Acting Attorney General Pam Bondi and ATF Director Rob Sicata unveil a 34-rule package to modernize firearms regulations, clarifying the "Stabilizing Brace Rule" and updating Form 4473 for electronic records. While Democrats like Chuck Schumer condemn these moves alongside partisan redistricting and election rigging attempts, Republicans led by Speaker Mike Johnson counter that Biden-era inflation averaged 5% versus Trump's 2.7%, citing a $70 billion DHS funding bill to combat sanctuary cities and alleged ICE abuses. The debate exposes deep fissures over immigration enforcement, with Democrats accusing the GOP of prioritizing a "lawless deportation machine" over essential services like healthcare and pre-kindergarten amidst soaring gas prices. Ultimately, this legislative clash underscores irreconcilable partisan divides regarding constitutional rights, economic policy, and the scope of federal power in an era of heightened political polarization. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
Modernizing Gun Forms00:09:07
Many of whom are in this room behind me, to legal experts, and most importantly, to law-abiding gun owners across this country, people who follow the rules but have been forced to navigate a system that often didn't make sense.
The package that we're putting forward today and over the coming days reflects all of those voices.
It includes 34 proposed rules, more than ATF has issued in the last 15 years combined.
It reflects months of work since the beginning of this administration, and I want to be candid right now about why this is necessary.
For too long, regulations were written without any real understanding of how firearms businesses operate, how lawful gun owners actually handle their firearms, or what truly improves public safety.
Nothing we are doing today weakens law enforcement.
We are not taking tools away from the people, the men and women who go after violent criminals.
This administration, as it always has, remains fully committed to targeting those who break the law.
Gang members, repeat offenders, traffickers, and cartels.
We will, as we always have done, continue to follow the evidence, continue to aggressively prosecute violent crime.
If anything, what we're doing today will actually help law enforcement.
Because clearer rules mean better compliance, and better compliance means better enforcement.
At the same time, it means fewer traps for law-abiding citizens who are just trying to do the right thing.
This package also brings into line ATF regulations with the law and with recent Supreme Court precedent.
It reduces unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and licensed businesses.
It eliminates ambiguity and it helps prevent the kind of confusion that in the past, and not that distant past, led to inconsistent and sometimes unfair enforcement.
I'm going to let Rob lay out the specifics of what we're doing in a moment, but let me reiterate that the Second Amendment will never be treated as a second-class right in the Trump administration.
President Trump has been clear on this from day one.
The Second Amendment is not negotiable.
It is part of the foundation of this great country.
And under his leadership, this administration, this Justice Department is acting on that belief.
I want to make sure folks understand that the work that we're talking about today is not finished today.
We're continuing to review every regulation, especially those from the previous administration, and we'll keep putting forward additional proposals as that review continues.
For example, ATF is studying right now to determine which rifles are generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.
That's going to be an ongoing effort over the next several months, and we're going to see that through.
But, okay, so let's get what we're here to do.
I'm going to close by saying that, and I hope folks in this room know that this is absolutely true.
Rob is exactly the right person to lead ATF at this moment.
First, he owns more guns than I think pretty much anyone I know.
He's one heck of a shot.
I've seen him at the range.
I've shot with him at the range.
He's a lot better than me.
But more importantly, he understands this work inside and out.
He understands the mission, and he understands the importance of getting it right.
So welcome, please, to the microphone, the newly confirmed director of the ATF, Rob Sicata.
Good afternoon.
Thank you again to President Trump, the Acting Attorney General, and DOJ for their leadership and partnership.
Today is a great day for ATF, DOJ, and a great day for lawful gun owners and federal firearms licensees, and a great day for all of America.
While I'm proud to be one to represent ATF today, this moment is not about me or any one individual.
Credit for today goes to the entirety of DOJ and ATF teams, their regulatory teams, legal teams, administrative and operational staff.
It is because of their collective efforts over the last year that a day like today came together with 34 new proposals.
Let me put that number into perspective.
I've been with ATF for over 20 years.
I've never seen a regulatory package of this scale.
In fact, we are going to be signing just about as many rules as have been proposed during my entire 20 years with this agency.
It was an immense amount of work, and I believe it's moving the agency in the right direction.
Again, my sincere thanks go to ATF and our DOJ teams for putting this package together.
How did we get here?
At the outset of this administration, we committed to a new era of reform grounded in transparency, accountability, and partnership.
What you see today is that promise being kept.
Over the last year, we undertook a serious, sustained review, looking at court decisions, license feedback, statutory text.
We reviewed our forms and our requirements.
We spoke with stakeholders.
We worked closely with the DOJ leadership team, and we identified those regulations that needed reform.
In my time with ATF, I have seen how regulation creep can come in like a fog, creating vague and shifting tests and subjective interpretations that lead to inconsistent enforcement practices and ultimately an erosion of public trust.
Today we are clearing the fog, restoring clarity, consistency, and predictability for all Americans.
In today's package, you will see 34 clear common sense regulations that rescind, modernize, or clarify language within the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, and more.
We are proposing to remove unnecessary hurdles that were standing in the way of law-abiding citizens and businesses.
We are proposing to restore clarity and predictability in our standards.
We are beginning responsive to court orders that our constituents needed for clear, decisive instruction so action can be taken to rescind what didn't work.
As a personal remark, I'd be remiss if I didn't add here that we did and always will take public safety into account when creating proposals.
I've been a law enforcement officer for over 34 years, and I believe me when I tell you that I take public safety seriously, and I would never let the public be at risk based on the regulations that we are proposing today.
ATF remains the greatest friend to state and local law enforcement officers, and we believe that these rules will not negatively impact public safety.
With that, here are some key highlights.
The Stabilizing Brace Rule, which came into effect in 2023.
That rule formally we are proposing to rescind.
There are courts in multiple jurisdictions which we found violated the APA.
They were enjoined or vacated across the country.
We believe that the common sense approach to align regulatory text with those judicial determinations rather than keeping them on the books as regulations would have already been thrown out.
Engage in the business, which came into effect in 2024.
We are also formally proposing to rescind the Engage in the Business rule.
We believe that the responsible regulatory governance requires adjusting the course when evidence shows a rule has not worked as intended.
The ATF has found the changes to the definition of who was engaged in business have not produced the outcomes needed to justify keeping the rule.
As you'll see, today's proposed rule retains the definition of the engage in the business as specifically revised and codified by Congress.
No more, no less.
We are also formally proposing modernizing our forms.
One proposal is to update the Form 4473 to ensure it keeps pace with modern business practices, like authorizing the use of electronic forms, functions like auto-population of fields, and allowing people to attach digital files as attachments.
We also make minor technical revisions to shorten the form, thereby reducing the administrative burden on both the FFLs and transferees.
Another proposal related to the forms is to allow FFLs to generate and store its records, including its AND books, records, and all 4473s using an electronic record-keeping system.
This codifies a practice that the industry has used through a variance for years and has been demonstrated to work very well.
We also believe it supports law enforcement by allowing FFLs to more easily respond to legitimate law enforcement trace requests when asked.
Clarifying Federal Regulations00:02:59
In our next steps, there are many more proposals in the package that will follow this rule package.
Some of them are simple language clarifications, others are much more comprehensive.
I believe we will talk about them in broad strokes when we sign, but considering how many there are, we simply don't have time to go through them in detail now.
Our plan is to hold over the next few weeks some stakeholder briefings, which we will meet with you in smaller, more focused groups and dive deep into the regulations that will affect each of you the most.
I'll do my best to be at each of these meetings, but today, more importantly, here with me today is Chief Counsel Robert Leiter, who's probably going to be the most helpful to you in those briefings.
He's a legal scholar on the Second Amendment, a professor, and has been instrumental during his time as Chief Counsel at getting us to this point.
I can assure you that he can handle all of your technical questions.
