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 speaker argues that Democrats have been inconsistent on voter ID, particularly photo ID. He notes that for years Democrats claimed voter ID was a tool of voter suppression, then began hedging. He contends that Democrats now publicly say they support voter ID, with some leaders claiming their objection is not to a photo ID, but to other inclusivity formats like leases, utility bills, debit cards, or photocopies. He asserts that, in contrast, the Democrat floor leader said he objected to photo ID and called for inclusive voter ID options, but that Democrats have also supported photo ID in many other contexts (air travel, school enrollment, opening bank accounts). He argues this inconsistency shows Democrats “backpedaling” when pressed to support ID at the polls. The speaker cites severalDemocrats who have, at times, supported or stated favorable views toward voter ID, yet later qualified or avoided the position. He mentions a senior Democrat from New Jersey who said he would support a voter ID bill until pressed, then began avoiding the commitment. He references a junior Georgia Democrat who claimed, “I think you should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. I support voter ID,” while also noting concerns about the specific requirements under discussion. He also quotes additional Democrats to illustrate what he sees as mixed messages: a Democrat from Arizona suggesting support for a strict voter ID approach; a Democrat from Rhode Island describing their state’s “sensible voter ID law” and frequent roll reviews as effective; the Democrat Senate leader stating that “Democrats support voter ID” ten days earlier; and a Georgia Democrat reiterating the expectation to prove one’s identity before voting and describing it as “basic.” The speaker announces an amendment vote on a clean voter ID bill, intended to require a photo ID at the polls, such as a driver’s license, tribal ID, military ID, veteran ID, or a passport. He clarifies that this amendment would not affect the Save America Act and would not obligate Democrats to vote for the final bill; they could vote for the amendment and against the overall act. The amendment’s purpose, he says, is to force Democrats to demonstrate whether they truly support photo ID in a concrete, real-world form. The speaker invites Democrats to demonstrate their actual stance by supporting the clean photo ID amendment and asserts that this would reveal where they truly stand.

Upon entering the chamber, the surprise on your face at seeing Marjorie Taylor Greene was evident. In response to her heckling, you referred to the man who allegedly killed Blake and Riley as "illegal." You acknowledged that you should have used "undocumented" instead. You contrasted your approach to immigration with Trump's, emphasizing that you won't treat anyone with disrespect. You recognize the contributions of immigrants to the country and the economy, and while you believe in controlling the border, you do not share Trump's negative views. You expressed regret for using the term "illegal."

A certain senator, Elizabeth Warren, wanted to get rid of the debt ceiling, which the speaker calls the debt extension. Many Democrats agree with this. The speaker says that Democrats gave them the debt ceiling issue just before the election, which would have had a huge impact on the election. Elizabeth Warren wanted to see the debt ceiling terminated her whole career because it's so catastrophic for the country, and the speaker always agreed with her on that. The speaker hasn't spoken to her, but thinks if asked now, she'd say no because it's their problem. The speaker believes the debt ceiling should be gotten rid of or simply extended. The current bill automatically extends it for a four-year period, which it should. The speaker agrees with Elizabeth Warren that it should be gotten rid of because it's too catastrophic.

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.

The speaker acknowledges that people will be hurt by a vote. They state that they worked hard to achieve a budget deal that would exclude the provision that caused the harm.

I've criticized Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries before and lost followers. It's tough to criticize them in this space, even though they do a lot of bad things. I still vote for them. Please don't clip that quote.

Speaker 1 clarifies that he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, reading: "I refer to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage, which is the only word I can think of to describe it. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable." "That's all I meant to say." "The comments the comments at the rally don't reflect who we are as a nation." "No." "He does not view Trump supporters or anybody who who supports Trump as garbage." He adds: "If the president has said this for more than three years now, he has said multiple times that he is a president for all. It doesn't matter if you live in a red state. It doesn't matter if you live in a blue state." "He believes that he's a president for all."

Democrats were addressed with the question, "Democrats, can you hear us?" followed by the statement, "This is your first warning. Now you can supply a little bit of a correction."

We just voted for Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House. Before that, I expressed my refusal to support the rules package due to concerning language from Nancy Pelosi's Congress. The Democrats had established an office of diversity and inclusion and included gender-inclusive language that removed traditional family terms like father, mother, son, and daughter, replacing them with neutral terms. I demanded changes, and I'm pleased to announce that the language has been revised. The office of diversity and inclusion has been eliminated, and traditional family terms have been restored in the rules. Republicans are committed to upholding traditional family values, and we will ensure that biological men are not allowed in women's private spaces. We'll share the updated language for your review.

The speaker accuses someone of incompetence, referencing a prior statement made on PBS where they called Joe Biden competent, which they then had to retract. The speaker objects to being insulted publicly by the chairman and claims this behavior is discourteous and outside the committee's guidelines, characterizing it as a personal shot while also criticizing Biden.

