This video captures a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Permanent Trump Secure Border Act, where Democrats proposed an amendment requiring government-funded legal counsel for unaccompanied children in immigration court, arguing that children lack the capacity to navigate complex legal proceedings alone and that denying them representation violates due process principles. Republicans opposed the amendment, citing prosecutorial discretion and existing legal frameworks, while also debating the bill's broader implications for family detention and US citizen children. The hearing illustrates the ongoing tension between strict immigration enforcement and humanitarian protections for vulnerable populations.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Jim Jordan Leads Contentious House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Major Border Security Law | Part 2
Added:The gentleman from Maryland close enough to Pennsylvania to be confused maybe. Um the uh those in favor say.
>> All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed no.
>> No. The nos's definitely had that one.
>> Definitely had that.
>> I need a recorded vote on that one. Mr. Chairman, >> vote being requested. The uh clerk call the role on the amendment by the gentleman from Maryland.
>> Mr. Jordan.
>> Uh no.
>> Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa.
>> Mr. Bigs, Mr. Mcccleintoch, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, >> Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, >> Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no. Miss Hagman, Miss Lee of Florida, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Kylie, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gail, Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Rascin, >> hi.
>> Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler, Miss Lofrren, >> Miss Lofrren votes I, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, >> Mr. Johnson votes I, Mr. Lou, Miss Shipal, >> Mr. Paul votes I, Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin, >> Miss Scandlin votes I, Mr. Negus, Miss Mcbath, >> Miss McBth votes I, Miss Ross, >> Miss Ross votes I, Miss Ballot, Miss Ballot votes I, Mr. Garcia >> Miss Camagerd Miss Camager Dove votes I. Mr. Mosquitz Mr. Goldman Crockett Miss Lee of Pennsylvania Miss Lee of Pennsylvania votes I Mr. >> Mr. Mr. Herder votes no.
>> Mr. Gil you are not recorded.
>> Mr. Gil votes no. Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt votes no.
>> Mr. Fitzgerald, you're not recorded.
>> Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Mr. Mr. Gooden.
Mr. Gooden votes no.
>> Mr. Nadler votes I.
Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes. No.
Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no.
>> Mr. Isa, you're not recording. Mr. Isa votes no.
>> Mr. Co and you are not recorded.
>> Mr. Cohen votes I.
>> The clerk will report.
>> Mr. Chairman, there are 12 eyes and 13 nos.
>> The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Who seeks recognition?
>> Gentle lady from North Carolina.
>> The gentle lady from North Carolina.
>> The clerk will report.
>> The clerk will report >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9773 offered by Miss Ross of North Carolina. Page 58 line two.
>> In order of order reserved by the gentleman from California.
>> Without objection, the matter will be considered.
>> Okay. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.
>> Gentle lady from >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As currently drafted, title five of this bill would make overstaying a visa a crime for the first time in our history.
My amendment would amend Title 5 to ensure that minor dependents who overstay their visas are not criminally liable. It's important to remember that if a person overstays their visa, they are already subject to removal.
The addition of a criminal penalty is cruel, unnecessary, and expensive for our justice system and for our jails and prisons.
This bill is extraordinarily punitive with far-reaching implications that may go beyond what my colleagues have intended. unless they want to make the following current immigration law a crime punishable up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1,000 for overstaying a visa. This bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to overstaying a non-immigrant visa and there are no exceptions based on age or dependent status.
As the bill is currently written, if a two-year-old is on a family vacation in the United States and their parents decide to extend their trip 10 days beyond the validity of their visitors visa, unless the 2-year-old somehow miraculously leaves the country on their own, that 2-year-old could be thrown into federal jail for up to six months and face a fine of $1,000.
I certainly hope that this was simply an oversight.
Surely all of my colleagues agree that we shouldn't be prosecuting children for something that is beyond their control.
If that's the case, we should have no problem passing this amendment. Minors should not be imprisoned for overstaying their visa, something they have no control over. So if we care about protecting children, saving money, we should remove that as a possibility right now with this amendment. Our immigration system needs reforms and we are absolutely interested in bold ideas to fix it, but is currently drafted.
This bill isn't one of them. It's not the kind of policy that I can support and that the American people can support. And I yield back.
>> The gentle lady yields back.
>> Who seeks recognition?
The gentleman from Texas.
The um under current law um when you're coming here and re-enter. Uh that's a crime, right? A a crime that uh comes with a possibility of penalties. And we don't make exceptions based on age or circumstance and so forth. Uh the fact is we're we're we're going through the motions here to try to find every way possible to um stand with those who don't want to follow our laws.
Overstaying visas is one of the primary ways that bad actors come to the United States and endanger the people here. 911 being the most notorious example, but there are literally tens of thousands of other examples. And this would simply change that. Prosecutorial discretion is a thing when [clears throat] I was a prosecutor. And as the gentle lady knows and those that learn it in the law that many prosecutors here and here, you have to use discretion. Um I think you know I had to prosecute felons in possessions of weapons, which by the way is now being constitutionally challenged as we all know in the Supreme Court. Um and we'll figure out we'll see what the court does on that. uh raises interesting questions, but you know, I there there was a woman that was uh you know, she had a weapon. She was a felon.
Uh but she was trying to get her life in order and she was trying to protect herself against some of the bad actors that she had formerly affiliated with and I didn't pursue it. I didn't think it was appropriate. I looked at the totality of the circumstances and made a decision not to. Um there are times that that's how you deploy prosecutorial discretion. And uh you know at the end of the day um we've got as I said existing examples where we don't draw an exclusion or exception for every category of person but without question we have got to have policies in place that make it much stricter when you overstay your visa. Um this is every bit as pernicious as those who are in in fact in many ways much more so than those who are uh you know using the cartel coyote system to come across the Rio Grand or uh are even coming to our borders and claiming asylum and [clears throat] the administration allows release under I think faulty interpretations of asylum or lack of full uh you know vetting and then you know releasing and so forth floor is all the things we're addressing in this bill. But uh managing and dealing with the overstays is one of the most critical functions. And again, this legislation is designed to deal with the question of like when people are getting here. It's border security both in the sense of we had pieces that were dealing in the original bill with wall and with all of the things of managing flow at the border. But this has everything to do with how people get here and under what circumstances they get here and how they can apply for asylum, how parole applied or in this case, hey, we granted you uh the ability to be here on a visa, but then you you stick around like stop doing that. And uh you know our current uh system is not adequately stopping people from overstaying their visas with with sufficient penalty. Uh I believe uh prosecutorial discretion takes care of this. As I noted before, we have uh uh again if you come in here and you're uh guilty of re-entry. Uh children would be in the same category. Uh I I'm unaware of anybody where we're going to be going after a 2-year-old or a six-year-old uh with respect to prosecutorial discretion. I just don't think we have to uh you know constrict every single application of of the law. I yield back.
>> Gentleman yields back.
>> Who seeks recognition?
>> The gentleman, the ranking member.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to speak strongly in favor of Ms. Ross's amendment. Um the the only substantive reply I really heard there was well the prosecutors wouldn't do anything ridiculous and the prosecutors wouldn't do anything ridiculous like maybe prosecute someone for uh throwing a Subway sandwich. Um, we saw that happen where the prosecutors would not prosecute my constituent, a three-time Olympic canoist in his 70s for putting his hand in the reflecting pool in order to deflect the president's responsibility for the waste of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. They're prosecuting him right now. They want to send him to jail for 10 years. So, I'm sorry. This is just a a bad time to make the argument that we we'll let the statute be drawn in an overly broad loose way because we can trust the prosecutors.
Even the federal judges have said they are now rejecting the so-called presumption of regularity, which is [clears throat] that Department of Justice lawyers could be trusted to be telling the truth and saying the right thing because they're saying there just way too many cases where the Department of Justice lawyers are lying or evading the truth um and disobeying court orders. So um somebody should come up with a better argument than that because I don't think it's going to work. I'm happy to yield to Miss Ross.
>> Absolutely. And These minors don't always have the ability to leave the country if they even if they wanted to leave the country because they're with their parents. The other thing that this provision, it's so over broad and punitive, doesn't take account of is people who have been here illegally are on visas and may have to wait a little bit longer to go through the process because this administration doesn't want to help them get whatever the next thing is. So, just say you're a minor and you decide you want to get and your and your visa is about to expire, but then you want to get a visa, an educational visa.
If you stay for more than 10 days, you're a criminal.
Even if your educational visa has been delayed by two weeks, this is over broad. It's punitive. It's ridiculous. And it's at frankly a waste of prosecutors time to deal with this.
And so [clears throat] to not understand that this goes too far, that this absolutely these are not people who came here illegally.
These are people who came here legally.
And to not understand what if somebody gets sick and they have to be in the hospital, a kid gets sick and has to be in the hospital for two weeks. They're automatically a criminal under this law.
>> M. Ross, can I can I just pursue that point with you for a second?
>> Please reclaim your time.
>> The gentleman The gentleman reclaims his time.
>> I'm reclaiming my time. In order to ask you a question, Miss Ross, about this, just to be clear, [clears throat] everybody, regardless of age, um, whose visa is up is civily removable from the country >> 100%. This is about criminal liability.
>> So, it's about stigmatizing someone. uh is being a criminal and uh putting a young person in a facility theoretically um where they could be in real danger and we're talking about people who are here lawfully and now we're talking about children. I mean, you know, if our colleagues are not moved by the fact that there have been um overzealous and ludicrous prosecutions uh under this Department of Justice, maybe they're just moved by the politics of it. This just looks ridiculous. It's going to make America look ridiculous in the eyes of the world that we're calling kids criminals. Um, >> it's going to be another kid in a bunny hat situation for you guys.
>> Um, [clears throat] well, I just think we shouldn't go down this road. And I I wanted to yield to the gentle lady from California. I think she also had something to say here.
>> Um, [clears throat] agree in supporting this. And as I'm thinking, there were some hearings ago when we actually [clears throat] um were talking about legislation to cut federal funding. So you want to cut the courts. You want to cut funding going to the courts. You're going to have these federal charges. These are courouses that are already underresourced and overwhelmed. We are throwing more things on their calendar because we are trying to you all are trying to pass these preposterous pieces of legislation that only do more harm to the court system.
And you're going to add to that by detaining kids. Now maybe, and I I love it. The colleague from Texas said, "I don't think you need to be so prescriptive, but actually we do have to be prescriptive because prosetorial discretion is all about the discretion that someone has." And so we cannot leave it up to rogue prosecutors. You do need to be precise, which is why we should be supporting this kind of legislation to lay out very specifically that we are not trying to that we don't want to detain children. We don't want to charge children and there are two-month-old babies actually in these detention facilities right now.
>> You back, Mr. >> Who seeks recognition, >> Mr. Chairman, >> gentleman from >> the gentleman from Missouri.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, to speak against the amendment. Um, Mr. Chairman, this is no time to be watering down the visa overstay part of this very important bill. In fact, I I believe this is one of the most important parts of this of this bill. You know, prior to the Biden open border policies, the majority of our of the illegal aliens in our country were visa overstayers, including uh at least several of the September 11th, 2001 hijackers, including Muhammad Sabre Solomon, who was the bo border boulder, Colorado terrorist, who yelled, "Free Palestine and threw ignited Molotov cocktails on."
Would the gentleman yield?
>> Uh uh let me finish and then I'll yield.
Uh at peaceful demonstrators advocating for the release of October 7th hostages and also including um a uh an illegal alien uh visa overstayer uh from the Middle East who sexually assaulted two female victims uh in my own county of St. Charles, Missouri. So, I think this is a very important uh part of the legislation before us today and I don't I do not believe uh we should be watering it down. Uh thank you and I yield back.
>> Oh, >> I I will yield yield back to uh the representative from Texas.
>> Oh, not to me. Thank you.
>> The the Well, you would yield to the the point that I'd like to make is we do prosecute under current law juveniles uh for re-entry. We do it under 1825 um regularly under the Obama years in 2010 191 cases 2011 153 2012 138 these are all the Obama years um and then you know fast forward and you know we even did did some during the Trump years there was sort of a decline I'm going look at the numbers or throw the chart up um and then it dropped off precipitously but there was a handful uh during the Biden administration um notably that that means by definition they were carrying out because of the numbers they are carrying out prosecutorial discretion and choosing not to. For better or worse, um I'm willing to bet that if I pry these numbers back that there's a whole hell of a lot of 17year-olds and and 16 year olds that were up to no good that were that were a part of those significant numbers under Obama. I'd be willing to take that bet and I'm pretty sure I'd win that bet. And so the the reality is we we do it. We've done it and the evidence bears out that under our existing laws that uh prosecutorial discretion is at play again for better and worse. Uh with that I yield back to the gentleman from Missouri.
>> Yeah, I re reclaim my time. I will yield to my Democrat colleague.
>> I just wanted to know whether the examples that you gave involved minors.
uh you know I don't know exactly at what age each of the 9/11 um uh hijackers uh entered the country um but you know again when we say minors that can mean 16 and 17year-old uh gang members it doesn't >> who came legally on a visa to begin with >> and overstayed and then committed some of whom committed illegal acts in our country which is what brought brings them to the attention of law enforcement and gets them in ICE detention unless they're in a sanctuary city.
>> Well, this isn't about that. This is about automatically making them a criminal before they've done anything before they've committed. They haven't all they did was stay here for more than 10 days. That's all we're talking about.
We're not talking about people who are terrorists. We're not talking about people who committed crimes. We're talking about people who overstay a visa by definition becoming a criminal.
>> And again, uh, as my colleague from Texas has pointed out, these things can be handled with prosecutorial discretion. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. >> Well, the last time I looked, >> the gentleman yields back.
>> I recognize myself for just a few moments. You know, again, >> it has to go.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. It does have to go to a Democrat. I'm sorry. Who seeks recognition? the gentle lady from California.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna yield some more of my time back to my colleague from North Carolina. But I I do want to say I I remain fascinated by these um [clears throat] posters on the other side of the aisle, these three-hour posters. And I was thinking, well, it's like three hours of Republicans running from the truth. It's three hours of rep Republicans holding a committee hostage debating a bad bill.
It's three hours of I guess some pinky agreement that was made about vote for this to have this kind of hearing and um so I just I'm amazed. Yes. Three hours and we have not heard from the other side of the aisle any real substantive discussion about oversight and about what is happening with Department of Homeland Security and ICE. And now we're talking about overstaying visas for just a short period of time and and and um doing harm to these young people. And so we're talking about yes, another bunny ear situation, 5-year-old Liam Ramos.
There was a child, a minor who attempted suicide at the Dilly detention facility.
There was a one-year-old in a detention facility that got COVID. There was a a nursing mother who was detained with her six-month-old.
There was a six another six-month-old child being put in harm's way because of these grotesque practices.
And the average time that these young people are in these facilities is almost two months. Almost two months.
