reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that the Haiti Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, created after the 2010 earthquake, has been mismanaged for over a decade. What began as a temporary measure has effectively become permanent, with thousands of Haitians remaining in the United States under TPS due to repeated renewals. The speaker challenges the commonly cited numbers about how many TPS holders could be removed from health care, stating that those figures are a fraction of the total and that a large share of TPS beneficiaries are not in health care. The speaker contrasts this with the claim that a large portion of TPS recipients came to the U.S. illegally, stating that 91% of Haiti TPS holders entered the country illegally and are now using TPS status to stay. They argue that the program was not designed to allow ongoing entry and stay, and that its current form undermines efforts to curb abuse of the program and to enforce immigration laws. A notable point raised is that the program’s weakness has real-life consequences. The speaker cites a violent incident in Florida a week earlier, where a mother was brutally murdered outside a convenience store by a Haitian individual, linking the crime to concerns about TPS and President Biden’s handling of immigration policy. The speaker also references other crimes, including murders on a subway in Charlotte, to illustrate the perceived danger and risk to Americans. The overarching claim is that millions of dollars and taxpayer resources are being used to support a program that has become effectively permanent and that it continues to flood the United States with people who are allegedly exploiting TPS and not integrating as promised. The speaker contends that the goal of the bill is not achieved, arguing that people should come to the United States to follow laws and contribute to society rather than to exploit goodwill or pose risks to the American public. In conclusion, the speaker asserts that the bill is flawed and should not be supported by either party, and yields back.

The House has adopted House Resolution 189, censuring Representative Al Green. Representative Green is required to appear in the well of the House for the formal pronouncement of the censure. The Speaker will publicly read the resolution as part of the censure. The House will maintain order and then recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

Speaker 0 acknowledges the legislation of other members of Congress included in the chairman's legislation. They also mention Maxine Waters' important work on preserving democracy, although it is not part of this package. Speaker 0 then yields to the distinguished chairwoman of the government foreman.

I request to remove the recognition of an individual during a joint address to Parliament from the House of Commons Debates and Multimedia Recording. We will now seek unanimous consent. Any objections? No objections were raised. Thank you. Translation: I ask to delete the acknowledgment of a person during a joint address to Parliament from the House of Commons Debates and Multimedia Recording. We will now seek unanimous agreement. Any objections? No objections were made. Thank you.

House Bill thirteen twelve is under consideration. An "aye" vote is recorded. A "no" vote is recorded. The "aye" votes prevail. House Bill thirteen twelve has passed.

The "Defund the Taliban" bill passed unanimously in the House. The speaker thanks supporters for their help during the year-long journey. The bill will now go to the Senate, where Senators Hagerty, Blackburn, Sheehy, and Tuberville are expected to support it. The speaker encourages people to address their concerns to the Senate to get the bill passed. The bill aims to stop the estimated $40,000,000 a week, or over $5,000,000,000 total, of U.S. tax dollars that have allegedly gone to the Taliban.

Speaker 0 outlines his first bill, the no shutdown paychecks to politicians act, which would say members of Congress can’t be paid and won’t receive back pay after a shutdown ends. He asks unanimous consent for immediate consideration, reading, and passage of the bill, with the motion to reconsider laid on the table. Speaker 1 asks if there is objection. Speaker 2 argues for an approach that would begin paying those who are working during a shutdown—soldiers, air traffic controllers, and all workers—stating this should become a permanent feature of government. He says paying workers is better than isolating or punishing groups and asks that the Senate modify the request to consider, read, and pass Senator Paul’s alternative. He references Senator Johnson’s shutdown no shutdown act as an alternative and asks to replace the current bill with that. Speaker 0 responds, explaining he will not substitute Senator Paul’s bill for his own. He says he understands Senator Paul’s point as wanting to pay everyone, but explains his bill has a chance to pass the House and be signed by the president, whereas Senator Paul’s bill would not pass the House or be signed by President Trump. He states this is why he cannot substitute Paul’s bill. He then asks for a parliamentary clarification: did Senator Paul object to his bill, and would Paul’s modification substitute his bill? The chair confirms that Paul’s modification would substitute his bill for the original. Speaker 1 asks if there is an objection to the original request. Speaker 2 (from Kentucky) reserves the right to object and argues it is not clear that the president wouldn’t sign a bill to continue paying federal workers. He says it’s confusing that Democrats object to paying traffic controllers and suggests letting Democrats explain why they don’t want to pay workers. He asserts there is a debate over spending levels, but that workers who have contracts should be paid. He mentions his own fiscal conservatism, stating he would not hire new people and would allow government shrink through attrition, but asserts that those who work for the government should be paid. He contends that Democrats' subsidies to higher earners are inconsistent with helping the working class or the poor and argues that the president would sign a bill to pay workers. Speaker 0 disputes, arguing the bill to keep Congress from being paid during a shutdown is different from Paul’s. Speaker 1 clarifies that Senator Paul objected to the bill and that the objection to the unanimous consent request stands. Speaker 0 introduces a second bill, the withhold member pay during shutdowns act, which would withhold lawmakers’ pay during a shutdown but escrow it to be paid after the shutdown ends. He notes there is precedent from Obama in 2013. He seeks unanimous consent for Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to be discharged from further consideration of S. 3057, and asks that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration, with reading, passage, and a tabled motion to reconsider. Speaker 2 objects with the objection noted. Speaker 1 acknowledges the objection from the Kentucky senator. Speaker 0 attempts clarification on the bill to withhold member pay, and Speaker 1 confirms the objection to the unanimous consent request. The scene ends with the discussion in progress on the second bill.