I really appreciate you all being here.
I thank you.
Thank Robert, I thank you for ensuring our stakeholder groups get the information that they need.
For now, moving forward, the proposed and final rules in this regulatory package are going to be sent over to the Federal Register, where they will be published in short order.
In the interim, we do have summaries of the proposals on our website, and as soon as they are published in the Federal Register, we will have links to where you can submit your public comments.
Finally, as Acting Attorney General Blanche shared, our work is not done.
While we are proud of our work that has been done in getting us to this point, this isn't over.
The next step will be an open comment period where we invite input on our proposed changes from our industry stakeholders, law enforcement agencies, advocacy groups, and the general public.
After today's event, please visit our website, ATF.gov, to find out more about the proposals we are signing and sending over to the Federal Register to be published.
There you will find information on how to submit comments via regulations.gov.
And as Acting Attorney General Blanche shared today is just the first package of proposals to be released, we will work closely with the Department of Justice to continue to review our rules and ensure they are modernized to reflect current practices, to adhere to court rulings, and ultimately to reduce unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens and businesses.
With that, let's get started with signing.
All right, the first group of regulations repeals regulations that are inconsistent with law, including the Engage in the Business Rule and the stabilizing brace rule, as you mentioned.
All right.
Aligning ATF Rules With Law00:04:04
Second group is clarifying regulations that are clarifying.
So these are going to clarify, for example, who is adjudicated for purposes of the mental disability to prevent the disarming of veterans.
It is also going to define who constitutes a straw purchaser and will clarify also how to certain markings for the National Firearms Act.
And among the most important rules, we'll clarify what willfulness means for the purposes of the Gun Control Act and revocation of federal firearms licenses.
Thank you.
All right.
This group of regulations will modernize the current regulations.
So it includes a new 4473, which is the firearms transaction form, which will be simpler and less apt of making the kinds of paperwork errors that resulted in the zero tolerance policies of the prior administration.
It also authorizes electronic record keeping, and it revises the firearm record retention period from forever to a defined term of years that will be determined through notice and comment, including for the out-of-business records that are currently held by ATF forever.
That will be reduced to a specified time period as well.
All right, the next group of regulations will align ATF regulations with the law.
It includes how to new provisions that are simpler for interstate transport of National Firearms Act firearms.
It also includes some conforming changes in how we process National Firearms Act limitations.
And it implements the one big beautiful bill act regarding the tax remittance.
All right.
And the final group of regulations reduces burdens on law-abiding gun owners.
This includes, for example, clarifying how gun owners may transport their firearms interstate, particularly when they're going between modes of transportation, such as vehicles to airplanes.
It also has a host of other simplifications for the processing of forms under the National Firearms Act.
It also recognizes the ability, for example, of spouses to jointly register firearms that they may be in joint possession of.
All right.
Thanks a lot, Rob, and thanks to our newly confirmed director of the ATF.
I'd like, so I'm happy to take some questions.
I want to, I know there's a lot going on.
I want to try to keep the questions at least primarily to the reason why we're here today, so the ATF regulations or the recent confirmation of the director of ATF, but we're happy to take some questions.
Go ahead.
Balancing Safety And Rights00:09:49
The laws are very popular, but can you just speak up just a little bit?
The acoustics are not great.
E-boll acts are very popular with drug organizations, but at the same time, it is still important that anyone who will control the regulations in marijuana or those in the other nonviolent drug commissions.
Is addressing the burning with you considering at all how vulnerabilities are non-regulated?
Yes, of course we are.
So we've been doing that for a year and two months.
Every case is different.
The facts leading up to where we are in a litigation is different, whether we're at the district court level, whether we're at the Court of Appeals, the basis for the district court's decision.
And so we don't, it's not rational or it's not possible for us to just unwind on a given Monday.
We just recently got out of a case two weeks ago that had been pending for a long time.
And so I think that we've recently argued some cases in front of the Supreme Court.
We've had some cases in the Court of Appeals.
And this is something that we're looking carefully at case by case to make sure that we are doing the right thing consistent with the Constitution, consistent with the Second Amendment, consistent with this administration's priorities.
And so yes, it's not as smooth as a single day, but it's also not as clunky as taking forever.
So I understand that there is a shocker leaks around that, but I'm not going to get ahead of the work of the law enforcement.
It would not surprise me if it turns out that our Secret Service agent was shot by the individual who's currently been charged with that crime.
But that is something that would be wildly inappropriate for me to comment on beyond saying just that, just because when we know something, I'm sure that we will let the folks know.
But I just want to get that right instead of speculate.
Alex?
I thought we'd go to Rob.
Sorry, which Rob?
Scott?
Okay.
I was deferring to him immediately.
Sorry.
Thank you, sir.
I guess my question is, a lot of Second Amendment advocates have negotiated the lives regular agencies.
Many of them also push control abolishing of the ATF.
I guess as you take on this role, what is your best defense of ATF being business and that'll happen?
Sure.
I won't speak for all of them, but I think we have a very good relationship despite what may go on publicly.
We all have to be, I guess, part of a show publicly at times.
But I will say that we've all been able to have very good discussions about what their concerns are as to what our concerns are relating to public safety and maintaining a balance without actually using public safety as a crutch to use as an excuse to infringe on someone who is a law-abiding American citizen and us infringing on their Second Amendment rights.
I think ATF has historically, and I can say for sure over the past year and a half, under this administration in particular, we've been 1,000% focused on violent criminals and looking to hold people accountable for crimes they commit using firearms illegally or crimes that involve arson or explosives.
And we will continue doing that.
So, sort of related to Second Amendment at a First Amendment question, obviously, in highlighting indictments, I'm going to just government decision that anybody who posts the numbers 8647 is subject to potential investigation and 10 criminal rights.
Look, every case is different.
Every threats case is different.
And so that means that there can, what does that mean?
That means that the nature of the threat, the person who makes the threat, and then the investigation around the threat.
And so you cannot, it would be ill-advised for anybody to compare a particular statement to another statement that appears similar when there's been a thorough investigation.
Nobody in this room has any idea what happened during a grand jury investigation between May 15th and yesterday.
And so that's reflective of the work that the FBI, the Secret Service, U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of North Carolina did.
And so it's, I mean, you know that every time that's posted, that that number is posted, you know that every time there is a threat against the president, it doesn't necessarily lead to an indictment.
It depends.
It depends on the investigation.
It depends on all kinds of factors.
And so it's not, people should be very wary of threatening the life of President Trump because that is a crime.
Full stop.
Okay?
Now, whether it's a crime that we will ultimately charge, depending on, you know, you mentioned the First Amendment, sure.
Or other cases or other investigative steps or things that we learn or things that we uncover from talking to witnesses, reviewing evidence.
So on the one hand, the fact that people are questioning why we would be, you know, there should be no doubt you cannot threaten the life of the President of the United States.
Can't do it.
Okay.
And so beyond that, I'm not going to comment.
We've had an indictment returned by a grand jury in North Carolina.
I think my understanding is Mr. Comey appeared in court in Virginia today.
I'm not sure the schedule will be on that.
I haven't caught up to folks about that.
But he will be given every single right, every single opportunity to defend his case in court.
And the U.S. Attorney's Office should be given every single right to do exactly what they have a right to do as well.
Other questions?
Yep, ma'am.
I know some Republicans have supported some of these, the Republicans in the Senate have supported some of these regulations that you are now abolishing.
Was there any fear that these regulations would hurt Mr. Sinclair's chances of getting it confirmed?
And maybe can you talk about what types of discussions we had about with these regulations with members of the Senate that had some Republicans?
No.
The timing, I said this in the beginning.
I wasn't making it up.
It's largely coincidental.
I mean, we scheduled this a couple weeks ago once we were ready to roll out the regulations.
