H.Res. 1115

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

Madam Speaker, another week, another redundant and completely unnecessary immigration crime bill. This one purports to make the commission of certain fraud offenses into deportable offenses, but conviction of a fraud offense is already a deportable offense, as the gentleman's recitation of all the cases involving people who were convicted of a crime and then deported and removed from the country demonstrates.

Fraud is considered a crime involving moral turpitude and a specifically enumerated aggravated felony, the conviction of either of which subjects any immigrant to deportation and removal from the country.

In the past, we have heard our colleagues claim these bills are necessary to resolve an undefined ambiguity in the law, but there is no ambiguity.

Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies fraud as an aggravated felony, which is by definition a deportable offense. Supreme Court precedent for more than 70 years has treated fraud as a crime involving moral turpitude and therefore a deportable and removable offense.

I know that President Trump, who knows a lot about the criminal justice system, wants to strike a new pose of being tough on fraud. We still have a First Amendment, so that is his right. But at every turn, the Trump administration has dismantled the government programs and offices that actually combat fraud.

At the DOJ, they disbanded key anti-kleptocracy efforts. They eliminated the Consumer Protection Branch that prosecuted corporate fraud. They gutted core anticorruption units like the Public Integrity Section and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit. As all of America knows, they have completely ravaged and shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the first and only agency devoted solely at the Federal level to protect American consumers against being cheated by scammers and fraudsters and big corporations.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau delivered $21 billion back to more than 200 million Americans who were victims of fraud, scams, and other predatory business practices, and the administration has been gutting it because they are soft on corporate fraud and white-collar crime. That is the reality of what is going on here.

Hell-bent on meeting Stephen Miller's arbitrary mass deportation monthly quotas, this administration has directed FBI agents to deprioritize white-collar crime and instead devote their time to the big immigration roundup, whose beautiful results we can see in the nightmare of Minneapolis, where American citizens were shot down for exercising their constitutional rights.

As a result, prosecutions of white-collar crimes, which include a variety of fraud offenses, were down more than 10 percent in the Trump administration in 2025.

If that weren't enough, ICE is interfering with States' abilities to successfully prosecute crimes, like fraud and theft, and to ensure that perpetrators pay their fines and make restitution to their victims. Why is that? Well, they are deporting people before they can actually be tried and fined and before the fines are paid.

Take the case of Jeson Nelon Flores. He was accused of stealing $100 million worth of diamonds. Before his trial was set to take place, ICE swooped in and simply deported him before trial. That meant he served no jail time and was never ordered to pay any restitution to his victims, leaving them with lots of questions about where the $100 million of diamonds are but no justice.

By bypassing the conviction requirement, this legislation would hand a literal get-out-of-jail-free card to immigrants who commit fraud by deporting them without going through the criminal justice system and giving their victims a day in court.

This is part of a broader trend of this administration siding with the perpetrators against the victims, a trend America has seen in the administration's shameful decision to cover up for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's co-conspirators, accomplices, and enablers, while outing the identities and even the photographs of survivors. It is a trend that includes the President's outrageous abuse of the pardon power to let fraudsters, who also happen to be MAGA donors, to purchase a pardon and skip out on their obligation to pay any fine or restitution to their victims.

That includes Trevor Milton, who defrauded investors in his company to the tune of $676 million. Milton and his wife donated $1.8 million to the President's reelection campaign. In March of last year, Milton got his pardon, and erased all of the restitution, the hundreds of millions of dollars he owed to his victims.

Take Lawrence Duran, who was sentenced to the longest prison sentence in American history for Medicare fraud in September of 2016. He filed hundreds of thousands of false claims with Medicare, bilking the taxpayers out of more than $87 million. Then he got his Trump pardon and skipped away without having to pay any of the fines or the restitution.

If you can remember one statistic from today, in just 1 year, Donald Trump's pardons wiped out more than $1.3 billion in restitution and fines to victims and survivors of fraud and other scams and white- collar offenses.

This bill is simply another effort to push a fake narrative while ignoring all of the fraud that engulfs us, which the administration has tolerated or even approved through these outrageous pardons.

The administration used fraud as an excuse to send thousands of masked Federal agents to terrorize the people of Minneapolis and surrounding areas, a blunder so egregious our colleagues are told not even to use the phrase ``mass deportation'' anymore because the vast majority of Americans reject what they saw on the streets of Minneapolis, agents beating up peaceful protesters and killing them. American citizens are dying because they dare to exercise their First Amendment rights and their Second Amendment rights in public.

We saw the price of this authoritarianism. Every day this administration is pushing lies to try to get the American people to ignore the reality that is discernible by our own senses. That is the real fraud on the American people.

Now, they want us to believe that they are combating fraud when they pardon it, and they wipe out all of the government units that are designed to ferret out fraud. They started by firing 17 inspectors general, whose job it is to fight fraud, waste, corruption, and abuse in the Federal Government. They sacked all of them to make it possible for the kind of rampant corruption we have seen to take place. The American people can see what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this redundant, unnecessary, and distractionary bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. I am afraid that the gentleman owes former President Biden a major apology for what he just said.

He said that hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution owed by people whom Joe Biden pardoned was forgiven. According to a study by the Cato Institute, which the gentleman can look up, all of the fines and restitution forgiven by Joe Biden was $680,000, not even $1 million; whereas, Donald Trump has forgiven $1.3 billion in fines and restitution owed by the fraudsters and conmen and white-collar criminals whom he has pardoned since

he got back into office under their pay-to-play pardon operation they have got going over there right now. That is the reality and the fact. That is the truth of the matter.

No, Joe Biden did not forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. What Donald Trump has done is utterly aberrational in American history.

I see the gentleman is fleeing the Chamber right now rather than dealing with the facts and the reality of it.

The gentleman was completely wrong.

The gentleman was fleeing the Chamber rather than deal with the reality that he was absolutely wrong when he accused President Biden of forgiving hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and restitution to people he pardoned. It never happened.

It was less than $1 million. It was $680,000.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit the Cato Institute report for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to be contradicted if there are any facts over on that side of the aisle. If anybody wants to traffic in facts-- but, no, maybe it is more imaginary and delusional sophistry from the gentleman.

Does he have any facts?

It is no problem just saying: I made a mistake.

It is like Secretary Noem calling Alex Pretti a domestic terrorist, calling Renee Good a domestic terrorist. That was a terrible mistake and a blunder, but she couldn't admit it.

Will the gentleman admit that he was wrong about that or does he have facts?

I don't know. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there might be some way of determining whether there are any facts available to contradict me on this, but the study that I have shows that all of Joe Biden's pardons result in less than $1 million in fines and restitution to be forgiven.

Mr. Speaker, do you know why that is?

It is because up until President Trump, every other President had demanded ordinarily as a matter of course that fines be paid and restitution be paid.

I hope that there are some people on the other side of the aisle-- they have got a huge staff of hundreds of people, can somebody find a fact that would contradict what I have just said.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee of Immigration Integrity.

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

That was an amazing evasion of what we are really talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Cato Institute study, ``President Trump's Pardons: An Embarrassment of Riches.''

[From the Cato Institute Blog, Feb. 11, 2026]

President Trump's Pardons: An Embarrassment of Riches

(By Dan Greenberg)

Yesterday, I described the final scandal of the Clinton

administration: Bill Clinton's midnight pardon of Marc Rich.

If the Rich pardon was a snowflake, then the pardons of

President Trump's second term are a blizzard.

The scope and magnitude of Trump's second-term pardons are

unprecedented. Joe Biden granted 80 pardons in his four-year

term, but Trump's pardons make his predecessor's look like a

drop in the bucket. In the first year of the second Trump

administration, the president issued 166 individual pardons,

as well as a mass pardon that erased the verdicts of more

than 1,500 January 6 Capitol rioters. In other words, even

putting aside the rioters' collective pardon, Trump is now

issuing pardons at eight times the rate Biden did.

Nonetheless, the fact that a president issues more pardons

than his predecessors is not necessarily problematic. The

real problem lies in the great number of particular second-

term pardons that appear indefensible. Such pardons fall into

five categories.

First: Biden's pardons eliminated roughly $680,000 in

financial penalties (fines, restitution, and forfeitures)

owed to victims or the government. In contrast, Liz Oyer, the

former lead pardon attorney of the United States, has

calculated that Trump's second-term pardons have forgiven

criminal debts of more than $1.5 billion. This staggering

sum--composed of money owed to crime victims and to

government treasuries--has been zeroed out by presidential

edict.

