Democratic Congress Member Garcia

The judge can set the security at whatever level he wants. What's typically happening in these cases is he's just waving it. No one's putting it up, and they're getting this injunction that applies nationwide, which is the concern. I hear you. Are you okay with the nationwide injunction issued by one single federal judge? We'll get to that part, Mr. Jordan. Okay.

The judge can set the security at whatever level he wants. What's typically happening in these cases is he's just waving it. No one's putting it up, and they're getting this injunction that applies nationwide, which is the concern. I hear you. Are you okay with the nationwide injunction issued by one single federal judge? We'll get to that part, Mr. Jordan. Okay.

I just want to say the situation we're trying to address is what's been happening around the country. You didn't write it that way. As you know, a single federal judge gets cases brought to the judge. They waive the security and then issue a decision that applies nationwide to all immigrants who are in that situation.

I just want to say the situation we're trying to address is what's been happening around the country. You didn't write it that way. As you know, a single federal judge gets cases brought to the judge. They waive the security and then issue a decision that applies nationwide to all immigrants who are in that situation.

I just want to say the situation we're trying to address is what's been happening around the country. You didn't write it that way. As you know, a single federal judge gets cases brought to the judge. They waive the security and then issue a decision that applies nationwide to all immigrants who are in that situation.

My amendment would strike an especially harsh provision in this bill that is rooted in cruelty, not policy. This simple, straightforward amendment would strike the work requirement provision in this big, bad, ugly bill that lowers the age of what we call a dependent child from 18 to 7. From 18 years old to 7 years old.

My amendment would strike an especially harsh provision in this bill that is rooted in cruelty, not policy. This simple, straightforward amendment would strike the work requirement provision in this big, bad, ugly bill that lowers the age of what we call a dependent child from 18 to 7. From 18 years old to 7 years old.

My amendment would strike an especially harsh provision in this bill that is rooted in cruelty, not policy. This simple, straightforward amendment would strike the work requirement provision in this big, bad, ugly bill that lowers the age of what we call a dependent child from 18 to 7. From 18 years old to 7 years old.

So I'm abundantly clear, we're saying that eight, nine and 10 year olds are no longer considered dependent children. Where did this come from? Why is this necessary? Since when is a first grader not a dependent child? Preventing families with children as young as seven from losing food assistance. That is what we're debating here.

So I'm abundantly clear, we're saying that eight, nine and 10 year olds are no longer considered dependent children. Where did this come from? Why is this necessary? Since when is a first grader not a dependent child? Preventing families with children as young as seven from losing food assistance. That is what we're debating here.

So I'm abundantly clear, we're saying that eight, nine and 10 year olds are no longer considered dependent children. Where did this come from? Why is this necessary? Since when is a first grader not a dependent child? Preventing families with children as young as seven from losing food assistance. That is what we're debating here.

I will hand the mic over, yield my time to any of my Republican colleagues that want to address the amount of money that their tax paying citizens are going to have to pay in increased premiums for their healthcare.

I will hand the mic over, yield my time to any of my Republican colleagues that want to address the amount of money that their tax paying citizens are going to have to pay in increased premiums for their healthcare.

I will hand the mic over, yield my time to any of my Republican colleagues that want to address the amount of money that their tax paying citizens are going to have to pay in increased premiums for their healthcare.

If anybody wants to mention, we have the numbers, everybody here has the numbers, how much your constituents are going to have to pay more every year in healthcare because of this bill. I don't know the numbers for my district. It's going to be a 50% increase, over $400 in my district.

If anybody wants to mention, we have the numbers, everybody here has the numbers, how much your constituents are going to have to pay more every year in healthcare because of this bill. I don't know the numbers for my district. It's going to be a 50% increase, over $400 in my district.

If anybody wants to mention, we have the numbers, everybody here has the numbers, how much your constituents are going to have to pay more every year in healthcare because of this bill. I don't know the numbers for my district. It's going to be a 50% increase, over $400 in my district.

And that's actually not even close to how much in many of the Republican districts there's going to be an increase. I would yield the mic.

And that's actually not even close to how much in many of the Republican districts there's going to be an increase. I would yield the mic.

And that's actually not even close to how much in many of the Republican districts there's going to be an increase. I would yield the mic.