this. Um, they're calling this the Permanent Trump Act, but it seems like there's at least one Trump policy they don't like. They're positioning this legislation to the right of Donald Donald Trump. Why are they doing that?

[00:14:47]>> That's my question, ranking member. Uh, that is my question. They are taking away the one parole program for our US service members and their families that Trump actually codified or or put onto his website. They don't want to codify that.

[00:15:02]>> Time is expired. Is there further discussion on amendment? I move to strike the last word.

[00:15:07]>> The gentleman from New York.

[00:15:09]>> Wait a second. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

[00:15:12]>> Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

[00:15:14]>> I yield my time, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Texas.

[00:15:17]>> I I think the gentleman from Wisconsin, a few data points here that I think are important. Number one, this policy uh dates back to Obama. Uh it was a Biden policy. Uh so to say it was Trump policy is not accurate. Number two, this amendment was offered this amendment was offered when we debated this bill in the last Congress before the current Trump administration. In other words, this amendment was offered under Biden being president. So the the idea that you're trying to say that, oh, this is somehow a Trump policy. It is a policy that has it is a policy that I acknowledge has spanned several administrations of folks across the other side of the aisle and Republicans. I agree with that that that policy has existed but it was hold on a second that it was that it was put in place under Obama that it was carried forward under under Biden that we debated it when Biden was president.

[00:16:08]We offered the same amendment during that time and then now yes it is stayed as the policy. The point of the statutory change is to make the statutory change very specific that does not do anything to change what is already law that you can seek LPR status if you're the active duty member of the military that's currently uh uh allowed and under the statute it's lawful but it is putting in place a specific parole category for spouses and children. That is what the the legislation does, I think, in good faith to deal with this issue uh broadly speaking for the the men and women in military um and to provide for that for the direct spouse and children. Um and whatever the policies are of of the administration, they can do that. But this is Congress speaking with one voice in a tight definition with respect to how we handle the men and women in the military and their spouses and children. And that's the purpose of the legislation. With that, I'll yield back to >> the gentleman from Wisconsin. The gentleman from Wisconsin controls.

[00:17:08]>> I yield back to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

[00:17:10]>> And I yield back to the chair.

[00:17:12]>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Uh, Mr. Goldman.

[00:17:16]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I I want to just clarify one thing um that my friend from Texas said, uh, it's not a Biden policy or Obama policy or Trump 1.0 policy. We're talking about what the policy is right now under this administration. So stop deflecting to try to put the blame on somebody else for a for a policy that you don't like.

[00:17:44]It is this admin administration's policy. That's what we're talking about.

[00:17:48]But I want to go back to something that my my friend from Texas said earlier uh a couple times that people of faith are just trying to help other people. I believe you said um that trying to find that inner humanity and that faith to do uh what is right for the American uh residents and the American people. The question then becomes, why don't you care about the immigrant children who are being absolutely terrorized and abused by this Department of Homeland Security.

[00:18:32]First of all, this administration tried to stop providing counsel to unaccompanied children. Obviously these unaccompanied children are not making these decisions of their own valition.

[00:18:48]They are children. They many don't speak the language. Have no idea what this how this immigration system works. And this Department of Homeland Security wants to take away their legal counsel. Well, thankfully a judge intervened and required the administration to abide by the contracts that it had to provide counsel for unaccompanied children. Now, re recognizing they can't prevent it or withhold it, the administration is now withholding payment under those contracts to the legal services providers. And in fact, they are demanding private confidential information, some of which is subject to the attorney client privilege in order to be able to in order to uh send that money that they are owed. These are not big law firms. These are small nonprofit organizations that cannot survive uh without getting paid. And yet the administration refuses to do it. And as of today, more than six months of of payments have not been made. But that's not it.

[00:20:05]The average length of time for unaccompanied children in OR custody in October 20 of 2024 was 35 days. In November of 2025, it was 185 days.

[00:20:25]This administration on average is putting children in jail for more than six months.

[00:20:36]Many of them are actually eligible for SIG for their own protection as unaccompanied children who cannot who if they are returned to their country will face abuse from a parent. So now this bill says we're going to actually reduce the protections for those children who can show an abusive or violent parent by saying that if they have one parent that they can be with that is not abusive then they don't qualify for SIG. But the problem is that one parent is often here in the United States. And so by denying them this lawful parole, they are then going to be deported back to the one parent who is abusing them.