Trump's pardon pen was a boon to ex-criminals like Trevor

Milton (who no longer must repay the investors he defrauded

$660 million) and Lawrence Duran (who no longer must repay

the government he defrauded $87 million). It was also a boon

to HDR Global Trading Ltd., which owed the nation a $100

million fine; in this case, Trump also made history by

granting the nation's very first pardon to a corporation.

Second: Trump has normalized the pardoning of disgraced

politicians, such as former Honduran president Juan Orlando

Hernandez (who orchestrated a spree of state-sponsored drug

trafficking leading to a 45-year prison term), Nevada

legislator Michele Fiore (who embezzled $70,000 out of a

police memorial fund for personal expenses like rent and

plastic surgery), Virginia sheriff Scott Jenkins (who handed

out badges to untrained businessmen in exchange for $75,000

in bribes), and Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada (who

defrauded state government with a fake-payee kickback

scheme). Perhaps I should disclose my proximity to one such

pardon recipient, Arkansas legislator Jeremy Hutchinson (who

traded official acts for bribes, embezzled from campaign

funds, and filed false tax returns); Hutchinson's tenure in

the state Senate, which ended with simultaneous indictments

in three federal districts, began when he defeated me in a

Republican primary.

Third: Trump's pardons are beginning to undermine the

contemporaneous work of his own Department of Justice. Alina

Habba, Trump's own US attorney in New Jersey, announced

Joseph Schwartz's three-year sentence for $38 million in tax

fraud in April; Trump pardoned him seven months later. Real

estate developer Timothy Leiweke was charged earlier this

year with conspiring to rig the bidding process for a Texas

sports arena; Trump pardoned him in December. Federal

investigators and prosecutors must find such pardons

demoralizing and self-negating.

Fourth: [REDACTED] For instance, the ordinary vetting

procedures of the Office of the Pardon Attorney have often

been sidestepped. Formality in pardon deliberation is

desirable because it immunizes the president from the

appearance of pay-to-play; the absence of such formality

makes it plausible that a multitude of recent pardons are

transactional. Trump pardoned Paul Walczak (who evaded

millions of dollars in taxes) after Walczak's mother raised

millions of dollars for MAGA candidates and paid a million

dollars to dine with the president at Mar-a-Lago. Trevor

Milton--the securities fraudster mentioned above--donated

$1.8 million to Trump's campaign before a presidential pardon

wiped out all $660 million of his restitution obligations.

(That is, if nothing else, an impressive ROI.)

Before Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao--who headed the

cryptocurrency exchange Binance while it fostered more than

1.5 million illegal virtual trades as well as prohibited

transactions to Al Qaeda, Isis, and Hamas--Zhao had brokered

a $2 billion investment in Eric and Donald Trump Jr.'s

cryptocurrency business, World Liberty Financial. (When asked

about Zhao in a subsequent 60 Minutes interview, Trump

explained, ``I have no idea who he is. I was told that he was

a victim, just like I was and just like many other people, of

a vicious, horrible group of people in the Biden

administration.''

[REDACTED] Trump evidently hoped Cuellar would return the

favor by switching parties to the GOP; when that didn't

happen, the president released an angry statement on Truth

Social, criticizing Cuellar for ``Such a lack of LOYALTY,

something that Texas Voters, and Henry's daughters, will not

like. Oh well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy!'' Previous

presidents would surely take offense at the suggestion that a

pardon could be traded for something of value; [REDACTED]

Fifth: Here is another occasion for alarm bells: Donald

Trump has increasingly focused on providing pardons to his

campaign supporters who stretched or broke the law, such as

John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, and Jenna Ellis. (As the

president's pardon attorney, Ed Martin, famously explained on

X, ``No MAGA left behind.'') Indeed, Trump apparently views

the exercise of his pardon authority to forgive federal

crimes as insufficient; Trump's inability to eliminate state-

level convictions has apparently led him to pressure state

government officials to pardon state-level offenses related

to the 2020 elections.

I am not the only Cato analyst who has explained the risks

of political and constitutional crisis created by

presidential attempts to get state-level election criminals

pardoned; normalizing such actions will inevitably create

ripple effects in future elections. Historically, the central

principle of the Justice Department's role in elections has

been ``prosecution, not intervention.'' The latest edition of

the DOJ's governing manual in this sphere, Federal

Prosecution of Election Offenses, explains that the states

have primary responsibility for overseeing elections--and

that any federal investigation of elections must minimize the

likelihood of affecting that election or otherwise ``chill

legitimate voting activities.''

That edition of the manual has disappeared from Justice's

website. Bob Bauer, Obama's former White House counsel, has

speculated that the manual is being revised to match Trump's

goal of ``nationalization'' of election administration.

The Supreme Court has explained that pardons are justified

if ``the public welfare will be better served.'' It is

impossible to see how the public welfare is served by many of

Trump's pardons today. The president's power to pardon

federal crimes is practically absolute. It cannot be modified

by Congress. Furthermore, just as an uninvolved citizen lacks

standing to challenge a prosecutor's actions, a third party

likewise may not challenge the grant of a presidential

pardon. [REDACTED] It looks like the floodgates will remain

open for the foreseeable future. Perhaps future presidents

will behave better; perhaps a future constitutional amendment

will encourage them to do so.

At least the specter of corruption in previous presidential

administrations (Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, or Biden's

pardon of his son) appeared to be an exception to the rule.

[REDACTED]

In it, it answers the question between the gentleman and me. I thought that I was submitting a very simple, humble request, that he withdraw the false statement that Joe Biden, as President, had forgiven hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and restitution. That is an absolute falsehood. It is inaccurate.

Now, look, let's start with this: I am going to educate the gentleman to the extent that he wants to be educated any further on the matter about the difference between pardons in the Biden administration and the Trump administration.

Joe Biden granted a total of 80 pardons in his 4-year term. President Trump issued 166 individual pardons in his first year and then, of course, famously, the mass pardon of 1,500 January 6 rioters and insurrectionists who stormed this Chamber and the Capitol.

I am quoting directly from the Cato study, for the benefit of the gentleman from Arizona: ``Biden's pardons eliminated roughly $680,000 in financial penalties (fines, restitution, and forfeitures) owed to victims or the government.''

This is money that a court has determined is owed and must be paid. Biden forgave $680,000. Now, I am sure that if you are one of the victims, you are not happy to hear about that, that that was forgiven, but that is within the power of the President.

``In contrast, Liz Oyer, the former lead pardon attorney of the United States, has calculated that Trump's second-term pardons''--that is just 1 year of pardons--``have forgiven criminal debts''--fines, restitution, and forfeitures--``of more than $1.5 billion.''

In other words, Biden didn't even forgive $1 million. President Trump has forgiven more than $1.5 billion to the fraudsters, white-collar criminals, and scammers who have found their way to Mar-a-Lago and the White House and have been able to finagle the pardon that they always wanted.

``This staggering sum,'' as the Cato Institute puts it, ``has been zeroed out by Presidential edict.''

That is in a completely different galaxy than what President Biden or any other President, Democrat or Republican, has done in American history. It is stratospheric.

I am glad that the gentleman's blatant misstatement and his refusal to retract it have given us the opportunity to focus on this extraordinary corruption that is taking place because it tells the true story of fraud and how fraud is being treated by the current administration.

Cato says to consider the case of Trevor Milton, ``who no longer must repay the investors he defrauded $660 million'' that he owed them. Take the case of Lawrence Duran, ``who no longer must repay the government he defrauded $87 million.''

You can add up all the people who were pardoned by President Biden, and you don't even get to $1 million. Then, you have individual criminals whom Donald Trump pardoned after they made various kinds of overtures to the White House or showed up at Mar-a-Lago, and those people were getting hundreds of millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars forgiven in fines.

The gentleman got back up to say these people were either convicted for or accused of tens of millions of dollars in fraud under President Biden. I am talking about what a court ordered them to pay. That is the apples-to-apples comparison that the gentleman doesn't want to deal with.

It is interesting that he happened upon that particular issue because it is not one that benefits their side of the argument at all, as they claim to be interested in saving the victims of fraud.

Victims of fraud, thousands of them, have lost more than a billion dollars because of the pardons of Donald Trump. That is the direct policy of the administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues jump up like a jack-in-the-box whenever the President tells them to do that. Others in the Chamber want to stand up for American citizens exercising their First and Second Amendment rights, like Alex Pretti and Renee Good. They were shot down by ICE agents, who somehow believed that, with this Trump administration, they are above the law and beyond the law.

We are going to stand up with the American people. We are not going to take orders from the executive branch, which is utterly humiliating and self-defeating for a Member of the Article I

branch of the Congress of the United States.

