H.Res. 980

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

Mr. Speaker, let me set a couple of things straight.

The border is not open. Now, maybe some people think it is because my Republican colleagues every day for the last 2 years have come to the floor screaming, ``The border is open. The border is open. The border is open.''

However, the border is not open, and that is just a fact. Today, there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration detention, which is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for and roughly what the Trump administration averaged in fiscal year 2018.

The Biden administration has also significantly increased removals in ways that many on our side of the aisle are concerned violates due process. Since the end of title 42 last year, the Biden administration has removed or returned to Mexico close to 500,000 individuals. The total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.

Please, please, stop making things up and stop claiming the border is open. It is not.

Do we have a problem at the border? Absolutely. Absolutely, we do. However, listening to the gentleman, he seems to have no solutions. I mean, I think he thinks this is Beetlejuice, if you say ``crisis'' three times, the problem goes away. No; you have to take some action. You have to work to try to address the issue.

Democrats and President Biden want to find real, comprehensive solutions to fix it. What we need is Republicans to stop playing political games, and that is the exact opposite of what is happening here and what has been happening under this Republican-controlled House of Representatives. It is shameful.

I know that because we called their bluff. Democrats said, yeah, we care about border security, too. Let's get to work. Now Republicans tell us that they would rather wait until after the election. They don't actually want the thing they have been talking about for the last year. It is all a big lie. It is all a big lie.

Why? Why would they want to wait? Why don't they want to work with us to fix the border right now? I think we all know the answer. Trump called--the guy they all worship, the guy they are all frightened to death of. He called, and he is demanding that they do nothing. No action at all on the border, that is what he said because he wants to campaign on it. I mean, what the hell is wrong with them?

The Senate is working on a bipartisan border security bill, and Republicans tell us here in the House that they don't care what is in it. They will oppose it no matter what. From what I hear, I am not sure that I can even support the bill they are working on over in the Senate. It has things in it that cause me a lot of angst, but Republicans are sure that they are against it because Trump told them to be against it.

That is because, at the end of the day, all he wants is to be able to scare people by demonizing immigrants and whipping up hate and fear and appealing to racism and bigotry. It is disgusting. It is that simple. I mean, I am not surprised. This is the guy who says: ``Immigrants poison the blood of America,'' echoing the words of Adolf Hitler. We can't get anyone on the other side of the aisle to try to disassociate themselves with those remarks. That is who the Republicans listen to. That is who is calling the shots here. Trump says no action on border security, period.

Please, spare us the outrage and indignation. It is all theatrics. It is all for show, all so you can go on FOX News and blame President Biden for something that they refuse to fix. Republicans tried to cut Customs and Border Protection personnel. They rejected President Biden's request for $106 billion in funding to fix this problem, and they have consistently voted against funding for border security.

You can't make this stuff up. They say we don't need more money. We just need a President who follows the law. We hear that again and again. We heard that last night in the Rules Committee. I hope that they are not implying that the former President--a rapist who was just ordered by a jury to pay $83 million for defaming his victim--follows the law.

He has been indicted 4 times with 91 felony counts. I mean, this guy has been indicted more times than he has been elected. Give me a break. That is who is calling the shots around here? It is shameful.

The bottom line is that they simply do not want to fix the border crisis. House Democrats, Senate Democrats, President Biden--hell, even Senate Republicans, some of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate, have been working together in a bipartisan way to solve this country's problems.

We acknowledge we need to address our problems at the border, provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, fix our broken immigration system, and address the root causes of migration.

What does the extreme MAGA clown show in this House care about? Not fixing the border. They care about Trump, about bending over backwards for his campaign and turning this place into a circus. What a shame. What a waste of time. What an embarrassment.

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

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

I missed a lot of what the gentleman from Texas just screamed because I couldn't follow it all.

Mr. Speaker, it is being intimated that this bill that is being worked on in the Senate somehow does nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a CNN article titled: ``GOP Senators seethe as Trump blows up delicate immigration compromise.''

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that people like Senator Thom Tillis--I didn't think he was a liberal Democrat. Unless I missed something, he is a pretty conservative Republican--said: ``Don't pretend that the policy isn't strong. If you want to admit you're just afraid to tell President Trump the truth, that's fine. But for you to take a look at this framework and say it's a half measure, either you're not paying attention or you're not telling the truth.''

That is Senator Thom Tillis, a very conservative Republican Senator, saying that. It is not me. I would say that to the gentleman from Texas.

Senator Lankford, is he now a Democrat? Is he now a traitor to the cause? We heard some Republicans at a press conference yesterday talk about those who were supporting a compromise. He said the other day on ``Face the Nation,'' and I quote, House Republicans actually do not want a change in the law because it is a Presidential election year.

I mean, this is ridiculous. This is all theatrics. Shame on them for exploiting this issue. Shame on them for ginning up all this hate and all this vitriol and not wanting to be part of the solution, not wanting to do anything to fix it.

I am also puzzled. I think I need to go to the Capitol's attending physician to see if I can get a neck brace because I have whiplash following the logic of some of my Republican friends.