I mean, we are supposed to be a free world here, one of the richest, most resourced. And this is what we're doing to children and not minors like at the 16, 17, 18 year old mark.
Children less than 10, less than five.
I could get into a whole thing about like people we know who uh could have been deported but weren't who've overstayed their visas, you know, but I'm not going to get into it. But there's a ton of them. So, it really isn't about anyone that overstays their visa. It's about profiling certain folks in our community who may have overstayed their visa and not even really knowing if they have, but picking them up. You know, that's what they do out in these streets. you know, they say, "Well, there's a a 50% chance that this person might have overstayed their visa, might have strange immigration status, might have a weapon. I'm just going to roll the dice, pick them up, and see." And that is not how we should be implementing law enforcement. So, I'd like to yield the rest of my time to my my colleague from North Carolina.
So, I just want the gentleman from Texas to know that I'm not applying this to everybody. I'm a lawyer. I actually believe in narrowly tailoring laws to the actual problem.
That is what this amendment does. You are talking about giving prosecutorial discretion to an administration that has been admonished by judges of all political stripes for how they use their prosecutorial powers. And we're seeing things that we rarely see.
Grand juries refusing to indict.
What happened to the expression you can indict a ham sandwich? Grand juries are seeing prosecutotoriial malpractice and you're asking us to take an over broad law and trust the people who have abused the law. There is something very seriously wrong with that picture. This is the judiciary committee. Rarely does it act like the judiciary committee. It mostly acts like a three- ring circus of a bunch of posers.
But I'm acting like a lawyer today because that is our job. And there is no reason to write an overroad criminal law that sweeps in minors, particularly minors who have absolutely no ability to have a men's rhea for this to get themselves out of the country if they're here with their parents and may be under difficult circumstances. And I cannot categorically trust this administration to do the right thing when it can't do the right thing under our current law.
And I yield back.
Say L Monica Macyver is my example of misuse of prosecutorial discretion. That woman was doing her job. Doing her job as a member of Congress.
>> Ladies, time is expired. I recognize myself for a moment. This didn't happen in a vacuum. Again, we look at history.
We see what's happened. We see what happened [clears throat] when the borders were open. We see what happened when we had so many individuals overstaying. Uh and some of them, we don't like to talk about it, but some of them committed other crimes much more serious than the overstay. In fact, many of them who were in that 16 17 year range of age certainly did. So this didn't happen in a vacuum. It's not something that somebody made up just for the heck of it. And I would hope and I would believe that at least the majority of prosecutors in the United States of America have the ability and the understanding to realize what their responsibility is. And if somebody is just overstayed and they're a minor, nobody's putting them in jail. Nobody's hurting them. But if it's an individual who's a gang member who's committed felonies, it's a different story. That's the point. This is just one more mechanism to get those folks that would do harm to Americans. And with that, unless somebody on my side has anything to say, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I I was listening to our colleagues from North Carolina and and her I thought, you know, wellplaced principle that we ought to act like the judiciary committee and I I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, because I don't know this answer. I've never been a federal prosecutor, but listening to this uh certainly the vast majority of juvenile proceedings in this country are handled in state court. And on very quick uh research, I've been doing a little reading about the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, which is characterized as suggesting that when you have a federal prosecution of a person under the age of 21, not just 18, federal authorities have three choices.
First, under federal law, they can refer the juvenile to state authorities. I presume that wouldn't apply here since there's no state crime. Second, they can initiate federal delinquency proceedings, not the underlying criminal proceeding. Or third, if the case is retained in the federal system and involves a serious offense, they can then petition the federal court to transfer the juvenile for trial as an adult. And I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if you know, uh, would the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act apply here? And if so, would it render the amendment unnecessary because it already resolves the concern of the gentle lady from North Carolina?
>> I gentleman yields back. I'm going to defer to Mr. Roy because he is a prosecutor >> or was I prosecutor.
>> I was I don't So your time you've gone to him.
It's yielded to me. I'm I'm unadvised.
Do we What's that? We Yeah. I mean lawyers here council said they believe it would. I'm unadvised. It's a reasonable question. I was going to bring up the juvenile delinquency act earlier. I decided not to um because I'm not expert on it and so I wasn't going to dive into it. I would point out just as a reminder here, 40% of the illegal aliens here are visa overstays. I'm just going to use my time to put that out there, but uh which is part of what we're trying to address. And um and and and the reality is back to my point about this protorial discretion when you've got whether the whether the gentleman's question is is on point or whether you're just simply talking about 17-year-olds, 16-year-olds, and others um that then abuse the system and then for whatever circumstances find themselves in having overstate the visa with or without the parents or whatever the situation may be. Um, I'm certainly comfortable leaving it up to prosecutorial discretion uh for for the uh for for them to make decisions about what to do about it. The point here is is when you've given a time, then you're given the time to be here and a 10-day extension or a 10-day grace period. Um, if you're not going to follow our laws, then there should be consequences and they should be um significant enough to to deter it. I yield I yield back.
>> Gentleman yields back to the gentleman from Kansas. We will get you a more robust answer and maybe for in time before this hearing is over as well.
>> Who seeks recition?
>> Who seeks recognition?
>> Okay. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from North Car North Carolina. Those in favor say yes.
>> I.
>> Those opposed say no.
>> No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
>> Didn't sound like that to me, Mr. Chairman, but I'm I'm asking for a recorded vote.
>> A recorded vote. Recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the role.
>> Mr. Jordan, Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Mcccleintoch, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, >> no.
>> Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, >> no.
>> Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no. Miss Hagman, Miss Lee of Florida, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Kylie, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris, >> Mr. Hander Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes no Mr. Gil >> Mr. Gil votes no Mr. Bombgardner Mr. Raskin >> I >> Mr. Raskin votes I Mr. Natler >> I >> Mr. Nadler votes I miss Lofrren >> I miss votes I Mr. Cohen >> I >> Mr. Cohen votes I Mr. Johnson Mr. Lou Jipal Mipal votes I Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin, Mr. Nagus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, >> Miss Ross votes I, Miss Balant, Miss Balant votes I, Mr. Garcia, Miss Camlager Dove, Miss Camager, Dove votes I, Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, Miss Crockett, Miss Lee of Pennsylvania, Mr. Mr. Isa, you're not recorded. Mr. Isa votes no.
Mr. Klein, you are not recorded. Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Ka, you're not recorded.
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Korea votes yes.
Mr. Jordan, Mr. Jordan votes no.
Mr. Mr. Gman, >> Mr. McClints now. Mr. Gman, Mr. Gman Bids now.
>> Clerk will report.
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, there are nine eyes and 10 nos.
>> The amendment is uh not [clears throat] agreed to. Who's who seeks recognition?
Gentle lady from California is recognized.
>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
>> Clerk report of order reserved by the gentleman from Texas.
>> Amendment to the amendment and >> objection. Amendment be considered as read and the gentle lady from California is recognized to explain the amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strikes the proi uh provision of prohibiting government funds from being used to provide counsel to unaccompanied children and replaces it with a requirement that the government appoint or provide counsel to unaccompanied children. I think this is just a common sense. You know, children should not be uh appearing in immigration court without legal representation. And just envision what it's like. You've got, and this has been reported publicly, a six or sevenyear-old child in immigration court. They're facing an ICE trial attorney and an immigration judge, and that kid is by themselves. And obviously, they're not in a position to adequately represent themselves. Um, children fleeing persecution, violence, trafficking, as many of these unaccompanied children are should be given additional protections such as appointed counsel. Um, we should not expect children to act [music] like adults. They have unique developmental needs and it's really absurd to think that justice can be served with a small child appearing by themselves in immigration court. uh this uh provision prohibition in the bill would uh achieve statutoily what the Trump administration sought to achieve administratively an effective end to the office of refugee resettlement legal services program for unaccompanied children. Um in March of 2025 >> ORR unlawfully terminated funding for legal representation of over 26,000 unaccompanied children. Now, a federal court enjoined the termination, finding that this action violated, among other things, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
And I would uh ask the committee to recall that at that time that that trafficking bill was a bipartisan bill.
We all realized that childhood trafficking victims needed protection.
More recently, ORR has refused to pay legal service providers for essential uh services and already one legal service provider has pulled out of the program after uh they refused payment I think unlawfully. Now, this bill does really abandon the longstanding bipartisan support for efforts to provide counsel to unaccompanied children. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress required the Office of Refugee Resettlement to develop a plan to ensure the timely appointment of counsel for each unaccompanied child. And in 2005, ORR contracted with the Vera Institute of Justice to advance this co uh this goal. In the TV P, as I mentioned earlier, ORR was required to ensure to the greatest extent practicable that all unaccompanied children are represented by council. This bill would put an end to those efforts and make it more likely that unaccompanied children would appear without a lawyer in immigration court while the federal government is represented by an effective and usually pretty aggressive trial attorney uh from immigration and customs uh enforcement.
I note also that children with attorneys are more likely uh to appear for their court dates. uh children who are represented by council have a very high appearance rate and um the executive office for immigration review fondly known by those of us in the immigration world as EOR their data covered completed immigration course uh court cases from fiscal year 2018 through the first half of fiscal year 2021 and illustrates that this due process imperative revealing that unaccompanied children without counsel were almost 100 times less likely to obtain legal relief in immigration court than unaccompanied children with counsel. Now, the National Association of Immigration Judges has weighed in on this and obviously those judges are um in in the courtroom and some of the observations that they share is that children may feain compliance to please the judge as an authority figure and it's hard for a judge to need time to figure out if the child actually understands what's being communicated.
Um, immigration judges really need to take more time with children who've been victims of emotional and psychological trauma. And that often is no longer the case in these proceedings. Children in proceedings need time uh to gather um cor uh corroborating uh documentation if they're seeking relief and immigration judges uh can conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly when children are represented by counsel. Council uh can direct their clients to available legal options instead of relying on an immigration judge to guess what the relief should be. This is a quicker process. It meets due process requirements uh that we strive to to meet uh guaranteed in our constitution. I think it's common sense and I hope that we can adopt the amendment. I yield back.
>> Gently yields [clears throat] back.
Committ uh suspend for a moment while we look at the Germaine issue.
I got you.
>> This is No disappoint.
It's the same.
>> Don't know yet.
Yes.
>> Committee will come to order. Does this gentleman uh insist on his point of order?
>> I do, Mr. Chairman.
>> Uh the gentleman uh is recognized to explain his point of order concern.
>> Uh the amendment would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us and therefore violates House Rule 16 clause 7.
>> Gentleman's correct. The gentleman uh the gentle woman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purpose test. Therefore, it is not gerine and is out of order. Who seeks recognition?
>> Mr. Chairman, >> gentle lady from California is recognized.
>> I disagree with the uh finding, but having anticipated that that might be the finding, we have a reddrafted provision that I believe would meet your mainness.
>> You have an amendment at the desk?
>> I do.
>> Okay. Clerk will report. Point of order being reserved by the gentleman from Texas. Report the amendment.
amendment to the amendment in the >> objection. The amendment will be considered as read. The gentle from California is recognized to explain the amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh essentially this strikes um lines three through nine in paragraph uh in B paragraph 5. Uh and it strikes and who are not described in subsection A2A have council to represent illegal proceeds and inserts have counsel appointed or provided by the secretary at government expense to represent them in immigration proceedings. I think this accomplishes uh in a less um wholesome way the same goal as the prior amendment, which is that small children should not be appearing in immigration court or frankly any court by themselves facing a bunch of grown-ups who are talking about things they probably don't even understand. The idea that we could meet due process in such a setting in in that way is preposterous really. Um and there is no other circumstance in American juristp prudence where we would allow this. I mean if if a child is um you know in court in in state court they have representation. Uh and that's only uh makes sense because we all know we have children, we have grandchildren.
You know, when you're a little guy, you don't necessarily understand all of this. And and these are important issues. And many of these children, as we recognize when the committee did the trafficking uh bill, you I my recollection is it was unanimous, but it was certainly bipartisan. Many of this ch these children are victims. uh they're not they've been traumatized and to have them appear in court by themselves and to try and cope with that is just unreasonable. So uh I recommend this amendment number two to solve that problem and with that uh Mr. Chair >> the gentleman to yield.
>> I would be happy to yield Mr. >> Well, thank you for pressing the point, Miss Lorren. Uh it strikes me that this is a really essential question for the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Uh not all of us, but the vast majority of us are lawyers and we understand all of us the difference between somebody going to court alone by himself or by herself or going with a lawyer.
And if you can't put yourself in the shoes of a 10-year-old kid who's probably terrified and shamed and embarrassed and anxious about the situation, put yourself in the shoes of our president who has had hundreds of lawyers, hundreds of lawyers. He's he's got 34 felony convictions. He's an adjudicated sexual felon. He's been involved in thousands of cases. And he always had a lawyer. His right to counsel was always vindicated.
But now we want to turn around and say a kid can appear before a federal judge or magistrate without a lawyer, someone who someone whose entire life is maybe flashing before their eyes at that moment.
I mean, I just don't know how we do that as the House Judiciary Committee. I really hope that we haven't sunk to that point. And I thank you, Miss Lafen, for their time.
>> Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
>> Gentlemen yields back.
>> Gentleman from Texas recognized.
>> Um, I thank the chairman.
Um, I oppose the amendment, and there's a number of reasons why. I want to I want to rewind the clock for a second and go back some 20 years or 18 years or whatever. the the gentle lady from California will remember better than I the exact year. But you know um when we did all this I'm not even sure I remember the the nature of the markup of the UAC provision. You know I was a lawyer on judiciary committee left prosecutor then I was back. So I I I got to remember which things happened when but my recollection was that that was then done separately and pushed into the bill uh as it was headed to the floor or something along those lines. But we could debate that whether it was happened or not. The main point is you fast forward just a few years, however, the UAC provisions were adopted uh with respect to to TVP and you had President Obama in a letter to then Speaker Boehner on June 30th, 2014 outlining the severe problems with the UAC program and laying to bear those issues and asking for Congress to act, which the Republican led Congress did act. uh the Senate did not um in in providing the DHS secretary, this is the language from President Obama, providing the DHS secretary additional authority to exercise discretion in processing the return and removal of unaccompanied minor children from non-ontiguous countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and trying to manage the very broken system that we created and that has now taken what began to be a problem that was being observed under President Obama was no, you know, gained notoriety around the world and kids riding on top of train cars and all the things that we saw that was horrific and the extent to which the uh cartels were making uh large sums of money moving these children for profit and then we had President Obama highlighting the issue.