The gentleman, I think, accuses us of something he called the deranged Trump syndrome, which I can only imagine means following a President who plunges the country into an illegal, unauthorized, undeclared war, spending $1 billion or $2 billion a day, and then not asking any questions about it because somehow you think your political destiny is intertwined with the President, who has shown no loyalty to the people who show loyalty to him. That is a personal problem on their part. We don't have deranged Trump syndrome. I think that falls on that side of the aisle.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is such a thick fog of propaganda and disinformation in the Chamber that I think we have lost sight of what the bill is about and what the law is.

The law is very clear today, which is: Conviction of a criminal fraud offense is already a deportable offense. It already gets you deported. That is why the majority began with a whole litany of cases where people were being deported after committing crimes.

They didn't like the fact that they had the right to appeal it. They don't like the fact that there is due process, but they appealed it. Then, they were deported. That is what the law is.

Their bill is simply an effort to say you don't need a conviction anymore. You could just deport them based on hearsay evidence. An ICE agent says that this person admitted to me that they had committed fraud, and that substitutes for a prosecution, trial, and conviction by a jury.

In the meantime, we have hundreds of judges in America who are condemning ICE for lying in court. We have Department of Justice lawyers who are saying literally in court that their job sucks because they can't defend what is taking place with ICE. We have judge after judge denouncing the fantastical, misleading, deceptive, mendacious testimony of people from ICE, and now you want to just trust an ICE agent to say this person admitted to me that they committed criminal fraud. We are just going to kick them out of the country without a trial.

Thomas Jefferson said during the Alien and Sedition Acts that there are people who want to strip away the rights of aliens and who will inevitably come to attack the rights of citizens, too. We already saw that in Minneapolis.

There were a lot of people in this Chamber willing to look the other way when they were knocking down the doors of immigrants without a search warrant, without probable cause, when they were roughing up immigrants, or when immigrants were dying in custody. Then, suddenly, these ICE agents thought they could get away with it when it comes to U.S. citizens, and that is when America woke up to this threat and said no.

ICE agents are not superior to the rule of law. They are not above and beyond the law. Even President Trump understood that, which is why he has pulled a lot of people out of Minneapolis. They wanted to change the subject. They said stop using the words ``mass deportation.''

A majority of the American people reject these authoritarian tactics that have been unleashed against both citizens and immigrants.

This is a nation of laws. It is a nation under the rule of law and under the Constitution. Their bill is, at best, if not completely redundant, unnecessary, and silly, a gloss on what the law already is, which is that if you are convicted of fraud and you are an immigrant, you get kicked out of the country. You are removed. They want to pick a fight on a nonsensical problem.

We don't need to degrade our own rule of law by taking action against people without a criminal conviction. The criminal justice system works just fine, so we should be encouraging government agents not to lie to judges, not to render false testimony, as judges across the country have been saying. Both Republican and Democratic appointees have been rejecting what is coming out of this administration.

This bill, as far as I know, is not about naturalized citizens. I think our distinguished chairman said something about that. He may have gotten it confused with another bill, but this bill is unnecessary and redundant.

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

Mr. Speaker, before the distinguished gentleman leaves, I would be happy to yield to him for an answer to a question.

The bill, as he originally introduced it, required a criminal conviction. I wonder why it was changed and whether that was changed with his approval or not. What was the logic for changing it?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Representative Taylor, this is your bill, H.R. 1958. It begins like this:

``Any alien who has been convicted of an offense that involves defrauding the United States Government or unlawfully receiving a Federal public benefit . . . or a State or local public benefit . . . is deportable.''

You have got the language of ``convicted'' in there. It was changed by the Committee. I am just wondering: Why did you originally have it in such a way as to require a conviction?

That is the way it has been changed. It has been altered to that. When you introduced it, it required a conviction. I am just wondering: What was your original logic, and why did you change your mind about that, if you did? Maybe you didn't.

Mr. Speaker, I will reclaim my time.

I supported the original vision. It was basically unnecessary because it was a restatement of what the law is, to put it all in one place, so I could certainly support that.

Then your language was completely diluted in committee to open up this huge, gaping hole to say that you don't need a criminal conviction before deporting someone. We have enumerated the problems with that.

For one thing, it deprives victims of a crime the opportunity to be heard and perhaps to get their restitution and to get their proper justice in court.

Also, it sets a terrible precedent. This is the Thomas Jefferson point. When we say we are going to have lesser standards relating to immigrants, that then carries over to citizens. We have seen already in this huge immigration roundup what that means in terms of the trampling of the rights of our people under the Bill of Rights.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this lively debate. This bill is redundant. It is unnecessary. It is dangerous in terms of eroding a basic principle that we have, which is that there should be full due process and people should not be deported without a criminal conviction. The prosecution is

not always right, but also everybody should have their day in court, including the victims.

At a time when we have seen Big Brother bloated beyond belief in terms of budget and in terms of power, the last thing we should do is to look for further ways to aggrandize the power of the executive branch at this point.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, happy St. Patrick's Day to everybody. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for whom I have much admiration and respect, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what on Earth are we doing here? Yesterday, the President of the United States spent an hour at lunch talking about the Kennedy Center--you know, the place he slapped his name on before basically running it into the ground.

Today, the Congress of the United States is spending an hour debating messaging bills that totally ignore the realities of what is going on in people's everyday lives.

Does anyone on the other side of the aisle realize that the United States of America is at war right now? Does anyone in the Republican Conference want to acknowledge that costs are up, corruption is running rampant, and everyday people are getting screwed?

They promised lower costs on day one. That is what Donald Trump promised. Guess what. Gas is up, thanks to the war in Iran. Groceries are up, thanks to the tariffs. Rent is up. Childcare is up. Healthcare is up, with millions of Americans paying double and triple for their health insurance and over a million losing it altogether because of Republican inaction.

Do Republicans plan to do anything about any of that? No.

This is what they did instead. They jammed through a big, ugly bill to help billionaires. They defend Trump's tariffs that are raising costs on working people. They continue to cover up for the predators in the Epstein files. Now, they are backing another illegal war in the Middle East that is costing over a billion dollars a day in taxpayer money.

But they are not talking about any of that. They keep bringing distraction after distraction to the House floor, bills meant to waste time, divide people, and shift the blame from billionaires onto immigrants. That is their whole playbook.

Don't look over here at Epstein elites and billionaire corporations who are ripping us off, breaking the law, and getting away with it. No, no, no. Blame the immigrants. Blame trans kids. Blame Joe Biden. Blame everybody but the President and his billionaire buddies. It is getting old, and I, for one, am sick and tired of it.

This President and my friends on the other side, who are refusing to rein him in because they are all afraid of him, are burning a billion dollars a day of American taxpayer money on a war halfway around the world. That is $1 billion a day. Let me repeat that: $1 billion a day.

There is no more money to help seniors heat their homes. They say we don't have it. There is no money to help kids get healthy breakfasts in school. There is no money to restore SNAP benefits to help seniors and veterans afford groceries. There is no more money to help working families breathe easier or sleep better at night.

I am just sick and tired of this, Mr. Speaker. There is always money for war. There is always money for another tax break for multimillionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations. There is always time to debate silly bills that try to shift the blame onto immigrants and trans kids, but there is never the time or the money to address the real and pressing issues that the American people are begging Republicans to help them with.

This is an embarrassing debate. This is an embarrassing moment for this Congress. While everybody in this country is in an uproar over rising costs, people are begging us to address that issue, to lower costs, and to help make their lives easier. While that is what is on the minds of the American people, Republicans can't bring themselves to bring legislation to the floor to address those issues. It really is sad. It really is sad.

Again, I think that my friends are going to realize come the midterm elections that people have had enough of this. But really people can't wait until the next election. People need us to address these concerns now.

This is an embarrassing debate, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to respond to the gentlewoman because she wants me to address some of the underlying bills. One of them, H.R. 4638, is the so-called BOWOW Act of 2025. We are debating something and saying that it should be illegal when it already is illegal. It is kind of redundant.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a noncitizen who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is subject to removal. In 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that the crime of animal fighting is a crime involving moral turpitude because there is a clear intent to harm an animal.

Let me read to you how this bill we are talking about came to be. On June 24, 2025, canine detective and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Beagle Brigadier Freddie and his handler were inspecting baggage from Cairo, Egypt. Beagle Brigadier Freddie's job is to sniff out prohibited agriculture products at the border that could threaten vital agricultural industries.