I had hoped that the map would line up so that there could be a signed commission today.
It turns out not only is there not a signed commission, but he was confirmed literally moments before we walked out.
That's welcome to Washington.
But as far as, yes, we have, yes, of course we talk to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, people who are for these regulations, people who are against these regulations.
That's our job.
And what we are trying to do, and what I think what Rob Leiter did, what the ATF did working with the Department of Justice, is to bring these regulations into a place where they need to be, whether it's compliance with the Supreme Court, compliance with the law, catching up to modernization.
I mean, you had situations where you heard us talk about it in big terms, like we're just allowing for the filing of electronic forms.
Shouldn't shock anybody in this room.
Okay, so there's things like that.
And then there's more, there's ones that are maybe considered more controversial.
Okay.
I mean, President Trump, this administration, this newly confirmed director of the ATF views the Second Amendment as nothing other than one of the most important amendments in our Constitution.
It's not a second-class amendment.
And so the regulations that we're adjusting today reflect the policies of President Trump, but they happen to be the policies of the Department of Justice and the ATF as well.
Obviously, the Biden administration tried a number of rules and today along the factory electronic court by the farm.
So I've heard the problems version.
How confident are you that these very important rules are going to hold up to the street?
You mean whether I have optimism that they're going to survive scrutiny in the courts?
That's the question.
I mean, look, I went and found the smartest guy in the country who clerked for Justice Thomas and asked him to make sure that we put together regs that are not only consistent with the Second Amendment and our priorities, but also going to hold up in court.
I'm confident.
I think there's a lot of litigation that's ongoing.
The Supreme Court has a couple cases pending right now that we'll get before the end of the end of this term.
There's a lot of folks behind me that will let us know if we're doing something wrong or if we're doing something right.
There's a lot of folks out there, advocacy groups, that'll do the same thing, and we'll just go from there.
All right, I'll just take one more question.
Thank you for telling me about the Justice Man.
I appreciate that.
Obviously, how confident are you that EPHP cases will be will ultimately anything that is there?
If there's a prosecutor in this country that speaks about what a jury will do, they are not living up to their oaths.
I know that a grand jury returned a two-count indictment.
I know that this case was investigated for the past year.
I do not know what a jury of his peers will do at a trial that will come At some point in the future.
All right.
Thanks a lot, guys.
Ramping Election Integrity Efforts00:04:58
And here on the House floor, this five-minute vote coming up on 50 minutes now.
As Politico reports on X, the budget resolution is in big trouble on the floor.
Midwest Republicans are upset about ethanol for gasoline being decoupled from the farm bill and still haven't voted.
Some mad at Speaker Johnson, who's been on and off the floor looking for the quote E15 guys.
Minnesota's Michelle Fischbach is one of those who helped secure the deal.
She had a heated conversation with the speaker on the floor and some hardliners, including Chip Roy of Texas, are quote livid at Speaker Johnson, saying he went back on their agreement to delay the ethanol blend and the farm bill, which the House is supposed to work on this evening and into tomorrow.
Just some of the background on what's happening with this current vote stalled on the floor from reporter Meredith Lee Hill.
While the vote continues to be held open, we'll turn to remarks by Democrats from earlier today on voting rights after the Supreme Court ruled on using race when drawing congressional district maps.
Okay.
Good afternoon, everybody, and I am proud to be joined by my colleagues who you'll hear from shortly.
Look, we have known the danger we face in our elections.
Donald Trump and the Republicans realize that if the election were held fairly, that the likelihood is that they would lose and we would win, that we would take back the House, take back the Senate.
So they're doing all kinds of nefarious things, some of them legal, some of them not so legal, to try and overturn a fair result in an election.
We're looking at things, we're looking at what we do before Election Day, what we do on Election Day, what we do after Election Day.
And today we're ramping up our efforts.
We see the need for it just today in today's Supreme Court decision, which was a despicable decision that is a return to Jim Crow, taking decades of hard work, sweat, blood, and tears, and even people dying for the right to vote, to prevent racial discrimination in the right to vote.
We see what they're doing in the SAVE Act, which would disenfranchise 20 million people.
And we are fighting that every step of the way.
And as I said, today we're ramping up our efforts.
And what are we doing?
We are joining with forces, with outside groups that have been working on this as well.
And the outside groups that are the people who will be joining us at our meeting are Eric Holder of the NDRC, Mark Elias of the Elias Law Group, Wendy Wieser of the Brennan Center, Vinita Gupta of NYU Law, Justin DeVale of Protect Democracy, and Jodi Morse of Democracy Forward.
We are looking at election threats, threats to integrity of our election and our election process up and down the line.
We're looking at election administration threats.
We're looking at the kind of bad play and horrible things that could come out of DOJ and DHS.
We are looking at attacks on free speech in the independent media.
We are looking at foreign threats.
We are looking at militarization of law enforcement and corruption.
We are looking at militarization of law enforcement.
We're looking at corruption and we're looking at populization.
But we're not just looking at it.
We are going to be immersed in making sure that in any of these areas, the right to vote, the fairness and integrity of our elections is protected.
And so we're ramping things up by dealing with these groups in our sort of task force on election integrity and protecting elections and the right to vote and the freedom and fairness of the country.
We are here.
Myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murphy, Senator Padilla, Senator Rochester, also part of our group who might be attending are Senator Whitehouse and Schiff and people who are part of our group but can't make it because of scheduling problems are Senators Warner, Sanders, and Warnock.
With that, let me call on Senator Durbin.
Thank you, Chuck.
It happened again today.
We had a hearing of the Judiciary Committee.
Four Trump nominees came before us, all of them, of course, lawyers, licensed to practice laws, some of them even judges.
We asked him questions, which is routine, but there's one question they just can't handle.
Protecting The Right To Vote00:12:46
Who won the election in 2020?
They completely dissemble when you asked him the basic question that every eighth grader in America can answer.
Joe Biden won that election, and he beat Donald Trump.
The reason these nominees, Trump nominees, can't answer that question is because Trump is watching.
He's watching.
And he believes, in his warped view and his big lie, that he actually won that election.
And these judges, federal judges for life, have to play along or they get their nominations yanked.
That's the reality of the Trump White House when it comes to voting and elections.
He's living in a fantasy land which believes that he never loses anything, let alone an election for president.
Well, that's why we're meeting here, because we're fearful of what this means for the next election cycle.
Come November, the American people have a chance to exercise the most precious right of an American citizen, the right to vote in a free, honest, Democratic election.
But the attack is underway.
We saw it with the SAVE Act.
What the Republicans and Trump are proposing is to require Americans to re-register to vote and to challenge each and every one of us in our right to vote.
You say to yourself, well, what has happened that led to this?
What could possibly be?
How many people are actually voting illegally in the United States?
Well, we did a very careful survey.
In a 20-year period of time, millions of people registered, multi-millions voted, and there were 77 questioned in the entire United States in a 20-year period of time.
77 voters out of the millions of votes cast.
And you ask yourself, well, if it's only 77, what's the problem?
It gets back to something I learned in politics a long time ago.
When it comes to political issues, there's usually a good reason and a real reason.
The good reason given by the Republicans, we want an honest election.
The real reason, they're scared to death of the November election.
They want to do everything they can to stop Americans from voting, to discourage them and challenge them.
That's why we're coming together.
The right to vote is worth fighting for.
People have fought for it, died for it, and shed blood for it.
We know that this attack is underway, and we're going to be ready for it.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell.
Thank you, Leader Schumer.
Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy, so I'm glad to join Senator Schumer's task force on elections to make sure that this year we fight in the United States of America to preserve that right.
This is a serious issue, as we know, because of the SAVE Act, because we know that our colleagues misunderstand how vote by mail works today and why it's secure and increases turnout in America, and instead are trying to suppress the vote.