Speaker 0 says they took an oath to the country, the Constitution, and the American people, and not to Europe, Islam, socialists, or globalists. They argue that “this is our country,” and that Americans “get to decide who comes in” and “who leaves.” They criticize members of Congress, including Republicans, for discussing amnesty, specifically referencing the “Dignified Dignity Act,” calling it amnesty. Speaker 0 argues that granting status to people who “shouldn’t be here” is amnesty. Speaker 0 states they are not a “brain surgeon,” but says the distinction is clear. They claim Congress has a “bad habit” of passing “band aids” and “empty resolutions” about the crisis of the day. They argue that the crisis is immigration, describing it as “illegal and legal because we are at war.” Speaker 0 says the conflict involves China, “the globalists,” and “the people within our own country that don’t believe what you believe.” They conclude by saying the founding fathers fought for a life where they could worship God, and not for Islam or globalists.

Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker McCarthy for taking credit for the single subject appropriations bills, stating that it was not his original plan. They argue against lumping together departments like Education and Labor with the military and border patrol, calling it chaotic. Speaker 0 claims that they forced the change and warns that if Speaker McCarthy continues, the appropriations process will become a sideshow controlled by lobbyists and special interests. They express frustration with how the American people have been mistreated for decades and vow to fight against it.

The speaker objects to the claim that Democrats are a party of pedophiles. They state that while Democrats support children being sexualized and having transgender surgeries, and that President Biden himself supports this, this does not make them pedophiles. The speaker equates sexualizing children with what pedophiles do.

The speaker observes Democrats on TV repeatedly mentioning Elon Musk and expresses enjoyment at this. The speaker finds it amusing that the focus of anger is on Musk, who allegedly exposed fraud, rather than on those who purportedly wasted taxpayer money. The speaker suggests that Congress is unable to cut the budget and thanks Elon Musk for doing their job for them.

The speaker acknowledges that people will be hurt by a specific vote. They state that they worked hard to achieve a budget deal that would exclude a particular provision.

The speaker proposes an amendment to prevent the removal of monuments on Department of Interior land. They argue that Democrats are erasing culture and history, referencing George Orwell's 1984. They mention the removal of Confederate symbols in 2020, attributing it to radical activists. The speaker claims that the Democrats aim to erase history and compares it to actions in communist countries. They criticize the Democrats for accusing others of book burning while not stopping the destruction of monuments. The speaker urges colleagues to support the amendment.

The speaker mentioned the goal of getting Republicans elected. However, the gentleman was not recognized and members were reminded not to engage in personal attacks against each other.

Tim Burtchett is working on a bill to defund the Taliban, which has been in progress for over a year. Democrats have proposed four amendments. According to Burtchett, three of the amendments are acceptable, but one would undermine the bill's purpose. The outcome is uncertain, but he will provide updates. He believes the bill is based on common sense but suggests that common sense is lacking in the current environment.

The speaker states that Senator Van Halen mistakenly believes an MS-13 terrorist is his constituent, when in fact, the individual is President Bukele's constituent, citizen, and resident. The speaker emphasizes the individual is not from Maryland, but an illegal alien from El Salvador with a deportation order, who is only in the U.S. due to the Democrats' veneration of due process for illegal invaders. The speaker asserts that it is legally impermissible for him to remain in the country and that they honored the law by removing him. The speaker suggests that if the Democratic party demands the return of illegal gang members and terrorists, their support will dwindle until only MS-13 members remain as their base.

The speaker acknowledges that people will be hurt by a particular vote. They state that they worked hard to achieve a budget deal that would avoid the provision that led to the negative impact.

I made a mistake in calling Mr. Parnas a Republican witness, he is actually your witness. I was a Republican for Trump. The committee is in recess due to votes, we will reconvene in 10 minutes.

Speaker 0 expressed disappointment with a large spending bill, claiming it increases the budget deficit. Speaker 0 connected this to the work being done by the Doge team. Speaker 1 stated that everything done on Doge gets wiped out in the first year due to the bill. Speaker 0 stated that a bill can be big or beautiful, but not both, in their opinion.

The speaker expresses agreement with someone frustrated about the country becoming "debt slaves." This individual believes Congress needs to regain the ability to say "no." Despite this agreement, the speaker is not yet prepared to abandon the current bill.

I support the bill, but I think the language needs to be clearer. Affirmations should be proactive, but they seem vague in this context. We need to ensure that parents who have no concerns about their child's mental health, but may have personal or religious conflicts with gender fluidity, are not penalized. I hope the author and the chair will work together to tighten up the language and address the concerns of those opposed to the bill.