Beagle Brigadier Freddie alerted to one of the suitcases being transported by Hamed Ramadan Bayoumy Aly Marie, an Egyptian national. As Beagle Brigadier Freddie continued his investigation, his handler began questioning Mr. Marie who abruptly and violently kicked the canine detective. The kick was of such force that it launched Beagle Brigadier Freddie, a 25-pound beagle, off the ground. After examination by a veterinarian, it was determined that Beagle Brigadier Freddie suffered contusions on his right ribs following the attack.

Mr. Marie was taken into custody and charged with harming animals used in law enforcement under the law. He pleaded guilty. He was ordered to pay Freddie's vet bill, and he was deported back to Egypt. That is the law.

What the hell are we doing here? I mean, we are repeating what was already in the law.

I guess the difference would be if the bill that the gentlewoman is advocating actually became law, then Mr. Marie would escape any kind of financial responsibility of paying Freddie's vet bill. I don't think we want that. But this was a deportable act, and this gentleman was deported.

When I say that this is a distraction, this is what I am talking about. Again, we are spending a billion dollars a day, my friends, on this war in Iran, and nobody knows what the hell is going on.

Gas prices are through the roof. The cost of everything is going up. We are here on the floor basically trying to bring bills that restate current law?

I would even say that in this case it weakens current law.

I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think things are screwed up around here when our focus is on the stuff that we are bringing to the floor today and not on trying to lower the costs for the American people.

Life is hard. I don't know whether my friends go home and talk to their constituents or do townhalls or do town meetings, but if they do, they are hearing what I am hearing: Life is too damn expensive.

People want us to address the high costs, and we are not doing that. We are not doing that, and Republicans refuse to bring legislation to the floor to address that issue. Instead, we do this.

Mr. Speaker, I am a huge animal rights advocate, and so I want people who abuse animals to be deported. I don't have any problem with that, but that is the law. We are bringing this to the floor, and we are not doing a damn thing about addressing the high costs that Americans are facing each and every day. Something is wrong with this place.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me read for my colleagues a statement from the national director of the National Economic Council, Mr. Hassett, who works for President Trump.

This is his quote: ``If the war were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers, and we'd have to think about what we'd have to do about that, but that's really the last of our concerns right now.''

This is from Trump's top economic adviser. This is a direct quote from him.

He says that hurting consumers is the last of our concerns right now.

This guy should be fired. This is outrageous. We all should be worried about consumers. Those are our constituents. When prices are going up, people cannot make ends meet. They can't afford their rent, they can't afford their healthcare, and they can't afford their groceries.

Madam Speaker, they can't afford a damn thing, and this is what Trump's top economic adviser says: The consumers are really the last of our concerns right now?

Does anything outrage my Republican colleagues?

Can anybody in the Trump administration say anything that might give them pause and that might cause them concern?

This is outrageous. Three out of four Americans say that groceries are so expensive that they have been forced to cut down on other spending.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Fortune titled: ``Three in four Americans say groceries are so expensive they've been forced to cut down on other spending.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an article from CBS8 titled: ``National average gas prices now nearly 90 cents higher than one month ago.''

Madam Speaker, I hate to tell my Republican friends this, but here is a news flash: The American people are struggling. They are desperately looking for us to take action to make their lives easier, to help them be able to afford groceries, to be able to afford gas prices, and to be able to afford to support their families.

While we are spending $1 billion a day on a reckless and illegal war in Iran and the President with no end in sight has money for that, my friends on the other side can't bring themselves to bring legislation to the floor that will address the high cost of living.

Madam Speaker, when you have people in the administration saying that consumers are the last of their concerns, I mean like, I am just like every time I think this administration can't say something that will shock me even more, they do. This is one of the more outrageous comments coming from one of the President's top advisers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to say the gentlewoman is doing exactly what I predicted she would do: blaming immigrants so that people who are watching this debate don't focus in on the fact that prices are going through the roof and everything is more expensive than ever.

She said that Trump is doing better than Biden in terms of gas prices. Well, when Biden left office, the average gallon of gas was $3.11. It is now close to $3.80. It is creeping up to nearly $4. I mean, that is just the reality. People can google that. Don't take my word for it. You can google it.

The other fact is that, if I remember correctly, Donald Trump said that when he became President, he and Republicans would lower costs on day one and everything would go down. What a crock. Everything has gone up. Everything has skyrocketed. Gas, rent, the price of food-- everything has gone way up.

I am going to read this again because I can't get this out of my head that somebody in this administration would say this out loud. Again, this is what the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Kevin Hassett, said: If the war ``were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers, and we would have to think about . . . what we would have to do about that, but that is really the last of our concerns right now. . . .''

This is one of the President's top economic advisers telling the American consumer: The hell with you. You don't matter. You are at the bottom of our list.

That tells you everything you need to know.

I heard the gentlewoman's 1-minute speech before we got into this debate, when she kind of defended the tax cuts for the rich and basically said that we have a spending problem in this country.

Okay, we have a spending problem. We are spending a billion dollars a day on a reckless, illegal war in Iran, and nobody on the other side seems to give a damn about that. We don't have money to help make sure that we can lower energy costs for senior citizens. We don't have money to make sure our kids get nutritious breakfasts and lunches in schools. We don't have money for anything, for childcare, eldercare, our veterans, or our healthcare in general.

We are told we don't have the money, but no debate and no concern about a billion dollars a day on Iran? Come on. I mean, enough is enough.

The focus of Congress, the focus of government, should be about helping people, not screwing them over, not hurting them. The focus of our government should not be about enriching the rich, protecting the Epstein class, the people who are well-off and well-connected and who have tons of money.

The focus ought to be on how to lift up working families in this country. That is what Democrats have been fighting for. That is what we stand for. There is a difference here.

Again, going back to Kevin Hassett, his comment today. He says the quiet part out loud. The consumers, according to him, are the last of our concerns right now.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am almost at a loss for words. I don't even know how to respond to that. That gets like five Pinocchios. I don't know what the gentlewoman is talking about. She talked about the debt and reducing the debt. My friend, who I respect and enjoy working with, voted for a reconciliation bill that added nearly $5 trillion to the debt.

Let me say that one more time: It added nearly $5 trillion to the debt. Most of that additional cost to the debt were in the form of tax cuts for multimillionaires and billionaires.

She talks about the Republicans trying to cut fraud, waste, and abuse. They cut programs like SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to help senior citizens and veterans and low-income families be able to put food on the table, a benefit, by the way, that is on average about $2 per person per meal. That is what SNAP is.

They cut money for child nutrition programs. They cut money for school nutrition programs. They cut money for environmental protection, for infrastructure. I go right down the list, economic development for our farmers, everything.

They had Elon Musk come in with DOGE, and they claim they saved all this money. Guess what. All of the cuts that they made, by the way, I think we are going to pay for down the road because they are going to add costs in a whole bunch of other ways. All of that so-called savings has just been eliminated by what has been spent on the war in Iran, a billion dollars a day. We are at $22, $23 billion already on that war.

We are not anywhere near done. They tell you that we can't deal with the fact that we have so many senior citizens in this country who can't afford to put food on the table. We can't do anything about that. Then they say nothing about the billion dollars a day on an illegal and reckless war in Iran.

For the record, I will include the CBO score, that is the Congressional Budget Office, on their reconciliation bill in the Record because I want the Record to reflect that what I am saying here is backed up by facts. This is a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Both Democrats and Republicans rely on the CBO for scores on how much things are going to cost.

This is crazy that we are having this debate, all the while the cost of living for every person in this country, who is not a multimillionaire or billionaire who is not part of the Epstein class, is going through the roof.

By the way, when you talk about taxes on people, what my friend didn't mention was the tariffs. That is a tax on every American. That is a tax on every American. We are now told that these tariffs are costing the average citizen of this country an additional $1,700 per person per year. I don't know who is asking for this stuff, but it is certainly not the people that I talk to.

Madam Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7481, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2026, sponsored by Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a bill which only funds law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and not the unlawful actions of ICE and CBP.

Madam Speaker, House Republicans are trying to use President Trump's illegal war in Iran as pretext to force Congress to fund ICE and CBP without any reforms, even though these agencies are harassing, detaining, beating, and killing American citizens. This is a cheap trick to score political points, and we are not buying it. I don't think anybody in the country is buying it.

You can't make this up. The President's own National Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who Trump himself appointed and basically every single Republican in the Senate voted to confirm this guy, resigned this morning stating that he cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran and that ``Iran posed no imminent threat to our Nation.''

Also, Republicans already funded ICE and CBP in their big, ugly bill so why are they holding up funding for TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA? Republicans should allow a vote to fund the law-abiding components of DHS while negotiations on critical reforms to ICE and CBP continue.