Congress then failing to actually respond to the issue. And we've been trying to solve the problem now for a a while and we did in in HR2. We are seeking to do it again now. And we we note that in the last however many years uh there's been significant people observing not even just on a partisan fashion the extent to which our own federal government is essentially closing the loop on the child trafficking cycle and and being part and parcel to the entire uh process having created the system by which these children are exploited. So now we come to all right we have a system that our uh taxpayers are forced to pay for to deal with all of this and to process people which thank goodness this administration under these policies has diminished the numbers massively by virtue of carrying out the policies that we should carry out and we're again trying to cottify those so we can carry that forward. Um, and we're being asked, taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for that, to foot the bill for the proceedings to then foot the bill for uh prosecution, of course, and and then in this case, there are myriad NOS's and nonprofits that are funding uh the the litigation defense for or or uh cases for these individuals and uh and they have significant opportunities to avail themselves of those organizations. But it the the goal here ought to be to minimize and in fact to end um the extent to which we have this problem by tightening the policies. That's the goal of the bill. That's the purpose of the bill. And uh I believe that uh at the end of the day uh if you look at what we have uh section 292 of the immigration nationality act states that in any removal proceedings before an immigration judge and any appeal proceedings before the attorney general, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented by counsel. Uh now that case obviously is at no expense to the government. The government is already having to spend an enormous amount of money to deal with this problem. Um we believe that is certainly possible for for the NOS's and proono counsel proono lawyers do as the lawyers here in this room know uh myriad hours in fact by requirement typical of of their law firms and and their often engagement in the bar. Uh they're engaged in tons of proono hours and can carry out that work um uh to to do this.
American taxpayers shouldn't shoulder the burden of funding the expenses incurred by the government during immigration removal proceedings and and the other side. Um and with that I would yield back >> the gentleman yield.
>> I'd yield back to the chairman.
>> Is it the gentle I think the gentle lady from Washington's hand was up first.
>> Thank you. And I I'll uh yield to the gentle lady from California just for just for a little bit and then I have my own comments to make. Go ahead.
>> Thank you very much. I I would just note that, you know, I went down to the border when during the Obama administration and it was there were huge problems. The gentleman from Texas is correct. Um and there were policy uh issues that related to that. I'm not defending that.
On the other hand, you know, we have enough money to spend, you know, a billion dollars on a ballroom or many other things, but not a a a rather modest amount for small children who are in this country who are in immigration court by themselves.
That's unreasonable. And uh I I think I don't agree with everything that the Trump administration has done at the border, but I will say that I think there were failures uh during the Biden administration in their border policies that were on their way to being corrected. I don't think we should conflate those two as a reason to deny a little kid the chance to be represented in an adversarial proceeding in a court.
To me, that's just unconscionable.
And certainly all of the things that we're spending in in Iran and on ballrooms and settlement funds for J6 riers, I think we can afford to keep a little kid in court with somebody to stand up for him. And I thank the gentle lady for you.
>> Thank you so much uh to the gentle lady from California. And I want to thank you for this amendment because I think it is very important and it goes through to the core values of who we are as human beings, who we are as Americans. Um I have been to the court to witness a kid's docket and I can tell you if you haven't been to one, you should go. It is stunningly horrific. I sat in a courtroom that was packed with probably 75 h 100red kids as young as three years old, four years old. One of them had a stuffy with him that he was just sitting on the on the benches in the courtroom and basically the the judges give an 18minute crash law crash course in immigration law to question the witnesses before you. They're talking to three-year-olds and four-year-olds. And these kids are sitting through hoursl long proceedings without any counsel.
And how on earth is a three-year-old or fouryear-old or even a 10year-old or 12year-old going to argue against they the judge will say to them, you have the right to question any witnesses that are that are testifying against you. How are they supposed to question anyone? How are they supposed to go up against an attorney that is skilled in immigration law, which is the most complicated form of law other than tax law in this country. And to watch these children sit through these proceedings without any counsel and then to have to bear the brunt and the consequences of that is actually why we do say right now the law is that you have to provide counsel to the extent practicable. that that is what what is currently the policy and I want to say that there are a lot of people where what we're not providing counsel for what this bill does is it actually takes away even that language and I think that if there's you know you're asking about how we can ask taxpayers to pay for this I actually think if we were to put a poll out there and ask the American public if they would rather spend money on this or if they would rather spend money on the illegal war in Iran or Trump's ballroom or the reflecting pool that was done so badly because it was a no contract bid.
They would say this. I actually think the American people would want to make sure that children, young children, minors are provided with counsel in these immigration proceedings. I think that is that is very much what people would want to spend money on, not on all of the things that we're spending money on. And just remember that this is in the context of giving the Republicans giving$ 210 billion dollars billion with a B billion dollars to ICE and CBP and now saying we are going to not only not provide attorneys we're going to cancel the contracts. I mean OR has refused to pay legal services providers for their essential services even though that that money was approved. So, I think that this is something where if we put this question out to the American public, they would all say yes, we should pay for children, unaccompanied children to have counsel. And that is exactly what Mr. Lkin's amendment [clears throat] does. It's why I think it is so important that we stand up for our values as Americans and that we approve this amendment.
>> The gentleman uh from Tennessee is recognized. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's hard to imagine we're sitting here and having discussions about giving children legal representation when they're subject to deportation.
They have, you know, a hearing is supposed to be confrontational between two sides are adversarial and have a child without representation against an attorney is is not a fair process. And they do have a right to a hearing. You all understand that. And at the hearing they need to have identities to be fairness. And the fact the fact that we're discussing that is is just hard to fathom and that Mr. Raskin and M.
Lorren's first proposals were ruled out of order. This whole committee is out of order when they can't recognize the fact that children should have help at council and they can't make their own decisions and they don't know how to deal with the system. It's unfair. It's something America doesn't count continent countenance. We've always been the land that saw fairness as part of our due process and justice system. This is the opposite of it. We have it in our laws to require children to have legal representation. Uh the uh uh what's this name of this law? Anyway, there's several laws that do give representation or say you should try to get it. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 requirement that um the uh OR ensure counsel for unaccompanied children to the greatest extent practicable. Trump administration has appealed that ruling. They don't even they want nothing. The Trump administ and you got to realize where this is coming from Donald Trump. This is what he wants. He wants to deport as many people as possible. That's the message he gave to the Department of Homeland Security is to port and Steven Miller gave them a headcount. They wanted I think 3,000 people a month or something like that. Some and they have to meet their headcount and they go out and they do it and they get people and they do it sometimes illegally and they do it do it u sometimes they kill people because they make mistakes and they don't really understand what they're doing in the law.
The president of the United States needs to resign.
He's doing so many just unimaginable things to this country and into and to justice to due process. If you go overseas where people say they evaluate the United States is our system of justice and due process. We don't have it here anymore. He appoints his own people to the different committees that regulate the building of the ballroom which is unnecessary. Uh he's deporting all the people who'd be waiters and cooks. Who's going to work there for a thousand people? They're not going to have them. Every great society has people at the bottom who do work and they're necessary and we're deporting them. We're deporting people who do work and keep our communities active. They've deported a lot of people in Memphis.
They've come there with their safe task force. It hasn't helped reduce crime.
Crime just like in Washington is about the same. He doesn't even know about the killings. He mentioned one time, oh, there was a killing over there near Date Square. That was the woman in National Guardsman that was killed because Trump made them come here. He's responsible for that death. He's responsible for all those deaths because he's put people out there and created a lot of hate. Um, now he's talking about putting an 8 foot high fence around Lafayette Square.
Lafayette Square where people go and sit and talk and have discussion, he's going to put an 8ft high fence. I guess there'll be a gate that gets you open and lets you out. Maybe they just want to swing the gate and lock people in if they choose to do that. Uh, that's insane. It's like going in front of the church and holding the Bible upside down and claiming you're you're doing something in front of the church. The most a-religious sacriigious person ever to be in our government probably. He golfs on Easter. He doesn't go to church. He doesn't believe in religion.
He doesn't believe in doing unto others as you do unto yourself. He doesn't know any of the good principles that come out of it about the person that's naked and giving him clothes, the person's hungry and feeding him. He doesn't know Matthew whatsoever. He doesn't know He knows Corinthians 2. What a joke. He doesn't know jack about religion. He's irreligious and he's terrible and his values are are doesn't exist. It's all about him. It's a centered oneperson narcissistic grifter and that's who's guarding this country and that's who's put these laws in effect. He doesn't want anybody to have counsel except himself. He wants Roy Conn and Roy Cones spirited people to give him counsel. And he's got one with Steven Miller. He's got one with the the new guy he's got in to be head of the Department of of Justice, quote unquote, Small J.
Roy Con taught him, never admit you're wrong. Never back down. Never admit you're wrong. Roy Con was evil and one of the worst people ever on this earth and he's the mentor of the president of the United States. You get it? I yield back.
>> Gentleman yields back. [clears throat] Gentleman from Georgia.
>> Gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
>> Uh thank you. I rise in support of the Lafrren amendment. You know few weeks ago it was Donald Trump's birthday and to commemorate his birthday. He had a cage match on the grounds of the uh White House and a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle were there to witness uh a number of uh contestants trying to beat the the pope out of uh their opponent and then stand up and talk about uh former first lady Michelle Obama after that. Um, but I mentioned the the cage match uh because I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle would go to the White House for a cage match that featured a uh full grown uh male lion versus a uh newborn kitten.
You know, I wonder if you would find enjoyment in uh that kind of a match.
But that is exactly what happens in immigration court for uh minors and for little babies and little children, preschoolers.
So I rise in support of this amendment because the underlying bill strips all legal counsel programs for children and declares that the government should never pay for lawyers for children. Even if by some miracle these children can find and pay for lawyers on their own, the underlying bill gives them at most two weeks before their immigration hearing, which is not nearly enough time. I strongly support Representative Lorren's amendment for the same reasons that I was an original co-sponsor on her Fair Day in Court for Kids Act.
Like little toddlers are showing up in court unable to speak English, often traumatized and perhaps clutching their doll or stuffed animal.
Their feet may barely touch the floor when they sit down as they stare silently at a judge in a black robe speaking a language they do not understand. They are scared and overwhelmed and can cannot possibly navigate complex legal proceedings by themselves. They are just like that little newborn kitten. Yet we have set them up to be alone against a governmenttrained fullgrown lion, a lawyer to decide if they should be deported back to countries where they face persecution, trafficking or death. Do we really think that a toddler should be able to learn immigration law?
The numbers show how dire the consequences are for children who cannot obtain counsel. Immigration judges are nearly 100 times more likely to grant relief to unaccompanied children who have a lawyer. And that makes sense. We provide counsel to adults who are charged with federal crimes because we want to ensure their fundamental right to a fair trial. If a grown adult needs a lawyer for a fair trial, it's obvious that a trot a toddler does as well.
Children lack the capacity, emotional maturity, and legal knowledge to understand their rights, gather necessary evidence, and formulate legal claims.
Yet, we just pretend that we just pretend that they do. It's heartbreaking. It's unjust. It's unfair.
It's cruel. It's not for the children.
If not for the children, at least vote for Miss Lafren's amendment for the immigration courts and the immigration judges. A courtroom cannot function when one side is represented by a literal baby.
Judges cannot oversee cases efficiently and the court system becomes destabilized, clunky.
Time uh time suck. Having unrepresented children in court hearings is bad for everyone. And I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well because we cannot expect babies to serve as their own lawyers. I mean, if you get satisfaction from watching a cage match with a kitten and a fullgrown male lion, then vote no on this amendment. If you think that uh there's no utility or usefulness in watching such a display, uh then vote yes for this amendment and I yield back.
>> Gentleman yields back. [clears throat] Gentlemen from Maryland's recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um first of all, I've got to say that I'm concerned that so many of our members uh I think on more on your side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, are not present here. In fact, want to commend the Democrats for um staying here for this important legislation. I'm just concerned that some people are going to come back and then just vote in a way they don't even really understand what we're talking about. This language that's currently in the bill repeals a critical part of the William Wilbur Force Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Trafficking Victims, that's what's being repealed by this legislation.
minors, kids who are coming in uh to court to be heard about a claim of human trafficking or gang violence or government violence now go by themselves. How many of us would send one of our kids, an 8-year-old kid, a 10-year-old kid to the movies by themsel? How many would send a kid to the doctor by themselves? How many of us would send a kid to the dentist by themsel? Maybe Mr. Vanrew, he probably knows a dentist or I'm sure they'd be in good hands there. But you get my point. I don't think we send our kids to the store by ourselves. And yet now we want to say um that at a time when, as Miss Gipol's pointed out, we're spending billions of dollars, $130 billion already on an illegal, unauthorized, unconstitutional, disastrous war in the Middle East. a billion dollars. They want to rebuild the bulldozed White House, which was done illegally.
Or just take the the relatively modest example of just 15 or 20 million for the president to play around with the color of the water in the reflecting pool.
During that time, we're going to strip from children the right to have a lawyer with them when their whole future is at stake.
How much money do we think we're going to save doing that? I don't know if anybody has quantified it. Is it a million dollars? Is it $400,000?
So, let's say one of these kids, imagine that one of these kids actually has a valid claim.
Okay, if everybody can engage in that empathic hypothetical leap, imagine one of these kids has a valid claim. say that their family has been targeted by the government because they belong to the wrong political party and that's why the family sent them to America. Imagine that it's a a teenage boy, perhaps the most suspect demographic category in the world. A teenage boy who is running away from a gang that's insisting he joined the gang and he wants to come here to the country to the land of the free and the home of the brave. Maybe he saw the Statue of Liberty.
Imagine the core paradigm target of the Human Trafficking Act, which is being repealed by this language.
So, you've got a a 12 or 13 year old girl who's being subjected to human trafficking, threats, and violence, intimidation.
Maybe they don't even speak the language, but maybe they actually have a valid claim to asylum. And now we've reached the point where we're going to strip them of a lawyer under administration headed up by a president who has had literally hundreds of lawyers and doesn't go anywhere without a lawyer. We know the names of his lawyers.
Cydney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Todd Blanch declared, "I'm his lawyer the other day." That's why he shouldn't be attorney general. He should just go back to being in one of uh one of Donald Trump's battalion of lawyers.
How about we show the tiniest bit of compassion, what America was made for. That's what our country is.
for the tired and the poor. The huddled mess is yearning to breathe free. Have we forgotten all of that?
Well, so you know, a whole bunch of people are going to come in the room and they're just going to uh go ahead and vote no because somebody's going to tell them to vote no. I warn them they do that at their own political peril when America finds out what's going on here right now.
I I find it absolutely shocking and [clears throat] mesmerizing that they would walk into this position and I urge everybody to rethink it. And I want to thank Miss Lofgrren for spotting this subtle change in the language. And they say, "Oh, well, just get pro bono lawyers." Yeah. The ones that still exist because they haven't been shaken down by the president for hundreds of millions of dollars of free pro bono assistance because he issued an executive order against their law firms.
I yield back.
>> Gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman, >> gentleman from Texas recognized me.
>> Yeah. Um just a few things to respond to. Um I >> I will I will claim the time and yield to the gentleman from Texas.