We know this, that civil rights and civil liberties are under attack.
I didn't think, as somebody who grew up in the 60s, that that's what we'd be fighting for in 2026, but that is exactly what we are fighting for, our civil rights and civil liberties.
Just like in Minnesota, when they wanted the right to express themselves, now we are fighting to just have a fair process so we can cast our vote in the next election.
So this task force is going to up our efforts to make sure that Americans keep that civil liberty and civil right.
And we are disappointed that the Supreme Court decision has raised the standard on having to prove discrimination in a redistricting case and created an erosion of the Civil Rights Act.
Our colleagues should speak up.
Either they believe in defending our Constitution on these civil liberties and defend our right to vote in free and fair elections, or they are going to continue to cower and create an erosion of those civil liberties.
Now is the time for this task force and all Americans to join us.
All Americans join us in making sure your voice is heard and counted in a fair process.
Senator Murphy.
Everyone listened to Donald Trump tell the Georgia Secretary of State that he just needed him to find him 11,000 votes.
Everybody watched on January 6th as Donald Trump sent his supporters to the Capitol to violently attack us to try to interrupt the certification of Joe Biden's victory.
Donald Trump doesn't think he did too much in 2020 to steal the election.
He thinks he did too little.
And so that's why you are seeing already a comprehensive effort to try to rig and steal the fall election.
This is going to be a comprehensive effort from the president.
It's happening in the courts.
It's happening at the Department of Justice.
It's happening even at the FCC, where he is trying to shut down dissent on the airwaves.
And so our approach has to be comprehensive as well.
So I'm very glad to be joining together with my colleagues to make sure that we are setting up that comprehensive system of defense to make sure that the will of the voters is effectuated this fall.
So thank you, Senator Schumer, for pulling the script together.
Thank you, Senator Badillo.
Thank you.
Look, folks, clearly this isn't just about redistricting.
This isn't just about access to the ballot.
It's about the stakes in this November's election.
Donald Trump, the Republicans, know that their record has not just been unpopular, it's been so damaging to working families across the country that their only hope to hold on to power, to cling to power after the election, is to rig the system.
And I would make this comment about the Supreme Court ruling today.
Fair, Non-discriminatory redistricting is just as fundamental to voting rights as access to the ballot.
And you have to sort of take a step back and see how persistent this president has been at attacking our democracy, not just our right to vote.
It began on day one of this administration through an unlawful executive order.
It's continued with his partisan redistricting scheme that began in Texas and seems to be continuing in Florida, from failed executive orders to failed legislative attempts to make it harder for people to register to vote, harder to stay registered to vote, harder to actually cast your ballot, proposals to eliminate vote-by-mail options for voters, threats to send federal agents to the polls on Election Day.
It doesn't end because Donald Trump couldn't handle losing in 2020.
And so try as hard as they might, we'll try even harder and we will succeed in defending our elections, our free and fair elections, and upholding our democracy.
It's going to be a lot of work between now and Election Day, on Election Day itself, and after Election Day.
But the American people deserve no less.
Senator Blunt Rochester.
Thank you, Leader Schumer.
I stand before you as a member of the Senate and also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
This day, when we got the news, I don't think I knew how the day was going to start.
I typically in the past have carried a scarf with me that I carried on the day I was sworn into the House and I carried on the day that I was sworn into the Senate.
It allowed our great-great-great-grandfather to have the right to vote who had been enslaved in Georgia.
And for some reason, I brought it today.
He could not read or write.
He had to sign an X at the bottom.
It is the Returns of Qualified Voters in Reconstruction Oath from 1867.
This document to me is representative of what we are trying to do here today.
We are trying to live up to the ideals that were mentioned 250 years ago.
That's what this represents to me.
And so today, standing here with my colleagues, our goal is to make sure America knows that we will march, mobilize, organize, sue, go on the floor, stay up at 2 in the morning, 3 in the morning to stop things like the SAVE Act, because this is a coordinated effort, and we are coordinated as well.
I was four years old when the Voting Rights Act was signed into law.
I did not think that I would have to be here defending it, but we will.
We must.
And so thank you, Leader Schumer, for your leadership.
Looking forward to working with my colleagues.
And we do this for America.
In conclusion, look, we know that they are going to go after free and fair elections in every way they can.
And we will be ready for every eventuality in all the areas we have mentioned.
We're working with the groups we mentioned and others.
And we will be working with these groups to red team.
What might they do to try and steal the election?
And what are we going to do to stop them?
We will be prepared for every eventuality.
And it's going to take a lot of work, but nothing is more important.
Thank you, everybody.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Without objection.
Mr. Speaker, we're here because my Democrat colleagues have shut the United States government down, the Department of Homeland Security, for now 74 days.
They have held the American people hostage and have imperiled the safety of every citizen of this country for their ridiculous and even dangerous demands.
They're not serious.
We had a four corners agreement between Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate.
They reneged.
And if it weren't for President Trump's intervention, we would have the hardworking public servants at the Department of Homeland Security going 100 days without pay.
Ask me, Mr. Speaker, how many days my Democrat colleagues have gone without pay.
How long they would tolerate going without pay.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't just about the inconvenience of long lines at airports.
This is an unprecedented national security and public safety crisis.
And this is the moment we take the keys from the kids and we say no more of this nonsense and we open up the people's government and we restore the safety and security of the American people.
Now, you'll hear my colleagues no doubt say, if we could just agree on some common sense reforms, we would have opened up the Department of Homeland Security.
We would have been glad to work with you.
But let's think about these quote-unquote common sense reforms.
To require this administration to get a judicial warrant to expel criminal aliens from our country, there is not a Democrat or Republican former commander-in-chief that would ever find that acceptable.
Because in fact, these criminal aliens have had their day in immigration court and they have their orders to be expelled because they are not here with cause.
They are here with threat to my family and to my community and to my great state of Texas and to this beloved country of ours and it's unacceptable.
But they would effectively stop all deportations.
But we had an election after four years of lawlessness and chaos at the southern border, crime criminals, and all kinds of criminal elements and drugs that killed more people than the entire Vietnam War in one year.
And this president was elected to restore law and order, rule of law in this great civil society of ours.
Defending Our Communities00:03:10
It's been an embarrassment for those four years, and he's done it, and that's what the people sent us here to do.
That's the mandate they gave us, along with unified Republican leadership.
But there's been one wall of obstruction after another for this president and this administration.
And that's one example of their ridiculous, absurd, unserious demands.
The other one is, and I heard this at the Rules Committee, my friend, and I couldn't believe my ears.
They called our law enforcement agents who risked their lives to keep us safe.
Their families pray and wait for their mom or dad to come home wondering if something goes wrong and the bad guys win that day and they never see their family member again.
And yet my Democrat colleague repeatedly referred to our honorable ICE and CBP agents as masked thugs.
When evil is called good and good is called evil.
You remember that quote?
You remember that admonition?
These are the days.
Mr. Speaker, we've given 16 chances in all opportunities to vote to turn this government of the people back on and support our ICE and CBP agents, to protect our ports by funding our guardsmen to protect the CISA agents, to protect our critical infrastructure while cyber attacks are on the rise,
and to resource our FEMA agency to be ready to respond to our citizens in a natural disaster.
16 times they said no.
No.
And here we are.
Demasking our agents, calling them masked thugs.
8,000% increase, Mr. Speaker, in death threats to these gentlemen and gentlelady who wear the badge, who wear the uniform, who protect the thin blue line.
1,300% increase in assaults.
3,200% increase in vehicular assaults.
We know who they are.
We have made great effort to identify each agent so they would be held accountable if they did anything illegal or inappropriate.
But we have cartel members who have bounties of tens of thousands of dollars on their heads.
And we have masked leftist, radical, violent folks who are assaulting them in the streets while they're trying to do their dangerous job.