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

Madam Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

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

Madam Speaker, nobody disagrees that we should have a secure border. That is not the debate.

Where there is disagreement and, quite frankly, where there is outrage is when we have a Federal agency that goes into our communities and kills American citizens. This is not at the border but in our heartland. That is where we believe there is a line that has been crossed. We are outraged over that.

I am sorry that my friends on the other side are not. They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They are in charge. If they want our votes, we are not going to vote to continue to fund agencies and departments within agencies that are rogue, where there is no accountability and where there is no transparency. We are not going to do that.

We support TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA. We will vote to support them, but don't ask us to fund agencies that do harm to our constituents.

By the way, is there any end to what my Republican colleagues want for CBP and for ICE? They have got money in the big, ugly bill for them, billions and billions of dollars for them. I don't understand what the deal is.

In any event, for whatever reason, they have a problem with TSA. They have a problem with FEMA. They have a problem with the Coast Guard. I don't understand why. We don't. We support them.

Madam Speaker, the pattern here is obvious. It is broken promises, higher costs, more war, more hate, alternative facts, and unbelievable corruption. That is what is happening in this country right now because of Republican leadership.

Republicans said they would fight for ordinary people. Instead, they helped billionaires. They said they would keep us out of war. Instead, they dragged us into another one. Madam Speaker, 13 American troops are dead. Over 140 are wounded. Our Nation is, once again, sending $1 billion a day over to the Middle East on another reckless, illegal war of choice.

They said they would tell the truth. Instead, they protect the Epstein elites and peddle distraction after distraction after distraction, hoping it will all go away.

At the center of it all is a President so hollow, so unwell, and so morally lost that he is fundraising off of dead American troops. I can't believe I am saying that sentence out loud.

The President of the United States went to a dignified transfer of remains ceremony. He refused to take off his ball cap. Then he took a photo of himself standing behind an American servicemember in a casket coming home from war in the Middle East. He slapped it on a fundraising email, asking people to donate money to his campaign. Let me say that again.

The President used a dead American servicemember as a photo op for his campaign fundraising. When he was asked about it yesterday, he said he saw nothing wrong with that.

Can anyone imagine if Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden had done that? My Republican colleagues' heads would explode. That is what happened after Joe Biden checked his watch during one of these ceremonies. Yet, there was not a word after this disrespectful President dishonored our troops in the most outrageous way by using them as a prop for his own personal benefit.

I challenge any Republican, any single one, to come down here and defend this. Come down here and explain to their constituents why the leader of their party is fundraising off of dead American servicemembers.

I think it is one of the most disrespectful, inappropriate, awful things I have ever, ever seen in all my time in Congress. I doubt a single Republican will have the guts to say it was wrong.

The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this chaos and cruelty. They deserve better than this President. They deserve better than this Republican majority. They deserve elected officials who care about them and who want to fight to lower the cost of living, who want to make their lives better and easier and more manageable. That is not what is happening here.

With all that is going on--$1 billion a day on a reckless illegal war in Iran, gas prices creeping up to nearly $4 a gallon, and the price of groceries going up because of these stupid tariffs that my friends don't want to deal with--I can go on and on and on about how the Republican policies are making life more miserable for average Americans. With all that is going on, they can't be bothered to come down here.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, here is what America is talking about: Donald Trump's unauthorized, undeclared war of choice, a forever war in the making, which is costing us between $1 billion and $2 billion every single day and has killed already 13 Americans in uniform, wounding more than 200 Americans in uniform, and killing more than 1,000 Iranians, including 170 school children who were bombed at an all-girls school in Iran.

Americans are talking about the fact that gasoline now costs $3.84 a gallon. It has gone up more than 25 percent in 1 week because of Donald Trump's unauthorized, undeclared, illegal war of choice in Iran. Crude oil is now soaring to more than $109 a barrel because Donald Trump's war planners could not have predicted that Iran would try to strangle commerce in the Strait of Hormuz.

That is what America is talking about this week. America is talking about when there will be justice for Renee Good and Alex Pretti, American citizens exercising their First Amendment and Second Amendment rights who were shot down in cold blood by government agents in Minneapolis, and the most recent Secretary of Homeland Security libeled them as domestic terrorists and refused to recant from that defamatory lie.

That is what America is talking about. When are they going to reform ICE, and when are they going to start paying members of the Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA, and CISA?

We have a discharge petition to say: Pay those people, and don't let all of the illegality of ICE bring down the faithful public servants at the Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA, and other Federal agencies.

That is what America is talking about this week.

Well, what are MAGA Republicans in Congress talking about this week? They are talking about the BOWOW Act. The BOWOW Act?

Now, how did they come up with this bill and this title?

Well, the President's poll numbers are sinking like a stone, so they needed to find something to do in Washington to put on the floor. They can't talk about Trump's ruinous tariffs that have plunged so many small businesses into oblivion and cost American consumers hundreds of billions of dollars. They can't talk about that because the Supreme Court, which they gerrymandered, sliced and diced, and packed and stacked, struck it down.

Even the extremely right-leaning Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's tariffs. We told them that it was unconstitutional. We told them that only Congress has the power to impose taxes and to regulate commerce with foreign nations, but no. Like lemmings, they followed Donald Trump off of the side of the ship, and now those tariffs are not only economically ruinous for the country, but they are discredited and struck down.

They can't talk about that, which was their big policy hit of the administration so far. No, they can't talk about that.

Well, they are not talking about the war in Iran. That is splitting even the MAGA base right down the middle because they had talked before Donald Trump about the importance of Congress actually making decisions about going to war. After all, that is what the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. It is Congress that has the power to declare war.

Mr. Speaker, they are not talking about that. They are not talking about the lives that have been lost in Iran with this bizarre, impetuous war of choice that has been thrust onto the country when the President promised us that there would be no more forever wars and regime-change wars.

They can't even settle on whether this is a regime-change war or not. Some of them say that it is. Some of them say that it isn't, so we don't know. They can't talk about that.

Maybe they can talk about the healthcare public policy, which Donald Trump has been promising for more than a decade. It is a decade of, in 2 weeks, we will get you our plan. They don't like the plans that we have under Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which have delivered healthcare to millions of Americans.

They have done whatever they can to dismantle those healthcare plans. Maybe they could come up with a healthcare plan. No, they are not uttering a peep about that.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, and Donald Trump fundamentally is not interested in delivering a healthcare plan to America.

Then someone says, ``Well, let's go back to immigration,'' but they have already been told not to talk about mass deportation. We pulled out of Minneapolis because we disgraced ourselves there. We know that America reviles the policy of shooting down American citizens in cold blood for exercising their First Amendment and Second Amendment rights, so we can't talk about that.

Then somebody discovered Freddie and said: There is a case at Dulles Airport with a dog, and we can at least go to the dog people with the BOWOW Act.

I am co-chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, and I have one of my dog's dog hair all over this suit, even though I tried to get it off before I came out this morning. If anybody is going to be a sucker for something called the BOWOW Act, it is me. I don't vote for a lot of MAGA legislation, but every dog has his day, and I was willing to look at this one. I was moved by something called the BOWOW Act.

I looked up the incident that the gentleman from California has referenced, and it was outrageous. I was outraged to learn about what happened to Freddie. It all started when Freddie the Beagle, the canine detective at Dulles Airport who works with CBP, Customs and Border Protection, to detect smuggled agricultural products, alerted his superior officers at Dulles to the presence of over 100 pounds of prohibited food items that appeared in the baggage unloading area.

It turns out Freddie did his job. He barked and alerted his superior officers to what was happening. They determined that there was a guy coming over from Egypt, a foreign national, named Aly Marie. Mr. Marie, age 70 years old, who was traveling to the airport and had all of this illegal food, contraband, was foiled by Freddie's excellent detective work. This frustrated Mr. Marie guy kicked Freddie. He kicked him so hard that the poor dog became airborne and had bruised ribs.

Now, if you are a major dog person and believe in animal protection, like me, you say to yourself: You have to be kidding me. That should be illegal. Kick that guy out of the country immediately. Don't let him in.

Guess what. That is exactly what happened. He was arrested immediately. He was charged immediately. He was held by the authorities. He was charged with one count of harming animals used in law enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1368. He was convicted in a trial on his second day in America. He was held overnight, arrested, charged, convicted the next day, and then removed. He was sentenced to time served. He was ordered to pay for the veterinarian bill for Freddie's bruised ribs, which the court records show is $840, and he was promptly deported right back to Egypt after the court hearing on day three.

I am happy to report that, according to the CBP, Freddie is doing fine today. The law worked.

