Police Our Border Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1227 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 1227 provides for consideration of eight measures: H.R. 8369, H.R. 7530, H.R. 7343, H.R. 8146, H.R. 7581, H.R. 354, H. Res. 1213, and H. Res. 1210. The rule provides for H.R. 7343 and H.R. 8146 to be considered under structured rules with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of two measures, H.R. 354 and H.R. 7581, under closed rules with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1210 and H. Res. 1213 under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 7530 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8369 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their designee and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

The rule before us provides for consideration of three measures to support our Nation's law enforcement in the face of the Biden administration's disastrous immigration policies.

H.R. 7343, the Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act, would bring real consequences on the heads of those in our country illegally. This legislation would require the immediate detention and deportation of any illegal alien who chooses to assault the men and women who keep our communities safe.

Additionally, H.R. 8146 would require that the Attorney General provide a full accounting of how this historic and dangerous border crisis has truly impacted the health and the safety of our Nation's law enforcement.

Finally, H. Res. 1210 condemns the Biden administration's failed border policies that have resulted in 9.3 million illegal alien encounters along our borders in less than 4 years--and that doesn't include those that have evaded Border Patrol.

America's law enforcement officers are on the front lines of the Biden border crisis, bearing the brunt of this President's open-borders policies that are threatening the security of our Nation and laying waste to our communities.

We have yet to fully know the true damage done to our national security by 4 years of flinging the doors open for those breaking our laws. One thing is certain, it is falling on our Nation's law enforcement officers--our police officers in big cities and small towns across America--to contend with the consequences of this administration's open-borders policies.

The Biden border crisis is only one challenge facing our Nation's law enforcement officers. As we witness an alarming surge in criminal activity thanks to the left's antipolice, soft-on-crime policies, it is imperative that we confront a harsh reality. Our law enforcement officers are under attack both physically and politically. They are being targeted by the radical left simply for doing their jobs, for upholding the rule of law, and for protecting our communities.

To that end, the rule today before us provides for consideration of several measures that stand with our law enforcement officers in the face of these asinine policies that seek to vilify them and prevent them from doing their jobs, including H.R. 7581, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act; H.R. 354, the LEOSA Reform Act; and H. Res. 1213, a resolution condemning violence against our law enforcement officers.

H.R. 7581 would require the Department of Justice to report to Congress about violent attacks on law enforcement officers and the response of Federal, State, and local governments to these attacks.

Additionally, H.R. 354 would fix a discrepancy under current law to ensure that qualified active or retired law enforcement officers are not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in public settings. There is no good reason why the men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day should have their Second Amendment rights curtailed as they are under the current law.

Finally, H. Res. 1213 expresses a sentiment that I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can fully embrace and get behind: full, unequivocal support for our law enforcement officers and strong opposition to any movement that seeks to defund the police.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of statistics or headlines. The soft-on-crime policies that the radical left have championed have only left American families in more danger. Years of Democrat-elected officials, including some right here in Congress, calling to defund the police have vilified our law enforcement officers, preventing them from doing their jobs, leaving the people that they serve less safe.

Nowhere is this displayed more vividly than right here in our Nation's Capital, and the rule before us today also provides for consideration of a bill to combat the District of Columbia's anti-law enforcement, pro-criminal policies: H.R. 7530, the D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act.

D.C. law enforcement remains understaffed and overwhelmed by soaring rates of violent crime. In 2023 alone, homicides increased 29 percent from 2022, violent crime increased 37 percent, and robberies increased 65 percent.

What has the D.C. Council done?

Well, in 2022, it passed the Revised Criminal Code Act, which reduced penalties for violent offenders, and in that same year the Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, which targeted D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers and their ability to combat rising crime.

If the D.C. Council will not heed the concerns of the District's residents, police officers, and visitors from this country and around the world, then it is Congress' job to step in. This mess only encourages lawlessness and puts lives at risk. We have had one of our own colleagues, a Member of Congress, carjacked and a staffer stabbed, among many other horrifying and violent crimes. If we can't get a handle on crime in our Nation's beautiful Capital, how does that fare for the rest of the country?

H.R. 7530 changes the maximum age limit for youth offender status from 24 years old to 18 years old. It requires the District's attorney general to establish and update a public website containing juvenile crime statistics in the District and prohibits the D.C. Council from enacting any changes to criminal sentences.

Youth criminal activity has skyrocketed along with every other manner of violent crime in our Nation's Capital. A soft-on-crime approach is simply just not working, putting the lives of innocent residents and visitors in danger, and hamstringing the ability of our cops to do their jobs.

Residents of D.C. have the same rights as other Americans to be secure in their homes and to be protected against crimes committed against their lives and their property. It is heartbreaking to see the crimes committed by children and young people in D.C., and we need real solutions to address them. Children in our Nation's Capital deserve better than antipolice policies that lead them to a life of crime.

It is our duty as Members of Congress, as laid out in the D.C. Home Rule Act, to step in when the District's own policies so clearly threaten the safety of the residents of our Nation's Capital as they do today.

Finally, the rule before us provides for consideration of H.R. 8369, the Israel Security Assistance Support Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is frankly shocking and disgusting to hear that President Biden is purposely withholding our Nation's arms shipments to Israel as they are fighting to defend their right to exist.

At a time when Israel is under assault, facing attacks from Hamas and Iran, the decision to withhold these critical munitions is not just a failure; it is a betrayal of our greatest ally in the Middle East, and it goes directly against the will of this Congress and the will of the people.

We cannot let political games endanger lives. H.R. 8369 would ensure that America stands with Israel in its darkest hour, despite this administration's disgraceful actions to block such vital support. The legislation will ensure that any defense articles and defense services for Israel are delivered expeditiously, without obstruction from an administration that is willing to play games, unfortunately, with such necessary shipments, and we will prevent them subverting the will of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, America must stand with Israel and send a message to the world that we will not falter. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle likes to talk about the fact that these bills today that we are going to consider this week, these pro-police measures, don't have a future in the Senate or getting to the desk of the President. Yes, that is because his party controls those two branches. The Senate leadership will do nothing with this because they don't support the underlying legislation. They don't support law enforcement.

I would like to point out that it was Democrats who have for years pushed the defund the police rhetoric in cities, States, and right here in Washington, not House Republicans. In fact, it was Democrats who took the defund the police rhetoric and made it viral. They turned it into concrete policy that demonizes our men and women in blue while letting violent criminals back out on the street.

Madam Speaker, do you think the American people are really going to buy that Democrats weren't the ones who wanted to defund the police?

Madam Speaker, we could rewind the tape back to 2020 if you want to. We can show you the footage of our cities burning while they were chanting to defund the police and watching weak mayors of cities down on one knee begging for forgiveness for standing for law and order. We could go back and rewind the tape and get a little instant replay if you like. The footage is there. It is in black and white. It is a matter of historical fact that my friend's party supported the defund the police movement.