Addressing Rising Costs00:09:47
You want to know why we're here, Mr. Speaker?
You want to know why we're here, American people?
That's why we're here.
And we say, enough's enough.
And today we put forward this reconciliation, this budget resolution with reconciliation instructions to fund the people's homeland security, to protect our citizens, and to do right by these hardworking, God-fearing public servants that go to work every day not knowing if they're going to come home.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of, actually I don't yield the balance, I reserve.
Well, that was almost a fatal flaw in this debate, Mr. Ranking Member, but I reserve the balance of my time.
Do you pick that up?
The gentleman from Texas reserves.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Without objection.
Thank you.
Let me set the stage here for what has brought us to this point.
Last year, over the course of the first six months of the year, mind you, there was Reconciliation 1.0.
That was what the other side and the president used to call the Big Beautiful Bill.
Remember that?
You don't hear that phrase too much anymore.
You know why?
One of the most unpopular pieces of legislation to pass Congress in modern American history.
More than two to one disapproval over approval.
Why is that?
Because the American people know what was in the bill.
The American people know that it throws more than 15 million Americans off their health care, more than 17 million, according to one nonpartisan service.
In addition to that, it raises health care costs for tens of millions more.
But that's not all.
It also cuts nutrition assistance, the biggest cuts to the SNAP program in American history.
And on and on, I could take up the next hour listing the cuts.
And why are those cuts in there?
In order to fund the biggest tax breaks for billionaires in American history.
But that's not all.
It is also the biggest increase to our national debt in American history.
And that's not all.
It also includes $140 billion, record funding, mind you, for ICE and CBP.
So that is what has set the stage for Reconciliation 2.0, the bill that is now in front of us.
This bill is quite different in that it is narrowly pertaining to just two areas, ICE and CBP.
That's interesting to me, because one thing the vast majority of the American people agree on, whether they're Democrat, Republican, or Independent, is that costs keep going up.
They haven't come down in the last year and a half.
They've only gotten worse.
They've only gotten higher.
And that is no accident.
It is not because of something like a terrorist attack or the business cycle.
No, it is directly because of this president's reckless policies, trade policies that have spiked inflation, and a war in Iran that has taken the average price for a gallon of gas from under $3 a gallon just two months ago to now $4 over $4.20 a gallon and rising.
You don't see anything in this Reconciliation 2.0 to address anything that I just discussed.
Any of the rising costs, any of the rising health care costs, any of the rising costs of the supermarket.
Nothing, not a zilch zero.
The only thing that is in this is another $70 billion for ICE and CBP, on top of the record funding that was in the bill last year.
The American people simply want costs to come down, period.
Unfortunately, those priorities are not being met by this Republican majority.
Now, I want to be clear.
I believe, and sometimes this is inconvenient on both sides of the aisle to say it, I strongly believe in a secure border, period.
What I don't believe in is any agency of the government shooting and killing American citizens in the streets of our country.
I think the vast majority of the American people agree with me that we need to have a secure border, but that we cannot have any agency of our government carrying out killings on our streets.
We know that there are reforms that need to happen with ICE and CBP in order to rein in the abuses that we have seen.
Unfortunately, none of that is in the bill before us.
Instead, it's just throwing them, showering them with additional billions of dollars that they simply don't need.
So, Mr. Speaker, I really hope soon we can get back to a budget bill that addresses the needs and concerns of the American people.
Unfortunately, that is not the one that is presently before us.
The American people deserve far better.
I thank you, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania Reserves, the gentleman from Texas, is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately and conveniently, some of my Democrat friends have had a bad case of amnesia.
So I'm going to remind the American people that when Joe Biden and the Democrats had control of this town and this chamber and Congress and the White House, they took inflation from 1.4 percent all the way past 9 percent.
We had a 22 percent increase cumulative of prices of everyday goods that Americans depend on.
So it was Joe Biden and the Democrats who lit the fuse on the inflationary firestorm that American people, especially working Americans, suffered from.
The average inflation rate during the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris era was 5%.
Inflation is down.
The average inflation under this president, President Trump, is 2.7%.
Wages are up, business investment up, growth up, GDP up, and money in people's pockets.
Because had we relied on the Democrats, we would have seen a $1,700 a month tax hike on the American people.
But we said no tax on tips, no more tax on working people with respect to overtime or seniors on a fixed income.
I'm very proud of what we did as one strategy to provide much-needed relief after the cost of living crisis that was caused by the unbridled spending and failed economic policies of my Democrat colleagues.
Now, with that, I'd like to introduce the American people to a great man and patriot, a dear friend, and the vice chairman of the budget committee from the great state of Pennsylvania, Mr. Lloyd Smucker, for two minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
I just like to respond to some of the comments of my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, also from Pennsylvania, just to say that in regards to the tax bill, the one big beautiful bill, I can tell you individuals, families, wage earners in my district are feeling the impact of that bill when they're filing their taxes.
They like the no tax on tips that so many in my district have taken advantage of, the no tax on overtime that so many have taken advantage of.
And I've had many seniors come to me and say they had a lot more in their pockets after they filed their taxes this year.
And I'll put up our record in the last year, our economic record, the impact on people in our districts against that of the Biden administration anytime.
We have an economy that is growing quickly.
We have inflation at a manageable spot, and people are feeling it in their pocketbooks.
I was happy to hear the ranking member say that he supports a secure border because you certainly wouldn't have known that during the past administration when Democrats were in control and we had thousands of people pouring across this border every single day, including individuals who were criminals, who were members of gangs, including drugs flowing across the border.
Ensuring Paychecks For Workers00:14:47
And Democrats did nothing to stop that.
And I'll tell you in my district, when I talk to people of all political stripes, Democrats and Republicans alike, they support removing people from this country who are criminals and who are here illegally.
And they support the work of ICE in doing that.
Democrats obviously do not.
A shutdown should never be used.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
You're recognized.
We should never use a government shutdown to achieve any policy benefits.
We've seen Democrats do that time and time again.
We certainly shouldn't be using it to not fund those who are keeping Americans safe and who are removing criminals from our country.
That's what this bill is about today.
We shouldn't be funding this in this way.
It should be done through a regular appropriations bill.
But we were not able to do that because we did not have Democrat support.
I don't like necessarily the way we're doing this, but there has to be grown-ups in the room, and that is Republicans right now who are going to ensure that those people who are working hard to keep Americans safe every day are going to be able to count on a paycheck at the end of the week.
So this is an important bill.
It's very unfortunate that Democrats continue to shut down the government over this issue, but Republicans are going to stand for the safety and security of the American people.
It's the number one thing that every one of us as elected officials should be doing.
We should be ensuring that American individuals, American citizens, are safe and reserve.
The gentleman from Texas Reserve, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield one and a half minutes.
The gentleman from California, distinguished member of the budget committee, Mr. Pinetta.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Republican budget resolution does nothing to end the shutdown, does nothing to reform ICE, yet does everything to give ICE and CBP $70 billion more dollars.
Look, I support a strong and secure border, but the Trump deportation policy goes way beyond going after felons and gang members.
The last Republican reconciliation bill injected $190 billion into DHS, leading to thousands of untrained ICE and CBP agents being injected into our communities.
They called themselves law enforcement, but they acted with lawlessness, trolling big box store parking lots, causing chaos in our communities, deaths to American citizens, and were allowed to act with impunity.
So I said no more funding until they transform, reform, and retrain with commonsensical law enforcement protocols and procedures.
Now, I hate shutdowns, but if you allow a vote on the bipartisan Senate bill today, we can open and pay TSA, Coast Guard, Cyber, and FEMA.
But instead of working with us across the aisle, the purely partisan resolution that just funds ICE without any reforms demonstrates once again you're going it alone.
You're doing nothing to lower costs.
You're adding to our debt and deficit.
