reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Members of Congress are confronting private security blocking their access to the Department of Education. They question whether the security personnel were instructed to prevent them from entering. The Congress members emphasize their roles as elected representatives advocating for children, particularly those with disabilities, and express frustration over the lack of transparency and access. They highlight the contradiction of allowing billionaires into the building while denying entry to lawmakers. The situation escalates as they assert their right to advocate for the public and demand accountability from those in charge. The Congress members stress that they are not a threat and are simply trying to fulfill their responsibilities.

Two groups clash over who may be in the building and who is authorized to act as the governing authority of the institute. - The conflict centers on who is recognized as the president of the institute. Speaker 0 says, “The president of the first day is the right to be in the building,” and insists they have seen paperwork that supports Mister Jackson as president. Speaker 1 counters that he is “the president of this institute” and asks for the other side’s credentials and documents, signaling a challenge to Speaker 0’s claim. - The outside counselors (not employed by USIP) state they are there to address issues and note they do not work for the agency or institute being discussed. They say, “Are you all work for USIP? We are the outside counselors. You do not work for USIP.” This creates tension about authority and whose procedures apply. - The group inside, including Speaker 1, questions the motives and legality of the intruders, framing the situation as unauthorized access. Speaker 1 emphasizes control of the scene, saying, “I’m the president of this institute. I’m asking the questions, not you.” They propose to proceed with a judge’s decision regarding who has rightful access, noting, “According to news, sir. And how do we decide? You wanna talk about the second law and how the board goes off? No. We’re go over. It hasn’t been decided. It’s gonna be decided by a judge.” - There is a clear conflict about process and authority: the outsiders say they are present to facilitate a meeting but are unsure how long their involvement lasts and emphasize the need to identify who is authorized to be in the building. The outsiders insist on conducting a meeting inside first and indicate that certain individuals will not be allowed to come back in, stating, “You’re not allowed. I don’t know what I’m gonna have to let anyone pass you. So please don’t walk this way. Four of you are not coming back in today.” - Access to personal property and documents becomes a point of negotiation. The outsiders request to retrieve personal items, while inside personnel want to conduct their meeting inside first and control access, saying, “We need to have our meeting inside first. Thank you.” They offer to allow retrieval of personal belongings after the meeting but prioritize internal access. - The exchange ends with continued insistence on controlling entry and a directive to move toward a meeting inside, with the outsiders escorted away from certain areas and told to wait while the internal decision-making progresses.

The speaker states that more arrests are likely coming and that they have body camera footage of members of Congress assaulting ICE enforcement officers, including body slamming a female ICE officer. The speaker confirms there is a video of members of Congress body slamming ICE officials. When asked if members of Congress will be arrested, the speaker says it is an ongoing investigation and that is definitely on the table. ICE has the video, and it will be released very shortly.

We're members of Congress, here at the Department of Education, and we're being denied entry. The doors are locked, and a private security contractor is blocking our access. We showed our IDs; this is our job, and we have oversight responsibilities. We're not a threat; we're trying to request a meeting. This lack of transparency is unacceptable. The administration claims to be open, yet they won't even let us into their own building. This isn't right; we represent the people, and we demand access. They've even called Homeland Security. This building is a public institution; we pay for this building and its employees. This contractor, who isn't even a federal employee, is blocking us without a good reason. This is outrageous.

People are seen moving through the statue hall, near the area where senators enter for joint sessions. This location is significant as it highlights the ongoing breach being televised. Normally, access to the Capitol requires passing through metal detectors and security checks. The current situation, where security protocols are bypassed, is likely causing discomfort and anxiety among the Capitol Police and others inside the building.