Imagine if Alex Pretti and imagine if Renee Good had that kind of criminal law enforcement and justice. What if their killers had been apprehended, arrested, charged, and convicted in 3 days? That would be a great thing, but no. What do we hear from Pam Bondi? What do we hear from Kristi Noem, the now-deposed former Secretary of Homeland Security? It is under investigation. The whole world saw it right on video. It is under investigation. Nothing is happening there.

Freddie got justice. We have a system that actually works there. Mr.

Marie served 3 days in jail. His food was confiscated, taken away, and he was deported from the country. Why? Because assaulting a dog like that is a crime of moral turpitude. Under the Federal laws, a crime of moral turpitude like that gets you kicked out of the country. It all worked.

They have nothing else to talk about, so they want to double down and pass redundant legislation to say that somebody who does this should be deported, which is already what happened in this case. The opportunity to propose a redundant, unnecessary, superfluous bill to score meaningless political points, when the rest of the world is talking about war and inflation caused by this President, proved impossible to resist for our colleagues.

H.R. 4638 would render inadmissible and deportable any noncitizen who willfully or maliciously harms a police dog or a police horse, as current law already requires.

There is one change. It removes the requirement that immigrants to the country, whether travelers like the doggone Mr. Marie or a green card holder, it removes the requirement that a noncitizen actually be convicted of a crime. It is enough that you be charged with it or they say you admitted it, or whatever, but the conviction requirement is removed.

Now, that has been a trend for our colleagues in this session. They have been taking things that are already crimes and saying: Let's make that a matter of deporting and removing someone. Well, they already can be deported and removed, yes, but now they want to excise the conviction requirement to do it without complete due process. Why would they do this?

Thomas Jefferson said at the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts that there will be a temptation to go after the immigrants. He said that when you water down constitutional requirements as they apply to noncitizens, that is going to come to affect the citizens, too--a bitter lesson learned by the families of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

In other words, if you train the ICE agents that they can do whatever they want, that they are beyond the law, that they can put on masks, bust down people's doors, and enter without a Fourth Amendment search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, if they can do that kind of thing, if they can abuse people as we have seen all over the internet, if they can rough up people, what difference does it make really if they are immigrants or if they are citizens if they are beyond the law? Now, we have dead Americans at the hands of our own Federal agents, with nobody charged, nobody arrested, and nobody being prosecuted.

They want to just get rid of the conviction requirement before people are deported. They can already be deported once they are convicted, but they want to get rid of the conviction requirement.

This case illustrates how completely unnecessary the bill is. Harming animals in law enforcement, or any form of animal cruelty, is already a crime involving moral turpitude and has been for a long time. It is a deportable offense, and everybody knows it. If it wasn't, Mr. Marie would not have been deported 3 days after he kicked Freddie.

Bizarrely, because their bill doesn't require a conviction, if this legislation had been in place and Mr. Marie had been deported on day two instead of day three, and there had been no trial, he never would have had to pay restitution. Think about that. Due process helps a lot of people. It is not just for the benefit of that defendant who might be innocent, as Mr. Marie was not, but it also benefits the victims because the victims can win restitution and fines in this way.

They want to deport first and not have a trial. They just want to eliminate due process. I don't understand it.

President Trump has had his experiences in the criminal justice process, and he had every right guaranteed to people under due process: the right to a lawyer, the right to be heard, the right to introduce evidence, the right to cross-examine, the right to trial by a jury of his peers. Even after going through all of that, there are still people who say: That wasn't enough. It didn't really work for him. He didn't really get due process. He wasn't really guilty of committing fraud.

If that is the case for someone who had every conceivable benefit of due process, what about somebody now who gets no due process at all and no trial? That is what they are suggesting. I don't understand why, really, other than the possibility of just introducing an unnecessary, redundant bill and giving them something to talk about when they don't want to talk about what is really going on in the world, what is really going on in America, with gas prices soaring out of control, people unable to pay for their healthcare, and people unable to afford groceries. They don't want to talk about any of that. They want to talk about Freddie.

Well, there is a lot of meaningful animal protection work we can do together, and those of us in the Animal Protection Caucus would be very happy to meet with the gentleman from California about all of the things we can do to really help animals in America. But right now, Freddie is doing fine. That case worked out fine. This bill is unnecessary.

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

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

We want the immigration laws enforced. We also want the Constitution of the United States to be enforced. They think somehow it has been suspended, and the President of the United States can do whatever he wants.

We are trying to stand up for the rule of law in America and for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am baffled and amazed that the gentleman would bring up the economy under President Biden. A month before the Presidential election in 2024, The Economist magazine had a cover story titled: ``The envy of the world. The American economy has left other rich countries in the dust. Expect that to continue, argue Simon Rabinovitch and Henry Curr.''

That was what President Biden left to Donald Trump when he took over, an economy that was the envy of the world, inflation down, unemployment down, small business sector roaring, the economy roaring, opportunity for young people. Donald Trump has taken an economy that left other rich countries in the dust, and he has covered us in mud and dirt. He has put us in the dust.

Now gas prices are up 25 percent in 2 weeks. I don't need to refute all this propaganda and disinformation. People go to the gas station and it refutes all the propaganda and disinformation that we are hearing from them.

They are better off sticking to the BOWOW Act.

Under President Biden, we passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, a $1.2 trillion investment in America, in our bridges, our roads, our highways, our ports and our airports, not blowing up stuff in other peoples' countries, precisely what Donald Trump had promised he wouldn't do.

That is where our money is going now, draining the U.S. economy by $1 to $2 billion every day. They are spending that on an undeclared, unauthorized war, and our colleagues would not even want to have one honest debate and one honest vote in Congress on whether or not to declare war on Iran. They won't utter a peep about it today or yesterday or tomorrow. They won't say anything about it, nothing, but they let President Trump have their way with them.

Now the gentleman somehow accuses us of not being interested in animal rights and animal welfare. I am sorry, I usually don't go running to rightwing MAGA forces for the protection of animals against animal cruelty and the industrial slaughterhouses and so on. They don't show so much interest in that, but now in Freddie's case because there was an immigrant traveler involved, they want to pass a law which is an exact echo of what the law is. The gentleman has not explained to us why we need to pass a law when Freddie's kicker was arrested, jailed, charged, prosecuted, convicted, and sent back to Egypt all within 3 days. He never saw anything outside of a jail cell in the United States of America, and yet they tell us we need, essentially, to go back and pass the law that mimics what the law is today, except now they want to sneak in a provision saying that we are going to remove the necessity of a conviction.

Why wouldn't it have been better to deport Mr. Marie on day two before he was fined $800 or $900 for Freddie's veterinarian bill?

Why would that have been better?

The gentleman hasn't explained. That is the only substantive change I can imagine coming from the BOWOW bill because the bowwows are already protected as we saw in this case. I wish he could summon up for the GOP caucus the same kind of fervor, passion, and commitment they are now demonstrating for animal rights and welfare, summon that up for human rights and human welfare, for people like Alex Pretti and Renee Good, who were shot down by out-of-control ICE agents in Minneapolis, and then ICE and Homeland Security say that they will not cooperate with local police authorities in Minneapolis and State police in Minnesota.

Why not?

All of a sudden they care just about dogs. They want to rewrite a law that already exists that already protects dogs, as we saw in this case, and not explain why they want to do it. It is an absolute diversion. It is an absolute distraction for the country.

They can't talk about gas prices. They can't talk about inflation. Remember, President Trump said he was going to bring down prices on day one. He hasn't done one thing to bring down prices. Now, they are soaring out of control throughout the entire economy because of his illegal, unauthorized war that is splitting even their own base.

It is the most unpopular war at the beginning that we have seen, maybe in American history, certainly in this century, because nobody explained why they were doing it. That is why the Founders said it has to be Congress that decides whether we go to war.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Tom Payne, the whole founding generation knew that the Kings were always plunging their countries into impetuous wars of conceit, vanity, imperial ambition, foreign intrigue, and corruption. They didn't trust one guy with that decision; they put that decision in us. They reposed it in us, whether or not we wanted it.

They are running away from it. They don't want to make a decision about this war, which Donald Trump now calls the ``little excursion,'' the little excursion in Iran, the little excursion that has already taken the lives of 13 U.S. citizens in uniform, wounded more than 200 Americans, and killed more than a thousand Iranians, including 170 schoolchildren who got bombed in this reckless, impetuous war.

They don't want to talk about that. It is the BOWOW Act, but they have not made one good argument about why we need to add a redundant, superfluous law in this way.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1115, I call up the bill (H.R. 556) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 556.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556, sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

This commonsense bill protects hunters' and anglers' ability to continue using cost-effective lead ammunition and fishing equipment on our Federal lands. At the same time, this legislation gives land management agencies the flexibility to make targeted decisions on lead usage based on sound science and in coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies.