[00:21:32]So if you really are a person of faith who cares about the humanity of people and wants to do right by people, then why don't you care about children, whether they are immigrant children or American citizen children? Why are you punishing children? Child children who often are not making decisions of their own because as we know from our own law, children generally are not considered capable of making decisions on their own.

[00:22:07]So I call on your faith, faith of all of us to care for children, basic human decency. and I yield back.

[00:22:19]>> Gentleman's time is expired. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Nadler, >> Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple question. I I I would ask uh the gentleman from Texas, does he oppose um supporting uh uh parents of um of uh soldiers in the manner that the gentleman that the gentleman's amendment would do.

[00:22:49]I'm yielding you the time to ask the answer the question.

[00:22:52]>> If if a U member of the armed services uh seeks LPR status, then then that individual can then go seek uh bringing in well but that's but that's the path right now under our current law they can do that and this legislation contemplates spouses and children and that's appropriate under this.

[00:23:08]>> Why would you oppose this legislation also contemplating parents? Well, first of all, the legislation has a number of flaws in it, which we can go into it and and and that that are issues involving >> reclaiming my time. The gentleman's amendment would would would cure this one flaw. Why would you oppose it?

[00:23:24]>> There are numerous issues with the amendment. We believe the legislation as it is crafted does exactly what we intend to do to ensure that armed services folks have a path, that their spouse and children have a path, that if you seek LPR, the parents have a path if you seek LPR status. and that that that's a tight and good way to do it.

[00:23:41]That's what the legislation contemplates.

[00:23:44]>> I fail to understand the the grounds for opposing amendment that would give parents the same status as as as children and spouses here.

[00:23:57]>> As I've said, the legislation allows for that possibility for the member of the armed seek LPR. Well, because allow the possibility >> because our laws that way you know whether the individual is serving the armed services they want to become an LPR there's a path to do that expedited they can do that and then they can seek status for their parent >> it establishes as the parole status for the spouse or the child which good policy >> reclaiming my time it establishes the status of the spouse or the ch and the children but not for the parents it seems to me there's no logical reason not to establish the same status the same rights for the parents uh of of a soldier. I yield back.

[00:24:37]>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

[00:24:41]Mr. Rask.

[00:24:42]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I want to first thank the gentleman from California for introducing this amendment and for spotting this uh outrageous departure from even current policy. As I understand it, military parole is in place today and available to people who are the immediate relatives of US military service members and veterans. I'm assuming these are people who have had uh honorable discharges and people who uh have no served the country and many of them are decorated uh but certainly they all have honorable discharges. Okay. Um and so the military parole is available to people who are their immediate relatives including their spouses and including their parents.

[00:25:33]Um now despite the fact that this legislation is called the permanent Trump act to codify his policies, they want to they want to reject the policy and not codify the policy of allowing these immediate family members of veterans to get in categorically even spouses. They just want to go to active members of the forces but not allow these people to come in. um uh with veterans who may even be decorated uh war heroes. They want to get rid of that. And I heard you mention a case um of some people who live right near you, which is perhaps why this caught your eye, Mr. Korea. But I wonder if you would tell us exactly what we're talking about in this case because as I heard you say it, um, we're talking about three sons, all of whom serve in the US military, and they want to be able to deport their father, and that's something that is an ongoing case. Is it right? Would you just apprise us of what's happening?

[00:26:40]>> Yes. And let me say to you that one of them is a veteran and two are active Marines. Two are actually in the Marine Corps now. One of them honorably discharged. Okay.

[00:26:54]Under the existing policy, Trump policy, the father applied for parole in place, submitted the application, moved ahead and that's why when he was arrested, okay, he was not immediately deported, but deportation was paused. He went before a judge. The judge ruled in his favor. DHS is essentially coming back and appealing that favorable ruling.

[00:27:25]You're talking about three Marines, two active, one essentially a veteran, always followed the law, has not been an individual with any criminal record.

[00:27:37]This is the individual we're talking about.