We heard all year that we need to pass a bill in order to fix the immigration crisis at the border, and then last night in the Rules Committee we are told we don't need a bill, we don't need a law. Then here we are today dealing with four more bills that, by the way, most of which is already covered in existing law.

What is it? Do we need a law, or don't we need a law? If we don't need a law, what the hell are we here for?

Why are we wasting our time? This is not a debate club, right. We are here to actually get things done. If the gentleman wants to be part of the solution, then be part of the solution.

If the gentleman just wants to complain for the sake of complaining, then just do it in the press conferences. Don't waste time here.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, and deferred enforced departure recipients.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, you need a map to follow the logic of that last speaker. First of all, the border is not open. We have more people in detention right now than we have funding for. My Republican friends continuously vote against more funding, so figure that out.

To the listening audience here, I am a little bit confused by the debate on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Missouri just talked about, oh, we are serious about securing our border. We passed

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

Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the point that I made earlier that my Republican friends are not serious about governing or about getting anything done, I point out to people in this Chamber maybe something that they don't really know.

I have served on the Rules Committee for a long time, and the Rules Committee used to be a place where people showed up to try to get things done, where we would discuss big and pressing issues facing the country, and where we would debate how each side thought these problems should be solved. We would pass consequential legislation to improve the lives of Americans.

It has been difficult to be on the Rules Committee lately to just deal with messaging bills--bills that don't do anything, that don't mean anything,

that don't help anybody, and that don't solve any problems.

This is a Judiciary Committee bill that we are dealing with right now. I ask this question of my colleagues here in the House: Do you know how many bills the Judiciary Committee has brought before the Rules Committee that have become law in the last year?

The answer to that question is zero. Zero.

It seems like the Judiciary Committee is up in the Rules Committee every other day. Not a single Judiciary Committee bill that has come before the Rules Committee that has come to this floor has become law. That is absurd.

Now, you may say I am cherry-picking, but do you know the last time the Rules Committee met on a bill that actually was brought to the floor that got signed into law?

Eight months ago. That is when we met on the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Even that moved forward because Democrats came to the rescue and voted for the rule to avoid a debt ceiling disaster.

That is 8 months, more than half of our time in this Congress, wasted on messaging bills. At this point, I am not sure if that is a bug or a feature for this Republican majority, but what is clear is this: None of these bills that we are talking about here today will address our border challenges.

None of these bills that we are dealing with today are going to ever become law. Republicans don't really care because they don't want to do anything real to solve problems at the border.

The economy is getting better. Their presumptive nominee for President is ethically challenged. He has more legal problems than--I don't even want to compare him to anybody. We have never seen anything like this before.

He was just ordered to pay $83 million for defaming a woman who he sexually abused, and this is just the beginning.

They are not interested in solving problems or governing. What they are interested in is trying to hold on to a campaign issue. I am tired of it, the American people are tired of it, and frankly, it is just sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has?

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want to work to get things done. We want to work with Republicans in a bipartisan way to fix our problems at the border. Republicans, well, let me just use their own words. Last night in the Rules Committee, we heard from the other side that we aren't going to fix the border crisis with laws. I mean, that is what was said in the Rules Committee last night.

I mean, what the hell are we even doing here then?

Why even pass any laws at all?

Why try to fix any problems?

Republicans say that Joe Biden and Democrats are single-handedly responsible for the crisis at the border. That is just not true. That is just not true. It is simply not true.

Look at the facts. Democrats voted to increase border funding by 17 percent. Democrats provided $65 million for 300 new Border Patrol agents, $60 million for 125 new personnel at points of entry, and $230 million for technology, like autonomous surveillance towers.

Republicans--Republicans--voted ``no'' every single time. Why? It is simple. Because Trump calls the shots around here, and Trump wants a crisis at the border. Somehow he thinks it helps him politically.

Unfortunately, there is not a lot of courage on the other side of the aisle in this House to stand up to the bully and to do what is right. In fact, we have our House leadership standing up and saying no to a deal that the most conservative Republicans in the other Chamber are saying is a good deal, is a tough deal. And they are saying no. Why? Because all of a sudden, Trump doesn't want it. How pathetic. How pathetic. What a cynical, rotten thing to do.

This is a serious problem that requires a serious solution, but they don't want to solve it. They don't want any action to secure the border. That is their strategy for November.

Well, guess what, it is going to look a lot less strategic when they lose the next election because the American people see through their BS and vote them out of office.

I mean, we have an opportunity here to potentially do something that will actually address the problems at the border: something meaningful, not messaging bills that are going nowhere, not talking points, not press conferences where people have meltdowns, but actually do something meaningful. All they can say is no, no, because Trump doesn't want us to do it.

You know, I don't know how we progress here. I am hoping that there are some sensible Republicans who will stand up to Trump and stand up to their leadership who seems to have caved on trying to work together. I point out, again, that we have a divided government. I wish the Democrats were in control of everything. I am sure my Republican friends wished the Republicans were in control of everything. But the fact of the matter is, they are not, and they continue to act like they are, but when they behave that way nothing gets done.