>> Well, thank you. A few things to respond to. Um first of all, um when we talk about the number of NOS's and the amount of people that are out there with money that are uh funding vast armies of proono lawyers in this case, uh they they all receive significant taxpayer funds.
All of them bucketloads. Catholic charities alone responsible for resettling 600,000 aliens in 2021.
Catholic Charities were usually receives 1.4 to3.7 million from the federal government each year. In 2023, it received $18.8 million. The Hebrew immigr I immigrant aid society in 2024 received $13 million from the federal government in part to support the resettlement of aliens in the American interior. The Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service, 95% of its funding comes from the government. And all of these organizations are funding enormous armies of lawyers on a proono basis.
There are literally billions of dollars going out in taxpayer funds for this very purpose. And it's going out through NOS's and it's literally documented out there. And when we talk about the actual numbers, I have the numbers from 2026 in terms of what we're dealing with in terms of relief granted for for the children in question. And I said, well, I don't want to look at 2026 because it might be said, well, the Trump administration is being too harsh. I ask for the information from 2024 to go back to the Biden information. And I look at the data from second quarter 2024, the last year of the Biden administration.
Of the 40,000 pending UAC cases, 9,100 decisions at the time, 118 had relief granted. 118 out of the 9,186.
The rest were dismissals, terminations, removals, voluntary departures. And my point of all that is not to say that there's not a case that shouldn't have a good competent lawyer adjudicating the case. I believe that proono lawyers are doing that and I believe that they're getting that. It is to say that we have created the problem. We Congress have created the problem with the legislation and then the administration, the previous administration in particular. But with all due respect, President Obama at least recognized the problem and asked for it to be fixed.
Literally sent us a letter begging us to fix the problem that is causing these children to be put in. We talk about we wouldn't put our children out to go go to the store by themselves. Well, we sure as hell will put them out to be TRAFFICKED BY CARTELS BY THEMSELVES, TO BE SENT ACROSS THE BORDER, to be abused by themselves because we create the very climate that makes it occur. This is what is so gling about this. These children will get representation. I assure you, if you look at the money that is flowing to these NOS's, literally billions of dollars of taxpayer money, they are getting the taxpayer funds. And what we're saying here is is that we should be right now minimizing these cases. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose of moving forward to codify what the president is doing because this administration finally is trying to bring some sanity to the border. And with that, I yield back to the chairman.
Can I ask you a question?
[clears throat] >> I I would I would ask the gentleman the question, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Biden administration during the four years that they allowed 10 million approximately 10 million illegal migrants to enter into the country, didn't they lose track of kids? They lost track of tens of thousands of kids depending on the numbers you look at and Tom Hman has been very u u clear about what they've been doing and trying to track down those children and they they literally couldn't tell us where 350,000 kids were at one point. We started narrowing it down and there are still tens of thousands we haven't locked down >> and the goal of this legislation is to stop that from happening.
>> Correct.
>> Losing that we were they're giving us a lecture on compassion. I don't see the compassion in that.
>> I do not either. I don't see the compassion in those thousands of people we saw under what was it the Del Rio bridge.
>> Yes.
>> Day after day after day living in those conditions and then being put in these temporary shelters. I mean where's the compassion in that? What happened in Eagle Pass? What we saw there on we saw that for four years. This bill is designed to stop that.
>> That's that's the problem. The Democrats, they don't want to stop that.
They want that to continue.
>> And in my first year in Congress, I was and I had known this before being a Texan. and I was familiar with it working with law enforcement. I was down at the border and I still have a picture of this little girl and I never did anything with it cuz I didn't want her picture out there of of the of a phone number on her arm uh which is all she had and talking to the the the two fellas in front of her about her status and what they knew about her because she was not really talking to folks and what they knew about how she'd been abused on the on the trail. and they walk through the extent to which this beautiful little seven or eightyear-old girl was abused on that trail all the way up through the process by a situation we created by a situation that we allowed to occur and that we empowered cartels and evil actors to carry out. The reason that I feel so strongly about proceeding with this legislation to curtail the problem of the abuse under UAC's under the catch and release Flores, the abuse of assolment parole is to stop the madness. This president's doing it. We should codify it. I yield back.
>> Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from I think California. And then we'll come to Vermont.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I just want to say this is um incredibly dystopian um to have to have this conversation about um young children, unaccompanied minors not being able to have representation. I mean, we've had a conversation about money, all this money, what the taxpayers are.
I don't know. But, you know, this president has contributed 11 trillion to the debt, and I don't see anybody up in arms talking about that.
This president asked us to cut a trillion dollars in healthcare.
I'm sure all of us have constituents in our districts that are going to be hurt because of that. I don't see anybody from the other side up in arms about that.
And um as it relates to these children, you know, I have been to the courts and going into these courtrooms for these hearings. It is a daunting, scary process. If you're an adult, if you're an adult with an attorney, it's even worse if you're an adult and you're pro perur representing yourself and now you're saying children to represent themselves.
It makes it actually boggles the mind.
In some instances, what I've seen, there are children where language is a barrier and they don't really understand what they're saying.
They're hearing words where they don't understand.
In some instances, you have children that are have developmental disabilities. They're on the spectrum.
They're not getting additional help or support for that. And now you have courtrooms that are so overwhelmed that the judges are restricting continuences and sometimes they are noticing hearings with less than 24 hours advance. So that's even hard for an adult with an attorney to manage because an attorney probably has more than just that one client and just all of the machinations to get it together to go before a a judge. And you're asking for all of that to be managed by a minor.
A minor who might be on the spectrum. A minor who might not understand everything. A minor who might have English as a second language. And a minor who is just scared out of their wits.
And there's no context about the backstory for that child. How that child got here, what that child is running from, what that child may face if they're deported.
And all of those things all of those things must be taken into consideration.
The the the the courtrooms that I've been in for proceedings, an an attorney an attorney would bring all of those things up so that the judge could make a coherent decision based on all of the information provided. See, the attorney is the advocate, and you're essentially saying you want a child to go in there without an advocate. And and last year, actually, Trump partially terminated the program that would allow children to be represented. So then folks had to file an injunction.
[clears throat] And so all of these legal service providers that you all are talking about, you know, they had waiting lists upon waiting lists of kids that they couldn't help because of all of these shenanigans with this administration that you all are trying to cosign. You're double downing on the co-signing with this bill. But the value proposition, the value proposition is, are you okay with sending a child, regardless of their circumstance, into a courtroom without having an advocate?
And you're saying yes.
And so all these other hearings where folks have said, "What about the kids?
Do no harm to the kids." I'm trying to find out what kind what children you're talking about when you're saying, "Do no harm to the kids." Because every single child that you're throwing in a courtroom without an advocate, without any kind of representation, you're doing incredible harm to.
And you're not going to recount the story of that child being deported and then raped or murdered or killed or dismembered because they went back into a really terrible situation. You're not going to put that child's name on your note card to read out into the record.
So that's why you should be voting yes on this amendment. And with that, I yield back.
>> Gentle lady yields back. [clears throat] The gentle lady from Vermont's recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I associate myself uh with the remarks from the member from uh California and also strongly support uh the Lafrren amendment.
So to level set here, what we're talking about is that the bill that the Republicans are trying to push through this committee right now would end any government sponsored counsel for unaccompanied children.
Children.
It puts the onus on kids to find and pay for their own counsel in court, which of course is going to force many children to not be represented at all. And as the member from California said earlier, Miss Lofrren, there's no other area of jurish prudence where unaccompanied minors would have to appear without legal counsel in front of a federal judge or a magistrate. So the only way I think you can get to this position is if you don't think that these children or these unaccompanied minors are worthy of basic human dignity. That you are putting them in some other file in your head. That there are somehow worthy children that are entitled to counsel in front of a judge. And then there are unworthy children.
And I can say as a parent of a 16year-old and an 18-year-old, I wouldn't even want those children who have a highly educated mom who serves in Congress to be in front of a judge without counsel. So to be thinking about kids, as you said, the member from Washington, as young as four, five, six years old, sitting in front of a judge, having the judge talk about what the proceedings are going to entail. The only way that you can be okay with that is if you don't believe those kids are entitled to basic human dignity. So, we can talk about many other provisions of this bill. This one to me is just absolutely shocking that we can't all agree on this.
That there should be a line for all of us who say we care deeply about children in this country that we would send kids into a courtroom and claim somehow we don't have the money to pay for this. Where we've all talked about all the ways in which this administration is wasting taxpayer money. We haven't even talked about the Qatari jet that has sent us back hundreds of millions of dollars that the president can't even use at this point because it's not safe. So, it's not a question of money and when we have the money, it's where the money is being spent. And I can tell you I agree with what a member on my side said earlier.
If if it were between spending money on those things or actually spending money to make sure that children have representation in court, I think I know where most Americans would come down.
And I yield back.
>> Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
>> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, I um uh move to strike the last word.
Uh I rise in support of this amendment for reasons that my colleagues have clearly uh and unequivocally laid out.
Uh but I also wish to speak to the underlying bill because here we go again marking up a bill by the most powerful to inflict violence on the most vulnerable. And once again, this markup is just a show because this disgraceful piece of legislation is so extreme that it doesn't even have the votes in the anti-immigrant Republican party. And that's why we didn't mark up this bill until now. The speaker and the chairman know it doesn't have the votes. So, the folding caucus threw a longer tantrum on the rule this time and now we all have to listen to the Republicans pretend that they're going to pass this garbage.
>> But even if this markup is a joke, the policies in this bill are not. They reflect the shameless cruelty of the Trump Miller and their mass death squads and what they're inflicting on our communities. It's real and it's paid for by our tax dollars. They're executing innocent people on our streets. They're racially profiling people. It happened just three days ago in my district on a US citizen. They're breaking up into people's homes without a warrant. And the Republicans gave them $240 billion to do it. Think about that.
>> Working people in this country struggle to put food on the table, buy a house, and pay for health care. Many don't even make a living wage. And the people elected to represent them spent 240 billion of their tax dollars to pay a bunch of racist thugs to terrorize random people on the street the way they do in my district every day. Not on health care, not on housing, not on nutrition assistance, not on public schools, not on child or elder care.
They're paying sadistic criminals like David Broulette who murdered John Sebastian Durangedo in Maine or Charles Exum who shot Marimar Martinez, my constituent, five times in Chicago.
These are the violent mercenaries who brag about shooting and murdering people. And because the Republican party has no purpose other than to persecute immigrants, give tax cuts to the rich, and destroy democracy, they have no choice but to double down on the cruelty. And that's why this bill, they want to inflict more violence on children, on people who accidentally overstate a visa, on people who are fleeing war, natural disasters, or persecution in their countries of origin. It's especially sickening that in many cases people are forced to leave their countries partly because of our policies of our government. We cut off food, medicine and energy to civilian populations as in Syria and Venezuela, Iran and Cuba. We fund war and mass destruction like in Gaza and Iran. We overthrow a government and occupy countries like Venezuela. And then as innocent people flee the only homes they've ever known, we deny them asylum.
We criminalize them. And in some cases, we kill them. And while our constituents struggle to make ends meet because these same politicians gutted their healthc care, education, nutrition assistance to fund ICE, this is not a redeemable piece of legislation which could be improved with a few tweaks here and there or by going back to the status quo even though there are valiant efforts to try to do that. And this is not a redeemable political vision. This is a vision of persecution and exploitation of pitting working people across borders against each other while the rich and powerful rob them over and over again. There is a better way. I saw it earlier today when I stood with colleagues, advocates, and union leaders advocating for a discharge petition to bring the Dream and Promise Act for some sensible immigration reform that Americans support. Thank you. I yield back. gentleman yields back. The question occurs. The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member. Ranking members recognized.
>> Um, and I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding. Um, this thing is actually even worse than I thought now that I'm able to do some down and dirty legal research on it. Um, in March of last year, the Trump administration abruptly cut off all funding for the nationwide legal services programs that serve unaccompanied children. the unaccompanied children's program. That cancellation order um was not explained.
It was not justified. There was no attempt to make it consistent with the law which requires it. Um and the consequences were immediate. There were 26,000 unaccompanied kids across the country who faced losing an attorney under the dreadful circumstances all of my colleagues have just described so eloquently. There was a group, and I'm not familiar with the group, but I certainly applaud them, uh, COPA versus HHS, which brought a lawsuit on behalf of 11 legal services groups and co-conselled with the Justice Action Center. um in Gibson Dunn and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center to challenge this totally unprecedented and unlawful termination in federal court, US District Court in California. And the the a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, then issued a preliminary injunction and found that the government's actions cannot stand.
Totally outside of the law. The government has tried multiple times to overturn these rulings and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly rejected it. Okay? So, they weren't able to get their way and wipe out legal representation for kids just by cutting off all the money because it's very clear that that was contrary to law. So, now they want to sneak it through this legislation in a few words. Uh I see in parenthesis um first it says to to get them legal rep representation to the greatest extent practicable and then in parenthesis at no expense to the government.
>> Those are the critical words at no expense to the government. Now I I come back to my my friend from Texas who I must say I'm going to miss so much when you leave Mr. Roy and it's always a pleasure to get to work with you on this stuff. I certainly did not understand the full extent of this. I'm not sure you did because your argument to me seemed to be we don't need government funding because you've got these not for-profit groups that will pick up the slack. But the whole point of that parenthetical is to strike at the government funding that those not for profofits get which allow them to send lawyers in. They just want to get rid of it. And in fact, there's not a lot written about this, but I found something from the mcdowocialjustice center.org or unaccompanied children have a legal right to counsel. The government cannot ignore the trafficking victims protection act. And then in this what it says is what's actually going on is that there's an attempt to privatize the whole thing. What do you know?
There's a profit motive at the center of this particular effort to strip this basic right that kids and all human beings have in court. And what does it say? the as reported by the lever, it's a a journal I admittedly don't know. I don't recognize it. As reported by the lever in its investigation, President Trump is poised to privatize legal aid for migrant children, seeking to privatize all legal representation for unaccompanied children. So, the move likely shifts these services to a for-profit ICE contractor and imposes dangerous requirements, replaces in-person services with virtual videos, slashes funding through fixed fee contracts designed for private vendors, and results in significantly fewer children receiving any representation at all. You know what it reminds me of? Uh, it reminds me of what the federal district judge uh down in Florida just found about the completely illegal, outrageous, and discredited $1.8 8 billion political slush fund they tried to set up for the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, which even Todd Blanch now says is not moving forward, but we need to put that into law for obvious reasons. Uh he says is not moving forward now. But the judge said that was a collusive litigation. You were on both sides of the issue. And that's exactly what they want to do here. They want to abolish a real lawyer for these kids and put in a for-profit ICE contractor. So you basically have the government being represented on both sides of the issues and they would impose that on little children whose entire lives are at stake. That is wrong and we should vote that down today unanimously in this committee. Thank you and I I yield back.
>> I simply say that uh the ranking members observations are obviously correct and I urge uh that this amendment be adopted.