People are moving through the statue hall near the area where senators enter for joint sessions. It's surprising to see this breach being televised. The Capitol is generally open to the public, but visitors must go through metal detectors and security checks. This breach means that security protocols have been ignored, likely causing discomfort and concern among the Capitol Police and others inside the building.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education by a private security contractor. They express frustration over being blocked from accessing a public building, emphasizing their role in advocating for constituents, especially children with disabilities. They question the authority of the security personnel, pointing out that they are elected representatives with oversight responsibilities. The situation escalates as they highlight a lack of transparency and accountability, criticizing the administration for locking them out while allowing billionaires access. They demand to be let in to discuss important issues affecting education and student loans, asserting that their inability to enter is a significant problem for American families.

We are members of Congress here to meet with the acting secretary. We notified her in advance. You're denying us entry. What authority do you have to prevent members of Congress from fulfilling their oversight role? You claim we need an appointment or to be on a guest list. That's not how it's always been. Ninety-four members of Congress signed a letter requesting a meeting to ask a simple question. Your claim that she's unaware of the meeting is unacceptable. We should be allowed access to the Department of Education. We'll proceed to the visitors' entrance.

The Chairman wants to visit Danbury Prison to see Mr. Bannon. The Congressman asks for approval, but the response is vague, citing a review process. The Congressman presses for a clear commitment to approve the visit, but the response remains noncommittal. Frustrated with the lack of clarity, the Congressman emphasizes the need for robust oversight to avoid denial of the request.

Senator Alex Padilla states that a half dozen violent criminals are being rotated. Someone states there is no recording allowed out here per the FBI. Another person says that you can record.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education by a private security contractor, leading to a tense confrontation. They assert their right to access the building, emphasizing their roles as elected representatives advocating for the public, particularly children with disabilities. The security personnel, unable to provide a valid reason for the blockade, are accused of lacking transparency and accountability. The Congress members express frustration over being barred from discussing important issues, including student loans and educational support for low-income families. They highlight the irony of being locked out while billionaires and their associates gain access. The situation raises concerns about the administration's commitment to transparency and public service.

DHS is allegedly using public intimidation and considering arresting members of Congress who are fulfilling their legal and constitutional duty to conduct oversight. According to the speaker, members of Congress are legally required to be granted access to ICE and CBP facilities to conduct investigations and oversight. They cannot be legally inhibited from accessing these facilities. The speaker claims that DHS, Tom Homan, and Secretary Kristi Noem are the ones breaking the law, not members of Congress like Representative Robert Menendez. The speaker warns that if anyone lays a finger on representatives like Bonnie Watson Coleman, there will be consequences.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education building. The doors are locked, and a tense conversation is taking place with a security guard. We're trying to observe what's happening. They're demanding access to the building, citing their roles as members of Congress and their right to access federal bill 19. The security guard, apparently a private contractor, is preventing their entry. The situation is escalating, with Congress members questioning the guard's authority and the reasons for being denied access.

Members of Congress are questioning private security contractors blocking their access to the Department of Education. They assert their right to enter as elected representatives advocating for children, particularly those with disabilities. The security personnel are unable to provide a valid reason for the obstruction. The Congress members emphasize that they are not a threat and highlight the lack of transparency in the administration, which claims to be open to the public. They express frustration that while billionaires can access the building, they, as representatives of the people, are denied entry. The situation raises concerns about advocacy for children and the role of public officials in ensuring access to education resources.

Speaker 0 questions the silence of fellow Democrats over an issue. Speaker 1 describes increased security by the FBI at a site and being asked to leave by them. The FBI is accused of trying to control information. Speaker 0 expresses a desire to hear from the Secret Service director.

I have an obligation to be in that room, representing 200,000 people in Northwest Georgia who elected me to be here. You're hindering that. I'm not hindering anything. You have no respect for the constitution. I need you to step away. I don't want to go down this road with you. I understand constitutional law. This has gone too far, so we need to stop it. Are you preventing me from entering? The doorkeeper says I'm not allowed in. The doorkeeper has no authority. As a senator of a joint session, I have more authority than this doorkeeper. I'm not causing a disturbance; I need to be let in. You're not going in.