In the United States, sportsmen and -women participation is crucial to the success of wildlife conservation. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation operates on seven interdependent principles. Embedded in these principles are sound science, active management, and access to hunting and fishing.

The success of this model is best characterized by the millions of dollars that hunters and anglers pay for wildlife conservation each year, mainly through excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and fishing tackle.

In fiscal year 2026, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service apportioned over $800 million in receipts from excise taxes on firearms manufacturers alone. Of that, nearly $700 million was for wildlife restoration. Similarly, $442 million was generated from excise taxes on fishing equipment for fish conservation.

It was with this in mind that the Trump administration changed the paradigm for hunting and fishing on Federal lands earlier this year.

Historically, Federal lands were considered closed to hunting and fishing unless specific regulations were issued to allow these activities in certain places. With the signing of Secretarial Order No. 3447 by Secretary Burgum, Federal lands are now considered to be open for hunting and fishing unless existing authorities and unit purposes require an area to be closed.

This change charts a path forward toward opening thousands of acres of

Federal land through responsible hunting and fishing. This new approach will result in greater economic activity for local communities surrounding our Federal lands and more funding for wildlife and habitat conservation.

H.R. 556 will further these goals by ensuring that Federal land management agencies follow specific science and coordinate with State agencies when regulating the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle.

Providing these safeguards is critical, as alternatives to lead ammunition and fishing tackle are often cost prohibitive, with some costing as much as 10 times more than similar lead products. Instead of regulating hunters and anglers out of our Federal lands, the Trump administration is working with State managers, conservation organizations, and sportsmen and -women.

When lead is shown to cause harm to wildlife, it will be addressed accordingly, but wide-reaching bans or even refuge-by-refuge bans, where no specific science link can be made, are the wrong approach and ultimately undermine wildlife conservation.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, October 6, 2025.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 556, the ``Protecting Access for

Hunters and Anglers Act of 2025.'' Thank you for

collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture on the

matters within our jurisdiction.

The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further

consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing

consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction

over any subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the

right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees, should it become necessary, and ask that you

support such a request.

We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 556 and request a

copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

Congressional Record during Floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the vice chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Before he takes his 3 minutes, I will mention that Mr. Wittman is not only an active member of our committee, serving as vice chairman, and the lead sponsor of this bill, but Mr. Wittman also holds degrees in biology and public health and policy. I could actually call him Dr. Wittman, with a Ph.D. He is also an avid outdoorsman. If there ever was an expert in this area, I would consider Representative Wittman an expert.

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

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

I will point out that H.R. 556 checks the boxes. It allows State agencies to make the rules on what kind of ammunition is being used. It also allows for the best available science.

It has been argued almost like the science totally supports the ban of lead, but I want to read from a quote from the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, who is actually the lead advocate for all State fish and wildlife agencies here in Washington:

On the Biden administration's proposal to ban lead, I am quoting what they testified:

Without definitive science conclusively and fully

documenting population-level impacts, we do not believe there

is sufficient evidence to support these mandates.

What the people closest to this issue said was that there is no conclusive science that we should ban lead, yet that is what the previous administration wanted to do and not only on fish and wildlife refuges. They wanted to ban it not only for hunting but also for fishing.

Fishing and hunting are sports that people in my district do that maybe can't afford to do a lot of other activities. When you increase the cost of ammunition or the cost of fishing tackle by a factor of 10, you are going to price people out of that sport.

Going back to my opening comments, hunters and fishermen are the ones who fund conservation in America through excise taxes, and a lot of that comes from ammunition and fishing tackle.

What this would do is force more people out of those sports. It would reduce funding for conservation, and it would create a downward spiral.

We need to use common sense. We need to use thorough, science-based research, and we need to be able to make these decisions as they arise.

We are not preventing lead from being banned. We are not saying that you can go back and use lead to hunt waterfowl and migratory species. We are just saying to these fish and wildlife agencies, for certain game, you can still use lead shot. We are not going to allow that to be banned just because somebody has a political agenda to ban it.

This is a commonsense bill. It is good for hunting and fishing. It is good for hunters and fishermen, and it is ultimately good for our country and conservation. I strongly support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Hunters and anglers are the backbone of American wildlife conservation efforts, and they are heavily invested in the long-term health of wildlife. It is important that Congress come to their defense against ideologically driven, unscientific decisions that limit access to our Federal public lands.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here supporting H.R. 556. I want to read some of the names who signed onto this letter before I ask to include it in the Record.

These are organizations like the American Catfishing Association, American Sportfishing Association, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, Boone and Crockett Club, California Waterfowl Association, Catch-A- Dream Foundation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari Club, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, International Game Fish Association, Major League Fishing, Mule Deer Foundation, National Deer Association, National Professional Anglers Association, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Public Lands Foundation, Quail Forever, Safari Club International, Sportsmen's Alliance, The Bass Federation, The Walleye Federation, Whitetails Unlimited, and Wildlife Forever.

These organizations represent millions of Americans who participate in outdoor recreation through hunting and fishing. I don't think they would be signing a letter encouraging the passage of H.R. 556 if they thought there was something that would endanger our fish and wildlife populations in this bill.

Again, to be clear, this bill doesn't prevent the Federal Government from making decisions regarding the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle, but it does say that any ban must be backed up by site-specific science demonstrating that lead use is harming wildlife in that refuge.

It also requires that States be properly consulted when the Federal Government proposes to ban the use of lead. I believe that a true partnership between States and the Federal Government in wildlife conservation is the best path forward, and this bill is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I include this letter I just mentioned in the Record.

March 16, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson: The undersigned organizations,

representing millions of hunters, anglers, wildlife

professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts, write to express

support for the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act

(H.R. 556). Introduced by Congressman Rob Wittman, this

legislation would prohibit the Secretaries of Agriculture and

the Interior from restricting the use of lead ammunition or

tackle on certain federal lands and waters absent field data

demonstrating a science-based link to wildlife population

declines. Overly broad or arbitrary bans on traditional

ammunition and tackle can create unnecessary economic impacts

and hinder fish and wildlife conservation efforts. We

respectfully urge prompt House consideration of this

legislation.

Fish and wildlife are generally managed at the population

level, and--with limited exceptions--management authority

primarily resides with state fish and wildlife agencies. In

the rare cases where credible field data demonstrate impacts

to wildlife populations, state agencies already have the

authority to regulate ammunition or tackle use to achieve

conservation objectives while minimizing impacts on hunters

and anglers.

Wildlife management decisions should be guided by science

and the expertise of professional wildlife managers--not

political motivations, litigation, or ballot initiatives.

Restrictions on traditional ammunition and tackle on federal

lands should occur only with the support of the relevant

state fish and wildlife agency. H.R. 556 appropriately

reinforces this principle and affirms the central role of

states in wildlife management.

Broad bans can also discourage participation in hunting and

fishing, particularly when comparable alternatives are not

widely available at similar cost or performance. Reduced

participation has economic consequences and directly affects

conservation funding. Through excise taxes on firearms,

ammunition, and fishing tackle under the Pittman-Robertson

and Dingell-Johnson Acts, hunters and anglers provide the

primary source of funding for state wildlife conservation,

habitat restoration, research, and public access.

At the same time, we support efforts by federal agencies to

responsibly expand opportunities for hunting and fishing on

public lands. We commend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

for proposing to expand hunting and sport fishing

opportunities across units of the National Wildlife Refuge

System and National Fish Hatchery System. Increasing access

supports the Refuge System's mission to facilitate compatible

wildlife-dependent recreation while strengthening

participation in the North American Model of Wildlife

Conservation.

For these reasons, we strongly support the Protecting

Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (H.R. 556) and encourage

the House to advance this legislation. We also appreciate

ongoing agency efforts to maintain and expand opportunities

for America's hunters and anglers on public lands.

Thank you for your leadership and continued service on

behalf of America's outdoor heritage.

Sincerely,

American Catfishing Association, American Sportfishing

Association, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, Boone and

Crockett Club, California Waterfowl Association, Catch A

Dream Foundation, Coastal Conservation Association,

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance

Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari Club, Delta

Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, International Game Association,

Major League Fishing.