I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from California. I believe all those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed, no. No. And pin the chair. The nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
>> Seeking roll call. Mr. >> Clerk will call the role.
>> Mr. Jordan, >> no.
>> Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, >> Mr. Bigs, Mr. Mcccleintoch, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Mr. Roy.
>> No.
>> Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald.
>> Mr. Klein.
>> Mr. Gooden.
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Vandrew.
>> No.
>> Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells.
[clears throat] >> Mr. Moore. Miss Hagman. Miss Leah.
Florida. Miss Leah. Florida votes no.
Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Kylie.
Mr. Growthman. Mr. Not Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander. Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr. Bombgardner, >> Mr. Raskin, >> Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler, >> Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Laughrin, Miss Lafrren votes I. Mr. Cohen, >> Mr. Johnson, >> Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Lou, Miss Gipal, Miss Dryal votes I. Mr. Korea, >> I.
>> Mr. Korea votes I. Miss Scandan, Mr. Goose.
Miss Mcbath.
>> Miss McBth votes I. Miss Ross I.
>> Miss Ross votes I. Miss Ballot.
>> I.
>> Miss Balot votes I. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camlager Dove. Miss Camager Dove votes I. Mr. Mosquitz.
Mr. Goldman.
Miss Crockett. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania.
>> Mr. Herder.
>> Mr. Her votes no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore.
votes no. Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes no.
Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania votes yes.
Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no.
Mr. Isa votes no.
Mr. Gman Mr. Mr. my best now.
Mr. Gail, you are not recorded. Mr. Gail votes no.
Miss Haggman, you are not recorded.
>> Miss Hagamman votes no.
>> Mr. Chairman, there are 12 eyes and 13 nos.
>> The amendment is not agreed to.
>> Gentle lady from Washington.
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
>> Clerk will report.
>> Board of order reserved by the gentleman from Texas.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9773 offered by Miss John Paul of Washington.
>> Page 53.
>> Without object objection, the amendment will be considered as read. The gentle lady from Washington is recognized to explain the amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a normal world, I would say this would be a simple bipartisan amendment, but I certainly hope that's the case, but not much seems normal. And given the conversation over the last several hours, I have no doubt that um my colleagues will raise objections. This title of the section 4 of the bill claims that the legislation is about quoteuning families. However, the bill as written allows for the detention of entire families without regard to whether any of the children are US citizens. As the majority knows, US citizens cannot be detained under current law. That is why my amendment simply clarifies that families with US citizen children may not be detained under this bill. If the majority claims that's not what they meant and that's not what the bill does, great. We've got the solution. The bill language is poorly drafted and a plain reading of it explicitly allows for families with US citizen children to be detained and/or for immigrants to be indefinitely in family detention facilities separated from their US citizen children. 5 a half million US citizen children live in households with at least one undocumented person. Just under two million US citizen children live with two undocumented parents. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to throw millions of children into immigration detention if ICE puts their parents into removal proceedings. Remember, this title is also retroactive, throwing families into limbo, even if they lived here for years. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment that those born in the United States are US citizens, despite Trump's obsession with trying to change it. Now, I want to be very clear. Family detention is barbaric and it is a traumatizing process to which no child, regardless of citizenship, should be subjected. The harm of detaining children is clear. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, there is no evidence that any amount of time in detention is quote safe for children.
Even in fact, even short periods of detention can cause psychological trauma and long-term mental health risk for children end quote. According to a physician and psychiatrist who investigated the family detention facilities for the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, quote, "Shorter lengths of detention did not sufficiently mitigate the harmful conditions that we observed and their delletterious consequences. Most of the harms we documented were in families detained less than 20 days." End quote.
We have seen the effects of detention on children under the Trump administration.
Children detained in the South Texas Family Detention Center in Dilly, Texas, have gotten sick and received improper medical care. They have received inedible food. They have become depressed. A 13-year-old girl attempted suicide with a plastic knife and hitting her head repeatedly.
The idea that my Republican colleagues would not only endorse these horrors, but actively seek to impose the more more children, including US citizens, is grotesque. But sadly, unless there is a drafting error, that is exactly what this bill does. And before my colleagues say that's not what was meant and DHS doesn't detain US citizens, we know that's all false. Take the case of Jackie Merlos. Immigration officers arrested Jackie and her family, including her four US citizen children, at Peace Arch State Park, where they went to see her sister, who lives just over the border in Canada. When Jackie went to hug her sister, agents arrested the whole family, accused them of attempted alien smuggling, and took everyone but the sister, who remained across the border in Canada, into custody. The whole family remained in custody for weeks. And DHS was working to get passports for the US citizen children so they could deport the entire family. Fortunately, family members and friends were able to get the children out of custody, but ICE detained Jackie for several months until the case against her was thrown out. Jackie's family is not the only one to experience this. We have heard countless stories from across the country of US citizen children being detained and even deported, including multiple children with cancer. And with this bill, Republicans want to subject even more families to this horror. My amendment would make a horrific bill just a little bit better by preventing US citizen children from experiencing this nightmare. And again, I would just call on my colleagues across the aisle to have a little bit of humanity here and also to follow the law. You cannot detain US citizens. I hope my colleagues will join me in protecting US citizen children and accept this common sense amendment. I yield back.
>> Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from Texas withdraws his point of order and is recognized.
>> Thank you, chairman. Um I guess my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are for family separation now. Uh because that's effectively what they're calling for. Um the the purpose here is to make sure that we keep families together. That's the point. When you have someone who came here illegally, you have illegal alien parents and they have a child. for the vast majority of cases would be an illegal alien child.
To the extent that it is not an illegal alien child and it is a uh alleged or actual citizen child, it is almost certainly often going to be the case that it is the product of uh so-called birthright citizenship notwithstanding the Supreme Court's uh erroneous ruling.
The the reality is that's going to be almost certainly the case in a number of these situations that the hypothetical put forward. My point is just this uh we have all the already by the way in the funding mechanism in in the uh OBBB we have this exact language in place very specifically and this would be in alignment with that and it is purposeful to hold families together. That's the point. We are trying to make assessments and by the way if we embrace the policies we're talking about we're decreasing the pressure at the border.
We're taking power away from the cartels. We are trying to make it to where you can manage cases which the evidence is now bearing out. We're putting more immigration judges in place. We're processing these claims and cases faster. We're making decisions where in the limited cases, as the data also is evidenced under both presidents, under Biden and President Trump, in the cases of asylum, when there's a tiny fraction that are granted asylum or a tiny fraction uh that are on the unaccompanied alien children who can stay, etc. We're processing them quicker. So the backload is reduced.
That is the point. And so rather than the current system which is everybody come in, everybody be able to claim asylum, everybody be able to get categorically parrolled, everybody get released, hope you show up one day, and you can't, by the way, deal with the situation of a family unit. You're stuck in this uh impossible decision where it's either flout the law and hold the family unit together or release the entire family unit. You can't manage the problem. All this would do is say look keep the family together and if it's a citizen child by virtue of birthright citizenship or otherwise it is better for the family that they be together uh and while we're adjudicating whatever claim that they allege to have which by the way is statistically improbable based on all of the evidence we have that it would be highly likely that they don't have a claim but to the extent they do have a claim that it would able to be adjudicated under asylum whether it's parole or whatever we might be dealing with and It is better served if you do it as a family unit. That's the point. We believe this is the humane thing to do. We believe this is the right thing to do. Keep people together, adjudicate the claim, and then make the case uh going forward as a family. when you separate them, when you empower cartels to intervene, when you create perverse incentives to make false claims about citizenship or not, when you pro you make uh incentives to be able to claim children and be able to use them for fake family units and so forth. We think that is harming children, harming aliens, empowering cartels, undermining our security, and so forth. So, for that reason, uh I oppose the amendment. I yield back to the chairman.
>> Would the chairman I mean, would the gentleman from Texas yield?
I >> the uh >> someone will I recogn yield to you.
Thank you.
>> Um I yield yield to the gentle lady from Washington, but save me some time because I got some questions.
>> Okay, you got it. I just wanted to respond to the gentleman from Texas's uh comments because we are explicitly fixing an error in your bill that says that either you have to detain US citizen children with their families or you have to separate them.
We are saying no let's exempt the families who have US citizen children so that you can keep families together.
This is all about keeping families together, uniting families, which is in the title of your bill. And so I want to clarify that if you support not separating families, you should support this amendment because it fixes the language in your bill that essentially says you can detain entire family units or with US citizen children or you or you separate them. That's what your bill does. And I'll yield back to the ranking member.
Now, I'm glad you clarified that. It's an essential point. Um, but you know what? We've now reached a moment, I think, that really the whole country's got to pay attention to because Thomas Jefferson was someone who warned that if the government was to uh was to be allowed to violate the rights of non-citizens, it would inevitably come to violate the rights of citizens as well. And uh this particular language is a very vivid demonstration of that principle. Uh why is that? Because in the United States of America, US citizens cannot be held uh unless they are convicted of a crime or unless they're charged with a crime.
That's what habius corpus is all about.
If you're being held by the government and you're a US citizen, you've got the right to get out. The government can't hold you. There there are the only two exceptions to that I'm aware of I think are enemy combatants in war if they constitute a threat to society. And in certain cases I remember and somebody maybe can look this up. There were certain cases where US citizens who were material witnesses to a crime could be held even without charges until they testified or until they uh gave a report. But in any event, none of that has anything to do with what's going on here. This this legislation which the gentle lady from Washington is trying to correct with her excellent amendment.
This legislation would actually say that citizens of the United States who happen to be minors can be held against all due process against habius corpus and I I take it indefinitely. Am I right about that? But I can we get that on the record, Miss Gipol? they could be held indefinitely as US citizens under the language of this bill.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. So, um it's an old story. Thomas Jefferson warned about this during the Alien and Sedition Acts. He said, "If we are willing to sacrifice and surrender the rights of non-citizens who are being rounded up and arrested and deported without any due process at all, it is going to come back to haunt us. And we know that they're US citizens. And one of them was in my district who've been held for many days in ICE deportation uh or detention facilities.
That's happened to lots of US citizens.
Somebody please find me the numbers on that. We know there's lots of citizens.
But this is an attempt to codify it and to say that US citizen children can be held indefinitely by Homeland Security and ICE.
because one of their parents is being held and we'll just sweep in the whole family and they rejected I believe it was Miss Balance amendment uh to deny the right of family detention. I I can't remember if that one was yours.
>> It was Miss Gipol's amendment. They rejected that. So now they want to sweep the whole family in whether you're a non-citizen or a citizen. Look look how far we have come. And this is this is an old story. It's an old story not with democracies. Democracies like to respect everybody's rights, but it's an old story with empires. Empires would extend their reach over lots and lots of land.
And so, uh, you had to be a citizen and not a subject in order to exercise rights. But inevitably, because of imperial practices, the rights of citizens would be sacrificed and denigrated and diluted just like the rights of the non-citizens. Let's get back on the path towards being a democratic republic and not acting like an empire with paramilitary forces that kill US citizens without warrant that kill immigrants without any reason. I yield back.
>> Gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the amendment offered by >> gentle lady from Washington.
>> Gentle lady from Washington. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Those opposed? No. No. Paying the chair the nose have it.
>> All right. I'm going to have to ask for recorded vote on that call.
>> Being requested, the clerk will now call the role.
>> Mr. Jordan, >> no.
>> Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, >> Mr. Bigs, Mr. McCcleinto, Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Tiffany votes no. Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, >> no.
>> Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, >> yes.
>> Mr. Mr. Kleinboats. No. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Miss Hagman, Miss Lee of Florida, Miss Lee of Florida votes. No.
Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Kylie, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris, Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gil Mr. Bumgardner Mr. Raskin >> I.
>> Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler.
>> Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Lofrren >> Miss Lafrren votes yes. Mr. Cohen Mr. Cohen votes I. Mr. Johnson.
>> Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Lou.
Miss. Dry. Miss. Dry votes I. Mr. Craya.
Mr. Craya votes I. Miss Scandlin.
Mr. Negus.
Miss McBath. Miss McBth votes I. Miss Ross I.
>> Miss Ross votes I. Miss Ballot. Miss Ballot votes I. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia votes I. Miss Camlager Dove. Mr. Mosquitz.
Mr. Goldman.
Miss Crockett. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Isa. Mr. Isa votes no. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes no.
Miss Lee of Pennsylvania, you are not recorded.
>> Yes.
>> Miss Lee of Pennsylvania votes yes.
>> Mr. Mcccleintoch.
>> Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no.
>> Miss Kamiger votes yes.
Mr. Huner Mr. under now.
Mr. Gil, you're not recorded. Mr. Got now.
Mr. Getts now.
Mr. Vandrew, you are not recorded.
>> Mr. Vandrew votes no.
>> Clerk report.
>> Mr. Chairman, there are 13 eyes and 13 nos.
>> The amendment is not agreed to. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Growthman.
>> I'm sorry. I've had other committee hearings today, but I I hear some things I want to clarify.
>> Go right ahead.
>> First, first of all, there are people who say that we're only going to remove the people from this country who are the the worst people.
If we're going to have an immigration law in this country, and we're very very generous uh with people from other countries, every year about 800,000 people come here and are are naturalized. 800,000.
We're at a point where one out of six people in America was born in another country. That's more than even was in the 80 late 1800s. So, we're very generous. But I don't know who thought up this idea that if you come here and you shouldn't be here, the only people we're going to remove are people who are like committing murders. We'll remove them, too. But if we're going to have an immigration law, we can't just say anybody comes here. So, we should be removing those people then. Uh, I don't know if this bill is going to get to the floor, but if it gets to the floor, I uh I feel in the interest of trying to hold families together, there ought to be a provision in which our immigration laws do not allow families to break up because they come here. In other words, if there's a a woman from, I don't [clears throat] know, uh, Honduras and she comes here with her child and the father of the child is still staying in Honduras, we shouldn't allow it to happen, right? In this country, if you go through a divorce proceeding, you may have an order that, you know, the two parents have to kind of stick together in the same town. One parent can't just take the child and that moves to California.
And it's the same thing with our immigration laws. If there is a mother and father and they're both in wherever Colombia, we shouldn't say that one of those parents can take the child to the United States and break up that little child's home. So, I I think in the future when we do one of these bills or if it gets to the floor this session, we should say that we're not going to allow a child to lose one of their parents because one parents going to the US, right? We should keep those parents together. So, I'd like to thank the chairman for indulging me and right, I never heard of those worst of the worst stuff. That's that's not the ship I'm on. So, thank you very much.
>> Gentleman yields back from Georgia.
>> Gentle from Georgia is recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.
>> Clerk will report.
>> Point of order reserved by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9.