So the way this is supposed to work is that we work across the aisle, we try to come up with some areas of commonality, and we move forward, and we work with the Senate, and we work with the White House. That is what the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats are doing right now.

I mean, Mr. Speaker, I say to my Republican friends: You are not in control of everything. You don't have a dictatorship--at least yet. I know that is what the former President would like, but that is not what we have right now. If we want to get something done, we are going to have to compromise. We are going to have to give and take. We have to listen to each other. We have to try to move something forward.

For the life of me, I can't understand why we are wasting so much time coming to the floor with stuff that is going nowhere that serves no purpose, other than to get people all riled up and maybe continue to appeal to the worst instincts in people: hate, racism, and bigotry. Enough. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, if they want to solve the problem, then we are willing to work with them. If they don't, then please go away.

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 980 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 980, providing for consideration of four measures: H.R. 5585, H.R. 6678, H.R. 6679, and H.R. 6976.

The rule provides for consideration of all four measures under structured rules with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction, or their designee. The rule provides one motion to recommit for each measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and support of the underlying bills.

Today, we are here to address an ongoing crisis, not a new concept to this body. The word ``crisis'' has been a hard one for my friends on the other side of the aisle to absorb when it comes to our current situation on the southern border.

Let's just put a few things into perspective:

In 2023, Customs and Border Protection encountered over 2\1/2\ million illegal migrants attempting to cross the southern U.S. border.

In December alone, Customs and Border Protection encountered 302,000 illegal migrants--that is just in the month of December--attempting to cross the U.S. southern border, the highest number of unlawful migrant crossings in a single month in recorded history.

In 2023, Customs and Border Protection confiscated almost 230,000 pounds of drugs, including 22,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl, being smuggled across the southern border.

If this doesn't sound like a crisis to you, I don't know what would.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I was at the southern border to witness firsthand the challenges faced by Texans and to hear directly from Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers who are on the front lines of this crisis.

Magically, either by order of President Biden or by order of the cartels, the Eagle Pass area was completely cleared out that day. If that is possible when Members of Congress are visiting on a certain day, it is possible every single day.

Mr. Speaker, the President has every tool that he needs right now to stop the overwhelming flow of migrants to the border. The proof of this is that immediately upon taking office, President Biden dismantled the immigration policies that were put in place by the Trump administration. He did that by executive order. He can undo them by executive order.

President Biden halted the construction of the border wall, ended Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the remain in Mexico program, and restarted the dangerous catch and release program with the simple stroke of a pen.

Now the consequences have been stark: record numbers of migrants crossing the border and increasing each month; record numbers of illegal migrants being released into the United States; an open season for drug smugglers, human traffickers, and Mexican cartels; and social support systems stretched to the breaking point, not only in my home State of Texas, but places across the country like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Denver.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an immigration problem; it is a national security problem. We have a responsibility to make certain that the laws of this land protect Americans and ensure their safety.

Earlier this Congress, we passed H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, to combat illegal migration and ensure operational control over the southern border, but the Senate has refused to even debate or have a vote on the bill.

Today, we take up four additional bills that will help undo the chaos caused by this administration to ensure that law enforcement, particularly the agents of Customs and Border Protection, Federal agents are supported in their mission to keep our communities safe. This means closing loopholes that allow illicit behavior to go without punishment, which is exactly what the following four measures will do.

Last year, Customs and Border Patrol Agent Raul Gonzalez was tragically killed in pursuit of illegal migrants fleeing law enforcement in a motor vehicle. High-speed chases started by those breaking our laws are not uncommon.

In fact, any of us who have been down and visited the border, whether it was several years ago or recently, have been shown the films, the dash cam videos collected by Customs and Border Protection of these very high-risk, high-velocity chases which frequently end up with a crash, with people hurt, or people simply bailing out on the highway and running away.

Currently, fleeing law enforcement in a motor vehicle does not carry immigration consequences for the perpetrators, even in situations that result in the death of an officer, like the one involving Agent Gonzalez.

H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act will change that by adding specific criminal and immigration consequences for individuals who operate motor vehicles while fleeing Border Patrol and law enforcement agents.

The penalties instituted by this bill include prison time and ensure that perpetrators can be deemed inadmissible to this country and deported from the United States.

Preventing deadly accidents that endanger lives is also the focus of H.R. 6976, the Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act.

With a simple turn of a key, an intoxicated driver commits a crime and illegal migrants are no different. Tragically, many of these incidents involve individuals who should not be in the country at all. Illegal migrants who have committed this offense are evaluated under the crimes involving moral turpitude standard, a difficult and complex legal analysis that results in long delays and lengthy legal proceedings.

H.R. 6976 will change this and provide immigration consequences for driving under the influence, rendering illegal migrants who have committed this offense inadmissible to this country and deportable without a lengthy process.

In a similar vein, with identification and fraud on the rise, H.R. 6678, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act will ensure that criminal or illegal migrants who commit Social Security and ID fraud can be removed and barred from this country.

Finally, we will take up H.R. 6679, the No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act. In October, the world watched in horror as Hamas, a designated terror organization, committed a vicious and evil attack on Israel. Twelve hundred Israelis, including American citizens, were murdered. Another 240 were taken back to Gaza as hostages where many remain today.