What I just heard from the other side of the aisle couldn't be any more laughable. Democrats in New York City, certainly not Republicans, cut the NYPD's budget by $1 billion with more cuts to come. We have some of those brave NYPD officers here with us this week for Police Week.

Democrats in Los Angeles, not Republicans, cut the LAPD's budget by hundreds of millions of dollars with more cuts to come.

Democrats in Chicago, not Republicans, cut the Chicago PD's budget by $1 billion only to embarrassingly and quietly reverse further plans for cuts in recent years after crime spiraled out of control.

Right here in our Nation's Capital it was Democrats, not Republicans, who passed legislation to make it more difficult than ever for cops to do their jobs and keep D.C.'s communities and residents safe. Let's not forget that at the height of the defund the police movement, it was House Democrats, not House Republicans, who attempted to completely defund the Department of Justice's Project Safe Neighborhoods program, a nationwide initiative that empowers law enforcement to work with community leaders and stakeholders to directly identify the most pressing violent crime problems in a community. I am talking rapes, armed robberies, gang violence, and much, much more.

Nonetheless, that didn't stop House Democrats from defunding this program to appease a radical base. The radical left has bought hook, line, and sinker into the defund the police movement, and Americans in New York, in Washington, in Chicago, in L.A., and everywhere else where Democrat leaders hold sway are reaping the consequences of these dangerous policies.

Madam Speaker, the family of slain NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller told New York Governor Kathy Hochul that she had blood on her hands. They see, as Americans across the country see, that it is the Democrats and not the Republicans who have abandoned law enforcement. They have vilified them, and they have made it harder than ever for them to do their job and keep their people safe.

The legislation under this rule today is a step in the direction of supporting our law enforcement officers and empowering them with the tools to keep our communities safe in spite of the defund the police movement and in spite of the Biden border crisis.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it is great to see that my colleague, the ranking member, has looked into Jamestown, New York, and read some of our headlines. Yes, we have Republican leadership right now, a brand-new elected Republican mayor. There was a Democratic mayor up until this last election, but I don't blame the outgoing Democratic mayor.

I do blame the State of New York's leadership for destroying the criminal justice system in the State of New York, eliminating cash bail, and creating discovery reform. Creating a revolving-door criminal justice system in the State of New York is the reason that the police officers, many of which are at our Capitol this very week to celebrate Police Week, can't do their jobs.

They have been put in handcuffs while the criminals walk free with an appearance ticket for many of the same crimes that the gentleman just rattled off from the Jamestown Post-Journal. That is fact. That is fact in the State of New York because Democrat-run policies, a Democratic Governor, a supermajority in the State senate, and a supermajority in the State assembly have destroyed my State's criminal justice system. They have blood on their hands and have destroyed towns, villages, and cities across the once-great Empire State.

The gentleman has found a few headlines, and we hope to get some restoration of common sense back to the Empire State once again, but it has to start right here in our Nation's Capital. It starts with the legislation under this rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), my friend.

Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle are making some wild claims that somehow crime has gone down. It is like President Biden taking a bow for gas prices going from five bucks a gallon to four bucks a gallon when they were far less than that just before he was sworn in.

My colleague's claims rest on cherry-picked data that does not present a full picture of the crime problem in our major cities, so let's revisit some of the facts.

Violent crime has skyrocketed with year over year increases in violent crime in the millions. Carjackings have spiked by as much as 93 percent in many major cities and 18 percent more homicides were committed in 2023 than in 2019.

It is no coincidence that many of these major cities that have been the epicenter of the wave in violent crime also happen to be run by Democratic politicians with leftwing DAs that have made it their mission not to prosecute perpetrators but to put dangerous criminals back on the streets and to facilitate a revolving door criminal justice system.

My colleagues need only to venture beyond Capitol Hill to see what these policies have done to our Nation's Capital. To recap here, according to the Metro Police Department's own data, crime in D.C. increased 30 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year.

In 2023 alone, homicides increased 29 percent compared to 2022. In fact, since 2012, the rate of homicides in D.C. has doubled. Violent crime has increased 37 percent and robberies increased 65 percent from 2022 to 2023. Motor vehicle thefts increased 107 percent between 2022 and 2023.

This surge of criminal activity is a direct result of the D.C. Council's soft-on-crime sentencing policy and refusal to back up its law enforcement officers with real support, resulting in resignations of police officers. We have heard it directly in the Oversight Committee from the union officials.

Madam Speaker, despite my colleague's refusal to wake up to the reality, the fact remains that we are at this point today with crime soaring in many of our major cities and Americans are feeling less safe because of the disastrous policies the Democratic leaders, at the behest of the radical left that governs their party have imposed on residents of our communities.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is important that we don't forget all the other legislation in this bill, as we have had a spirited debate today about law enforcement.

It is really important to remind my colleagues today about the situation in Israel and the Israel legislation that is being considered this week. We need to talk about how this conflict began. On October 7, it was Hamas and not Israel that launched a horrifying terror attack that took thousands of lives and innocent people hostage.

It was Hamas terrorists who murdered approximately 1,200 people, including Holocaust survivors, the elderly, babies, and beautiful young people attending a music festival. It is Hamas who, to this day, has over 100 innocent people held hostage, including American citizens who we cannot forget are being held hostage. Americans are currently being held hostage in Gaza.

Hamas is responsible for this war. Hamas, a terrorist organization, has for decades now used civilian structures and innocent people to shield their terrorist operations. However, Madam Speaker, none of that stopped anti-Israel protesters from taking to the streets just a day after the horrific attacks and the butchery of Israeli civilians to chant ``from the river to the sea.''

There are some people that serve in this building that take their time and like to chant ``from the river to the sea,'' and they need to be held accountable for that, which we know is synonymous language for the extermination of the Jewish people in Israel.

Madam Speaker, by holding these arms shipments, President Biden is just not flouting the will of Congress and the American people, but he is also kowtowing to the radical left that, frankly, has embraced the anti-Israel movement wholeheartedly. It has become practically a platform plank over there.

We are learning more and more about the leftwing groups and donors that are bankrolling the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic protests that have erupted across the country. We noted that it is the far left, including Members of the House, that have fully endorsed this message to turn against our ally Israel in their hour of need and to isolate them and to ultimately support their destruction.

Madam Speaker, I am done hearing the false equivalencies of a morally bankrupt movement. Anyone who remembers the true reason why Israel is defending itself today should support the legislation under this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I wish my colleague from Massachusetts well with his Trump derangement syndrome.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today is about standing up for the safety and well-being of our neighborhoods, our families, and our way of life. It is about standing up for what is right and defending those who risk their lives every single day to keep our communities safe.