>> Without objection, amendment be considered as read. The gentle lady is recognized to explain the amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment will add the men's rhea requirement that to be criminally liable, a person must knowingly and willingly overstay their visit. As Miss Ross pointed out earlier today, Title 5 would make overstaying a visa a crime, really for the very first time in American history. This is an egregious bill that has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to overstaying a non-immigrant visa. Currently, there is no intent or knowing requirement provided in this new proposed crime.
Meaning that an individual can be punished even if they make an honest mistake about when they need to depart the country or they're physically incapable of departing the country or are unable to return because of circumstances beyond their control in their home country. That is why my amendment adds a common sense requirement that the person only be guilty of this crime if they knowingly and willingly overstay their visa. For example, a person who has a metal medical emergency in the United States cannot leave within 10 days of their visa expiring. you know, that would violate this new law and they'd face up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1,000, even if they're under medical care in a hospital or they're recuperating. That's right.
>> So, take into consideration that maybe a natural disaster prevents an individual from returning home for more than 10 days past the expiration of their status. They would be guilty of this crime and face six months in federal prison. My Republican colleagues have repeatedly called for men's rail reform, citing existing criminal statutes that failed to explicitly require a men's rhea standard. But it appears Republicans commitment to due process simply does not extend to immigrants, even those that are here legally.
Last summer, we marked up HR59, the Men's Rail Reform Act, which would insert a knowledge requirement in every existing criminal or regulatory statute that lacks an explicit men's rest standard. Republicans passed that bill out [snorts] of this committee over Democrats objections to an imprecise onesizefitsall approach that could lead to unnecessary unintentional mistakes.
My amendment would make sure that this new criminal statute embodies the drafting standard that my Republican colleagues claim to favor by explicitly requiring proof of knowledge and will willfulness to obtain a conviction.
Without my amendment, this bill would create yet another statute of the kind that Republicans claim to dislike. And it's not an adequate response to claim that prosecutorial discretion will address this issue. As Mr. Roy said earlier, we're Congress. We write the laws. And the idea that we would leave this level of ambiguity in the statute on purpose when trust in the Justice Department is at an all-time low. That's mindboggling.
It's ludicrous and it's just plain old cruel. This Department of Justice tried and failed to indict a man for throwing a Subway sandwich at a DHS officer. It indicted an Olympian for touching the water of the reflecting pool after Trump's no big contract buddy miserably failed to make the iconic location American flag blue. And it indicted former FBI director James Comey for posting a picture of seashells on Instagram. So, let's not pretend that federal prosecutors under this administration are not bringing absurd and frivolous unfounded cases. Without this amendment, this bill opens up a whole new avenue of cases federal prosecutors would be able to bring against people who had no intention whatsoever of breaking any laws. Our immigration system so badly needs reform. We have all said that over and over again. We're absolutely interested in bold new ideas to fix it. But this isn't one of them. If this amendment is not adopted, this bill would just imprison people for falling to circumstances beyond their control. This is not the kind of policy that I will support and I vote yes on my amendment.
I yield.
>> Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from uh Wisconsin withdraws his point of order. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
>> Thank the chairman. Um I oppose this amendment. You know, we debated this amendment um in the last markup uh in the last Congress. Uh my friend from Texas, I believe, was the one who offered uh this particular provision in dealing with visa overstays.
Uh Mr. Moran.
And you know, he gave the example of probation, I think was the example that he gave uh that we put people on probation and they're given terms or conditions to comply with the probation and you know they do or they don't. And um this happens all the time in state and federal courts. You know, you can't go to if you're on probation into certain places that serve alcohol or uh or there other issues where you might violate it. Um uh and and in many cases, maybe they didn't intend to be in a place, but yet they did. And so then it's a violation and then that that does yield back to the gentle lady referenced which is something I referenced before uh which is prosecutorial discretion in making determinations of whether somebody was um you know breaking the the the uh limit on their visa uh you know with some sort of malice or or whether it was a good faith effort. Um, but the point here is to put real teeth when someone is uh offered the ability to be a guest uh in the United States.
And this is one of those things where I think we've we've culturally gone a miss and certainly um legally uh where we've now got a situation where 40% of the people who are legally here, at least historically, some of these numbers have have shifted a bit in the last few years, but 40% are visa overstays.
That's just unconscionably wrong. Uh we're we've created a system where people are rewarded from ignoring the law. And again, I it's just hard for me to believe that uh we have much sympathy here when when it was the 19 hijackers were all visa overstays.
And all we're trying to do here is draw a very clear line and say, look, you know, you know when your visa is going to expire and then you've got a 10-day grace period. Um but but uh you know you got to you got to know when you're a guest when you're when you're no longer a guest and uh and to uh and to manage that. And again I go back to prosecutorial discretion. Somebody's here on a tourist visa and working in good faith and um they had some period of time and they overstayed the visa and they missed the thing. They thought they had a certain period of time and got it wrong. I think the odds are pretty good that that they wouldn't be pursued um with with the the uh you know with with force with respect to the the criminal statute. But it's important to have that as a backs stop to be able to let the world know that if you come here and abuse our our goodwill to allow you to be a guest in our country and you overstay it that there will be consequences. That's the point.
And I I applauded my uh friend from Texas at the time for making that case uh and certainly supported it uh and certainly disagreed and voted against this same amendment then. Um and we'll we'll urge that we oppose it now uh because it is um I think the right policy to set the policy cleanly and clearly uh that there'll be consequences and again leave it to prosecutorial discretion to manage. I yield back.
Gentle from Vermont's recognized.
>> Thanks, Mr. Chair. I yield my time to the member from Georgia.
>> Thank you so much. Um, I appreciate you yielding, Mr. Roy. I understand what you're saying, but there again, you're making blanket assumptions that everyone, these 40% or what have you, you're making blanket assumptions that everyone is deliberately trying to be here and overstay their welcome. It's just a blanket assumption that you're making.
And that's simply not the case. I mean, you you there are people here for, as I said, for no reasons of their own, you know? I mean, life happens, as they say, stuff happens. And so to make the blanket assumption that everybody's deliberately trying to stay here and stay past the time of their visa, I think is absolutely cruel and it's just unjust. It's not fair.
And so there again, I understand what you're saying, but common sense, I mean, where's the common sense here? Where's the common sense in trying to be just and fair? And I agree with you. for people that are overstaying their welcome, their visas, and they knowingly are doing so and trying to buck the system. I get it. Yeah, I get that. But there are different circumstances that need to be considered for each and every one of these cases.
And you can and I have to be honest with you today, you can't honestly say that judges are making fair and just decisions about immigration. They're just not doing so. So, I think there are mitigating circumstances that we need to consider. You need to take each and every one of these cases individually and stop just putting everybody in a one-sizefits-all category because that's not life and that's not truly what happens in the world.
>> Would the gentle lady yield?
>> Yes.
>> Yes. I yield.
>> Yield back to >> Yes. I yield to the member from California. Just very briefly, you know, we have a problem here in the tourism industry already because of the hostility that's been shown to people who come to this country. Uh, and if if you're telling a tourist that, you know, if you miss your plane or you get sick, you could be charged with a crime, there are other places to go visit. And I do think the economic damage from this is um something that needs to be considered. I'm not for people flagrantly violating the law, but the way this is crafted is inelegant and I think the gentle lady's amendment resolves some of that problems. And I thank the gentle lady for yielding and yield back to Miss Balant.
>> Will the gentle lady yield?
>> I will. I'll yield to the ranking member. Uh, first let me start by by thanking you, Miss Balon, but also I want to salute Miss Lofkin on making that excellent point. You know, I had um a group of business leaders from my district in my office not so long ago talking about the horrific effect that this um violent immigration clampdown is having on people's desire to come visit the United States. People are literally afraid to come to the United States of America right now and it is killing the hospitality industry. It is damaging hotels. My district is right on the border of Washington DC and they're seeing dramatic reductions in the numbers of people want to come to our country. Now, we want to make it even worse and say if you slip up, as the distinguished gentle lady from Georgia says, through no fault of your own because there's a blizzard or in this shocking climate change weather, there's hurricanes or whatever and you don't get out in time and now your visa expires suddenly, you're a criminal in the United States when we're trying to get people to come here to go to Anaheim, California to see the Distinguished Gentleman's District or go to Disney World or come to Washington DC, which used to be known as uh the centerplace of politics for freedom and justice all over the world. And now we're sending this really cruel sick message. But the other point I really liked that um the gentle lady from Georgia made was that um this happens to lots of people, even happens to Republicans, to conservatives where they're suddenly out of alignment because there's some bureaucratic misstep. It could even be the government's fault. You guys have got to check out the Associated Press's reporting about Melania Trump. Now, luckily, she ended up getting an Einstein visa for people with extraordinary ability. Uh, I'm not quite sure what the whole background was to that, but that goes to, you know, people like Neils Boore and John Lennon and Yokoono and Ple, the soccer legend. But in the meantime, when she was in the country, she worked and did at least 10 modeling assignments unlawfully. She didn't have the work visa when it happened between September 10th and October 15th of 1996. And I hold no grudge against her. That kind of thing has happened to a lot of people. Should she have been thrown in jail? Should she have been made into a criminal because she was suddenly out of bureaucratic alignment? The distinguished gentleman from Texas says 40% of the people in that situation and for him that seems to be an argument for getting tougher and militarizing the whole thing. I think that demonstrates >> time is expired.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Does anyone else seek recognition?
>> Mr. Chairman, >> I seek recognition just to complete my thought.
>> I was going to yield to you. Go ahead.
>> I recognize >> Well, I was just going to say that the uh my friend Mr. Roy from Texas uh has repeated the statistic that 40% of the horrifying illegal alien population, the undocumented people are people who were here lawfully under a visa which expired. And for him that means therefore all of these police state tactics we're seeing across the country are perfectly justified. To my mind I think of those people like Melania Trump. You know I don't I don't know if you're saying she should have been rounded up and thrown into a detention center with her family. I don't know if she had any kids at that point or not. Um but to me what it says is hey like that is life people. the the the um visas expire and most people are able to get it through the bureaucratic process in time and some are not.
There's even kind of an implicit concession to that and saying you've got 10 days, but what if it's two weeks?
What if it's a month? I don't know exactly what Melania Trump's story was when she was working in the country illegally. Um but so be it. I just don't think we should be casting this extremely broad net and just describing everybody as a criminal.
>> Would the gentleman yield?
>> Yes. And I will yield to the distinguished gentle lady from Washington and then to the lady from Vermont >> because I wanted to make another point that at the same time that this bill tries to criminalize people for things like this for for visa overstays. The administration is also changing the requirements um for different visas. And I'll give you one example. I I think I'm might still be the only member of Congress that's ever been on an F1 visa. That's a student visa. And the administration just issued a final rule saying that they're going to change the current law that says or current um regulation that says that somebody can stay for the duration of their degree. So if you come here to seek a four-year degree, for example, you can stay for the time that it takes you to complete that four-year degree. They've just changed that to essentially a fixed time period which means that if for some reason during COVID for example or something happens your university has to delay its schedule you go on for a little bit longer it actually limits you and says that you cannot finish your degree on an F1 visa and it has created huge outrage across the country. It just happened last week and I was asked about it at a news conference and luckily I'd been following it because our universities, you talked about the hospitality industry. Um, and you know what this does to people not wanting to come to the United States. This is happening now in the universities too because universities actually across the country in red and blue districts, red and blue states are getting people, foreign students are coming and they're paying full freight. But now because of all of the immigration stuff that's been happening under this administration, people don't want to come here. They're choosing to go somewhere else. With this F1 rule, that's going to be even more the case because there's no guarantee that you can actually finish your degree if you come here to to stay on your degree. And now they want to criminalize people if you then end up having to stay a day or a week or a month longer on your F1 visa because of this rule change. I yield back.
>> Thank you for that great point. It is undermining the universities and the colleges as well as the hotels and motel and everybody else. I just want to make one more point before I yield to my friend from Vermont. According to the US Customs and Border Protection Service, um nearly 99% of the non-immigrant visitors left the United States on time. In other words, this program is not being abused. People get a visa and they're generally here uh for the right amount of time and then they leave. And then in a tiny percentage of the cases, you've got things like hurricanes, tornadoes, COVID 19, whatever. Life happens. And we want to turn those people into criminals. I mean, that strikes me as outrageous.
Miss Balon, I yield to you.
>> Well, thank you. And uh the member for Washington reminded me as she was talking about student visas that you know in addition to the example you used of Melania Trump working illegally, we have the case of Elon Musk who came here on a student visa and never ever enrolled in the program which was the reason why he got the student visa and then worked illegally.
He literally launched his career in the United States working illegally.
So, I'm gonna go back to what I was saying before. So much of this is about who we see as worthy and suspect and who we look the other way when they are violating the exact same things that you are railing against. And I yield back.
>> And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Gentleman yields. who seeks recognition.
Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Georgia.
>> From Georgia. Those in favor say yes.
>> I.
>> Those opposed say no.
>> No.
>> Opinion. The chair. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
>> I'd like to seek a recorded vote, please.
>> Gentleman asks for a recorded vote.
>> Clerk will call the role.
>> Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Mcccleintoch, Mr. Tiffany, >> no.
>> Mr. Tiffany votes no. Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, >> Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Miss Haggiman, Miss Leah, Florida, >> Miss Leah, Florida votes no. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Kylie, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Knot, Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. And Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr. Bumgardner, Mr. Rascin, >> yes.
>> Mr. Raskin votes yes. Mr. Nadler, >> I.
>> Mr. Nler votes I. Miss Lafrren.
>> Miss Lafrren votes I. Mr. Cohen, >> yes. Mr. Cohen votes yes. Mr. Johnson.
>> Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Lou.
>> Miss Dipal.
Miss Dryal votes I. Mr. Korea.
>> Mr. Korea votes I. Miss Scandlin.
>> Mr. Negus.
>> Miss Mcbath.
>> Miss McBth votes I. Miss Ross.
>> Miss Balot. Miss Balant votes I. Mr. Garcia.
Miss Camel 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. Isa votes no.
>> Mr. Gil, Mr. Got now.
Mr. Klein, you're not recorded. Mr. Klein votes no.
Mr. Jordan, Mr. Jordan vets now.
Mr. Mr. V. No.
Mr. Franklin talk votes no Clerk will report.
>> Mr. Chairman, there are 11 eyes and 11 nos.
>> Yeah, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
>> Who seeks recognition?
>> Gentleman from California.
>> Gentleman from California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
>> Clerk will report.
>> Point of order is reserved by the gentleman from Alabama.
>> Substitute to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Korea of California.
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the >> without objection. The amendment will be considered as read.
>> The gentleman from California is recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask a very simple question. Why take away workers, hard workers, law-abiding taxpayers from a workforce?
Why take workers away from small businesses? Wisconsin dairies, manufacturers, farmers, senior homes, homebuilders, hospitals, police officers.
Why take away proven workers?
The US Chamber of Commerce recently announced that their number one goal for our economy is 3% economic growth. Their number two goal for the US Chamber immigration reform. They could recognize the need for workers to get the 3% economic growth.