Terrorists who participated in, planned, or otherwise supported the October 7 attacks should not be admissible to the United States, full stop. There is no reason for a member of Hamas to ever be admitted into the United States. H.R. 6679 will make that a reality and ensure that we can prevent these deadly and evil people from

ever entering our country, thereby protecting our citizens.

Taken together, eradicating these gaps in our legal recourse will deter criminal activity and ensure that bad actors face appropriate punishment for their crimes.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have demonstrated that we are committed to governing for the American people and that the American people have spoken. Their message to their elected Representatives is: ``Enough.''

Enough with sending their tax dollars to process migrants that should not be in this country in the first place instead of enforcing the law; enough with putting law enforcement both at the border and across America in harm's way; enough with the fearmongering and lies.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rule and the underlying bills. I urge my fellow Members to support the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds just to answer some of the charges flung against me.

The gentleman said he wants solutions. There are solutions. The solutions are to undo the executive order the President put in place in his first 5 minutes in office, end catch and release, cease the exploitation of parole authority, reinstate remain in Mexico, expand expedited removal authority, and renew the building of a wall.

Mr. Speaker, it is sheer fantasy that $106 billion will fix this problem. Of course, it won't. The gentleman knows it won't.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford) for his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill being considered over in the Senate is a bill that sets a floor, not a ceiling, a bill that guarantees 2 million people illegally come into this country every year. Mr. Speaker, that is on top of the 1.2 million people that are admitted legally every year--and not to mention the people who come in under the radar. Yes, I am going to be against that bill, and I will be happy to join my friend from Massachusetts in a bipartisan fashion and vote against that legislation because it is bad legislation; not because someone else told me it is bad, but because I know it is bad, and my constituents know it is bad.

When we were down in Eagle Pass, Texas, a few weeks ago with the Speaker of the House, the deputy chief of the Border Patrol spoke to us the first evening down there, and he said, we are faced with a raging flood. And when you are faced with that, it is not that I need bigger buckets, I need someone to turn the water off. So is there a way to turn the water off? And he told us there was.

Simply reinstituting the remain in Mexico policy, the Migrant Protection Protocols that President Biden undid with an executive order on his first day in office, would reduce the flow by 70 percent and would allow our very beleaguered Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement the ability to actually maneuver and do what their job calls for; that is, to protect American citizens.

As it stands right now with the massive ingress of people, all they can do is process people. It becomes a question of throughput. So that is not an answer, and don't pretend that it is because the American people see through that.

I will just address one other thing. I am not running for reelection. I am bulletproof. You can't hurt me. But I support the former President and his approach to border control because I saw it work for the 4 years he was in office. He was the best President of the 21st century, and, yes, I would like to see him back in office; not because someone told me, but my constituents support the type of leadership that he provided for those 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this country is being invaded at the southern border--invaded to the extent that Governor Greg Abbott in my home State of Texas has officially declared an invasion. This administration has done nothing to help, nothing to help Texas, and has, instead, decided to take Texas to court to sue Texas just for trying to get the smallest bit of relief for its citizens and for its law enforcement officers.

The Republican majority has, once again, demonstrated that our agenda will be devoted to improving the lives of American citizens. Our governing majority will continue to focus on the issues that matter most to the American people: rising energy costs, sky-high inflation, rampant crime, and, yes, fixing our porous southern border.

These are issues that the American voters rightfully demand their elected Representatives to address. The Republican majority is committed to solving the many crises that this President and the minority have inflicted on our Nation.

Today, we begin the most basic duties of stopping and punishing criminals who come across our southern border illegally.

I would like to thank Representative Juan Ciscomani from Arizona; Representative Tom McClintock from California, with whom I serve on the Budget Committee; and Representative Barry Moore from Alabama, for their leadership on these important pieces of legislation.

I, again, stand in strong support of the rule and the underlying bills, and I urge my fellow Members to support the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in

which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5585.

Mr. Chairman, on December 7 of 2022, Border Patrol Officer Raul Gonzalez got up, he got dressed, kissed his family good- bye, and left for work.

His family would never see him again. He was killed later that day in Mission, Texas, doing his job trying to protect our country. A group of illegal aliens and their smuggler led him on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal wreck that took his life.

Now, this is becoming an increasingly common story along our southern border in the age of Biden's open-border policies. The number of high- speed chases by Border Patrol or local law enforcement has exploded along with the illegal human trafficking and smuggling that they are trying to stop.

The Biden administration's lax enforcement of our immigration laws has incentivized this, creating the conditions that create these deadly high-speed chases, and the problem has now reached critical levels.

One lifelong Arizona resident reflected on the dangers of Highway 90 in Cochise County, now a major smuggling route. She said, It is scary to the point you don't want to drive the highway, but to get to work you have to. I am actually scared about going out into the public sometimes, because what if there is a high-speed chase and something goes sideways, they get into a car accident, hop the curb and hit anybody?

In Tombstone, Arizona, U.S. Marshal Jim Adams spoke of the high-speed chases racing through his town. He said, This is a weekly occurrence, sometimes daily, sometimes several times a day.