Mule Deer Foundation, National Deer Association, National

Professional Anglers Association, National Rifle Association,

National Shooting Sports Foundation, Pheasants Forever,

Public Lands Foundation, Quail Forever, Safari Club

International, Sportsmen's Alliance, The Bass Federation, The

Walleye Federation, Whitetails Unlimited, Wildflife Forever.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I, again, thank Congressman Wittman for his leadership in working on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1115 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1115, providing for the House's consideration of H.R. 556, H.R. 1958, and H.R. 4638.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 556, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1958, the Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026, and H.R. 4638, the Federal Working Animal Protection Act, both under closed rules. The rule provides each 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit for each bill.

Additionally, when considered under suspension of the rules, the rule provides additional debate time to 1 hour of general debate for H.J. Res. 139, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, the three measures that underpin this rule all share a singular, defining characteristic: They are in alignment with the priorities and demands of the American people.

What do the American people want, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you what they want. They want a restoration of law and order so that illegal aliens are deported, especially when they are convicted of having committed criminal acts.

Republicans are answering that demand by putting forth H.R. 1958 and H.R. 4638. These two pieces of legislation zero in on criminal aliens who have defrauded the government and criminal aliens who commit violent acts against law enforcement working animals in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, when I say that we back the blue, I am talking about the men and women of law enforcement and the trained animals that stand alongside them in the line of duty.

Those who choose to oppose this legislation, I can guarantee, are members of the same party that has voted to keep the Department of Homeland Security shut down and has voted in the past to defund the police. You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, which party it is that I am referring to here. It is obvious.

Americans want a Federal Government that respects consumer choice and the exercising of our freedoms, not a Federal Government that seeks to regulate every single aspect of our lives. That is why Republicans are putting forth H.R. 556, which would tear down regulations that have dictated how men and women across the Nation can hunt and fish on select pieces of land under the control of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, respectively.

These are two essential parts of life that Americans are incredibly fortunate to engage in and enjoy. I believe all should respect that, but the Federal Government, under Democratic control, has time and again viewed these activities as nothing more than a target to overregulate. Is anyone surprised by this? I don't believe so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee that our colleagues across the aisle won't spend their time debating this slate of bills with us today. I would be pleasantly surprised if they actually chose to do that. Instead, they will do the same thing they always do: stomp their feet, huff and puff, and yell about unrelated things until they are blue in the face. It is like muscle memory for them at this point.

Meanwhile, Republicans will be focused on the task at hand, like they always are. They stand ready to deliver, and they intend to do so, yet again, with these three pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his kind comments. I send them back to him and wish him a happy St. Patrick's Day. I appreciate him making my prediction in my opening remarks come true.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am a huge animal rights lover too, and I have a dog I say that owns me.

My colleague just talked about one example that worked out well, but we know lots and lots of examples where these things don't work out well, and that is why we need this legislation. It is because acts of cruelty toward animals who are working often fall between the cracks.

My colleague also just said that no one will see any benefits from the Working Families Tax Cut, yet thanks to this important legislation, Americans could receive nearly a $4,000-tax refund this year. The average take-home pay boost is $10,900, and the average tax cut for middle-income Americans is 15 percent.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor).

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

Madam Speaker, I will point out to my colleague that, yes, gas jumped in the last month, but it is still a lot less expensive than it was under President Biden.

Thankfully, under President Trump, gas prices were cut almost in half. The number one role of the Federal Government, Madam Speaker, as we all know on our side of the aisle, is defense of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, the need for legislation like H.R. 1958 is not hypothetical. Fraud is a serious crime, and it is essential we ensure foreign national fraudsters cannot continue to exploit the American taxpayers.

While my colleagues will argue that there is no fraud currently, here are just a few recent examples: ``A 3-year-old girl's Social Security number had been used for `two credit cards and two auto loans, with an outstanding balance of more than $25,000.''

The second example is: ``Fraud by illegal immigrants destroying children's

lives.'' These are quotes, Madam Speaker. Including the life of: ``A 9- year-old boy who was denied Medicaid because wages were reported on his Social Security number. A 13-year-old girl who was denied as a dependent on her family's tax return because she supposedly made too much money.''

These are because illegal aliens are stealing Social Security numbers and using them.

In 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi announced the prosecution of 119 illegal aliens for crimes, including ``misusing Social Security numbers of American citizens.''

I have the sources for all of these, Madam Speaker.

In June 2020, the Justice Department announced that an illegal alien from Guatemala was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment for ``[using] another person's Social Security number to get a job and for tax purposes.''

In October 2023, an illegal alien who was arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol near Hidalgo, Texas, in September 2022 and then released by the Biden administration, pleaded guilty to illegal use of a Social Security number.

In November 2025, The New York Times highlighted the case of Daniel Kluver, a Minnesota man whose identity was stolen by a Guatemalan illegal alien with a criminal history and multiple deportations. Because of the identity theft, Kluver lost thousands of dollars through garnished wages and increased taxes. He spent years unsuccessfully trying to untangle the mystery of his stolen identity.

The stories go on and on, Madam Speaker, so there is a real reason for this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First, let me say, we know what the role of the Federal Government is. It is outlined in the Constitution of the United States. Many of the things that my colleague wants us to be involved in--and we have been involved in--are the things that have caused us to have a $38 trillion debt at the Federal level, and so doing everything that we can to reduce fraud is really very important.

Let me say, if we have people who are here legally, as Americans have done for Americans, we will do for them. But those who come here illegally--and the term is illegal alien--then we do not have any truck with them. We want them to obey the law, just like we want everybody else to obey the law.

If they commit fraud, then we want them gone, out of this country. They shouldn't be here to begin with because they come in illegally.

If we want to address the high cost of living in this country, we must confront fraud. We must confront fraud. Democrats should be joining us, not opposing the commonsense effort.

Let's talk about the rhetoric from our colleagues on our record of fiscal soundness this Congress and the Democrats' record of spending addiction. We just finished the FY26 appropriations package--of course, minus the funding for Homeland Security. We saved nearly $14 billion compared to last year's appropriated levels. Let's not forget that comes on the heels of cutting $9 billion of waste and fraud through a rescissions package just months earlier, and that came on the heels of cutting $1.4 trillion of waste, fraud, and abuse through Republicans' reconciliation effort.

Democrats are lying in wait to vote for higher taxes on working families yet again if they have the opportunity. What they don't understand is that the government doesn't have a tax flow problem. We have a fundamental spending problem in Washington. Again, that spending is not on what the Federal Government should be spending it on, which is the defense of this Nation, but is on spending on things that are not outlined in the Constitution for us to be doing.

When Democrats had full control of the levers of power and passed their reconciliation packages, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending. Yes, Madam Speaker, I said $11 trillion in additional spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt.

There is simply no comparison between what Republicans have accomplished this Congress and the Democrats' spending addiction. We have lowered the deficit. We have cut trillions in waste. We have secured tax relief for working families. Democrats opposed us on every front.

Guess what. Our deficit is finally being addressed. The Federal Government's cumulative deficit for fiscal year 2026 at the end of November was 19 percent lower than the year prior under Biden.

Be it by reconciliation, rescission, or through the regular-order annual appropriations process, this Congress is cutting spending, driving down inflation, and returning money to taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, that is really the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. We believe that the public should hold on to as much of its money as possible, not turn that money over to bureaucrats to spend.

Don't buy the empty rhetoric of congressional Democrats. They ran on affordability in the Commonwealth of

Virginia, but just recently, they slapped on a regressive payroll tax that will squeeze billions out of workers' paychecks.

Congressional Democrats are on record voting against tax relief for tipped workers, Social Security recipients, working moms, and the working class when they voted against the Working Families Tax Cut Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this is not a serious proposal.

Madam Speaker, it is really rich. Now, it is the fault of Republicans that the Department of Homeland Security is not funded. It is just too rich.

Crime is down in this country because we have shut down our border and denied people coming in illegally.

Madam Speaker, we need to fund all of Homeland Security so that we can keep the border closed. Obviously, our colleagues want to open the border again just like President Biden did. There were people waiting at the border when President Biden was elected

with shirts on that said: Thank you, Biden. We can't do that. We need to fund all of Homeland Security at the same time.

By the way, Madam Speaker, it was the Bipartisan Policy Center that said that the 19 percent reduction in deficit had occurred.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle said that they want to keep the border closed. If they are serious about keeping the border closed and safe, then how are they going to do it without funding border patrol and they don't want to fund border patrol?

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have spent their time during this debate drawing caricatures, weaving a tapestry of tangential statements, and engaging in theatrics. This is unserious behavior, Mr. Speaker.

Might I remind them we are here debating substantive legislation that aligns with the priorities of the American people. Our colleagues across the aisle are welcome to join us in supporting them, standing for law and order, and returning freedom and choice back to the custody of the American people where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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