In my own district in the southern tier of New York, a Chemung County Sheriff's investigator, Michael Theetge, was critically injured when he was hit by a shoplifter's getaway car and has since been fighting to recover. Our prayers and wishes for a speedy recovery are with him and our whole community.

Sadly, Investigator Theetge's case is not an isolated incident. It is emblematic of the dangers to law enforcement officers and what they face every time they put on their uniforms.

In my own State of New York, we have lost some of our very finest recently. We have recently laid to rest Lieutenant Michael Hoosock of the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department, Syracuse Police Officer Michael Jensen, and NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller.

We don't want other families to have to go through what their families are facing right now and to be able to expect that their loved ones will come home at the end of their shifts safe and sound.

What is happening in America's major cities in too many States and right here in our Nation's Capital is simply unacceptable, and it needs to be addressed now and is with this legislation before us.

This rule, Madam Speaker, is also about standing up for our closest friends and allies. Since October 7, Israel has been in a struggle for self-defense against a terrorist organization that seeks nothing but violence, destruction, and extermination of the Jewish people.

Israel needs the tools to defend itself and defeat Hamas. We need to send a message to the world that America will not falter in our commitment to our allies. We need to send these munitions to Israel now. Our future and their future depend on it.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have us here today considering eight measures that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Six of the eight measures that are being brought before this House are being brought forth under completely closed rules, which means nobody, not Democrats and not Republicans, can offer any amendments to change or improve those bills.

So much for Republican promises of a more deliberative process or more openness or more fairness. That just went out the window.

I don't think I have ever seen a group of people do so much and yet accomplish so little.

Seven of these measures are supposedly about law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, do you know how many of them will actually do something to help keep people safe?

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Just a piece of free advice to my Republican friends: It is probably not the best idea to take direction on law and order from a guy who, as we speak, is a defendant for covering up hush money payments to a porn star for political gain. That is not even to mention the other three criminal felony prosecutions that he faces.

Look at the cover of today's New York Times, Madam Speaker. This is unbelievable. Here is a picture of the Speaker of this House of Representatives, second in line to the Presidency, standing in front of a courthouse acting as a prop for Donald Trump trying to interfere with a criminal trial because, apparently, Republicans like law and order unless it applies to them.

It is unbelievable. Madam Speaker, you can't make this stuff up.

I will say to my colleagues that this stunt of the Speaker and Republican Members of Congress going to this courthouse diminishes this House of Representatives. Their candidate for President has been indicted more times than he has been elected.

I didn't think I was.

Somehow, Madam Speaker, they have the nerve to tell us about the criminal justice system?

Give me a break.

Their credibility on this issue has evaporated. It is pathetic. I could go through these bills one by one, but I think the American people would rather watch paint dry because none of these bills do anything. None of these bills will be passed by the Senate. None of them will do a damn thing to help the police. None of them will keep our communities safe. We have a ton of BS bills going out to immigrants. Let me just remind everyone: It was Republicans who killed their own bipartisan border security bill in the Senate, and it is Republicans in the House who refused to even bring it up for a vote.

Why?

It is because they are afraid it might pass. They are afraid they might lose a talking point.

We have a nonbinding resolution about defund the police.

Isn't it ironic that they all talk so much about defunding the police, but despite their rhetoric, Republicans are the ones who want to defund the police.

Republicans support cutting the COPS program, which hires police officers in every State in America.

Get this, Madam Speaker: Republicans voted against awarding police officers who protected all of us on January 6 the Congressional Gold Medal. Let that sink in.

Republicans voted to fire 2,000 Customs and Border Protection police officers. Republicans voted to cut Federal support for local law enforcement agencies in September of 2022.

Republicans have called to abolish the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the ATF.

At every single juncture, when Republicans have had a chance to put their money where their mouth is, they have shown that all their pro- police rhetoric is just that: rhetoric.

They will say whatever they need to win political support from police and then hope the cops don't notice when they vote to cut their budgets.

The eighth bill this rule would bring to the floor is the so-called Israel Security Assistance Support Act. This bill is a disaster. It basically gets rid of human rights checks and balances already in place on arms transfers, and it would interfere with any administration's ability to comply with U.S. obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law.

I think it is absurd that my Republican friends don't understand the difference between supporting Israel and writing Prime Minister Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants with U.S. weapons with no regard for civilian lives or for human rights.

That is not even just the Democratic position, by the way. Three U.S. Presidents have threatened to pause military aid to Israel under similar circumstances.

Who were they?

They were Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. They were all Republicans, Madam Speaker. They were all Republicans.

Please don't give me this partisan BS. Please. Please, spare us that.

U.S. military assistance doesn't come with no conditions. If our taxpayers are paying for it, then they ought to have some level of assurance that it is not being used to indiscriminately bomb civilians or block the delivery of humanitarian aid to starving people.

The bombs that the President is withholding, these 2-ton bombs, have a blast radius of one-quarter of a mile. That means, I would say to my friends, if you were standing in front of this Capitol and the bomb were dropped on the Republican congressional campaign headquarters or the Democratic congressional campaign headquarters, then we all would be dead if we were standing in front of the U.S. Capitol.

The President is concerned that 2-ton bombs are being dropped on Rafah, a heavily populated area with over 1 million people. He believes that the civilian casualties are unacceptable. We all should care about the civilian casualties, especially if we claim to be a friend of Israel, because the more civilian casualties that are incurred, then the more difficulty Israel has in getting to a lasting peace.

It is a real shame that this is what Republicans have decided we should spend our week doing, Madam Speaker. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that after the Democrats bailed out Speaker Mike Johnson last week that maybe, just maybe, we would see a change in the tone of this place. Maybe there would be more of an acknowledgment that we need to put people over politics and that we need to get stuff done, because that is what the American people want.

I am disappointed to see that this week it is just more of the same old same old from this incompetent Republican leadership that has wasted away their time and power and accomplished nothing, not a single damn thing, during their time in their slim majority. The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than they are getting from my friends on the Republican side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it is rich to be lectured by the chairman of the Rules Committee about the need to support our police officers and to help do more to recruit and train them.

I will say to my friend, the distinguished Member from Texas (Mr. Burgess), and to all of my Republican friends: Stop cutting COPS grants. Continue to adequately fund the COPS program so that we can actually have our local law enforcement recruit and hire more police officers.

My Republican friends don't like to admit a desire to cut the COPS grants. I would say to everybody who is watching to look it up for themselves.

The Republican Study Committee, which is the largest caucus in the Republican Conference, actually put out a report titled: ``Fiscal Sanity to Save America.'' If my colleagues go to page 148, and I urge people to look it up for themselves, it says: ``Reduce funding for Community Oriented Policing Services,'' or basically what we call the COPS grants.

Republicans want to cut money for our local police. It is in their budget document. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to cut the money and then come here and make believe somehow that Republicans support our local police officers. Come on. Enough.