Americans near the border should not be living in terror for themselves or their loved ones being killed by high-speed chases caused by cartel smugglers. Yet, in many communities, they do now.

Human smuggling is an incredibly lucrative business. According to Border Patrol estimates in the Del Rio sector alone, cartels profit $32 million a week for a staggering total of $1.6 billion per year just in that one sector. The cartels expertly control their side of the border. Nobody gets through without paying them.

Yet, while the cartels are making billions controlling their side of the border, Joe Biden is spending billions of dollars while abandoning control of our side of the border.

This bill is very simple. It makes it a Federal crime to evade the Border Patrol or local law enforcement that is assisting the Border Patrol within 100 miles of the international border. If you are a foreign national, it makes the conviction or admission of such a crime grounds for inadmissibility and removability. If you hurt somebody, we will put you in prison for 5 years. If you kill somebody, we will put you in prison for 10 years. If you are a foreign national, we will send you packing when you get out.

That is what the Democrats in this House will oppose today, and that should be a wake-up call for every American.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

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

Mr. Chair, setting aside my good friend's weird obsession with Donald Trump, I hope Americans will take note of what has been said in this debate.

The Democrats made the point, well, why chase them and endanger themselves and the public? Why not just let them go?

Well, the answer should be obvious. Under the Democrats' open-borders policy, all that you have to do is flag down a Border Patrol officer and make a phony asylum claim. Under their policies, you will be immediately released into our country. You will get a plane or bus ticket anywhere you want to go. You will get free meals, free snacks, free clothes, free phones. You immediately qualify for free medical care, free housing, free education for your children. Within 6 months, you will be given a work authorization to undercut working American families. You will be assured that your phony claim won't be heard for many years into the future, if you show up at all.

Also, when you are finally ordered deported, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of these claims, that court order will simply be ignored by our own government. There are already currently 1.3 million such deportation orders that the administration already simply ignores.

With all of these benefits waiting for you simply by flagging down a Border Patrol officer, why in the world would you want to evade capture by endangering your own lives? Well, the only reason I can think of is that you are either hiding a criminal record, or you are committing a crime.

I remind the gentleman that is why the Border Patrol chases evaders. They have caught hundreds of known terrorists and countless pounds of fentanyl and other deadly drugs by doing so.

FBI Director Chris Wray warned the Judiciary Committee that this constitutes a massive security threat--his words--a massive security threat. Let that sink in. And then consider the barbaric terrorist attack 103 days ago in Israel.

I believe it is just a matter of time before we see a coordinated terrorist attack in our own country from elements that have entered as a direct result of Biden's policies. We have already seen lone wolf attacks in Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark because of their lax border policies. I am afraid this is only the tip of this iceberg.

I, again, remind the gentleman that is why we chase evaders, and those evaders need to be held accountable to the law and punished, and, if they are foreigners, they need to be removed from our country. Yet, the Democrats object to this.

Now, the Democrats have argued that the bill should not include a mandatory minimum sentence. Well, let's go over specifically what they object to. If you cause a high-speed chase that injures somebody, you are going to serve a minimum of 5 years under this bill. If you kill somebody, it is a minimum of 10 years.

Does any reasonable person believe these mandatory minimums are unreasonable? Ask the American who has been paralyzed in such a crash if it is unreasonable. Ask the family of the mother who has been killed in such a crash if that is unreasonable. The only people who seem to think that this is unreasonable are the Democrats in this House, and voters might want to do something about that.

The Democrats argue that the bill is unnecessary because aliens who are convicted of fleeing an immigration checkpoint are already removable. You heard that argument several times. Well, that is true, but it only applies to those who are fleeing a checkpoint. It doesn't make the alien inadmissible to come back into our country, either.

This bill applies to all smugglers causing dangerous crashes or chases within 100 miles of the border, and it creates serious penalties for those who injure or kill officers or bystanders during these pursuits.

Now, the Democrats have also claimed that this measure would destroy due process by deporting an alien who hasn't actually been convicted of a crime.

Well, actually, this bill requires either a conviction of a crime, or an admission of committing that crime. That is the same standard we apply to aliens guilty of overstaying a visa, violating nonimmigrant status or condition of entry, smuggling aliens, committing marriage fraud, being a drug user or a drug addict, falsely claiming United States citizenship, or engaging in espionage. This bill simply adds evasion of the Border Patrol to this existing list.

By the way, a confession is not an idle matter. Under 80 years of precedent, the alien's confession has to be explicit, unequivocal, and unqualified. The Department of Homeland Security then has the burden of proof to show that the statement meets the requirement for removal purposes, and an immigration judge must then find that the admission is based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.

This is hardly a casual confession, but it does save years and years of court proceedings and appeals.

Mr. Chair, we have heard directly from the officers and citizens of our border communities of the dangers that they now face day after day as cartel smugglers drive at high speeds through their towns to evade the Border Patrol or the police.

This bill says, if you clearly admit to this crime or you are convicted of it and you are a foreign national, we will not only deport you, but it will be grounds for forbidding you from returning, which is not part of the current law.