[00:27:39]>> Okay. And so if this if your amendment doesn't pass, essentially the legislation would say you have three sons say who served honorably and dutifully in Iraq or Afghanistan and their father um is now petitioning to be part of the military parole in place. Um he would be rejected because they're veterans at this point and because they're not active service members. I understand in the case today it's a mixture of uh but they just want to categorically say if you're just a veteran of the United States you don't get the benefit of this policy and I got to believe that this is an oversight although I'm a um a little stunned to hear um the distinguished gentleman from Texas substantively defend this policy instead of just say this looks like an oversight. Certainly the families of veterans should be included as they were under Trump and Biden and Obama. It's a policy so obvious that it is had bipartisan participation by all the presidents. And now for some reason, I guess in an eagerness to uh demonstrate the anti-immigrant bonafide of the majority, they want to go way to the right of what the current policy is and do some serious damage to people's families. Mr. Korea yield to you.

[00:29:01]>> Yes. Just wanted to This is even more shocking.

[00:29:06]Jessica Martinez on the SS Abraham in the Middle East. Her father also had a parole in place application. But when ICE picked him up, they took him to the San ICE detention center. Instead of checking his status, which would have enabled him to stay in the country, when he when they walked him in, they said, "Our computers are down. Sorry, we're sending you to the border immediately.

[00:29:32]That is what they did. They said, "The computers are out. We'll taking you.

[00:29:36]We're deporting you immediately." This is a violation of the Trump administration current policy when it comes to the family members of soldiers.

[00:29:44]>> Thank you. Y gentleman's time is expired. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

[00:29:50]>> Seeing Mel has already spoken on this.

[00:29:54]>> Yeah, Mr. Mel's already spoken. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. Those in favor say I.

[00:30:03]>> I.

[00:30:04]>> Those opposed say no.

[00:30:05]>> No.

[00:30:06]>> The nos appear to have it. And >> recorded vote. Mr. >> Recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the role.

[00:30:11]>> Mr. Jordan, no.

[00:30:12]>> Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, >> Mr. Bigs, >> Mr. McCllintok.

[00:30:19]>> Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany, >> yes.

[00:30:22]>> Mr. Massie, >> Mr. Mr. Roy. No.

[00:30:26]>> Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald.

[00:30:29]>> Mr. Klein. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes no. Mr. Vandreer.

[00:30:34]>> Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore.

[00:30:38]Miss Hagaman.

[00:30:41]>> No.

[00:30:42]>> Miss Hagman votes no. Miss Lee Florida.

[00:30:46]Mr. Hunt.

[00:30:48]Mr. Fry.

[00:30:50]Mr. Kylie.

[00:30:53]Mr. Growthman.

[00:30:55]Mr. Not >> Mr. Not votes no. Mr. Harris Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Gil Mr. Bombgardner.

[00:31:09]>> Mr. Raskin >> I.

[00:31:11]>> Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler >> I.

[00:31:14]>> Mr. Nler votes I. Miss Laughrren.

[00:31:17]>> Miss Lofrren votes I. Mr. Cohen.

[00:31:20]Mr. Johnson.

[00:31:22]Mr. Lou, Miss Gyipalaw, >> Miss Gyipalaw votes I, Mr. Korea, >> Mr. Korea votes I, Miss Scandlin, >> Miss Scandlin votes I, Mr. Negus, Miss McBath, Miss Ross, >> Miss Ross votes I, Miss Ballot, Miss Balant votes I. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camiger Dove, Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, >> Mr. Goldman votes I. Miss Crockett, Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania votes I. Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Tiffany votes no.

[00:32:08]Miss Camdub, you are not recorded.

[00:32:12]Miss Camdub votes yes.

[00:32:21]Mr. Fry, you're not recorded. Mr. Fry votes no.

[00:32:44]>> Mr. Bon Garner vitz now.

[00:32:50]Mr. Klein, you are not recorded.

[00:32:52]>> Mr. Klein votes no.

[00:32:55]>> Mr. Gman.

[00:32:57]>> Mr. Gman votes no.

[00:33:17]Click report.

[00:33:23]>> Mr. Johnson.

[00:33:24]>> Mr. Johnson, you are not recorded.

[00:33:27]>> Mr. Johnson votes I.

[00:33:35]>> Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes.

[00:33:39]>> Mr. Fitzgerald votes no.

[00:33:43]>> Mr. Her Mr. Honor votes no. Mr. Kylie.

[00:33:47]>> Mr. Kylie votes I.

[00:34:07]Clerk report.

[00:34:11]>> Mr. Chairman, there are 14 eyes and 16 nos.

[00:34:13]>> The amendment is not adopted. See?