Additionally, sometimes I wonder whether the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) really believes the stuff that he says. The gentleman keeps talking about crime in Democrat-run cities. By the way, it is Democratic-run cities. The last time I checked, we don't have Democratic cities or Republican cities in this country. We have American cities.

I took the liberty of looking up some of the headlines from New York's 23rd Congressional District, which Mr. Langworthy represents, and, in particular, Jamestown, New York, the largest city in the area and the location of his district office. Jamestown has a Republican mayor, a Republican city council, a Republican supermajority on the county legislature, a Republican State representative, a Republican State senator, and a Republican Congressman.

Let's look at some of the recent headlines from the Republican stronghold of Jamestown, New York: April 22, 2024, ``Jamestown man accused of killing 16-month-old child charged with manslaughter''; March 2024, ``1 dead, 2 injured in Jamestown homicide''; January 2024, ``Investigation Underway in Jamestown Homicide Case''; May 2023, ``Three Accused Of Stealing A Vehicle In Jamestown''; June 2021, ``Two teenage girls charged with arson in connection with Jamestown furniture manufacturer fire''; and February 2024, ``Six arrested after robbery, assault leads to standoff in Jamestown NY.''

I could go on and on. Madam Speaker, none of this is to disparage the wonderful people who Mr. Langworthy represents, but if the gentleman wants to come down here and read off RNC talking points about crime, I think the gentleman should at least try to be intellectually honest.

I know the other side wants to play the blame game. I know Republicans are all about stunts and not solutions, but maybe, just maybe, the majority ought to look in the mirror first instead of playing to the cheap seats.

Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record a Salon article titled: ``Republicans like to talk tough on crime--but they're the ones with a real crime problem.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), but let me say to the gentleman that, rather than just denounce the slogan of defunding the police, maybe the gentleman should go to the Republican Study Committee and tell them to not defund the police because, again, if one goes to the Republican Study Group document, page 148, it is clear that the Republicans want to defund the COPS program.

Please, enough with the rhetoric. If my colleagues are serious about supporting the police, then don't cut the COPS program, period. How hard is this?

I remind the gentleman that the hometown of the former Republican Speaker of this House, before the Republicans threw him out, Kevin McCarthy, which is Bakersfield, California, has a higher crime rate than San Francisco. I don't even know where my friends are coming from.

I have to say that I have never heard anybody denounce their home State as much as I have heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) denounce New York. I think New York is a great State. It is not as good as Massachusetts, but I think it is a great State.

I get it. The gentleman just explained it all to me. If it is a Democratic-controlled area, all the crime is blamed on the Democrat. If it is a Republican-controlled area, then the majority finds the nearest Democrat, and Republicans blame it on the Democrat. That is their rationale.

I mean, come on. This place has to get more serious in terms of supporting initiatives to actually not only support law enforcement but protect our communities instead of one sound bite after another that does absolutely nothing and the blame game that we hear constantly.

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues this week claim to want to focus on public safety but have chosen to put misguided measures and messaging bills on the floor. Here is their chance to actually do something of substance that will make police officers safer, make our streets safer, and make our children safer.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 715, a bipartisan bill to require a background check for every firearm sale.

There were over 42,000 firearm deaths last year, with the annual total of mass shootings increasing from 414 in 2019 to over 650 in 2023. Eighty-six percent of homicides in this country involve a firearm, and of the States that saw their gun homicide rate decrease between 2022 and 2023, States with the strongest gun laws decreased their homicides by a rate nearly triple their lax gun law counterparts.

This is common sense. It is not a partisan issue. In fact, H.R. 715, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, was introduced--hold on to your seats here--by a Republican.

I know that, like me, many of my colleagues have children and all of them have elementary schools and middle schools in their districts. I know Members see the toll this is taking on our Nation's children, our most vulnerable. Nearly 60 percent of teachers are worried about a shooting happening in their school, and one in four had a gun-related lockdown during the last school year. According to the Pew Research Center, one in five parents was extremely concerned about their child getting shot, and Republican leadership wants to do nothing.

This is barbaric. It is past time, Madam Speaker, and we are ready to work in a bipartisan way to end the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey) to discuss our proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman keeps on talking about crime in D.C., crime in D.C., crime on the rise. I can tell you one thing; the crime is definitely down in the White House right now and I can understand why the gentleman is confused.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Washington Post, entitled: ``Crime is down, though FOX News viewers might not be aware.''

The article notes: ``The reality is that crime surged in 2020--when Trump was President. That surge continued into the Biden administration but has since waned.''

Madam Speaker, in the lead up to the 2022 midterms, FOX News invested immense resources in promoting stories about surging crime, despite lacking evidence. While crime is down, it appears the conservative ecosystem is trying to fearmonger the issue of crime, once again, because, you know, that is all they have.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Guardian, entitled: ``Crime coverage on FOX News halved once U.S. midterms were over.''

Madam Speaker, so after a frenzy of coverage about violent crime in September and October 2022, the conservative media giant FOX News actually decreased coverage of violent crime stories by 50 percent in the weeks following the 2022 elections.

Crime stories have long been used by Republicans to fearmonger for cheap, electoral victories, and it seems like this old tactic is being utilized, once again, in 2024, all while 80 percent of Republicans support cutting the COPS grant program.

Madam Speaker, I urge my friends who don't believe me to go to the Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget proposal--this is the most recent one--and go to page 148. You will see under the heading, Reduce Funding for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), it is my Republican friends--for all the talk about defunding the police--that are leading the way because there in their Republican Study Committee, which is the largest caucus in the Republican Conference, they have put out a report highlighting their budget priorities, which talks about eliminating the COPS program. You can't make this stuff up.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am unable to rebut all the nonsense I just heard, and I am exhausted by this debate. Let me touch on two things. First, we haven't heard a single word from our colleagues across the aisle acknowledging the very real challenges civilians in Gaza are experiencing every day under this war. We have not heard a single word.

If we send massive 2,000-pound bombs to Netanyahu without any assurances on how they will be used, it could mean unprecedented, catastrophic civilian casualties. I mean, these are people that we are talking about, innocent people--boys and girls, brothers and sisters, moms and dads, grandparents, babies.

Where is our humanity? Where is our humanity? These are people who are already struggling with shortages of food, water, shelter, medical supplies, the basic things that humans need to survive. They fled to Rafah because that is where Netanyahu told them to go to escape the bombing of Hamas. Now, Netanyahu is saying he is going to bomb them anyway, and there is no plan to safely evacuate them to any other place.

I don't care whether there is another country that does it. Killing civilians is wrong. It is always wrong. You can be a friend of Israel, a strong ally of Israel, and also be a critic when it comes to the Netanyahu government.

You can be a strong friend of Israel and say that more massive civilian casualties will undercut Israel's security. This is not the way to go.