The bill says to legal and illegal residents alike, if you hurt somebody while causing this reckless hazard, we will throw you in jail for 5 years; if you kill somebody, it is 10.

The Democrats are opposed to these reforms. We should tell people everything they need to know about the obstacles that we are facing to securing our border and returning our border communities to peace and safety.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires a new fact to be proven at trial that the pursuing law enforcement officer was ``under the command'' of the U.S. Border Patrol in each and every case.

I can imagine many circumstances where local law enforcement is alerted to a Border Patrol chase that is going through their jurisdiction and then act immediately to assist them without necessarily being directly under their command.

The issue is not who is pursuing smugglers but rather the circumstances of the pursuit; namely, this person is evading the Border Patrol. It is unlikely that during each and every pursuit in progress the Border Patrol is going to have time to deputize local law enforcement and place them under their command.

This is a ridiculous expectation, so ridiculous as to raise the suspicion that it is intended solely to render the bill unworkable and meaningless.

These high-speed chases occur far too often in our border communities, and State and local law enforcement are often first responders in protecting these communities along with the Border Patrol.

This amendment would serve only to challenge law enforcement, who are properly doing their job, to stop smugglers and illegal aliens from terrorizing their communities.

Mr. Chair, I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman is finished.

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

Mr. Chair, I was just shocked to hear the gentlewoman accuse the Governor of Texas of murder. This is an example of the kind of extremism that we see on the left in this House today.

Now, the fact is the Border Patrol agents are strained to the breaking point by this administration's open-border policies, and they often rely on local law enforcement having their backs.

If the gentlewoman doesn't know what active assistance is, it is a high-speed chase that is going through their community and they are there in a position to back up the Border Patrol. Mr. Chair, you can't negotiate that. You cannot be deputized. That is part and parcel of law enforcement. You have to spring into action.

When overt local police are providing this assistance, they should have the protection that this bill provides. It also puts every smuggler on notice that if they are trafficking human beings or drugs across the border and they are pursued, then they darn well better pull over.

Apparently, this is just too much for the Democrats to bear. I am not sure whether we should laugh this amendment off the floor or merely defeat it. In either event, it is a foolish idea.

Mr. Chair, it deserves a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 980, I call up the bill (H.R. 6678) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who have been convicted of or who have committed Social Security fraud are inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 6678.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6678 makes aliens inadmissible to and removed from the United States for committing Social Security fraud and identification document fraud.

The numbers are staggering. In 2017, before the Democrats opened our borders and produced the largest illegal mass migration in recorded history, there were 1.2 million cases in which illegal aliens used Social Security numbers that either belonged to someone else or were simply fabricated.

A 2020 GAO report on employment-related identity fraud identified more than 2.9 million Social Security numbers with risk characteristics associated with Social Security number misuse.

Last year, an investigative report published by RealClearInvestigations said this: ``Reports dating back over a decade show that hundreds of thousands of Americans are unknowingly `sharing' their Social Security numbers with illegal immigrants.

``Such victims may face tax bills for income they didn't earn or depleted benefits. Worse, some may experience the burden of bad credit histories and criminal records inaccurately attributed to themselves after being issued Social Security numbers that illegal aliens had previously invented and used.

``The overall impact on American citizens is largely unknown because Federal, State, and local governments as well as financial institutions have generally failed to notify them even when fraud is suspected.''

The Trump administration documented the extent of fraud during which time it notified 1.6 million employers of employees whose Social Security numbers didn't match government records.

The Biden administration then took over and has since brought 5 million illegal aliens into the United States.

They stopped the practice of notifying employers of fraudulent use of Social Security numbers. No doubt it was just too embarrassing.

This has been going on for years, but it is sure to have grown exponentially during the Biden administration. We don't know because the administration doesn't want us to know.

The current process for holding illegal aliens accountable for ID fraud is bureaucratized to the point of absurdity.

In one case, for example, an illegal alien trafficking in phony identification documents was placed in removal proceedings in 2005, and then nothing happened until 2013 when the endless appeals process finally concluded.

Despite the harm of Social Security fraud and the increasing number of illegal aliens committing it, there is no guarantee that an illegal alien committing it can be declared inadmissible to or removed from the United States.

In fact, in at least the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and potentially the Fourth Circuit and 10th Circuit, certain Social Security fraud offenses do not carry immigration consequences.

This bill changes that arduous, counterintuitive, and lengthy process by streamlining the analysis and ensuring that criminal aliens can be held to account and quickly removed from the country for victimizing Americans through Social Security and identification document fraud.

In doing so, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act protects Americans and strengthens the immigration system.

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

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

Democrats today seem to be more concerned with the due process rights of illegal aliens than with the fact that those illegal aliens may be victimizing hardworking Americans. However, the Democrats' concerns are invalid.

For 80 years, the Board of Immigration Appeals has provided additional protections for aliens whose removability or inadmissibility is based on an admission. Under BIA precedent, to be considered an admission, an alien's admission must be explicit, unequivocal, and unqualified. The Department of Homeland Security then bears the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the statement meets that requirement for removability purposes.