Two members of Congress visit a facility to observe its operations, as it receives federal funding. They request access but are denied by an employee. The members express their intention to hold public hearings to investigate the use of federal funds in similar operations. They inquire about the organization's name but receive no clear answer. The members decide to move on without confrontation and plan to contact the appropriate department for further information. They express disappointment at being denied access and mention that the facility has been in the news. The conversation ends with the members stating they will not return that day but may do so in the future through their committees of jurisdiction.

It has gone too far. I represent 200,000 people in Northwest Georgia, and I have a right to be here. You're hindering my ability to fulfill my duties. This is unconstitutional. I need you to step away from me. There is a complete disrespect for the constitution. I understand your position, but this situation cannot continue. The doorkeeper has no authority over me; as a senator, I have more authority than the doorkeeper. This is creating a disturbance.

Protests are ongoing at the privately operated ICE detention center, Laney Hall, in Newark, New Jersey. According to a DHS spokesman, protesters and two members of congress stormed the facility after a gate opened to allow a van to enter. The members of congress involved are Democratic Congressman Robert Menendez Jr., son of the former senator, and Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman, both Democrats. DHS released a statement saying the actions of the members of congress went beyond a political stunt and endangered law enforcement agents and detainees. DHS stated that members of congress are not above the law and cannot illegally break into detention facilities, and that a tour would have been facilitated if requested.

Protesters have breached security and entered statuary hall, a legendary place on Capitol Hill. This unprecedented event has shocked those of us who cover Capitol Hill. The protesters are casually walking through the hall, while Capitol police seem unable to stop them. The situation is both strange and awful.

I have an obligation to represent 200,000 people in Northwest Georgia, and you're hindering that. This is unconstitutional. You show no respect for the constitution. I need you to step away from the door. I don't want to escalate this, but I have constitutional rights. You're preventing me from entering. The doorkeeper claims I can't answer, but as a senator, I have more authority than the doorkeeper. I'm not causing a disturbance; I need to be allowed in.

A CBS12 reporter, Tory, attempts to question a congresswoman at a ribbon-cutting event about an investigation into her family. Tory also asks the congresswoman about a congressional ethics investigation into potential campaign finance violations. The reporter repeats the question about the ethics investigation and asks what the congresswoman has to say to her constituents, implying she is obligated to answer as this is her district. The congresswoman does not respond.

The speakers visited a facility that opened May 1, holding over 100 detainees, because of reports that children were present. They didn't know the status of the facility or the detainees. As members, they feel it is their job to ensure the facility is running properly. Immigration is an issue in New Jersey, and they are responsible for oversight.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education building. The doors are locked, and a tense conversation is taking place with a security guard. We're trying to get access to federal bill 19. We are members of Congress and should be allowed entry. A private security contractor is preventing us from entering, and it's unclear why. We're simply doing our job. Show them your ID. Were you told to block us, or did you decide to do so? We have the right to access the building.

Speaker 0 shows notes the attorney general brought to the hearing, captured by a photographer in the room. The notes include a list of Democratic congresswomen and their search history. The photo indicates that searches performed by members of Congress at a DOJ facility—where they sit at a computer to search unredacted files—are being tracked and read by the Department of Justice and the attorney general. Speaker 1 responds that this represents a surveillance of Congress by the Trump administration and calls it totally improper, though not surprising given their misconduct in various areas. He notes that when he visited the facility, they log in under each person’s name, implying an attempt to make something of the situation. He states that members who visited shared the information they found, and emphasizes that it is not a pretty picture. He adds that lawmakers were required under the law to remove redactions unless necessary to protect the privacy of victim survivors. In his view, the redactions were used to protect offenders and coconspirators, with their names blacked out. He contends that information about the survivors was actually revealed, which he says was very wrong and contrary to the law. He also suggests that many survivors feel the exposure was deliberate, intended to intimidate them and silence them, though he says he does not know if that is true. The statement ends with “The other thing that's inter” before the transcript cuts off.