You can feel as I do that what happened on October 7, the horrific attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. It was unconscionable. There aren't enough adjectives to describe how horrific that was.

The taking of hostages is a war crime. We want them released. You can feel that way, but also understand that we have an obligation to protect civilian lives in Gaza.

I am grateful to President Biden for taking the step that he did, and I wish he would do more, quite frankly. It is disappointing for me to see that so many of my friends across the aisle seem indifferent to it.

Madam Speaker, coming down here to get lectured about crime from the party whose leader is a criminal is really something else.

My friend from New York not once rebutted our contention that Republicans have advocated cutting the COPS grant because it is here in print. Anybody can see it.

For those who want to know why this program is good, it is because it provides money to help local law enforcement be able to hire and recruit police officers, especially in areas where budgets are tight.

It is a lifeline for so many communities, rural and urban, all throughout this country, and they are advocating eliminating it. Give me a break.

None of the measures the House of Representatives are putting forth this week do a single thing to protect Americans, secure our communities, or improve law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, the real shame here is that if Republicans were willing to set their partisanship aside and work across the aisle, maybe we could get something substantive done because the reality is that Democrats want to keep people safe, and we know how to do it.

We need to invest in programs that get at the root causes of crime, and we need to address gun violence in our schools and make sure police aren't put in situations that they aren't trained to handle. We know the key to improving safety in our neighborhoods is not to use our law enforcement officers like political pawns.

At the end of the day, the Republican commitment to chaos, extremism, and politicking over legislating is hurting our ability to improve people's lives. I have to be honest: I think it is going to backfire on them.

Even one of our Republican colleagues took to the floor and said as much last year: ``Nothing but empty promises.'' He went to say: ``We haven't done anything,'' meaning Republicans. ``One thing. I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing--one--that I can go campaign on and say we did--one--anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done.''

That is a Republican saying that. They know they are getting nowhere in this Congress.

All I can say, Madam Speaker, is the American people deserve better, and they certainly deserve better than the Speaker of the House spending his time trying to influence our justice system at a courthouse in New York City. How pathetic. When we have real problems that we need to deal with here in this country, he is in New York trying to explain away, like a staffer, all of Donald Trump's problems, quite frankly.

I am trying to think of a way to stay within order here with the new rules. It is pathetic. It is pathetic. That is where the Speaker of the House is spending his time, trying to rationalize all of the former President's crimes. Give me a break.

Madam Speaker, the American people, as I said, deserve better. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. This is just a waste of time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while you may not know it from some of the language that is being used today, we are debating a poorly written ``reporting bill'' that will do nothing.

This bill is full of empty rhetoric, it makes no policy changes to address the outdated immigration system, and it provides no funding of any kind.

All this bill does is attempt to produce a onetime politically motivated report on the so-called Biden border crisis, just one report. That is it.

Give me a break.

Even though the entire bill is focused on reporting requirements related to the ``Biden border crisis,'' the bill doesn't even define the term.

It is as if we needed more proof that this is not serious legislation and that it is more about messaging than congressional oversight of the executive branch.

Why are we continuing to waste our time marking up these meaningless messaging bills?

I have said this before, and I am going to say it again because the same resolutions keep coming up over and over again, so I feel as if I need to repeat myself.

The situation at the border is directly linked to the fact that the legal immigration system has not been modernized in 30 years. It has been left in chaos because it has not been updated to meet the needs of our country today.

When the legal process is so outdated that it takes decades for green card holders to get their children into the country, or when employers simply can't get visas for the people that they need to hire because 2 million people are in processing backlogs, or when we have so few immigration judges that asylum seekers wait over 8 years to get their cases heard, then people turn to unscrupulous actors, including the cartels. The cartels promise desperate people that they can escape dangerous situations by paying cartels to get them in to seek safety by crossing the border.

If my colleagues on the other side were serious about addressing the situation, Republicans would work with us to fix the immigration system to provide people with workable ways to immigrate.

That would disempower the cartels. It would ensure the integrity of the border. It would give us what we all want, which is order at the border that is fueled and made possible by a legal immigration system that works and a legal immigration system that provides pathways for people to come to work here, to be with their families, and to contribute to our economy.

That is what we need right now, but here we are. Instead of that, we are defending a bill with no chance of becoming law or solving the problem. Republicans are showing clearly what we Democrats have been saying over and over again, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to do anything that would help fix the broken immigration system. Instead of solving the problem, Republicans want to continue to weaponize the border as a political issue for this election year.

Rather than debating meaningless bills, we should be exploring how to meaningfully reform the broken immigration system and expand lawful immigration to the United States, given the very clear and documented benefits that that brings.

In 2021 alone, DACA recipients paid $6.5 billion in taxes; refugees paid almost $28 billion in taxes; and TPS holders paid $2.2 billion in taxes. Likewise, in 2021, undocumented immigrants paid approximately $18.6 million in Federal income taxes and $12.2 billion in State and local taxes.

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a study demonstrating that refugees and asylees generated $124 billion in fiscal benefits over 15 years, and the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity, recently released a report finding that recent immigrants who joined the workforce will actually add $1 trillion of revenue to our country's GDP between 2023 and 2034.

It is also estimated that putting undocumented immigrants on a roadmap to citizenship would not only increase U.S. GDP by $1.7 trillion over the next decade, but that action would also raise wages for all Americans and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Unfortunately, Republicans talk a big game when it comes to immigration and border security, but instead of trying to pass thoughtful, bipartisan legislation to address problems in our immigration system, my colleagues waste our time on bills like the ones before us today.

Members don't have to just take it from me. The fact is that the second most conservative Republican Senator in the United States Senate crafted a bill with some Democratic support to put forward before us on immigration reform, and Republicans decided that the majority didn't even want to consider that bill or vote on that bill. Do my colleagues know why? Because Donald Trump told them not to because it would take away what Republicans see as an election issue.

I believe the American people are smarter than that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this meaningless bill and to see very clearly that Republicans are not interested in solutions, in governing, but are just interested in meaningless messaging bills to try to divide us when we really should be celebrating the tremendous benefits that immigrants contribute to our country every single day.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment furthers the major drafting problems in this legislation by asking the Attorney General to report on how the so-called Biden border crisis impacted law enforcement recruiting.

As I said earlier, there is no definition for the ``Biden border crisis,'' and this amendment highlights just how unserious this legislation is.

How on Earth is the Attorney General supposed to determine how the border impacts law enforcement recruitment? Are local law enforcement agencies going to have to go to all the candidates who turned down job offers and ask them if their decision was influenced by the border?

This bill is a huge waste of time, and this amendment serves only to make this poorly drafted bill even more incomprehensible. I, therefore, oppose its adoption, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it, as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, the Nunn amendment requires the Attorney General to report on how much each State spent on investigating fentanyl trafficked through the border.