Even then, the immigration judge would have to find that the admission

fits within the relevant statutes and that the admission is based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. The statutes cited in this bill have clear elements and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It should not be so difficult to remove aliens who commit Social Security fraud or identification document fraud.

Democrats' fearmongering contradicts the law, contravenes the text of the bill, and undermines efforts to ensure that illegal alien fraudsters can be removed from the United States.

H.R. 6678 simplifies the process for ensuring foreign nationals who defraud Americans while guests in our country can be removed from the United States.

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

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

The gentlewoman from Washington suggests that we have not, as Republicans, focused on a real solution, and I would draw her attention to H.R. 2. Any one of the solutions that people come up with is going to be dependent upon our having secured the border first, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect.

The solutions that are contained in that bill I hope will make their way this direction from the Senate, but I doubt it. I am looking forward to seeing whatever comes from that direction. H.R. 2 is a good approach to try to resolve what I will call as the initial issue that must be addressed.

The Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act requires that aliens be convicted of fraud or admit to such fraud. Contrary to the Democrats' talking points, not every ground for inadmissibility and removability in the Immigration and Nationality Act requires conviction. In fact, the language here is identical to the grounds of inadmissibility for crimes involving moral turpitude and controlled substances offenses under INA 212(a)(2).

Even for grounds of removability, convictions are not always required. For example, an alien can be removed for overstaying their visa, violating their nonimmigration status, or condition of entry, smuggling aliens, committing marriage fraud, being a drug user or drug addict, falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, or engaging in espionage.

By requiring at least an admission, this bill conforms to the pattern of other grounds of inadmissibility and removability. In a world of unsafe streets and far-left prosecutors who may never prosecute these offenses or will allow aliens to plead down to crimes that may not make them deportable, it makes no sense to strike the provision to require a conviction.

If an alien has admitted to such conduct, why can't the alien's own admission be used to show the alien is inadmissible or deportable? Democrats want to take illegal aliens at their word when they cross the border, even thought they destroy their passports and IDs, yet Democrats don't want to take aliens at their word when they admit to committing a crime in the United States. This defies common sense.

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

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

I want to return to my remark earlier and say, look, if we want to address issues such as E-Verify and challenges that small employers face, the first thing we have to do is secure the border, and the way we do that is with H.R. 2. The fact that the Democrats are, for whatever reason, ignoring the solutions to securing the border is beyond me because in order for us to move into these other areas to protect our farmers, our ranchers, and others, we have to secure the border first.

That is a challenge, I think, to those who want the border to be open. That is incredibly unfortunate because a huge portion of folks certainly in my district and in the United States realize that if we don't secure the border, all of this discussion about good and bad is moot. We have to secure the border first, and H.R. 2 does that.

Democrats claim this bill is unnecessary because aliens with fraud convictions are already inadmissible or removable. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Although aliens who committed some forms of fraud may be found inadmissible to or removable from the United States, many cannot be. In fact, in numerous Federal courts of appeal, certain Social Security fraud offenses do not carry immigration consequences.

Take this Ninth Circuit case, for instance: For 19 years, an illegal alien used another woman's Social Security number to obtain employment, get married twice, and obtain a driver's license, credit cards, and a HUD loan.

When the other woman learned of this fraud, she asked the illegal alien to stop using her identity. The illegal alien refused. Yet, the Ninth Circuit, doing legal gymnastics, determined that the illegal alien's fraud conviction did not carry certain immigration consequences because it was not a crime involving moral turpitude.

Even when courts get it right, it often takes them years to do so.

In a Fifth Circuit case from 2021, the alien already had been in removal proceedings for 6 years before the Federal appeals court finally found that his conviction did, in fact, make him inadmissible to the United States.

That is why H.R. 6678 is imperative to protect our communities from fraud and ensure aliens who engage in fraud can be more quickly removed from the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Democrats want to leave the border open and then facilitate the illegal presence of those in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Democrats' talking points, this bill is necessary not only to protect Americans from fraud but also to hold aliens accountable for their criminal acts. This bill makes America safer. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I address the specifics of this bill, I want to address what we heard from the Speaker a few minutes ago.

The Speaker said that section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act cannot be used to ``shut down the border.''

Former President Trump agreed with him. He tried to do exactly what Speaker Johnson says in 2018. That action was immediately enjoined and declared unlawful.

You cannot use section 212(f) of the INA to shut down the border, but the Speaker knows this. That is why he had the House pass H.R. 2. If 212(f) were sufficient, why did we need a bill?

The Republicans passed H.R. 2, but the Republicans should know that this is a bicameral institution, and there is also a President.

H.R. 2 can go nowhere. The Senate won't even look at it, but we know that conservative Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate have been negotiating for a very, very strong, very powerful, very conservative immigration bill, which they have come up with, much too conservative for many Democrats--I am not sure I am going to vote for it--far more conservative than anything we have considered on the floor besides H.R. 2.

Yet, the Speaker says he won't hear of it. Why? Because the former President said he wants the issue. He was very clear, as was Mr. Nehls: Don't pass anything so that former President Trump can campaign on immigration in the fall.