Home builders, US home builders, the number one goal is immigration reform.
They need a workers to build homes in this country. US manufacturers, the number one goal is immigration reform. Do you all remember that goal nearshoring from China? manufacturing in the US.
I would ask so instead of going after small businesses, workers, let's look at some modest immigration reform, DACA recipients, dreamers.
These are the immigrants we really need in this country. They know our culture because they've lived here all their lives. They either work or they're going to school and they follow the law.
Believe me, DACA recipients have to pass a very, very detailed background check before they're actually accepted as into the DACA program. And today, dreamers or DACA recipients, they pull at about 70% with Republicans and about 85% positive with American voters in general.
They're part of our workforce and again they have to pass a very extensive background check. My amendment, the American Dream and Promise Act, would essentially protect grant eligible dreamers conditional permanent residence for 10 years and cancel removal proceedings. Provide a pathway to citizenship for eligible dreamers by granting full lawful permanent residence or LPR status. provide individual temporary protective status or deferred enforcement department uh departure with lawful permanent residents.
They would protect our dreamers and individuals with TPS during your application for relief under American Dream and Province Act. This is the legislation we lead. Ladies and gentlemen, for most of the day, we've talked about criminals. We've talked about people that are unwelcome, that are not welcome in this country.
Dreamers today have to follow the law, have to be no criminal record, and be gatefully employed. This is what we need today in the United States, legal workers to relieve our need for workers in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
>> Gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order, Mr. Moore?
>> I do, Mr. Chairman. Uh >> the gentleman's excuse me one second >> the gentleman's correct uh the gentleman's amendment oh excuse me I'm sorry the gentleman explain as uh point of order >> uh gentleman would uh his amendment would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us and therefore violates rule 16 clause 7 and I yield back >> gentleman is correct the gentleman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purpose test and therefore is not gerine and is out of order. Who seeks recognition?
>> Gentle A from California is recognized.
>> I have an amendment at the desk.
>> Clerk report of order reserved by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9773.
>> Without objection, the amendment be considered as read. The gentle lady's recognized to explain the amendment.
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, uh, this amendment inserts the text of the Real Court's Rule of Law Act at the end of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as title seven of the bill. The Real Court's Rule of Law Act would transition the nation's immigration court system into an independent judiciary. Now, currently, immigration judges are appointed by the attorney general. They are employees of the Department of Justice and immigration judges may be directed to adjudicate course uh cases based on policies and priorities of the governing administration instead of the facts and the law that are before them in the court in the courtroom. That's exactly what's happened actually over the last year and a half. In 2025, the Trump administration fired almost 100 out of the 700 immigration judges nationwide with uh an I spokesperson targeting some as quote activist judges.
Now, this has caused chaos and dysfunction uh with the Board of Immigration Appeals backlog reaching an all-time high of nearly 220,000 cases at the end of last year. Uh, you know, it's interesting. The Department of Justice advertised positions for immigration judges as deportation judges, which really emphasize that they just want the judge to deport rather than to apply the law to the facts that are presented to them in their courts. I think this is a dark and [snorts] dangerous path for our court system to continue down. uh such influence and pressure from any res uh administration, Republican or Democratic, is not the right way to deal with justice. We need a new immigration court system that's separate from the Department of Justice that is defined by independence and integrity. I am glad that our to have our esteemed ranking member Rascin on this bill as well as Mr. Johnson and Mr. Goldman, the Federal Bar Association, and the American Bar Association have also endorsed this legislation. Uh, this is proposal I hope can create a more impartial system and reduce the case backlog that we're seeing across the country. I also wanted to say just one more word about the underlying bill, which I think doubles down on some of the most harmful policies we've seen from this administration.
They're policies that can be uh harmful and mean, that can be bad for our economy, and really, they're not popular with the American people. It should be noted that the latest Pew Research poll showed that 58% of Americans do not trust Trump on immigration. That's up 12 12% when he was elected. Um yet, uh my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be saying to the American people, "Too bad. We're going to codify this bad agenda into law anyway." you know, um, much has been said about the need, uh, for border control, and I agree. We had a situation that was disorderly and and needed attention at the border. I think the American people want an orderly, controlled system at the border, and I agree with them. But that's not the same as breaking families apart, uh, beating people up, killing Americans, uh, and turning away brilliant, highly skilled students and entrepreneurs when we need to attract the best and brightest minds in the world who want to come here and become Americans with us and help us succeed.
So, I think this bill is a big mistake.
It will harm our economy. Uh it will it is an opposition to the wishes of the American people. Adopting this amendment will at least go uh part way to uh establishing once again the rule of law in this system which is something that all of us should uh strive for. And with that uh Mr. Chairman I yield back.
>> Excuse me. Gentle lady yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
>> I do, Mr. Chair.
>> Yep.
>> The gentleman's recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the gentlewoman's amendment would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us and therefore violates House Rule 16, clause 7. I yield back.
>> Uh, gentleman yields back. The gentleman uh, the gentle lady's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter purpose test.
Therefore, is not germaine and is out of order. Who seeks recognition? Gentle lady from Washington is recognized.
>> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
>> Uh the clerk report >> point of order reserved by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
>> Amendment to the amendment.
>> On objection, the will be considered as read. The gentle lady from Washington is recognized to explain the amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment recognizes that family detention is just wrong and family separation is unacceptable. This amendment addresses both issues. It gets rid of the bill's mandatory indefinite family detention section, and it replaces it with language to prevent immigration and customs enforcement from detaining parents and primary caregivers unless it can show that the individual poses a specific risk to public safety that cannot be mitigated through a supervised release program. This would go a long way to addressing the harms of this section of the bill and ensure family unity. Trump campaigned on deporting the quote worst of the worst. But that is absolutely not what he's doing. Instead, he's cruy ripping apart families and detaining people of all statuses. On day one, President Trump brought back family detention. Let me be clear again. There is no humane way to detain children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has made it clear no amount of detention for children is safe. According to a recent analysis, since family detention was reinstarted, restarted last year, at least 500 babies and toddlers have spent time in ICE custody. The analysis also showed that ICE has dramatically increased detentions of children aged three and under. Between January 2025 and March of this year, ICE has been holding 25 children aged three and under in custody on average every single day.
When ICE is not detaining families, they are separating them. Since Trump was sworn into office, ICE has detained and deported thousands of parents, leaving many children, including US citizens, separated from their caregivers. In just the first seven months of President Trump's second term, at least 11,000 US citizen children had a parent detained.
Another report based on demographic data estimates that ICE detained the parents of more than 145,000 US citizen children since Donald Trump returned to office.
Reporting describes parents being taken from children as young as four months old. and teenagers are increasingly caring for younger siblings, struggling to balance their own futures with working to pay for increasingly costly essentials like rent and health care and groceries. In my home state of Washington, ICE arrested a mother in front of her child's preschool.
Similarly, in Oregon, agents arrested a father during morning drop off at his son's preschool. In Chicago, ICE arrested a single mother selling tamales, forcing her eldest daughter to step in and care for her youngest sibling. A Chicago born teenager fought for his parents' release while fighting terminal cancer. ICE released his parents one day before his death. In another case, a US citizen with a rare disease died after ICE detained his father and primary caretaker. ICE also detained a DACA recipient while he was on his way to the NICU to bring breast milk to his infant daughter who was born nearly six weeks premature. Perhaps the most one of the most horrific stories was that of Orland. Orland's mother, Wendy Hernandez Reyes, came into ICE custody earlier this year through a routine traffic stop. She told authorities that she was a single mother to her three-year-old son, Orland, and she begged to be released so that she could care for him. ICE ignored her please and detained her. When Wendy was ordered deported, she begged ICE once again to take her son with her to no avail. ICE once again ignored her. As a result of ISIS cruelty, Orland was left in the custody of an abusive uncle who abused him and eventually murdered him.
The autopsy showed that Orland had multiple broken bones, signs of sexual battery, had been stomped on, burned with a lighter, and suffered at least 17 blows to the head. That never should have happened and it would not have happened if ICE had simply never detained Wendy or separated her from her US citizen child. Last week, I introduced a bill, Oregon's law, to make sure no family ever experiences this cruelty. Consistent with my bill, my amendment would prevent ICE from detaining a parent unless it can show through clear and convincing evidence that detention is necessary to mitigate a public safety risk. In the event that a parent is detained, it actually requires ICE to restore and expand protections to ensure that parents can make arrangements for their child's care. If a parent is deported, it requires ICE to let the parent decide whether or not they leave with their child. Orland should be alive today.
Supporting this amendment would prevent another tragedy like Orland's death from happening. And for all the families I just talked about and so many more, it would stop Trump's cruel family separation. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and I yield back.
>> Yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
>> I remove my point of order.
>> Mr.'s point of order. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
>> Thank you, chairman. Um, I will oppose this amendment. This amendment is effectively uh the floor is extension and protection amendment. It would basically maintain the status quo. It would undo the very purpose of the provisions that we're putting in the legislation to fix what has been so wrong about uh policies in response or in following the uh Florida settlement um that that created such uh a difficult situation and problem uh and exploitation of of uh our border uh with respect to children and families. um you know uh it it seeks to strike um uh a provision that makes crystal clear that Congress intends this bill to satisfy the requirements of the revised Florida settlement agreement as it applies to accompanied minors and I would leave the status quo in place. Uh illegal aliens including cartel members buy and rent children to pose as family units. They can be released into the United States.
Um this uh provision eliminates those perverse incentives that we've got. Um uh I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and uh I mean the fact of the matter is if we're looking at the data um and you can see precisely what's been happening that under in 2025 and under the under the uh current administration seen a just complete falloff complete falloff because we've been putting in place the right policies and we want to codify those policies policies so we no longer have this perverse incentive in place. So with that, I would yield back. Mr. Chairman, >> question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Washington. All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
>> Vote being requested by the Democrats.
Clerk will call the role.
>> Mr. Jordan, >> no.
>> Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Mcccleintoch, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, >> no.
>> Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no. Miss Hagman, Miss Lee of Florida. Miss Leah, Florida votes no. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Kylie, Mr. Growthman, Mr. Growthman votes no.
Mr. Knot. Mr. Not votes no. Mr. Harris Mr. Harris votes no. Mr. Ander Mr. Schmidt Mr. Gil.
>> Mr. Gil votes no. Mr. Bombgardner Mr. Rascin >> I.
>> Mr. Raskin votes I. Mr. Nadler >> I.
>> Mr. Nadler votes I. Miss Laughrren >> I.
>> Miss Lafrren votes I. Mr. Cohen.
>> I.
>> Mr. Cohen votes I. Mr. Johnson I.
>> Mr. Johnson votes I. Mr. Blue, Miss Dipolaw, Miss Dry Paul votes I, Mr. Korea, Miss Scandlin, Mr. Nagus, Miss Mcbath, Miss Ross, Miss Balant, Miss Balant votes I, Mr. Garcia, Miss Camlager, Dove, Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Goldman votes I, Miss Crockett, Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania votes I.
Mr. Tiffany.
Mr. Sure. Tiffany votes no.
Clerk report.
>> Mr. Chairman, there are nine eyes and 10 nos. Uh, >> the amendment is not agreed to.
>> Question now.
>> Mr. Chairman, I've got an amendment at the desk.
>> You told me three. That's four.
>> We'll be out of here by 6:30. If you guys do the right thing, [laughter] we'll be out be out of here by 6:30 regardless of No, I'm I'm kidding. Uh, okay. The clerk will report.
>> Amendment to the amendment. Without >> objection. Be considered as read. point of order being reserved by the gentleman from Wisconsin. Uh the gentleman is recognized to explain the amendment.
>> All right. So obviously we've had some profound differences about the the body and the substance of this legislation.
You guys have uh defended family detention. You have rejected uh amends rehea knowing willfulness requirement which was something that I always admired the gentleman from Texas for supporting before. But um we think a lot of constitutional principles have been absolutely discarded and abandoned in the proc in the process. I would hope at least when it comes to the question of the title of the legislation, we could all be together in defending the 22nd amendment to the constitution which of course holds that no person can be elected more than twice to office. This was added in I think it was 1951 when it finally got added. And I don't think that we should send out any kind of confusing signal to the public by adding the words permanent Trump to a federal law. And a lot of the president's uh hardcore mega allies and supporters have been advancing the cause of Trump serving beyond the two-term constitutional limit. We've heard uh stuff like that from Andy Ogles. Uh I think we've heard it from Miriam Adlesen. Even Steve Bannon said that there was a plan, a strategic plan in place on this. And President Trump himself, of course, has repeatedly flirted with the idea in public. Um uh and this committee should not feed this dangerous fantasy that we will have any president serve permanently uh in violation of the 22nd amendment of the Constitution. The president has already lavished praise on dictators uh who've declared themselves uh in office for life. People like Kim Jong-un, uh President Xi, the president of the CCP and Vladimir Putin. Um all of these autocrats who plan to serve for life. Uh that's not how democracy works and that's not how American democracy works.
So please, let's not feed this fantasy.
Let's all agree just to remove those two words. it doesn't alter the substance of the bill and it and the new title will more accurately describe what you want to do in any event. And with that, I submit it to the wisdom and the conscience of the entire committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Uh the gentleman yields back. We'll now turn to the wisdom and conscience of the gentleman from Texas.
>> I thank the chairman. Um I I will only say this that what this reflects obviously HR2 uh which we passed in the last Congress predated the current administration but what the bill reflects and the reason for the title is the implementation of the policies that HR2 set to carry out we've seen in action.
In other words, we now have proof. we have evidence of the success despite my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggesting at the time that we were passing HR2 that uh you know the sky would fall and so forth and so forth and then saying that you know well Congress had to act remember we were dealing with the Langford bill out of the Senate remember it's like Congress had to act well we did need to act because we need to codify it make it permanent but what we've seen now is that these policies when they're enforced they actually work because we've We've seen the results. We've seen the reductions uh at the flow at the border. We've seen the impact of the uh you know getting new immigration judges through through the policies that we've adopted. We've seen the complete uh uh you know reduction of the increase of the number of the unaccompanied alien children that were being abused. We've been able to go track down children. Um all of it is moving in the right direction. fentanyl, all of the things have been reduced and improved because of the policies that the current administration has deployed. And I think credit where credit is due. The administration um Tom Hman, the the much maligned Steven Miller, the people that are making decisions about what we should do with respect to the border, um they have resulted in a um much better situation for migrants, for Texans, for Americans. uh for the people that were being negatively impacted. So with that um I would urge uh opposition to the amendment and I would yield back.
>> Jim yield the gentleman from North Carolina.
>> Mr. Roy, did I did I hear the ranking member say that he would support the bill if we agree to this amendment?
>> I think I heard something to that effect.