I do not oppose this amendment because it does not repeat the same misleading talking points that Republicans often use when discussing fentanyl, and I am grateful to my colleague across the aisle for that.

I did want to make a couple of points on this because I think fentanyl is such an important issue in all of our districts. It is a scourge on all of our districts, all of our communities. We are all seeing the effects of fentanyl that is coming into this country.

We know that fentanyl is being smuggled into our country and that some of it comes through our southern border, but I do want to make clear that fentanyl is seized primarily at the ports of entry.

In fiscal year 2023, CBP seized approximately 27,000 pounds of fentanyl. Less than 10 percent of the drugs were actually seized by Border Patrol. The vast majority, roughly 90 percent of the drugs, were seized by the Office of Field Operations, which is the entity that mans the ports of entry.

I will be clear that the evidence does not show in any way that asylum seekers are bringing drugs to our shores. In fact, increasingly, drug cartels are being very smart about this. They are recruiting American citizens to bring drugs across the border through ports of entry. In 2022, over 89 percent of convicted fentanyl traffickers were American citizens.

If my Republican colleagues were serious about stopping the flow of fentanyl, the flow of drugs across the border, then I think we should be giving additional resources to the agencies that are manning those ports of entry.

Instead, all but six current House Republicans voted against the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which provided additional funding to ports of entry to combat the smuggling of people and drugs. All but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for border security operations in the 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation, which provided more than $17 billion to Customs and Border Protection, including funding for an additional 300 Border Patrol agents.

The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry. That is exactly the kind of technology that our Border Patrol agents are asking us for.

Republicans have also refused to consider President Biden's emergency supplemental funding request for additional border resources, which included $239 million to hire 1,000 additional CBP officers to stop fentanyl and other contraband from entering the United States. It included $100 million for ICE/Homeland Security Investigations to investigate and disrupt transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers, and it included $849 million for cutting-edge detection technologies at ports of entry.

This is the work the Democrats have been doing to try to address the scourge of fentanyl that is coming across our southern border and coming into our country by supporting law enforcement and stopping that fentanyl.

Fentanyl is a huge problem in our communities. It is important that we support our law enforcement in fighting against it. This amendment would simply inform Congress about how much States are spending to combat fentanyl and, therefore, I see no reason to oppose it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Attorney General to report on how local officers and resources have been reallocated to combat fentanyl trafficked through the border. I do not oppose the amendment because the amendment itself, like the previous amendment, does not repeat the same misleading talking points. I was ready to give my colleague across the aisle some credit again, but, unfortunately, the same misleading talking points were just repeated in talking about the amendment.

Fentanyl is not coming across the southern border because of some failed border policy. It is coming across the southern border primarily carried by American citizens at ports of entry.

This is about providing resources to our law enforcement officers on the southern border to be able to have the technology to detect that fentanyl. It is about providing enough people so that they can actually do the kind of monitoring that they are asking for. It is about providing the resources that Democrats put forward as the answer to this question and Republicans oppose time and time again.

I will be very clear that I appreciate the data that we are getting because fentanyl is a scourge. I have gone out with my local firefighters across Seattle multiple times, and I will tell you that 99 percent of their calls are responding to fentanyl overdoses, to opioid overdoses, and it is heartbreaking to see what is happening.

In fact, in my first year, I worked with Speaker Mike Johnson on a bipartisan allocation of money to provide other ways of dealing with overdoses due to opioids and fentanyl on the streets by actually providing supportive services for law enforcement so law enforcement wasn't having to deal with all of this. I don't think that this is something that the majority of our law enforcement members want to be dealing with in our cities.

I just want to be clear: We should be fighting the scourge of fentanyl. We should be doing it in a bipartisan way. We should not be doing it as part of some legislation that is meaningless, that puts the blame for what is happening with fentanyl on some ``Biden border policy that has failed.''

Combating fentanyl should be a priority for all of us regardless of what side of the aisle we are on. We should not repeat the talking points that are divisive and untrue in talking about this issue.

Fentanyl seizures shot up during the Trump administration and have continued to rise during the Biden administration. It is a bipartisan problem. Fentanyl poisoning is killing so many beloved members of our communities, and we have to do everything to stop it.

Republicans often assert, without any evidence, that asylum seekers are the ones that are bringing fentanyl onto our shores, even though the data suggests otherwise. Once again, I am going to repeat this: The vast majority of fentanyl that is seized coming into this country is seized at ports of entry, smuggled in by United States citizens.

Playing politics about such a deadly substance is extraordinarily irresponsible. Fortunately, the amendment itself is straightforward, and it aims to get more data about combating fentanyl so we can be better informed about how it is impacting our communities.

The underlying legislation, on the other hand, and some of the talking

points that are used by my colleagues across the aisle is not that. The underlying legislation is poorly written, and it is misleading. The talking points are misleading, but the amendment is clear, and so because of that, I see no reason to oppose it.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, here I was coming to the floor thinking that I could support an amendment that made sense to me about fighting the scourge of fentanyl, and I do support the amendment because I think data will be good for us.

I just would say to my friend across the aisle: Shutting down the border is not going to fix this problem. By saying that and by continuing to use those divisive talking points, he is moving us away from a solution to the really dire issue of fentanyl that is killing our communities.

Let's work together in a bipartisan way to actually deal with the scourge of fentanyl. Let's not put it on the border and let's not pretend that shutting down the border is going to help because, as I said, fentanyl poisoning rose under the Trump administration, and Donald Trump did try to shut down the border until the courts prevented him from doing that.

The reality here is, we have a real problem. We have a real problem. I was willing to come to the floor and support this amendment because I think the data is important, and I hope my colleague across the aisle will recognize that sticking to the facts, as he did in his amendment, is the most important thing to actually addressing the issue of fentanyl.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8146.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, on Inauguration Day of 2021, our borders were secure. The Trump remain in Mexico policy had cut phony asylum claims to a trickle. The border wall was nearing completion. The court-ordered deportations were being enforced. By the end of that day, President Biden had reversed those policies, and thus began the greatest illegal mass migration in history.

Since that day, he has allowed 6.9 million illegal migrants to enter our country and demand free food, free clothing, free legal assistance, free education, free shelter, free lodging, free phones, and free cash. Except, of course, it is not the least bit free. It all comes out of the earnings of American families and out of the services that we set aside for Americans in need.

Unlike legal immigrants who obey our laws and do everything our country asks of them, the first act of these 6.9 million aliens who have illegally entered our country is to commit a Federal crime. I have watched them personally taunt our Border Patrol at the border as they do so.

Woke cities and States have passed sanctuary laws that forbid our law enforcement officials to turn over illegal aliens who have committed other crimes to ICE for deportation as the law requires. This administration has made these policies national by refusing to enforce over a million court-ordered deportations.