You're giving into the president and you're giving up on our constitutional responsibilities.
So I'm voting no, not just because I'm for reforming ICE, but I'm standing up to this administration and I'm living up to my oath of office.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yield back.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania Reserves, gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, instead of the absurd demands of asking for judicial warrants after immigration judges have ruled that these criminal aliens are not with cause, for heaven's sakes, in our country, we included body cams, millions of dollars.
The president reviewed protocols, included and strengthened training programs.
But here's the root cause of what people saw on their TV sets at night when they saw the mayhem and they saw the chaos.
It was lawless sanctuary cities, rogue leaders who incited violence against our law enforcement officers while they were doing a dangerous job to rid our country of criminal aliens.
How in the world did we expect them to do this job when you have state and local leaders who refuse to cooperate, who thumb their nose at the rule of law and make things not only more difficult, but more dangerous for the men and women in uniform who courageously protect us every day.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to my friend from the great state of Utah, Mr. Blake Moore.
Gentleman from Utah is recognized for two minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One trick that you see back here in Washington politics is when the opposing side is arguing in defense of the undefensible, they will say, I support border security, but there's always a but.
What we have seen for the last five and a half years since President Biden took over in 2021 to today is very simply laid out in the following three strategies.
Leave the border wide open, then create a bunch of sanctuary cities, and then refuse to fund immigration and border patrol.
You look at those three things.
That is exactly what they're doing.
And now they're forcing us to go at it alone.
When for decades, longer than that, Republicans and Democrats have always been able to come together and support Homeland Security Bill.
But they refuse to support ICE and CBP.
Senate concurrent Resolution 33 is a critical step in delivering on the key policy mandate that voters gave Congress to secure the southern border and end the national crisis that is mass migration.
I would much rather fund and regulate the Department of Homeland Security and immigration enforcement through regular appropriations.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made that impossible.
This is not a serious way to govern.
It is irresponsible.
It is dangerous.
Congress should not play with the livelihoods of service members at the Coast Guard, Transportation Security Agency, or the Secret Service to secure a political win.
We cannot restrict resources at a time like this, especially amid recent threats to White House officials and national security concerns.
We're now forced to run a narrowly focused, partisan reconciliation process to provide necessary funding to ICE and CBP and their operational and support components to last through the Trump administration.
The Trump administration has made great strides in securing the border and removing those who have entered our country illegally, which will alleviate strains on local law enforcement and hospital systems, help lower insurance premiums, and put downward pressure on housing prices in the long run.
Supporting this resolution will ensure we can build on the success and continue to provide a safe environment for American families to thrive.
This also does a very important thing by setting our projected deficit of 3% of GDP.
Another 20 seconds.
I will end there.
Thank you very much for the additional time to take our finances seriously and put a 3% debt to GDP.
I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
I'll reserve the balance.
Gentlemen from Texas Reserves, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from Texas, distinguished member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Doggett.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
ICE has become another three-letter word for lie.
Lies about immigrants as an excuse for racist and un-American policies.
Lies about dead American citizens like Renee Goode and Alex Predty.
Lies about outrageous conditions at detention centers like Dilley, Texans, where measles spreads and children are fed infested food with worms.
Lies really to all of us, that the Trump regime is merely concerned about dangerous criminals when in fact their dragnet picks up anyone who happens to get in the way that they can take, no matter how much that immigrant teacher, that immigrant construction worker, that immigrant small business or health care worker are contributing to their community.
While we have simply asked that ICE meet the standards that we expect of our local law enforcement, this bill is designed to let ICE continue its rampage across America totally unrestrained.
What we should be doing is using this $70 billion that this Republican bill showers on ICE and CBP to instead address the affordability crisis that our American families are facing because of Trump's continued mismanagement, his reckless, endless war in Iran, and his illegal tariffs.
That $70 billion, think of what it could accomplish.
With it, we could restore affordable access to a family physician for millions of American families.
Another 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
We could restore access to a family physician to millions of American families who no longer have it thanks to the Republican action.
Or we could instead choose to provide for our future by assuring that every single three and four year old in America can access pre-kindergarten, pre-K.
But instead of helping working families, Republicans insist that we shower more dollars, more tax dollars on a rogue agency that already has entirely too much funding to continue its mission of ripping families apart and detaining babies.
I yield back.
Gentlemen from Pennsylvania Reserves, the gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Okay, let's play back the tape, Mr. Speaker.
Four years, wide open border, flooding the zone.
And by the zone, I mean the entire country.
Crime, criminals, drugs, record number of people on the terrorist watch list, record number of people from countries of interest, record number of criminal, of illegal immigrants dying in the desert, record number of humans trafficked to this country.
Record, record, record, open border disaster.
And now, now after this mess, when we have to get the brave men and women to go clean up the streets from the criminals that roam in the great cities of this country and threaten our citizens, they want to call them what I heard at Rules Committee, masked thugs.
That's what they're calling our law enforcement officers.
But I guess we shouldn't be too surprised because that's the party that wanted to defund the police.
That's the party with the battle cry, defund ICE.
That's the party who at the top of their ticket in the last presidential election had a presidential nominee who compared ICE to the KKK and her vice president compared them to the Gestapo.
So no, no, sir, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not surprised, not surprised that now that they created this self-inflicted disaster and mess and our brave ICE officers are trying to clean it up, that they'd want to impede them and insult them, but they only insult law-abiding American citizens.
I assure you that.
And with that, I yield to my dear friend from the Tar Hill State, the member of the budget committee, Mr. Addison McDowell.
Gentlemen from North Carolina is recognized.
Well, thank you, Chairman.
And I think that's a good question.
How much time, Mr. For two minutes, Mr. Speaker?
Speaker, I apologize.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I think it's important that we point out that as our Democrat colleagues across the aisle are pointing a finger at us, there's three fingers pointing back at them.
And what we need to look at is exactly what they've done for the last four years of Joe Biden.
They let all of these people into our country.
We're trying to get rid of them.
There was a mandate by the American people for us to do that.
That's what we're trying to do.
Now, we're also trying to do one of our very basic functions as Congress, which is to pass appropriations bills.
And while they want to blame us, I will remind them that each time that has come up, it has passed out of this chamber with bipartisan support.
It has gone to the Senate where it has died.
The President, the Senate, our leadership, they have tried to come to an agreement.
They will not let us.
That's exactly what's happening.
Mr. Speaker, this is day 74.
74 days.
That is exactly how long the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down.
74 days, Mr. Speaker.
And let's be clear about one thing.
Democrats have forced the shutdown to defund law enforcement and gamble with the safety of our country.
They are pushing an agenda that leads to lawlessness in our communities.
They're willing to let dangerous illegal aliens, murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, walk our streets and destroy our communities.
They're even willing to force Americans to stand in long TSA lines simply as leverage to force their agenda.
And maybe they were fine with the millions of illegal aliens that were released into our communities under the Biden administration.
And maybe they were fine with the massive flow of drugs that poured across our southern border.
But my constituents were not, Mr. Speaker.
The American people were not.
And House Republicans will keep the promises that we made.
We will do what it takes to keep Americans safe and secure.
Now, despite the Democrat resistance, we will stand on principles and deliver for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote to get us back on track to fully reopening the Department of Homeland Security, and I yield back.
I thank the gentleman in reserve.
Gentleman from Texas Reserves, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Boy, that sounds like a scary hellscape that the last couple speakers on the other side have described.
I'm just glad they're not talking about the United States because in the country where I live, actually, specifically in my city of Philadelphia, the murder rate is lower today than at any point in the 1960s.
There are a lot of American cities right now that have the lowest violent crime rate in my lifetime.
Challenging Misguided Priorities00:16:06
I can understand, though, why they want to talk about anything but costs.