The eyes to the right were 111, and the nose to the left was 364. The nose have it. Unlock. The question was whether the bill should be now read a second time. Those of that opinion said “I,” and those of the contrary said “No,” repeating “No.” Division was called, and the division proceeded.

House Bill thirteen twelve is under consideration. An "aye" vote signifies approval, while a "no" vote signifies opposition. The vote is conducted. The "aye" votes prevail. House Bill thirteen twelve is passed.

What purpose does the gentlelady from Colorado rise? Let's let's let's wait a minute. Wait a minute. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. We The house will be in order. We we will join prayer right after this. Okay?

Speaker 0 announces their plan to run for reelection in 2026. They acknowledge a question about their candidacy and apologize for needing a moment to gather their thoughts.

The transcript shows a parliamentary division. The Speaker states: “The eyes to the right, 111. The nose to the left, 364. The eyes to the right were 111, the nose to the left, 364. So the noes have it. The noes have it.” Following this, the question is: “that the bill be now read a second time as many as are of that opinion say aye. Aye. Of the contrary, no. No.”

The division result is 79 in favor, 56 against. The bill has been agreed to. The minister for communications is called to move for the third reading. The leader of the house is asked to proceed immediately. The motion for the bill to be read a third time is made. The question is put to a vote. Those in favor say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The Clerk is called to announce the third reading of the bill to amend communications law and related purposes.

Speaker 0: What purpose does the gentlelady from Colorado rise? Let's let's let's wait a minute. Wait a minute. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. We The house will be in order. We we will join prayer right after this. Okay?

Speaker 0 notes the enormous difficulty of doing that, saying, “In fact, the big majority of have been able to.” Speaker 1 reminds listeners that floor time in the Senate is finite, and outlines a lengthy slate of items that could be teed up for action on the Senate floor: a housing bill awaiting action, a market structure bill, possibly permitting reform, a farm bill, and a highway bill, with Russia sanctions and a whole host of other items also on the potential agenda. He says the conference will have a conversation about that, and he has committed to discussing the idea and determining whether the conference’s views on it indicate how they want to proceed. He adds that they will vote on the SAVE Act, but notes that triggering a talking filibuster has ramifications and implications everyone needs to be aware of. Speaker 1 explains that those discussions are necessary because the decision to pursue a talking filibuster would tie the floor up for an indefinite amount of time, with not only unlimited debate but also unlimited amendments. He emphasizes that the floor time is precious and that the decision will affect how much can be done on a wide range of important legislation. Speaker 0 interjects that the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House were speaking at the same time, which is why the dialogue is jumping back and forth. He concludes with a brief update that the bill has passed, funding DHA.

Speaker 0: The government’s proposal, as outlined in the document, sets out the steps to move the legislation. It says the committee will meet within one hour of adopting the order to complete clause-by-clause consideration. If they have not finished within 30 minutes of the meeting’s start, all remaining amendments submitted by 4:30 will be “dean moved,” and subsequent steps will follow to move the bill quickly through the House of Commons. Speaker 1: This is dangerous territory because the subject matter involves giving police and other authorities increased powers. An order that requires all bill details to be passed within 30 minutes is frustrating to those who want police to have the right tools and also want Canadians’ privacy protected. The issue is that such a process is likely to be imperfect and then challenged and applied unevenly (“too strong here,” “too weak here”). Speaker 1 contrasts the idea of pushing back: if an important priority is truly important, time should be set aside, while dragging heels and causing chaos can justify pushing; however, Speaker 1 is not sure that justification applies to this bill. Speaker 1 also describes a broader pattern across multiple bills, saying the government will later claim people have been examining them for months even though they were introduced at the last minute with the clock running. Speaker 1 concludes that the bills matter, are very important to Canadians, and are likely to be gotten wrong without sufficient scrutiny or pushback on the government’s original ideas.

The ranking member requests a roll call vote due to the absence of a quorum. The roll call begins with Mister Hill, who is present. The roll call continues with Mister Lucas, Mister Sessions, Mister Posey, Mister Loudermilk, Mister Mooney, Mister Davidson, Mister Rose, Mister Stile, Mister Timmons, Mister Norman, and Mister Muser.

The speaker declared the office of speaker of the house vacant. According to rule 9, a resolution offered by a member other than the majority or minority leader has precedence within 2 legislative days. The resolution noticed by the gentleman from Florida will be recorded, but the chair will determine if it constitutes a question of privilege at a later time.

The speaker asks the senator if they heard the question about running for reelection in 2026. The speaker apologizes and asks if anyone else has a question.

Speaker 0 is asked if they will be running for reelection in 2026. They apologize for not hearing the question properly and ask for someone else to speak up with a different question.

Speaker 0 is asked if they will be running for reelection in 2026. They apologize for the interruption and ask for another question.

The senator asked how many votes are needed to pass the bill with the emergency clause, which is 32. Senators then voted on the bill. The speaker emphasized the importance of treating everyone with respect and dignity in the Senate, stating that they will do the same.

Speaker 0: Reclaiming time from Chairman, Hunter is avoiding my words. Speaker 1: House committees seek relevant info, but GOP misuses subpoenas for political gain, ignoring offers and leaking witness statements. Translation: Speaker 0 reclaims time from the Chairman as Hunter avoids their words. Speaker 1 mentions that House committees are seeking relevant information, but Republicans are misusing subpoenas for political purposes by ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.

Speaker 0 asks what you are here to talk about, says “Thank you very much,” and asks, “Any votes in the prime minister?”

Speaker 0 requests unanimous consent. Speaker 1 acknowledges the official opposition leader. Confusion arises regarding the request.