It shouldn't surprise us that many who are willing to violate our immigration laws are also willing to violate the rest of our laws, as well. The number of terrorist suspects that the Border Patrol has encountered has ballooned exponentially, and law enforcement officials are warning that among the 1.9 million got-aways--mostly single, military-aged men--is likely a dangerous fifth column, which could soon launch devastating attacks within our borders.

Fentanyl brought in through the open border is killing hundreds of Americans every day. The Democrats' sanctuary policies hamstring attempts to deport criminal illegal aliens. Worst of all, the admission of untold thousands of the most vicious gang members on the planet is now producing a terrible butcher's bill of murders and assaults on Americans.

When the Federation for American Immigration Reform looked at the requests by States to be reimbursed for the cost of incarcerating aliens, they found that immigrants are 231 percent more likely jailed for crimes in California, 440 percent more likely in New Jersey, and 60 percent more likely in Texas, just to name a few.

Immigrants are 231 percent more likely to be jailed in California, according to their own SCAAP numbers. You won't find that anywhere else because it is illegal in California to otherwise report the immigration status of criminals and criminal suspects. By their criteria, not a single crime is committed by illegals in California, yet their jails are overflowing with them.

As of last December, there were at least 617,000 aliens on Immigration and Customs Enforcement's non-detained docket who have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. Yet, these dangerous offenders are out on American streets, free to re-offend.

This past year, Mr. Biden removed 60 percent fewer criminal illegal aliens than Trump did in 2019 despite an exponential increase of illegal aliens entering our country, and we are seeing the results every day in murders and assaults on America's streets and in empty chairs at Americans' family dinner tables.

Earlier this year, New York City Police Commissioner Edward Caban declared that ``a wave of migrant crime has washed over our city.'' He should know because, earlier this year, a group of illegal aliens brutally assaulted two NYPD officers. New York Mayor Eric Adams described the assault as ``an attack on the foundation of our symbol of safety.'' He then called on the city council to consider if there should be more collaboration with Federal immigration officials. I suppose it is better late than never.

The bill before us today, H.R. 8146, the Police Our Border Act, requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the impact of the Biden border policies on law enforcement officers. This report would document officer safety concerns that are linked to increased cross-border movement, such as fentanyl exposure and assaults on law enforcement officers. The report would also examine the overall burden of this unfolding tragedy on law enforcement capabilities and officer morale.

Our men and women in blue continue to protect our communities even when our communities don't fully support them. We owe them better as a nation. With this measure, we declare our determination to recognize and document the threats they face so that we can enact measures to make it harder for a President to ever again unleash these threats upon the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, when my friend complains about partisan Republican rhetoric, I would advise him to listen to his own constituents who are begging their Representatives in New York and Chicago and Denver whose social services are being overwhelmed by the tidal wave of illegal immigration that this administration has unleashed and that my friend has defended every day in this House.

He complains that the term ``Biden border crisis'' isn't defined. He might want to open his eyes and look around him or open his ears to hear the pleas of his own constituents.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito), the author of this measure.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, my friend calls the Senate bill the only viable bill.

If it is so viable, then where is it?

The Senate bill could not be passed by the Senate.

H.R. 2 was passed out of this House and did ultimately receive, I believe, 47 votes in the Senate. The Democrats love to tout the Senate bill. That bill would not have ended Biden's open-border policies. It would have institutionalized them.

Current law gives the President full authority to secure our border. Trump proved that. It requires asylum claimants to be detained. Trump did that.

This bill that he talks about would leave future Presidents powerless to secure the border until illegal immigration reaches 4,000 a day, 1.5 million a year, and it would have required that they be released into our country. That is the Democrats' idea of border security, a guaranteed 4,000 illegal aliens being released into our country every day.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, in response to that tirade, let me just remind the gentlewoman that 6.9 million illegal immigrants have been admitted into our country in violation of our immigration laws since this administration took office.

The gentlewoman speaks of all the taxpayer money that she generously volunteers to pour into our social services. Well, I have news for her: That safety net has been shredded by their open-border policies.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that just in the last year the cost to our public schools is $70 billion just to educate the children of the illegals whom they have admitted into this country and $22 billion in costs to our hospitals.

Now, I submit to you, Mr. Chair, that if Republicans were to suggest we should cut $70 billion from public education or $22 billion from our public hospitals, there would be complete outrage on the other side of the aisle, and yet that is exactly what their open-border policies are costing us right now. That is a travesty.

There is one way to solve this, and that is to secure our borders as we had accomplished under President Trump.

That is why there are so many Members over there right now to defend a President who actually is serious about defending our borders.

Mr. Chair, I am ready to close when the gentlewoman is, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

To sum up, without law enforcement, there is no law, and without law, there is no civilization. Without immigration enforcement, there are no borders. Without borders, there is no country.

This is where the woke left is taking us, and it is time for Americans to decide how much farther we want to allow them to take us down this dismal and dangerous road.

I think the American people are entitled to ask this administration and its apologists in this Congress: How do we make our streets safer by making it all but impossible to deport criminal illegal aliens, as the law requires? How do we make our families safer by flooding our communities with deadly fentanyl?

How do we make our children safer by not vetting every person who enters our country to keep the criminals out? How do we make our neighborhoods safer by refusing to prosecute criminal illegal aliens to the fullest extent of the law? How do we make our highways safer by creating the conditions of deadly high-speed chases and drunk driving? How do we protect our country as untold numbers of terrorists enter among the 1.9 million known got-aways who have entered under Joe Biden's nose? How do we make our communities safer as criminal gangs and criminal cartels set up shop in our cities for their lethal business of child trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, and crime?

These are the questions that have gone unanswered since this administration took office and with which our local law enforcement officials must grapple every day at the peril of their own lives in order to protect ours.

The Democrats just don't seem to care, but America cares. Americans are dealing with this entirely preventable crisis every day, and our law enforcement officers are the heroes who protect our families and our communities every day. We owe it to them to document the truth, to acknowledge it, and to act on it. That is what this bill would do, and I urge the House to adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, who does the gentlewoman think she is kidding? Who does the gentlewoman suggest we assign responsibility for this catastrophe that has overwhelmed our country and its social services, its criminal justice system, and its citizens?

On January 20, 2021, the border was secure, the Trump policies were working. On that day, our laws didn't change, the Presidency changed. On that day, the Trump policies were reversed by one person, Joseph Biden.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, this year, our Republican majority has wasted time passing three different but equally meaningless resolutions related to the Biden administration's immigration policies. This week, we debated a fourth.

We now move on to yet another meaningless and poorly written piece of immigration legislation. Just like the four resolutions, this bill is full of empty rhetoric that will do nothing to solve the situation at the border.

Not a single dollar will go to help our law enforcement agents at the border as a result of this bill. Not a single person will be denied entry to this country as a result of this bill. Not a single community will be made safer as a result of this bill.