Because right now, according to one opinion poll, the American people are more pessimistic today about their own economic future than they were even in the depths of the Great Recession.
And they rate this president the lowest job approval on the economy since George W. Bush in the middle of the Great Recession.
You can understand why they want to talk about anything except for costs and the financial livelihoods of most American households.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield one and a half minutes to a gentleman from a fellow Commonwealth, except he is from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, also a member of the budget committee, Mr. Scott.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for one and a half minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the budget.
For years, my Republican colleagues have sanctimoniously spoken about the need to reduce the deficit, but continuously vote for spending bills that add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit.
The CBO estimates that last year's big, ugly bill will add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034.
And this bill is not even serious.
They didn't even bring it to committee.
They just brought it to the floor.
It continues the pattern of presidential administrations.
Every Republican administration since Nixon has left for the Democrats a worse deficit than they inherited.
By the way, every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left for the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited, all without exceptions.
Now they're back here with the misguided budget priorities.
This thing does nothing to lower costs and make life better for the American people.
It does give $70 billion to ICE after they violated the Constitution, kill Americans, and refuse to agree to Democratic demands that they conform to the same standards as other law enforcement officers, like get a warrant before you go into somebody's house, don't use unconstitutional excessive force, don't deport citizens.
We should be investing in education, health care, and child care, and job creation.
This bill doesn't do it, and that's why we ought to vote no.
I yield back.
Jennifer from Pennsylvania Reserves, the gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Just a note, Mr. Speaker, on cost.
When the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they spent a record $12 trillion.
Now, $5 trillion of that is because of the record interest rate hikes that were associated with an almost half a century high inflation.
So combined, we're talking about, again, almost $12 trillion.
And what did we get for that?
What did we get for that as the American people, the shareholders?
What return did our citizens get for that, quote, investment?
Green energy subsidies to corporations that was a disaster for our energy economy, made the prices of gas and electricity for our consumers skyrocket.
Well, the American people got tens of thousands of IRS agents.
They expanded the IRS by $80 billion because that's what they thought that the American people needed after a 22 percent increase in price.
They bailed out student loan programs.
They bailed out schools that wouldn't open.
One bailout after another, the Union Pension Fund, it's hard to keep up with it.
And they actually, and you go back and look at the executive order from President Biden and Vice President Kamal Harris at the time, they actually provided health care at the cost of taxpayers to people in this country illegally.
And we wonder why we had record numbers of illegal immigrants pouring into this country.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my friend from the Buckeye State and the House's chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jim Jordan, for three minutes.
Gentleman from Ohio is recognized for three minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank the, or Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Why are the Democrats doing it?
Why would they shut down the Department of Homeland Security for 74 days?
Why would they do that when we've had a third assassination attempt on the President of the United States while we're in the middle of a military operation in Iran, when we've had terrorist attacks here on the homeland?
Why would they do it?
Simple answer is: they don't want to border.
They don't want to border.
They've said it, but look at their plan.
Four years of Joe Biden, they let in 10 million illegal migrants.
Then they create sanctuary jurisdictions all over the country, which makes it difficult to remove illegal migrants who commit another crime.
And now they say, let's don't pay the guys who do the removing.
Let's don't pay ICE.
Let in 10 million, create sanctuary jurisdictions.
By the way, 18 cities, 11 states, three counties, District of Columbia are sanctuary jurisdictions.
Because they're big blue cities, big blue states, that represents almost a third of the country lives in a jurisdiction where the politicians tell local law enforcement don't work with federal law enforcement when it comes to enforcing federal law.
And now they say, don't pay the guys who enforce federal law.
Don't pay the ICE.
It's not enough that the left-wing agitators out there have doxxed them, tracked them, spit on them, sworn at them, threatened them, attacked them.
That's not enough.
We're not going to pay them.
We're not going to pay them.
Such a plan.
And it's all because they don't want to border in our country.
Well, there was an election where the people said we want to border.
And that's why this bill and the good work that Chairman Arrington and the Budget Committee have done is so darn important.
We shouldn't have to pass this kind of bill.
Should have been done in the appropriation bill.
But nope, they're going to shut the government down for 74 days because they don't want to border.
They let in 10 million.
They create sanctuary jurisdictions so it's difficult to remove them.
And then they don't want to pay the guys who do the removing.
That's their plan.
And the country needs to know that, plain and simple.
But here come the Budget Committee and Republicans say, we're going to do something to pay the guys.
We're going to have to do it via reconciliation.
So thank the Budget Committee and the Chairman for doing the work.
I urge a yes vote and yield back.
I thank the gentleman in reserve, Mr. Speaker.
Gentleman from Texas Reserve, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I yield one and a half minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, distinguished member of the budget committee, Ms. Omar.
You're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in strong opposition to this Republican effort to funnel another $70 billion to ICE and CPP to continue their inhumane, illegal, reprehensible actions.
This effort is even more incomprehensible, considering it comes after Trump and Congressional Republicans already created an $85 billion slush fund for ICE during the last budget reconciliation process.
In my district, ICE has used the money to terrorize Minnesotans, particularly our black and brown communities, through Operation MetroSurge.
We watched in horror as ICE agents murdered our neighbors, Renee Goode and Alex Bredi, in broad daylight.
We witnessed our neighbors being snatched off the street, pulled from their homes and cars without a warrant.
We saw dozens of children ripped away from their families, friends, and schools shipped to detention centers out of state.
Our communities are still recovering from that devastation caused by the federal occupation and the blatant trumpling of the rights we as Americans hold dear.
We cannot send this rogue and unaccountable agency another cent.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania Reserve, the gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I yield one and a half minutes to my friend from Tennessee, Mr. Van Epps.
Gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, Congressional Democrats have kept the Department of Homeland Security shut down for more than 70 days.
During this time, the critical services DHS provides to the American people are at best disrupted and at worst, paused entirely.
This comes as we prepare for the busiest travel season ever, celebrating our founding and welcoming visitors from around the world.
It also comes during a threat environment unlike any other.
The previous administration welcomed unvetted migrants across our border for four years.
There have been three assassination attempts against this sitting president, and cyber threats targeting our critical infrastructure are accelerating.
The threats are persistent, and they are here within our borders.
It is high time we empower these agencies to accomplish their crucial mission.
And I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution.
With that, I yield back.
I thank the gentleman in reserve, Mr. Speaker.
Gentlemen from Texas Reserves, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield one and a half minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State, distinguished member of the budget committee, Ms. Jayapal.
The gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half from Washington State.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This budget resolution is a total insult to the American people.
Instead of addressing the rising prices of gas, of groceries, of housing, of childcare, the things that actually allow people to survive in an economy that Republicans have rigged for the billionaires, this resolution puts another $70 billion into ICE and CBP.
That's on top of a $170 billion slush fund that was given to these agencies in the Republicans' big bad betrayal bill last year that allowed ICE and CBP to carry out a violent, cruel, unconstitutional campaign of terror in communities across this country, killing Renee Goode and Alex Predi in Minnesota, conducting a campaign of mass detentions,
detaining an unprecedented number of people that has resulted in 47 record deaths, locking up children and using them as bait for their parents, terrorizing schools and churches and hospitals with their activity.
Meanwhile, Republicans refuse to address the rising costs that Americans are dealing with because this administration refuses to put the people first.
Americans of every political strike do not want more money to go to ICE slush fund.
What they want is real reforms to ICE and CBP to rein in the lawlessness.
What they want is for the administration to get serious about cutting their costs instead of catering to Trump's cronies.
Vote no on this resolution.
Jennifer from Pennsylvania Reserves, the gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
Jennifer from Texas, I'm sorry, Pennsylvania is recognized.
Almost gave the gentleman a heart attack saying I was from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield one and a half minutes to the member from California, also a member of the budget committee, Ms. Chu.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for one and a half minutes.