Don't solve the problem. Save the problem as a campaign issue. That is what they are doing. If they weren't doing that, they would seriously consider the Senate bill.

What is even more pernicious is that they have joined together the close the border issue, the border issue, which is a valid issue, but they have lumped it together with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine.

I was on the steps of the House with the Speaker and many others touting our solidarity with Israel. Yet, what are we going to do?

Trump and the Speaker, doing Trump's bidding, don't want us to pass an immigration bill, which they have tied up with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine.

We are not going to aid Israel. We are going to let Putin take over Ukraine. We are not going to send arms to Taiwan. We are not going to send humanitarian aid.

We are going to abandon Ukraine. We are going to abandon Israel. We are going to abandon Taiwan. We are going to abandon our Pacific allies.

Why? Because President Trump wants a campaign issue on immigration. This is shameful. Shameful. The Speaker knows it to be the case, and I challenge the Speaker to bring the Senate bill to the floor. Let's see what happens.

When the Senate passes a very conservative bill, which they seem on track to do, bring it to the floor of the House, and let's see what happens. I bet it passes, but let's see what happens.

Mr. Speaker, addressing this bill, let's be clear: Social Security fraud is a serious issue. It is also largely already a deportable offense.

If H.R. 6678 closed an actual gap in current law, Democrats would gladly support it. Unfortunately, this bill represents another unserious attempt by my Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat immigrants, and to score cheap political points, while doing nothing to fix our immigration system.

While I have several concerns with this bill, I would like to focus on the issue of deportability because that is the most troubling aspect of this legislation.

H.R. 6678 eliminates the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for Social Security fraud before we make them deportable.

This is concerning and stands in stark contrast to most other criminal deportability grounds within our immigration laws.

Barring a few exceptions, criminal offenses require a conviction to render a noncitizen deportable. This is especially important given who would be most impacted by this legislation.

This section of H.R. 6678 is not about deporting undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already deportable, and it is not about preventing people from entering the United States.

The deportability provisions in this legislation target lawful, permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and who have truly established themselves here in the United States.

A lot of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens today. This bill would make these people deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime.

Do we really want to be deporting lawful, permanent residents without due process and without them having their day in court?

Additionally, if this bill were to become law, it would result in absurd consequences. It would actually be easier to deport someone for offenses related to Social Security fraud than it is to deport someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, a conviction is required. Is this really what my Republican colleagues are looking to accomplish?

For years, Republicans have claimed that they support legal immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration, as we all are, but they support legal immigration, so they say.

By stripping people of their due process and playing political games with this bill, they are showing us that it is all just empty rhetoric.

We should be working together in a bipartisan way to modernize our broken immigration system. Instead, we are wasting our time with a bill that has no chance to become law and does nothing to address the real problems facing this country and that destroys due process for legal permanent residents.

Members should oppose this overbroad legislation that would deport people who have never even been charged with a crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz says that the person to be deported has to be shown to have been guilty by clear and convincing evidence. I always thought the standard of proof for a crime was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This just shows again how destructive of due process this bill is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in closing. This legislation does nothing to improve our immigration system while making a mockery of basic due process. That is why it should be defeated.

I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

As I have repeatedly said, fraud, regardless of whether it is Social Security fraud or fraud related to COVID loans or grants, is a serious issue. This amendment, however, suffers from the same defect as the underlying bill. As written, it would eliminate the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for a fraud offense before we make them deportable.

Let's remember who would be most impacted by the deportability provisions in this amendment. This is not about deporting undocumented immigrants, who are, of course, already removable. It is not about preventing people from entering the United States.

The deportability provisions in this amendment target lawful permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. spouses and children. This bill would make these people deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime. Do we really want to be deporting lawful permanent residents without any due process?

Additionally, this amendment, just like the underlying bill, would lead to absurd consequences. It would actually make it easier to deport someone for fraud related to COVID loans or grants than it is to deport someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, a conviction is required. Is that really what the author of this amendment is trying to accomplish here, make it easier to deport people for COVID fraud than for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor? Is that really what Mr. D'Esposito wants?

This is not sound policy, and it makes no sense. I hope my Republicans colleagues will realize how shortsighted this amendment is. I oppose this amendment, and I urge all Members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman from New York has not put forward any evidence that immigrants, documented or undocumented, were involved in defrauding the COVID relief funds. Moreover, everything he said basically was irrelevant to this bill.

We are not talking about the southern border crisis. We are not talking about the general policies of the Biden administration or the Trump administration or H.R. 2 or the Senate bill. All of that is beyond the scope of this bill.

What we are talking about in this bill is not making, as the gentleman said, illegal immigrants, but lawful permanent residents, deportable for fraud on COVID loans or grants without being convicted of a crime, something you cannot do for lawful permanent residents accused of murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those things a conviction is required.

This bill would set aside due process and say no conviction is required to deport someone for the crime of COVID fraud, although such a conviction is required for much more serious offenses. It makes no sense and it is abhorrent to our legal system to make people have heavy penalties, people who have lived in this country for many years, to be deportable without any due process and without conviction of a crime.

For that reason, this amendment and this bill should be defeated.

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

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