It is just another stale attempt to demonize and fearmonger about immigrants wrapped in fresh packaging.

The bill itself is an oddly written and thrown together reporting bill that claims to require the Attorney General to produce a report on the impact of the Biden border crisis on Federal, State and Tribal law enforcement.

When it comes to reporting bills, I am usually supportive. It is essential for us to conduct oversight of the executive branch, and reports are an important way to do that.

Unfortunately, this bill is such a sham and is riddled with so much misinformation and blatantly partisan political rhetoric masquerading as fact that I cannot support it.

Here is just one example of how poorly written the bill is. It requires the Attorney General to report on the impact of the so-called Biden border crisis without defining that term. Without a definition, the term is meaningless, and the Attorney General would have no guidance to know what data the report should actually contain.

The obvious cheap political rhetoric exposes this legislation as an unserious messaging bill. Beyond that, in a world where my Republican colleagues consistently say that they do not trust the Attorney General to carry out their intent, the lack of definitions makes little sense.

The bill also attempts, incorrectly, to paint undocumented migrants as being the primary source of fentanyl brought into the country, when we know that this is not true. The vast majority of fentanyl is seized at ports of entry, trafficked by U.S. citizens. Over 86 percent of those convicted for fentanyl-related drug trafficking convictions are U.S. citizens.

Furthermore, cartels are not risking their product on people who illicitly cross the border between points of entry. In fiscal year 2023, CBP seized approximately 27,000 pounds of fentanyl. Less than 10 percent of those drugs were seized by the Border Patrol.

The vast majority, or roughly 90 percent of fentanyl, was seized by the Office of Field Operations, which mans the ports of entry.

Lastly, the bill asks the Attorney General to report on the resources devoted to addressing the border and the resources that are ``not available to law enforcement agencies.''

However, at every turn, it has been Republicans who have voted against giving DHS the resources it needs to do its job. In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the bipartisan infrastructure deal, which provided additional funding to modernize ports of entry and allow for nonintrusive inspections to combat the smuggling of people and drugs.

Likewise, all but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for Customs and Border Protection and border security operations in the FY 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.

That bill provided more than $17 billion to CBP, including $60 million to hire an additional 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry.

When it comes to the President's supplemental request, which would provide $14 billion for border security, we have not had a single hearing, let alone a vote on the request. The President has requested vital funds for 375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims so that people could get their asylum claims adjudicated in weeks, not in years.

The Republicans are fond of talking about catch and release, but that is because it takes years for someone to get his asylum case adjudicated. The President has requested these funds, and if he got the 375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers as well as the funds, you would adjudicate these cases in weeks, not years.

He has also asked for funds for additional personnel at ports of entry and technology to stop drugs from coming into the country. The Republicans have said no.

As a final indication of just how unserious this bill is, its findings state that Congress should pass and the President should sign into law ``strong border security legislation.''

Never mind the fact that it was House Republicans who walked away from a bill negotiated by one of the most conservative Members of the Senate, a bill that Senator McConnell called the toughest border bill in 30 years, all because Donald Trump told them he wanted the issue for the election, not a solution.

Now, I know my Republican friends will say, well, there is H.R. 2, which is a better bill. Well, I don't know whether it is a better bill, but it is a bill that cannot pass. It could not get more than 32 votes in the Senate with 49 Republican Members.

You don't get strong border security legislation by passing congressional resolutions and reports. You have to do the hard work of legislating, but that appears to be far beyond the capacity of this Republican majority. Instead, they are reduced to pointless bills like this that accomplish nothing and are full of misleading talking points.

We deserve better than this waste of time.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend from New York talks about the Biden border crisis, and he talks about the bill that failed in the Senate because the former President, former President Trump, told the Senate, told Republicans not to vote for it because he wanted an issue. He didn't want the problem solved; he wanted an issue.

He said it in his own words. Congressman Nehls said it in his own words.

H.R. 2, which they claim to support, in fact, would never get more than 32 votes in a 49 Republican Member Senate. Republicans didn't support it, never mind the Democrats.

The only viable bill was the bill negotiated by Mitch McConnell and Senator Lankford. It was the most conservative bill in a generation, and one that was supported by the union representing the Border Patrol people. However, that bill was killed because President Trump wanted no progress and said so. At least he was honest about it. He said: I don't want any progress in this area. I want an issue.

My Republican friends are talking about the issue that could have been solved by now if it weren't for President Trump's ordering them not to solve it.

We will hear a lot of rhetoric about solving a problem when they are participating in what amounts to a plot not to solve the problem by passing the strict bill that could have been passed, that was supported by and that is supported by the union representing the border patrolmen and could actually solve the problem.

They don't want to solve the problem. They just want to talk about the problem.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would update the report required by this bill to include the nationality of any noncitizen who exposes a law enforcement officer to fentanyl during an encounter at the border and in the United States.

Just like the underlying bill, this amendment is another attempt to incorrectly paint undocumented migrants as being the prime source of fentanyl brought into the country.

We already know that the vast majority of fentanyl is seized at ports of entry, trafficked by U.S. citizens. As I stated previously, in fiscal year 2023, CBP seized approximately 27,000 pounds of fentanyl.

Less than 10 percent of these drugs were seized by the Border Patrol. The vast majority, roughly 90 percent of the fentanyl was seized by the Office of Field Operations, which mans the ports of entry.

My Republican colleagues always respond that this is the case because ports of entry are where we have resources to interdict the drugs, but this is also wrong.

Unfortunately, because Republicans refuse to adequately fund ports of entry, only 2 percent of passenger vehicles and 16 percent of commercial vehicles are inspected.

We would likely catch even more drugs carried in by U.S. citizens if CBP had all the resources it needed. However, at every turn, it has been Republicans who have voted against giving DHS the resources it needs to do its job.

This bill is so full of misinformation and could actually use some facts, so I will not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would update the findings section of this bill to include a provision that states that it is in the best interests of law enforcement officers and the communities they serve for President Biden to use section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to secure the southern border.

To be clear, the President does not have the authority to unilaterally shut down the border. President Biden cannot simply use Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent immigrants from crossing the border. In fact, when President Trump tried to do exactly that in 2018, he was immediately shot down by the courts.

Moreover, enforcement-only solutions don't work. The best way to secure the border is to expand lawful pathways and to adequately fund the immigration system.

We have not updated our legal immigration system in over 30 years. The more broken the legal immigration system is, the more people will try to come to the border as the only means of entry.

This notion that the President has all the authority, not to mention the resources, that he needs to solve all the issues at the border with a stroke of his pen is a fantasy.

Congress must work together to provide the legal tools and the resources necessary to address the border crisis.

I know that there are Democrats willing to put in the hard work, but we have yet to find any House Republicans who are willing to do so. This amendment is as unserious as the underlying bill. I will oppose both, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.