For yet another week, Republicans have brought us legislation that does absolutely nothing to lower the cost of groceries, housing, or health care.
Instead, they want another $140 billion to expand their lawless deportation machine.
Not one penny will make life more affordable for people.
In fact, this bill fails to implement the most basic common sense reforms to ICE and CBP.
Trump's immigration agents have ripped hundreds of thousands of people from their families, jobs, and communities.
Nearly 60,000 people are trapped in ICE detention, almost half with no criminal record.
And 48 people have died in ICE custody.
Their anti-immigrant agenda is killing people.
People like my constituent, Carlos Montoya, 52-year-old father and grandfather, when ICE agents raided a Home Depot just minutes from my district, Carlos was so frightened that he fled and was tragically struck and killed by a car on the freeway.
This administration is instilling so much terror that people are willing to risk their lives to escape.
Republicans' big ugly bill already handed ICE $170 billion, and now they want another $140 billion to keep kidnapping children, tackling grandmothers to the ground, raiding car washes, and shooting innocent people.
But somehow they keep insisting there's no money for health care, food assistance, or housing.
Vote no on this bill.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania Reserves, gentlemen from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, just again, setting the record straight for the American people, the only monies we're spending are monies that the Democrats in the House and Senate agreed with us to spend to operate Homeland Security, including ICE and CBP.
And then they reneged on it.
They went back on their word and they shut the Department of Homeland Security down for over 70 days.
And all we're doing is using reconciliation, a budgetary tool, to fund ICE and CBP because they want to defund ICE and CBP.
I mean, you hear it in their rhetoric.
I mentioned the masked thugs and the comparison to the KKK.
They're talking about protecting the illegal immigrant.
But you haven't heard a word about Lake and Riley and her family.
You haven't heard anything about Jocelyn Nungery and her family or the thousands upon thousands of American citizens whose lives are forever changed because of the harm that was perpetrated upon them from an illegal criminal alien that was allowed in this country with impunity.
Because our president at the time was derelict in his duty to uphold the laws of the land because he refused to provide for the common defense.
And when Texas and other states tried to protect their citizens, they were harassed and obstructed at every turn.
So what choice do we have?
Go back to the open border and a sanctuary nation for criminal aliens?
That's not acceptable to Republicans.
And that's not acceptable to the people in the popular vote, in the electoral vote, every swing state.
They sent us here to put America first and the American people first and to restore law and order, Mr. Speaker.
Rejecting Open Borders00:08:21
And with that, I yield.
Gentleman from Texas Reserves, gentlemen from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, listen for the dog that didn't bark.
You notice what the other side hasn't mentioned once during this debate, a debate, mind you, on a reconciliation budget bill?
Nothing about costs.
Nothing about their plan to bring down the cost of gas, which had the biggest monthly increase in my lifetime thanks to this administration's policies.
Nothing to make health care more affordable.
Nothing about child care to make that more affordable.
Nothing to make housing more affordable.
Nothing at all about that.
They have nothing to say because they have no plan and they don't have one dime for any of that in their bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield to a gentleman from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, distinguished member of the budget committee, Mr. McGarvey.
For one and a half minutes.
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for one and a half minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican budget.
Last year, my Republican colleagues forced through a budget that gave ICE over $80 billion.
Let's put that in perspective.
Last year, ICE got more than double the amount they got during the entirety of Trump's first presidency, but somehow that's not enough.
Now, they're trying to push through another $70 billion with no reforms, no accountability, no strings attached, nothing.
$70 billion in taxpayer dollars for an agency responsible for kidnapping people off the street, murdering U.S. citizens, separating families, detaining children, and breaking down doors without warrants.
$70 billion for taxpayer dollars for masked, armed, and untrained agents who don't answer to anyone.
$70 billion in taxpayer dollars for a campaign of terror directed at our own neighbors while the rest of the country struggles to feed their families, pay rent, go to the doctor, and keep the lights on.
I'm so tired of hearing that we don't have enough money for our schools and hospitals, no money to make sure our veterans are taken care of, no money to make sure everyone has a roof over their head, no money for health care.
I mean, just a couple of weeks ago, we were told we don't even have the money to make sure that pregnant women can have fruits and vegetables.
But the second Trump needs more money to bankroll his own personal police force, Republicans in Congress can move mountains.
For ICE, we have $70 billion.
For everyone else, nothing.
This is intentional.
It's a choice, and it's the wrong one.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
Chair from Texas, you're recognized.
Mr. Speaker, again, just reminding my colleagues and friends that average gas price under Joe Biden and the Democrat leadership was over $5.
Under President Trump, it's just a little over $3.
He talks about cost, but if you look at the CBO, which is a nonpartisan scorekeeper, they would tell you in the first six months of this fiscal year compared to the last six months of last fiscal year that the deficit has actually gone down for the first time in almost a decade by $138 billion.
That's not me telling you that.
That's not conjecture on the part of either party.
It's the watchdog, scorekeeper, nonpartisan, telling you that when we held the line to control spending on discretionary side for the last four years, we've saved almost a half a trillion dollars.
And then in the big, beautiful bill, and it is big and beautiful, because we protected tax dollars and we preserved the safety nets for American citizens who need them and depend on them.
And CBO also has, and I submit for the record, A letter about the Medicaid coverage impacts of the Big Beautiful Bill.
And you know what it says?
Let me summarize.
The millions of people who are no longer on Medicaid or SNAP are people who don't qualify to be on there.
They're people who are in this country illegally.
And they are people who refuse to work even though they're able to work.
And taxpayers, hardworking, are willing to support their fellow Americans.
But it is a social compact and there is a responsibility.
And that's what we did as Republicans.
And Mr. Speaker, that's what the American people sent us here to do.
So we can talk about the cost.
Deficits are coming down, more money in people's pockets, safety nets being restored and protected and preserved for the American citizens who depend on them.
And we are protecting tax dollars and we are looking out for our kids and future vulnerable Americans who need these programs that are unsustainable because my Democrat colleagues haven't lifted a finger to help us root out waste and fraud.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentlemen from Texas Reserve, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, just to fact-check here what we heard since the previous speaker said that the national average for a gallon of gas is $3 a gallon.
No, that's what it was two months ago.
Today, as of literally just a few moments ago when I checked, the national average is $4.22 a gallon.
Again, last month, the largest monthly increase in the price of gas since 1967.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. Raskin, thank you.
I yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, member of the budget committee, Mr. Amo.
The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for one and a half minutes.
Mr. Speaker, Rhode Islanders have had enough of Trump's reign of terror.
Across my state, they know when so-called enforcement becomes intimidation, when profiling and abuse are rampant, and when accountability is absent.
And now, instead of restoring trust or lowering costs, Republicans are doing it again.
Their first big, ugly bill ripped billions out of our health care system that will make millions sicker and poorer, all to spend $170 billion on ICE and CBP's rogue tactics.
Now this budget doubles down on that spending spree, dumping another $70 billion in taxpayer funding into the same cruel system without any reforms.
So here it is.
They are using your money not to lower costs for gas, groceries, rent, or health care, not to help people, but to fund raids, roundups, and fear in American communities.
I will not stand by while costs rise, rights are trampled, and working families are left behind.
So we have a choice.
Use your tax dollars to fund mass men and their mass raids, or help families put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads, and stay healthy.
I choose families.
I urge a no vote on this latest Republican budget betrayal, and I yield back.
I reserve.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania Reserve, the gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
The member from Texas Reserves, gentlemen from Pennsylvania, you are recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield one and a half minutes to the always eager gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Raskin.
The member from Maryland is recognized for one and a half minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last year, devil may care, foot loose, free spending, Trump-enabling mega-Republicans cut ICE and CBP a check from the American people for $170 billion with no oversight, no accountability and no programmatic details.