>> I would oppose it a little less vigorously. [laughter] Is that is that like strenuously object from uh a few good men? No. I yield back to the gentleman from or uh yeah I yield back to the chairman.
>> Gentleman yields back.
>> Move to strike the last word.
>> Gentle lady and then we'll go to the gentleman.
>> I yield to the ranking member.
>> Thank you, Miss Balon. Let me respond to my friend from Texas. Um okay. First of all, this is legislation as we've demonstrated repeatedly throughout the day that departs from Trump's policies um in significant ways. um and it's gone way to the right even of Donald Trump.
So, I don't know how fair that is. But in any event, assuming that you stuck 100% to uh cement into place what he wanted to do, you can't make it permanent because no Congress can bind another Congress. So, that's just misleading the young people of America to say that we could have uh a a permanent uh legislative uh fix that doesn't move. I mean, take even our most successful uh legislation.
Um, we've never named it like that after a permanent president. Um, we don't walk around talking about the permanent Franklin D. Roosevelt Social Security Act or the permanent Roosevelt Medicare Act or permanent Roosevelt Medicaid Act.
I'm not even sure now that wasn't during Roosevelt. Somebody will correct me when when that was uh adopted. But in any event, we don't have the permanent LBJ Voting Rights Act. And you know, we it's misleading to say that because the Voting Rights Act has been ravaged by a combination of right-wing mega attacks and the Roberts court. Nothing's permanent. We got to go out and fight for democracy and freedom every day, every week, every month, every year. And the legislation that we pass must stand the test of time. And so we're just feeding someone's ego, I'm afraid, when we say that we're going to call for the first time in American history, uh, a piece of legislation, uh, the permanent blank president Act. I mean, that just strikes me as bizarre and monarchical and totally anothetical to the spirit uh, of our own of our own country. And I I would not indulge anybody that fantasy. Although I did mention this to one Republican who said that um uh if you if you keep Permanent Trump in there, then it will guarantee that Speaker Johnson won't bring it to the floor because he's not going to want to submit uh the GOP caucus to the kind of uh criticism and humiliation that might follow from putting something like that on the floor. But really, I think we can all do without it. We could do it by voice vote if everybody agrees. Uh but if not, I'm going to insist on people voting either for permanent Trump or not for permanent Trump. Uh and Medicaid, by the way, was under President uh Lynden B. Johnson. So I I suppose we could move to amend it to say the the President Lyndon B. Johnson, president Lynden B.
Johnson Medicaid Act. Uh but I'm going to yield to the gentle lady from Vermont. Uh I really appreciate the comments uh from the ranking member and one of the themes that we've struggled with now for the last year and a half plus is that we have constant examples of the Republicans in Congress willingly giving up their article one powers to the president, continuing to bow to the executive instead of protecting the rights that we hold dear in Congress because we are the ones closest to the people. I think this is yet another example of my colleagues on the other side being willing to defer to bow down to give up their authority and their power to the executive and it makes me very uncomfortable and I yield back.
>> yields back. Mr. >> Chair, the gentleman from uh California is recognized. I just wanted to uh assure the ranking member that Donald Trump can of course serve a third term.
It only requires a constitutional amendment passed by twothirds of both houses and ratification by three4s of the states. Absent that, it's not going to happen. And I am concerned about the ranking members paranoia over a Trump third term. I think it's clearly overwhelmed his sense of reality. And Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent to submit an article entitled, "Is [snorts] Trump derangement syndrome real?" No therapist would render such a derogatory and partisan diagnosis, but I've seen it in my practice by Jonathan Alpbert, Wall Street Journal, November 12th, 2025.
>> Without objection, gentlemen is back.
The gentleman from New York, who I think introduced legislation on the first day of Congress to address the third term issue, if I remember correctly.
>> That's right. Actually, it was 2 days after he floated it to uh the Republican conference saying, of course, it was a joke only until me your colleagues actually introduced a resolution to to do it. Um I'm glad though we at least all agree that it requires a constitutional amendment. It's funny, Mr. Mr. McCling that you mentioned Trump derangement syndrome because I hear that a lot sent our way but imagine a scenario where let's say someone has a very successful career in uh outside of this body that perhaps uh they were let's see a federal prosecutor successful lawyer a judge [snorts] um I'm I don't know all of the backgrounds of of my colleagues, but really proven themselves. And they run for office and they win a seat into Congress.
And then they come to Congress and somehow someway they are convinced to bow down to worship the president of the United States.
Let's just say forget about the president, just another person. And that when the president says he wants to create something called Trump accounts, you all think that's a great idea. Or the Trump gold card. Fantastic. You know what? Let's support the Ark Dump.
That is Trump derangement syndrome. this narcissist who insists on naming absolutely everything after himself.
He's now even signing currency. And none of you will stand up and say the obvious, which is it's absurd. It's absurd that someone is so insecure that he needs to have his name put on everything. But what's even more deranged is that you all go along with it.
Why do you need Trump's name on this bill? Mr. Roy, you're the sponsor of it.
You're not even going to be here. You and I, we're going to go out and we're going to start a law practice together or something. But you don't need to kiss his ass anymore.
What is the point of putting Permanent Trump on this bill?
I I could have used that clip in my primary. [laughter] In any event, let's stop talking about Trump derangement syndrome and throwing it our way because it's pathetic and humiliating and embarrassing that such accomplished people need to swallow all of their integrity and bow down to another individual uh whoever that individual may be. I yield back.
>> The gentleman yield.
>> Yes. I I want to thank the very distinguished gentleman from New York for his uh characteristically eloquent and cogent remarks. And we're another person in this committee we're going to be missing a lot next year, Mr. Goldman.
Uh and I thank you for having the foresight to introduce legislation about this on the second day of Congress. I had forgotten that you had done that.
But of course, everybody knows it's not Trump derangement syndrome that's a real thing. It's deranged Trump syndrome which is a real thing which is a president uh who wants Dallasos airport named after him and one of our Republican colleagues advanced that another am I over >> No we should >> Oh you just want to be nicer to the president. Okay. I don't think he's watching right now. All right.
>> He's the gentleman knows he's the president of our great country. And there's a there's ways that the president should not be spoken about.
You guys know that. But never >> some people want him on the $20 bill.
Some people want him on the $100 bill. I want him on the 11 trillion bill because that's how much he's added to the national debt. And I think we should we should make him his own deal. We've got legislation today to add him to Mount Rushmore, rename Palm Beach Airport, give him the Nobel Prize, uh congressional gold medal, make his birthday a federal holiday, $250 bill, and so on. Um look, let's not play into that. We're the House Judiciary Committee. Come on. We don't have to name our legislation after President Trump. If it stands on its own two feet, it stands on its own two feet. And I agree with uh the gentle lady from Vermont who says that it's an insult and a front. It's a it's almost an a demonstration of a lack of self-respect to say that we've got to hinge this to Donald Trump. If you believe in the stuff that's in there, then stand by the stuff that's in there. But we are the lawmaking branch. The president's job is only to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and that's what the president should be spending his time on. And if he's watching, nothing personal. Mr. president.
>> And I would just add before we uh end this and and vote on it that the president could have enough confidence to actually allow other people to call this bill or other bills something named after him just like Barack Obama did with Obamacare, which was not the official name, but that's the kind of leadership we're looking for.
>> Yields back.
>> Gentleman yields back. Question occurs from California is recognized for UC request.
>> Gentleman from California for a UC request.
>> Mr. Chairman, yes. Unanimous consent to enter the following into the record.
>> First article, Republican farmer relies on immigrant work. Seizes party erasing it. New York Times, March 27th, 2026.
>> Objection.
>> Second. In red states, anti-immigrant bills are failing as businesses push back. Washington Post, April 19th of this year. Without >> objection. Third article. Trump immigration officials seek to amend freight ties with businesses as arrest spike. Washington Post, July 19th of this year. Without >> objection.
>> Immigration reform is key to building a skilled workforce. National Association of Homebuilders, November of 2025.
>> And then business groups quietly push back on Trump's immigration rates exus March 2nd, 2025.
>> Objection.
>> Thank you. Question >> question occurs on the amendment offered by the >> gentleman from Maryland.
>> Gentleman from Maryland.
>> All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed? No. No. Opinion of the chair. The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
>> Recorded vote. Please, Mr. Chair.
>> Recorded vote has been asked. Uh the for the clerk will call the role.
>> Mr. Jordan.
>> No.
>> Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Isa, Mr. Bigs, Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes no. Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Tiffany votes no.
Mr. Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, >> Mr. Roy votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Klein, >> no.
>> Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Gooden, Mr. Van Drew, >> no.
>> Mr. Vandrew votes no. Mr. Nells, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore votes no. Miss Hagamman.
>> Miss Le of Florida.
>> Miss Lee of Florida votes no. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Kylie, >> Mr. Kylie votes I. Mr. Growthman, Mr. Not Mr. Not votes no Mr. Harris Mr. Harris votes no Mr. Ander Mr. Schmidt >> Mr. Schmidt votes no Mr. Gil Mr. Bombgardner Mr. Raskin >> I >> Mr. Raskin votes I Mr. Nadler >> I >> Mr. Nadler votes I miss Lofrren >> Miss Lofrren >> Miss Lrren votes yes Mr. Cohen.
>> Mr. Cohen.
>> I can't believe they named such an insignificant bill for Trump. It should be a big bill for Trump, not just an insignificant bill. This is an embarrassment.
>> Yes or no?
>> Yes or no? That's a difficult question, too. I'll [clears throat] say yes.
>> Mr. Cohen votes yes. Mr. Johnson.
>> Mr. Johnson votes yes. Mr. Lou. Miss Dryal, Miss Dryal votes I. Mr. Korea, Mr. Ka votes I. Miss Scandan, Miss Scandlin votes I. Mr. Necus, Miss Mcbath, Miss McBth votes I. Miss Ross, Miss Ballot, Miss Balent votes I. Mr. Garcia, Miss Camager, Dove, Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, >> Mr. Goldman votes I. Miss Crockett, Miss Lee of Pennsylvania. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania votes I.
>> Mr. Gill, you're not recorded.
>> Mr. Go vets now. Is there good in votes now report >> Mr. Garcia, you're not recorded. Mr. Garcia votes I Mr. Fitzgerald.
>> Mr. >> Mr. Fitzgerald votes no.
>> Demand a recount. Mr. Chairman, >> clerk will report. Mr. [clears throat] >> Chairman, there are 14 eyes and 14 nos.
>> The amendment is not agreed to.
Question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment. No, we got to go here. Question reporting the bill is amended. Right.
>> Question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
This will be followed immediately by a vote. All in favor reporting the bill.
All those in favor say I.
>> Those opposed no.
>> No.
>> Depending the chair, the eyes have it.
>> And the amendment nature of substitute is adopted. And the amendment nature of substitute is adopted.
>> Question is on favor.
>> Question is on favor reporting the bill.
>> Roll call.
>> Let me see. I thought uh all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. No.
>> No.
>> Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it in the amendment.
>> We' like to request a roll call vote.
Mr. Chair.
>> Uh roll call being requested. The clerk call the role.
>> Mr. Jordan. Yes, >> Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Mcccleintoch, >> Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany, >> Mr. Tiffany votes I. Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, >> I.
>> Mr. Roy votes I. Mr. Fitzgerald.
>> Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr. Klein.
>> Mr. Klein votes I. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Vandrew.
>> Mr. Vandrew votes yes. Mr. Nells. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes I. Miss Haggamman, Miss Lee of Florida, Miss Lee of Florida votes I. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Kylie, >> Mr. Kylie votes I. Mr. Growthman, >> I >> Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Knot, Mr. Not votes I. Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris votes I.
Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt.
>> Mr. Schmidt votes I. Mr. Gil, >> yes.
>> Mr. Gil votes yes. Mr. Bombgardner, Mr. Rascin, >> no.
>> Mr. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler, >> no.
>> Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Laughrren, Miss Laughing votes no. Mr. Cohen, >> Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Lou, Miss Dryal, Miss Dryal votes no. Mr. McCra, Mr. Ka votes no. Miss Scandlin, Miss Ganlin votes no. Mr. Nagus, Miss McBath, Miss McBth votes no. Miss Ross, Miss Ballot, Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Garcia votes no. Miss Camager Dove, Mr. Mosquitz, Mr. Goldman, >> no.
>> Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett.
Miss Crockett votes no. Miss Lee of Pennsylvania.
>> Miss Lee of Pennsylvania votes no.
Clerk report. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 eyes and 14 nos. Uh the eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorable to the house. Members will have two days to submit views.
Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
gentleman from California wish to be recognized.
>> Uh yes, Mr. Chair. Um I uh was happy to support this measure today to advance it to the floor. I think it's a uh return to common sense border security policies that have had broad bipartisan support uh for a very long time. this last administration was really an anomaly in this respect and this is a bill that will assure that such an anomaly uh does not happen again. That being said, I am very concerned about the impact it might have on a particular community uh and that is uh Ukrainian Americans, many of whom uh live in the Sacramento area uh which I represent. And so, uh, before this bill comes to the four, uh, I'm going to want to make sure that that issue is addressed, uh, that we assure that this legislation will not negatively impact their status, their ability to work, uh, and that, uh, these are folks who are contributing to our communities, uh, to our economy, uh, in countless ways, who came here legally, whether you agree or disagree with how that was done uh, in the past. And so I want to see that we do everything we can to uh end the legal state of limbo uh that they're in right now and that we certainly don't make it worse uh with this legislation. So that I yield back.
>> Gentleman yields back. This concludes the committee's business for the uh today's meeting. The meeting is adjourned.
Related Videos
4:12
Political Science
COP27- Jagan Chapagain, Secretary General of the IFRC
AfDBGroup
104 views•2022-11-10
5:08
Political Science
The ABC spends a day on the campaign trail with WA Opposition leader Shane Love | ABC News
abcnewsaustralia
2K views•2025-02-24
10:10
Political Science
S. Jaishankar Says India Facing Challenges of Terrorism Amid Rising Security Concerns
newsxlive
678 views•2025-05-09
1:00:00
Political Science
Mayor addresses decrease in violent crime in 2024
WMAR2news
237 views•2025-01-07
1:45:09
Political Science
Strengthening Human Rights Through Youth Engagement
NationalEndowmentforDemocracy
306 views•2019-12-10
0:56
Political Science
Jeremy Corbyn speaking at event organised by the independent group of Bradford
Overseastimesnews
286 views•2026-04-22
23:06
Political Science
LIVE: Trump to Non-Citizens, "Register in 30 Days or Get Deported" | Firstpost America | N18G
Firstpost
3K views•2025-04-14
25:16
Political Science
Day 809 - Saudi prince tells ToI Israel needs to start being 'normal'
TimesofIsrael
4K views•2025-12-23
Trending
13:38
Law
WOW! Judge TURNS THE TABLES on Trump in His OWN $10B LAWSUIT!!!
MeidasTouch
197K views•2026-07-23
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23